A double dose today -- two commentaries about Belief, in two different forms:
DILBERT GOES POLITICAL !
by Kevin Wohlmut
A recent Dilbert comic hit home for me:
Obviously Scott Adams took his inspiration here from real-life bosses who base real-life company budget and policy on their Pollyannish fantasies of the best possible outcome. And then, such people prefer to shoot the messenger when reality intrudes upon their fantasy. I'm certain there are innumerable examples of such bosses in the business world.
But doesn't that phrase, "Leaders do not plan for failure," remind you of the simplistic platitudes that eminate from another Office, the Oval Office of the White House?
I don't know for sure whether Scott Adams intended that comic to make a political point. All I know is that, reading the comic, I was immediately reminded of George W. Bush.
Doesn't the Boss' strategy, above, remind you of political strategies from the Bush White House?
Iraq -- "It'll be a cake-walk because the people will welcome us as liberators." No allowance or planning for what-if things go less optimistically than perfect. We can draw down the troops after six months... no, waitaminute, make that a couple years... strike that quote, make that a dozen years or more. Belief, that America will always come out a winner, substitutes for an actual strategy of how we're gonna win.
Social Security -- "Let people bet their money on the Stock Market instead, because we might possibly make a few bucks more." No allowance or planning for what-if the Market treats us less than tenderly. Belief in the overwhelming goodness of the Market is supposed to silence any doubts.
Environmental protections, Global Warming? "Why, we don't have to worry about that because free-market ingenuity will find a painless solution without being mandated by any oppressive regulations." No allowance or planning for what-if the Market doesn't do that, how do we force it to; nor how do we live on this frikken' planet if we accidentally spoil the environment anyway. No margin of error.
I really can't help but quote from George Orwell's 1984:
"The essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies, all this is indispensibly necessary."
When the President goes on TV to assure us that everything is going swimmingly in Iraq... when war supporters shrug off the deaths of many tens of thousands of Iraqis as "you can't make a freedom omelette without breaking a few eggs" ...
... and then they accuse Liberals of "denying the existence of objective reality"... isn't it a tad ironic?
There is one very important exception to the Panglossian faith-based political strategy described above. Ironically enough, given that the above Dilbert comic is about a budget -- that exception is the National Budget. In the first half of the year, when the Bush Administration publishes its budget estimates for the year's budget, all of a sudden there is a brief little flurry of gloom and doom.
Note, this budget plan is still the third-highest budget deficit in American history. Yet somehow conservatives on the Fox news channel, as well as some of my relatives, are shoving this story in my face and saying "The Democrats were WROOOOONGGGG!! Tax Cuts really do reduce the deficit!!" (That's a direct quote by the way.)
"This improved budget outlook is the direct result of the strong economic growth the president's tax relief has fueled," said White House budget director Joshua Bolten. He conceded that the red ink remained at "unwelcome" levels, but said the report was still "good news" because of the reduction from earlier estimates.
I have only one question: Just how stupid do these people think we are?
The budget didn't "improve," Mr. Bolten, it got worse. They, the White House, are the only ones whose expectations have been exceeded. They get to publish their own farcical estimates, and then use them to claim that they have slipped under the absurdly bad standards they set for themselves. Meanwhile, back in reality, the budget deficit keeps growing by RECORD-BREAKING leaps and bounds each year.
But it's pointless to argue with the gullible people outside the White House who actually believe that Bush has "reduced" the deficit. These people are willfully blind to the difference between changing the prediction by $94 Billion versus removing $94 Billion from the actual debit account. I know they are, because I've tried to explain it to some of them, and they just stalk off saying "you're wrong".
This is an obvious and purposeful effort, by the White House in co-operation with conservative media like Fox News, to fool people into thinking that George Bush is doing something that he is not: paying down the deficit. Listen you misguided dupes, if tax cuts really do pay off the deficit, then why exactly did George Bush urgently demand that Congress raise the national debt ceiling last winter?
