Isebrand

Concord Monitor - "A proud way to start the new year"

This week, New Hampshire joins a small fraternity of states and countries to permit gay marriage - a powerful statement to the nation and the world that New Hampshire will no longer treat some residents as second-class citizens.

via www.concordmonitor.com

Granting same-sex couples the right to enter into civil marriage contracts should be the law of the land because it "promotes the general welfare," as is one of the stated foundational goals of the Constitution of the United States.

Granting same-sex couples the right to contractual (that is, legally recognized by way of a marriage license) and civil (that is, secular, non-religious) marriages would harm no one yet help a minority still subject to stereotyping and bigotry in both law and in everyday life in too much of the republic.

The personal bond undergirding a same-sex civil marriage as well as the actual codified rights and responsibilities that a marriage license brings (more than 1000 such benefits at the federal level) would promote the same positive personal and societal consequences that they do for a traditional marriage. First, the personal benefits are clear. Numerous studies have found that for most people marriage results in increased personal satisfaction. But, beyond that there is even more. Marriage for a couple, same-sex or traditional, can ameliorate self-centeredness by giving each member of the couple a greater stake in one another's well-being and a greater stake in society. In fact, job performance, fiscal stewardship, and community betterment can all be enhanced as a consequence. Retirement planning, vacation planning--and presuming cohabitation and home ownership--everything from grocery purchases, mortgage payments, and the safety-related, economic stability, and general improvement concerns for the neighborhood are all investments of time and resources that are promoted by marriage, traditional or same-sex.

To ban or discourage same-sex civil marriage is to ban or discourage those potential personal and societal benefits described above, and thus is an abject opposition to the promotion of the general welfare. What is more, it is probably a move based in some measure in animus against the gay individual because it is to demand that Americans who happen to be gay be compelled under the law to stay forever single. Why would any human being who knows the value of human companionship use the state--or any other powerful force--to such a thing? It is reprehensible.

To ban or discourage the potential personal and societal benefits stemming from same-sex civil marriage is something else, too, not just societally unhelpful. It is to hold cheap life-long committed relationships of same-sex couples in general. That there are already gay couples who though personal, emotional commitment alone have stayed together for many years without any incentive from the law shows clearly that there can be a bond between two gay men or gay women that in myriad ways is effectively at least as strong as the bond between a married man and woman. That bond if between a man and a woman is promoted by the state; the marriage license brings with it everything from hospital visitation rights to immigration rights, taxable income implications to inheritance rights. If the bond is much the same in a same-sex couple, shouldn't the state promote it through marriage for them, too?

Right now, extending to same-sex couples the right to civil marriage promotes the general welfare within the jurisdictions of Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire (pending), Vermont, and the Oregon-based Coquille Indian Tribe, but only to the extent that state or tribal law is affected. Why should that be the limit? Extending to same-sex couples the right to civil marriage should be done at the federal level, too, so that the laws that matter most to a couple are reformed, and as soon as possible.

"Looking Back at Wall Street's Behavior in 2009" | PBS NewsHour transcript excepts

(Highlighting within the transcript mine for emphasis.)

ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: So, here is the sad news. Having now lived with [many]* of these people for a year at the very, very top in the corner office, I'm not sure much has changed at all. The culture has not changed. The whole ethos, the "greed is good" mentality, seems to still be alive and well. And, frankly, there hasn't been much reform out of Washington. When you talk to CEOs on Wall Street, they now think of themselves, oddly enough, as survivors. That is the word they use, like a cancer survivor. And I'm not sure they appreciate that they have been rescued. I did have an encounter with John Mack, who is the CEO of Morgan Stanley, who actually was probably the most self-aware of the CEOs, who said recently that, actually, Wall Street people can't control themselves. It was a remarkable statement. And he said, we need to be controlled, almost like he was an addict, and you needed to take the crack pipe away. And I thought that was remarkable. But I will tell you, most other people on Wall Street, not only do they not have that view. They are pushing back on any view that would put real reform in place.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, John Cassidy, what would you add to that? Start with a view of Wall Street and Washington. I want to ask you about changes in economic -- among economists later, but start with what Andrew was just talking about.

