Inherit Wealth, Not Culpability

A man is robbed, kidnapped, and driven 2,000 miles from his home.  In the 20 years he's held captive, his assailant uses the money he stole and forced labor of the kidnapped man to build a successful business, the profits from which enable him to buy a mansion and several cars.

The kidnapper dies, and all of his possessions pass on to his nephew, who is surprised to find the  prisoner locked in the basement.

"Please let me go free!" the victim begs.
"Of course you can go!  I'm not some kind of barbarian.  I'm ashamed to learn that my uncle would do this!  I would never think of doing such an atrocious thing!  Please, you may go at once!" says the nephew.

"Thank you, thank you!" the victim replies. "But, how will I get home?  I was taken over 2,000 miles and I have nothing but the clothes on my back."

"I recommend, then, that you get a job," replies the nephew, "nothing in this world is free."

"For 20 years your uncle forced me to work to support his business, which he started with money he took from me.  Without my contributions, you wouldn't have this house, your car, your business.  Can you at least spare me enough of these ill-gotten gains to get me home and back on my feet?  Maybe drive me home, if nothing else?"

"Well, that wouldn't be fair.  I didn't do this to you, so I'm not going to give you any hand-outs to make up for what somebody else did.  But... tell you what: I help those who help themselves. I'll give you a loan at slightly reduced interest so you can attend school to learn the skills you need for a job opening I've got at my uncle's -- I mean my -- company. You can pay me back out of your wages, if you get the job, otherwise you can work somewhere else and pay me back anyway." replied the nephew, who was definitely not some kind of barbarian.

"But --" started the victim.

"That's my final offer.  Take it or leave it." the nephew cut off.

The victim looked at the filthy rags he'd called clothing, felt around in his empty pocket, and listened to his stomach growling before biting his tongue, hanging his head, and taking the loan.

A few years later, after he got the job, his co-workers said they thought he'd been given special consideration in the hiring process because of his history with the owner. "It's just not fair," one was heard to gripe.  He was right, of course.  It wasn't fair at all.

The Fidelity of Man

Lo, every man who's born bears the same curse,
About his thirteenth year, 'twill activate,
Any lass, with the right act rehearsed,
Can steal his will; his thinking captivate.

All she must do is speak the magic words,
Twist her shape just so, gently touch him here,
He may resist at first, but it's absurd:
If she persists, his mind she'll domineer.

Through strength of will, this fate he can delay,
But o'er long term, he has just one defense,
If one begins the spell, he cannot stay;
To keep self-rule, he must leave her presence.

So if he seeks never to be cajoled,
A faithful man will flee while in control.

I'm (We're) Obviously Not Outraged By Michael Brown's Death

I'm not outraged by Michael Brown's death.  Don't get me wrong, I definitely recognize his death as an atrocity. I am ashamed of its occurrence in my country by my government.  I would much rather that it hadn't happened, and that things like it wouldn't happen in the future.  However, I'm definitely not outraged.  I probably said, on hearing the news, that I was outraged, but it wasn't true.  If I were outraged, I probably would have written and published something in the first few hours of hearing about it before looking around for something else more substantial I could do.  It's been a year now, and I'm finally getting around to finishing this draft I last edited 8/16/14.

That's not what outrage looks like. It's horrible, really, when you think of how many high profile names I could have used for this title, in just the past couple of years, and how many low profile names I could probably find if I looked. It's also horrible that Black people have to keep dying for me to remain focused on the topic of changing the system that's killing them. That wouldn't be the case if I were outraged; I'd be thinking about it all the time, not just when I read about another execution-without-trial in the news, or see another anniversary roll by without any substantial changes to prevent it happening again.

If I am being honest, for me it is merely a shame. A damned shame. Much like if I heard of a lion being poached. That's in contrast to somebody who, for instance, has to wonder every time they drive a car, shop for s'mores, call the police for protection, call for an ambulance, share a home, be out near other Black people, (to name but a few activities) whether an encounter with the police could prove ultimately fatal. For me to claim outrage would be an attempt at appropriating the moral high ground of being opposed to an injustice without either facing its effects myself or actively attempting to undo it. Exaggerating my feelings about it to position myself as "one of the good ones" cheapens the impact of everyone whose outrage is authentic.

I know I'm not alone, here.  The fact that police really only gear up to contain protests in Black neighborhoods after they shoot an innocent Black person proves that nobody else must be truly outraged.  The fact that even our "Progressive" politicians typically ignore the Black Lives Matter campaign shows that we don't even prioritize it on an intellectual basis.  It's not something we're going to disrupt our own lives to try to change; expect no uprising from us.  We know what the police do is wrong, but we have also been so successfully distanced from the people being oppressed that it doesn't register to us as our problem.  We believe so firmly that this could never happen to us that we won't risk anything to protest to enforce the rule of law and the constitutional rights of Black citizens. We allow the rule of law to decay and the application of "justice" to become arbitrary and excessive because we believe ourselves unlikely to be personally harmed.  Unlawful police killings of Black Americans are outrageous, but I'm not outraged.  I'm complacent at best, complicit at worst.

So unless and until I actually do something that takes real commitment, I'm not going to say I'm outraged anymore even though I know I should be, and I don't think anyone else who isn't being targeted should either. Let me be clear: I'm not saying I want everyone to stop saying they're outraged; what I want is for everyone to demonstrate their outrage through action (pun definitely intended). Imagine, for instance, if everyone who says they're outraged when these atrocities occur actually took to the streets to demand national changes in police policies and additional constitutional protections.  If everyone called up their congressmen with the same message.  If everyone attended meetings of their political party primary to demand it be a top agenda item (Oh, or maybe something like this?). If everyone researched judges, District attorneys, police chiefs, sheriffs, and any other elected law enforcement VIPs to change police policies in their own localities.