Don't worry, however; I think that their perspicacity will immediately return to them, the minute a Democrat gets sworn into the Oval Office. If, deo volente, there's a President from some other Party in Washington three years from now, these people are going to act quite surprised when a $9 TRILLION aggregate government debt suddenly appears out of nowhere. "Waitamminute," these die-hards are going to wonder, on January 21, 2009. "I thought Bush had paid off the deficit with his wise fiscal policies. This multi-year deficit must be the Democrats' fault!"
The people who are ecstatic about the bogus "announcement" this month are just dying to resurrect that old term "trickle down". You can see the gleam in their eyes. They don't dare use the words yet, because the theory was so badly discredited last time it was tried. But you can just see it -- in a couple years they won't even be embarassed about it any more.
But the people who are touting this news don't even understand the "trickle down" theory correctly. The theory, if applied today, would go like this: George Bush's pro-business governing has made the U.S. such a lucrative and profitable place to do business, that businesses are posting record profits, which they then turn around and give to the workers in the form of raises. This causes the workers to spend more, the economy hums, and the government collects more taxes.
The gaping hole in this chain of reasoning is: the workers' raises aren't there. Adjusted for inflation, workers' wages have been pretty much stagnant (when not falling) for over two decades., and this year is no exception. In fact, once you exclude the CEO types, and the upper management-- who make as much as two hundred to four hundred times the salary of their line workers -- inflation-adjusted wages have often slipped backwards during those decades.
Supposedly, employment is up... but that just means it's approaching zero net gains after years of negative job growth. Most of the 200,000+ "growth" in jobs touted this month, was in new government hiring; only a tenth of that was private-sector (so much for the "party of small government"). As conservatives used to argue, once upon a time, jobs created by government fiat do not reduce the National Debt, they add to it. Private sector employment has a lot to make up for, before it gets back on the black side of the ledger.
If you don't feel like your personal economy is humming... you're not alone. (But that's always been the core of conservative arguments: if you're not successful, it's your own individual fault, and you should shut the hell up and starve with dignity, you loser.) So -- if wages aren't rising, where has the increased tax revenue come from? The White House declined to release specifics just yet, of where the revenue increase came from. (Hence conservative idealogues leap to the conclusion that it's from taxes on increased wages.)
More responsible economists can easily explain those numbers which the White House plans to release later, (probably at midnight on some Friday night before a holiday weekend): the increase came from corporate taxes, and taxes on non-wage income.
Corporate taxes increased because they've been at historic lows. They have nowhere to go but up. Remember that little factoid about how Enron was a $60 billion dollar company, yet it paid ZERO Federal taxes for four of the five years before its bankruptcy? Well there's an example for you.
Corporate taxes have increased, yes, because a lot of companies are making record profits on $60 oil and $2.75/gallon gas. They can't even find enough tax loopholes to disguise all that profit and gouging. Is that really good news for U.S. consumers?
Actually, my skepticism once again parallels an older conservative argument. I'm trying hard to remember the last time I heard conservatives say that increased corporate tax collection was a good thing, and I can't. Until now. When suddenly, because there's a blip in tax revenues, they're trying to hoodwink us into believing that the only reason they thought up "lassiez-faire" in the first place, was a secret plot to collect more taxes from corporations. Yeh-RIGHT.
Speaking of lassiez-faire, it's interesting to note how this tax revenue / profit increase, ties into Republican corporate philosophy. Republicans believe that government regulations harm profits and have thus launched a crusade to remove regulations. When corporate profits set record levels, as they did in 2004 -- yet consumer spending is down, it is in large measure due to the success of this policy. So, while not all coporate profits are evil, it's worth remembering that the high corporate profits under this Bush Administration reflect the success they have had in trading clean air and water for corporate profits, and trading your job to some underpaid child in India. It doesn't really have a whole lot to do with American ingenuity and competitiveness. (Except, of course, that it's pretty ingenious how businesses keep convincing the public that such trade-offs are a good thing.)