JOHN CASSIDY: Well, I think Andrew hit the nail on the head there when he talked about John Mack saying, we can't do this by ourselves. Given the incentives these guys face who run these Wall Street firms, the way they make money is by lending to people and taking risks and competing against each other. They are always going to lend more and take more risks. If somebody from the outside doesn't come in and say to these guys, there are limits on what you can do, we're going to inevitably get back to where we began. The only person -- nobody on Wall Street can do that by themselves. We need the government to step in and set rules and regulations for the firms. I think that is what John Mack was driving at. He said, you know, we need help. We can't do it by ourselves. Now, the Obama administration has gone some way in that direction, proposing various limits on what these banks can do, raising capital requirements, a variety of other restrictions on their activities, but none of it has been passed yet. As Andrew says, 16 months after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, we don't have any new regulations on the book and no clear timetable of when they are going to be put on the book.

[.....]

JEFFREY BROWN: So, why has nothing happened yet?

JOHN CASSIDY: [.... T]he authorities, I think, were so busy concentrating on averting the immediate crisis, they didn't take any long-term measures. And now what we have found, as the economy has recovered, these big banks have got lobbying power again in Washington. The political agenda has moved on. It's all focused on health care. And the sort of Wall Street reform movement has been stymied.
[.....]
We have to forget these ideas that markets can regulate themselves, that banks won't take risks because they don't want to harm themselves. That was basically the Greenspan argument of why Wall Street doesn't need regulating. You know, we tried that for 10 years, and we ended up with the worst recession since the 1930s and hundreds and billions and trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money poured into the financial system....

*correction of transcription error "may be"

via www.pbs.org

"The Big Zero" (aka, "The Zero Years?")

My slight preference would be for "The Zero Years" instead of "The Big Zero." Setting that quibble aside, enjoy the oft-astute Paul Krugman:

from an economic point of view, I’d suggest that we call the decade past the Big Zero. It was a decade in which nothing good happened, and none of the optimistic things we were supposed to believe turned out to be true.
.....
It was a decade with basically zero job creation.
.....
It was a decade with zero economic gains for the typical family.
.....
It was a decade of zero gains for homeowners, even if they bought early.
.....
[I]t was a decade of zero gains for stocks, even without taking inflation into account. Remember...best-selling books like “Dow 36,000” predicted that the good times would just keep rolling? Well, that was back in 1999. Last week the market closed at 10,520.

via www.nytimes.com

"The Battle for Christmas" - A little history with your holidays

[Stephen] Nissenbaum, in a highly entertaining narrative, [The Battle for Christmas,] shows not only that the American version of the [Christmas] holiday has been commercial from the start (the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade was a late arrival on that front), but also that it’s what you’d call an “invented tradition.” All the bits about Dutch origins were part of an effort among nineteenth-century New York gentry — the self-anointed Knickerbocker set — to create a colonial cultural heritage for themselves by establishing the social preeminence of their Dutch lineage, real or imagined. A byproduct: Santa Claus was able to sidestep an earlier Puritan bias against celebrating Christmas in the American colonies.

via ahistoryofnewyork.com

Skepticism vs. "Storm"

Hat-tip to Tracing Resistance:

How clearly Tim Minchin has managed to both encapsulate the frustration we experience when dealing with kooks and grandeur we see in this life. Plus, its terribly funny.

Politifact: #1 Lie of the Year

Politifact.com fact checking web site has revealed the #1 lie of the year.

First, here is #2:

• "A claim by conservative talk show host Glenn Beck that John Holdren, President Barack Obama's top science adviser, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

The above via (click link for full story) www.dailykos.com.

One of the runners up:

"The claim that 'When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft,' said by Vice President Joe Biden, when fears of swine flu were prevalent."

Why are we losing the health care debate? Consider the silence of friends.

Many people are satisfied with their current insurance! This fact has been widely confirmed in polling; in large part, this fact is shaping our current debate. But why are those people so satisfied? Could it be because they’ve never heard this? See THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/20/09:

PILGRIM #8/11/09#: Universal health care, state of the art technology, complete free choice of doctors and hospitals. In some ways, the health care system of Switzerland looks ideal. Many lawmakers and academics, including Professor Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton, have studied the Swiss system.

REINHARDT #videotape#: It's a first-rate system, virtually universal coverage, with very high quality care.

PILGRIM: Everyone in Switzerland has to buy health insurance on their own. And there are about 60 different insurance companies to choose from. Premiums run between $6000 and $7000 a year for a typical family.

Say what? The Swiss are running a first-rate system—and that’s what their premiums cost? Let’s state the obvious: In part, Americans are satisfied with their own coverage because they’ve never heard that.

In large part, Americans have never heard such things because of the silence of “liberals.” These careerists are movin’ on up in the system. They have to be Serious People.