Non-wage income also increased -- but I really doubt that $94 Billion suddenly appeared because waiters, chefs and strippers all over the country started reporting their tips. No, this sector of the economy increased because of stock market speculation and the Housing Bubble. Again, not a sign that the economy was improving for the likes of you and me. (If you do happen to be one of the people who has invested in expensive housing as a source of income -- well, don't worry. That situation will be rectified soon, and then you'll be one of us again..)
Admittedly, another reason it's pointless to argue about the budget is because each administration, Democrat and Republican, muddies the waters with obscene budget tricks. To pick some current examples: months and years before Congress approved oil drilling in ANWR, the Federal Budget assumed we'd receive $2 Billion from oil drilling leases there. Bush's current budget assumes we won't spend a penny on military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan after this fiscal year ends on September 30, 2005 -- it has already been decided long in advance that those costs will be submitted as last-minute, supplemental emergency requests -- yet for some reason everyone is all right with this. And of course, the Bush Administration has made rosy predictions of revenue gains before, which turned out to be mistaken. This time everyone assumes they can't be wrong again.
Gawd the whole thing is such a sham.
So, in the end, I guess I don't really care about all the lies and dirty tricks. As far as I'm concerned, you can believe whatever fantasies about the deficit and economy that you enjoy believing.
I just wish people wouldn't shove falsehoods in my face by crowing that "Tax cuts reduce the deficit!"
But in today's political climate, even that modest wish is too much to hope for.
For some more detailed budget analysis, go here and here (for 2004 data). Business Week magazine -- not exactly a bastion of flaming liberalism.
BONUS ! ! 2nd POLITICAL COMMENTARY FOR THE PRICE OF ONE ! !
DOES GOD HATE THE BOY SCOUTS?
by Kevin Wohlmut
I think the answer is indisputable. In less than two weeks after Congress side-stepped the Constitution to protect public funding for the Boy Scouts, the Scouts were hit by four terrible and regrettable accidents.
| Surely the evidence couldn't be more clear: God has turned His back on the Boy Scouts. After all, God controls the lightning and the heat, right? "Smiting" by lightning has been the traditional way the Old Testament God has expressed His displeasure at the sins of Mankind. What do insurance companies call such accidents as lightning strikes and heat waves? They call them "Acts of God," of course. What more proof could you ask for? Therefore I believe it is a FACT that God is punishing the Boy Scouts. It is not possible to argue the other way. So the question remains, what is God punishing the Boy Scouts for? Well of course that's obvious, there has only been one major recent development in the Boy Scouts' leadership recently: the decision to discriminate. The decision that atheists, agnostics, and gays are intrinsically incompatible with Scouting ideals. Therefore it is utterly clear that God disapproves of this discrimination, against atheists and agnostics and gays. Consequently, it is utterly clear that God opposes issues such as the Defense of Marriage act/amendment, or the posting of religious symbols like the Ten Commandments on public property. Q.E.D. There is no way to gainsay these facts. The self-appointed opponents of the "Gay Agenda," the people who decry "secular humanism," will surely wish to respond to me that there is a huge difference between my proposition and their own propositions about religion's relationship to morality. I am wrong about God's intentions, because smiting innocents with lightning to make a veiled political point is just not the kind of thing that God does. (Anymore.) But their efforts to acknowledge God in the public sphere are right, because God is the font of morality, therefore our laws are not moral unless they acknowledge God. But they're only proving my point. Because the point of this article actually has nothing to do with the Boy Scouts, (except for the sidebar at right), nor with gays, nor atheists. The point of this article is about the separation of Church and State. The point of all the absurd claims above, was not to prove anything about God and the Boy Scouts, but to illustrate that religious matters are subject to personal interpretation. You may believe that there is only one eschatological truth, and that God has clearly and indisputably revealed it to you. But America was founded by pilgrims fleeing religious persecution -- wasn't it? The practice of Democracy in America, up to this point, was based upon the proposition that I can't be certain that your religious convictions are correct. A reasonable proposition. And therefore, the government should only legislate the things that people democratically agree upon, not the