Go ahead! Name the “liberal journal,” or the career liberal journalist, who has screamed and yelled and shouted and exclaimed about the truly remarkable way our health care spending is looted. You can’t really grasp the extent of this looting until you consider the foreign experience—and good solid Serious Career Liberal Thinkers will typically avoid doing that. Go ahead! Name the liberal journal, or the career liberal journalist, who has helped the public know about—consider the meaning of—these truly astonishing data:

Total spending on health care, per person, 2007:
United States: $7290
Switzerland: $4417
France: $3601
United Kingdom: $2992
Average of OECD developed nations: $2964
Italy: $2686
Japan: $2581

To anyone with an ounce of sense, it’s obvious what those data mean. A real progressive would scream and yell about those remarkable data. But in the career liberal world, all is silent. We’ve been silent for the past fifteen years—since the last time we failed.

(Note: Paul Krugman discussed similar data in a series of columns in 2006. Michael Moore discussed this situation in 2007, in Sicko. But go ahead: Name the liberal journal, or the career liberal journalist, who used the work of Krugman or Moore as a springboard to a long, shrill discussion. Which of our liberals did that?)

People are happy with their current insurance for a fairly obvious reason: They don’t know how badly they’re being looted! In part, they don’t know that basic fact because our career liberals simply won’t tell them. “We’re not Europe,” Serious People write. And that has largely been that.

But uh-oh! Things are getting so crazy these days that glimmers about these facts have seeped into the mainstream press corps. Huzzah! In this morning’s New York Times, London-based Sarah Lyall even discusses an editorial composed—where else?—across the pond:

LYALL (8/21/09): Arguments against the [British] health service by Republicans overlook the fact that while it costs half as much per person as the American system costs, “it delivers results which are on some plausible measures actually superior,” The Economist said in a stern editorial. “And it does this while avoiding the disgrace that so shames America, of leaving around 46 million people, some 15 percent of its population, without any form of health insurance.”

[...]

[British] commentators continue to be amazed at what, in their minds, is an irresponsible distortion of the argument by people from across the Atlantic.

“If American politicians peddle falsehoods about what goes on in other countries,” The Economist wrote, “Americans are correspondingly less likely to appreciate the extent to which they are being let down.”

To read the full Economist editorial, just click here.

the above via www.dailyhowler.com

It's not just this particular Congress and this particular President who will be at fault for health care reform being so must less than it could have been. There's been a fundamental failure on the part of seemingly informed and media-identified "liberal" American leaders--many of these are merely center-left careerist politicians (and often would-be members of the glitterati)--to compelling, persistently, and bravely communicate to our republic's electorate simple information about health care in other nations.

Yes, it is a horrendously misinformed--perhaps clinically self-delusional or at worst genuinely stupid--politician who, for instance, thinks that evolution is not a scientific fact; but, it is at least a savvy one who convinces others that his or her perspective is correct or at least somehow intellectually as legitimate as the perspective of science.

It's a similar situation (though admittedly not as cut and dry as the contrast between conspiracy theories versus science as the two things apply to evolution) with health care reform discussions. It may matter morally if a politician peddles falsehoods in the service of an idea or argument, but it rarely diminishes the likelihood of the idea or argument's success, especially in the short-term (which is the time scale in which most democracy's big decisions are made), just so long as if he or she communicates it more effectively than are communicated rival ideas.

In a representative democracy, it is always a mistake to assume that "the facts will speak for themselves" or that--preceding that--the facts will somehow magically make themselves known to all.

Celebrity-in-chief without map, compass, or worthy Congress?

President Obama brought speech-making to a knife fight. Not real effective. He's forgotten that Republicans today don't flight nice; so, it's little wonder that throughout much of 2009 he's been out-fought by his opponents and outdone even by moderates in his own party. He's let his enemies define him, and define the issues. That's because he's not sure enough of his course to begin with, and--perhaps actually more important in the short-term-- he's not sure how to inspire or instill confidence among his base or Independents.

I worry that the US has replaced a frat punk-in-chief with a dreamer- or celebrity-in-chief who seems most gifted at being cool, sounding lofty, and looking great at star-studded events. A lot of style, but not as much savvy, bravery, or political craftiness as might be hoped for.

Thus it is that we get these apparent failures and missed opportunities. Perhaps these situations will yet be redeemed, but I am not inclined right now to think so:

*Consider that Sweden's government managed to bailout its banks and make a profit to return to the people/taxpayers. (It took time--years--but the plan was in place first!) President Obama, however, lets the banks continue to run away with our money while Larry Summer et al make sure things aren't really reformed in terms of regulations. What is more, the Administration then shows it's willing to lose [our] money on not just the banks, but on manufacturing, too! It goes ahead and literally rewarding failure by bailing out General Motors. Again -- no plan.