things that their priests tell them. I find it insulting when people claim that America was founded by Christians, therefore we have to explicitly base our laws on the Bible. It implies, again this is an explicit claim, that humans are incapable of morality without God. But there are perfectly reasonable, rational arguments for any moral point you care to make. Most of them boil down to the Golden Rule: I wouldn't want to live in a place where people are free to murder and rape, therefore we should have laws against murder and rape and stealing and so forth. God never enters into it. We cannot base our laws and policies upon religion, because religion means different things for different people. Yet we all have to live together peaceably in one country. If God really wants to make His legal and statutory positions clear, then He's gonna have to do better than drop invisible telepathic hints to a minority of the population. And, unfortunately for the 'pro-Life' crowd, the issue of when life begins, is a religious issue. We'll never agree upon it. Consequently, the only sane political policy for America (which had pretty much worked for 225 years up until recently) is: religious lassiez-faire. If you believe Abortion is a sin, don't have one. If you believe gay marriage is a sin, don't marry a gay. A good example of how religion means different things to different people actually occurred on Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, recently. A stunningly clear illustration, in my view. I hate to even link to Fox News, but a partial transcript appears here. I watched this particular show, and found the actual posted transcript before writing this article. Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes were discussing the nomination to the Supreme Court, of Justice John Roberts, with conservative pundits Alan Coulter and Michael Reagan. As is the typical party line, Hannity and Coulter and Reagan were insinuating that Democrats always attack religion in general and Catholicism in particular. (You know, the Democrats, that party which occasionally opposes war and killing, and sometimes tries to get the government to give alms to the poor people -- clearly these Democrats hate Jesus and all He stands for.)
|
Sidebar: Does it bother anyone else that the Congress, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, has essentially declared the Boy Scouts, which is now an avowedly religious organization, to be a military recruitment tool?
There are numerous worrisome components of this policy linking the Boy Scouts explicitly to the military. But let me just hit the biggest one: we have already decided that the Boy Scouts can discriminate on the basis of religion. Although I despise the fact that the Boy Scouts would want to do that, I definitely acknowledge that such is their Constitutional right, as a private association. But now, how private are they if they recieve aid from the military budget? This would be trivial if the Boy Scouts were some kind of racist local country club. But they're not. They're an enormous nationwide organization which apparently needs $7 Million of public money, as well as space, just to hold a big meeting. If the discriminatory Boy Scouts are such a big military recruitment tool that we need a special Act of Congress to protect their government funding -- then by implication, that means the U.S. military is, inadvertently, selecting its recruits on the basis of religion. Throwing out Arabist experts, hiring Christian Crusaders. That may not be the stated policy, but it is the real-life trend. Thus, when Osama bin Laden says in one of his quaint videotapes, that the U.S. is waging a religious Crusade against Islam in general -- the Congress has just taken one more step in proving him right. I really, truly wish my government would STOP providing after-the-fact justification to the things that Osama says. It'd make the whole World Peace thing a lot easier to achieve, if the U.S. government would stop reacting to the supposed ravings of an alleged lunatic by doing exactly what he predicted in the first place. |
|||||
The conservative guests were so stunned to actually witness one of the rare times that Alan Colmes in fact bothered to stand up for his position with an intelligent argument, that all Ann Coulter could do was to splutter out an insanely non-sequitur ad-hominem attack, which I won't even bother repeating. (No, Ann... no Democrat is proposing that the government institute an organized program to drown women in rivers. Now do you have something to say about the real world instead?)
So I repeat, America was founded upon the proposition that there shouldn't be a State religion.
Instead, under this rising Conservative tide, we can now look forward to a future where people like Michael Reagan appoint themselves to tell you whether or not you're a "Good" Catholic -- and use it as a litmus test to decide if you are worthy of public office -- incidentally while misidentifying the Catholic Church's own position.