*Also, consider that by having no solid plan relative to stimulus and America's economic future, President Obama let Congress define the stimulus, and thus we've been gifted with a largely ill-considered, pork-laden stimulus package. There was too little focus, too little imagination, and too few good ideas in the stimulus as far as I'm aware, and no convincing narrative to support it, either! (Ah, the vaunted Team Obama communications machine! It's gone!)

The "green future" economy ideal that is oft-cited relative to the stimulus also seems overplayed--by which I mean, unsupported by evidence--to me. Thus, it's probably bunk. I like facts and evidence. They are comforting things. But all the Obama Administration has provided is a sort of promise, a "Just trust us. Gee, where's your faith and hope?" kind of rhetoric about how the stimulus will lay the ground work for some amazing green economy future.

I'm largely unconvinced by it. For starters, the technology for a green future is already being produced more cheaply in other countries. A recent visit by an NPR reporter to the dockyards of Seattle discovered that there were two types of shipments on them: out-bound timber and in-bound wind turbine blades....from Brazil. How is the US going to suddenly start out-performing in green manufacturing? (Oh, government subsidies. Great.) The US will have a difficult time being competitive in any emerging global "green economy" (whatever that even means exactly) especially given the demands our unions make regarding wages and benefits--the same sorts of demands that, because they were met, played a large role in dooming GM.

*Switzerland managed to create an affordable health care system for its nation out of a network of private insurers--carefully regulated and with some standards and centralization imposed, but nonetheless a good nationwide and technically private health care system. Britain managed to create single-payer health care back in the 1950s, and yet still it maintains a vibrant private insurance industry for those who wish to and can afford to participate in it. But what do we get? We get a health care bill that is actually going to make health care more expensive in the US, I greatly fear, mainly because--again--President Obama didn't have a plan, and brought "bipartisanship" and "compromise" to the fight, as if those things were weapons against opponents. He dismissed single-payer as an option right off the bat, and ceded the effort for health care (oh, I mean health insurance) reform to Congress. That's like letting a bunch of demolition derby drivers do the valet parking at a wedding.

Of course, candidate Obama's plans were always fairly specifics-light proposals. His was a campaign of style over substance--not without substance, but not detail-rich, to be sure. Yes, the pre-election proposals that were in place became less relevant perhaps when the Great Recession came upon us. The election of Senator Obama was the cleansing of the palette much more so that it was a program for clear policies and proposals, it was an adjustment on the national level that was desperately needed after 8 years of corruption, deep cynicism, and abject mismanagement of domestic, economic, and many military affairs. The prospect of McCain-Palin was, in my opinion, the prospect of getting 4 to 8 more years of the same, if not worse. I was a supporter of then-candidate Obama once New York's primary was past. (I supported Hillary as I'd pledged to do.) So, I am not secretly opposed to the President's goals. I want to see him succeed! I badly want that! But...I'm also I’m not afraid to tell the truth, either, and the Democrats under President Obama's style of leadership thus far have become such a confused, unfocused mess that to declare that one wants "Democrats" to succeed--or even the Administration--now requires the follow-up question, "Succeed at just what exactly? Because they don't seem to know what they want." Well, they sort of do. Vaguely. Some days. Then they change their minds.

This Administration has fallen on its pretty, young face, I worry. It seems ineffectively passive aggressive, way too often indecisive or conflicted, and occasionally even feckless. Independents now outnumber Democrats and Republicans in the US, and among them the approval ratings for President Obama and for particular initiatives like health care reform have rightly (no pun intended) plummeted. What missed opportunities! I was the base (but part of the uncool older-than-20something base--that is, the part of the base that actually regularly votes), and right now I feel almost completely unrepresented by the Democratic Party at local, state, and federal levels, including by both President Obama and the Congress.

Would the Republicans do better? Good Lord, no. They have no real plans, either. And they've certainly had moments recently of bumbling and even ridiculous political communication. But, what the electorate did in November 2008 was vote to "give the other guys a chance for a while." That goodwill is rapidly disappearing. It doesn't matter that the Republican Party is a religio-corporatist, scare-mongering, conspiracy-loving, radicalized institution seemingly joyful about the hypocrisy and anti-intellectualism in its leadership’s increasingly populist ranks. The Republican Party will win elections in 2010 if the American people do not see any clear vision on the part of the Administration or Congress. Don’t chide the American people for being impatient. They are. But the Administration’s real problem may be a failure to communicate goals and the steps we'll take as a nation to obtain them. Voters will "give the other guys a chance" come November 2010 unless things change remarkably between now and then. They might. November 2010 is a political lifetime away. But they might not. Regardless, they certainly won't change without President Obama getting the message that there are segments of his base--including Democrats like myself and Independents who supported him--distinctly underwhelmed and a bit disorientated at this point. He's getting the message, I think. Let's see what happens next. For now . . . the record is, in part:

*US standing in the world: Yup; that’s better.
*Health care reform: A bit; but, no evident plan for further progress (I think it will emerge eventually).
*Civil rights progress: Nope, and no evident plan for any progress. Some "blah blah" about Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT)...someday; but, it's clearly empty pandering.
*Real results for America obtained from other nations in the world: None I’m aware of. China owns us monetarily; Pakistan owns us (our prospects for success in Afgahnistan anyway) militarily.
*Financial reform: Nope, and no evident plan of any that I know of except a plan to regulate some derivatives, maybe a new consumer protection agency. (Well, it's a start; but, the latter one is probably just more government spending we can't afford right now.)
*A plan to return the middle class to viability and fairly address the widening wealth distribution disparity in America: Nope.
*Promoting small business, which is the engine of American job growth: Nada.
*(Oh, and Democratic Party reform: Nope, and certainly no evident plan for any to come.)

The President's somewhat to be pitied, a bit to be scorned, and in a tough spot that certainly is not entirely of his own making. He inherited a great storm of issues and crises. But vision, communication, leadership--I hoped that those are things would come with the deal. And those things are dependent upon him. If they're lacking, he can't blame others. And so far....? Hmmmmm. I'm not so sure.

He yet may prove to be the ultimate political genius, a master of the possible, who realizes that the possible is not the enemy of the perfect, and who is playing all efforts with a savvy I fail to see right now; but, for me, so far this is becoming a presidency of sighs.

The Royal Society

2010 will mark the 350th anniversary of the founding of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society in existence, its charter having been granted by King Charles II.

The Royal Society’s motto, Nullius in verba, means "On the words of no one," taken from Horace’s quotation, Nullius addictus judicare in verba magistri, "Not compelled to swear to any master's words.” According to the Royal Society, the motto:

is an expression of the determination of the Fellows to withstand the domination of authority (such as in Scholasticism) and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

Fellows of the Royal Society may be from any Commonwealth nation or the Republic of Ireland. They are entitled to use the post-nominal letters FRS. (Honorary members from outside of the Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland are entitled to use ForMemRS.) There are 1,300 Fellows currently, and have been 8,500 Fellows of the society since its foundation.

December 7th, 1941

Sixty-eight years ago, the Japanese military launched a surprise attack against the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, as well as against other U.S. and British territories and possessions elsewhere in the Pacific area. By chance, the main targets of the Japanese attack, the aircraft carriers of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, were not in port that fateful Sunday.

The same day, U.S. Secretary of State Hull in Washington D.C. received an official note from Japanese negotiators reading in part:

Obviously it is the intention of the American Government to conspire with Great Britain and other countries to obstruct Japan's efforts toward the establishment of peace through the creation of a new order in East Asia, and especially to preserve Anglo-American rights and interests by keeping Japan and China at war.

The U.S. military losses that day included 4 battleships, 92 navy and 96 army planes, 2,334 American servicemen killed (1,103 from the battleship Arizona), and 1,347 wounded. The Japanese lost 28 aircraft, 5 midget submarines, and fewer than 100 men. The highest ranking U.S. naval officer killed during the entire Second World War was among the day's victims: Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, who was last seen firing a machine gun at an attacking aircraft when the magazine of the battleship Arizona exploded.

The attack brought the United States into the Second World War. In America's war against Japan, which would last into 1945, the U.S. would suffer 106,207 servicemen killed and 248,316 wounded and missing. Japan's losses in actions against U.S. forces during the war would equal 485,717 killed and many 10,000s wounded and missing. Japanese civilian deaths from U.S. air raids during the Second World War would equal approximately 668,000.

National Geographic's website has a section concerning the attack on Pearl Harbor, Remembering Pearl Harbor, including an interactive attack timeline.

(All figures come from: Goralski, Robert. World War II Almanac: 1931-1945. Bonanza Books. 1981. pp 186-7. Click to enlarge: photo by Anders Brownworth, the shattered remains of the U.S.S. Arizona rest on the bottom of the shallow harbor beneath the official memorial as part of the National Park Service's World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument in Hawaii; photo by Joshua Treviño, even today "the hulk of the USS Arizona...leaks oil....")