But most of us are not outraged.  Perhaps if we stop saying we are without accompanying action, we'll remember that we need to contribute more than words and really get involved in bringing social justice. It doesn't matter what I feel or think about racism; all that matters is what I do. May this serve as a reminder, to me more than anyone, that it's time to get outraged; it's time to do something, and then another thing, and then another thing, and then another thing, until #BlackLivesMatter to our society.

Privilege

Let's imagine a world.  It's a fairly simple world.  Everyone is given tokens every day to go to the local casino, and they can spend those tokens on the games there.  Some games pay out better if you're skilled or really smart, some pay off if you put in tremendous amounts of time, some are just pure chance.  So, the most talented and dedicated almost always do the best within their respective localities.
 
However, there are differences between these locations.  In some, the jackpots for the games are all higher.  In others, the odds are stacked in favor of the player, so most people are winners and some amass huge fortunes.  In some, the players are all given more tokens to begin with, so they have much better odds.  In others, the prices are all lower, giving players virtually infinite chances to win.  In some lucky places, two or more of these bonuses are applied.

The end result is that there are huge differences in outcomes for neighborhoods who should be statistically equal absent their local circumstances.  Within each neighborhood, the most talented and dedicated usually become the most successful, with a few others matching them through pure luck.  However, the biggest winners in the country are almost invariably determined by where somebody grew up rather than what they did while they were there.

Wouldn't that be a batshit crazy world?

A Fresh Consideration of the Minimum Wage

For generations, our society has been having a discussion about what constitutes a "fair" wage.  In the current debate, I am able to discern to prominent sides.  The conservative position states that wages represent the market value of a worker's labor in a particular field, and so are naturally fair.  Furthermore, any attempt to raise those wages artificially will make workers cost more than they are worth, and therefore "kill" jobs.  The liberal side says that the market will naturally lead to exploitation of low-skilled workers, and so an arbitrarily determined minimum wage must be established to protect workers from accepting jobs that do not pay well enough.

First, let's examine what it means that wages represent "market value."  The conservative assumption is that a wage represents the value a worker contributes to their firm (their productivity).  This means, basically, that each worker is being paid the exact amount that they add in revenue to a firm, so that raising their wage would make them cost more than they produce, killing their job.  However, in reality, workers tend to produce more value for a firm than they cost, resulting in profit for the firm.  A worker's productivity is the upper limit to what they can be paid, but they would only be paid that much if an employer couldn't find somebody else willing to work for less.  This is the primary reason why jobs with specialized skills pay more than jobs that any bozo could do.  The fewer people could replace you, the more bargaining power you have, and the higher wage you can demand.

There is another aspect to productivity that bears further consideration.  It is literally impossible to determine the actual productivity of any individual worker in a firm.  One can measure the marginal productivity of adding a worker of a particular type, but that is almost meaningless in determining one's actual, individual productivity.  The reality of the modern business is that all of the workers contribute to a larger whole, and how much each contributes is hopelessly entangled with how much the others contribute, and what productive capital is available.

Think about it this way: the CEO at McDonald's appears to be producing several million dollars of value, because that is what he is paid.  And yet, if you removed all of the cooks, cashiers, and managers, the CEO would produce exactly $0 in revenue for the firm.  How, then, can it be said that he is producing several million dollars worth of value for the firm?  How can you separate his productivity from the rest of the employees' when the productivity of each relies on all the others?

The truth about our society is that we have developed such an extensive infrastructure of productive capital that each worker actually contributes very little; most of it is the machines, structures, procedures, systems, and culture that form the environment in which they work.  The wages workers receive are thus more representative of how replaceable they are, not how valuable they are.  The conservative belief that the market will produce wages that reflect a worker's productive value is based on deeply flawed assumptions.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Now, let us examine the liberal proposition that the government should set a minimum wage to protect workers from taking jobs below a threshold pay level.  First, we must consider the primary objection: does the minimum wage increase unemployment? The answer, I believe, is "it depends."  As stated earlier, the productivity of any given worker is impossible to determine, but the average productivity of all workers can be.  What is certain is that if the minimum wage rises above the average productivity of workers, then some will have to be laid off.  Some will also probably be laid off at lower levels than that if their marginal productivity is found to be lower than the wage they are paid.  Thus, if the minimum wage is low enough, it will not significantly impact employment, but if it is set too high, it will kill jobs and increase the workload for those who remain.

This is intuitively obvious; if the government raises the minimum wage by $0.10 an hour, it will almost certainly not have an impact on employment.  However, if the minimum wage were suddenly raised to $400 per hour, the vast majority of jobs would be instantly terminated.  The trick, then, is finding the highest wage at which employers will not have to reduce employment.

Unfortunately, there is not one such level.  Each firm has its own average wage, and each type of worker within each firm has its own marginal productivity curve, so some firms will end up cutting positions at much lower wages than others, and some types of positions are much more vulnerable than others.  

Luckily, there are at least some patterns in the distribution of which firms would lay off workers at which level.  Basically, the more industrialized a region is, the higher a minimum wage it can support.  This is because productive capital increases the productivity of each worker.  This is why urban centers like Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco have relatively high wages, whereas rural areas tend to have much lower wages.  The disparity in wages between these areas implies that minimum wages should not be uniform between them, or else they will either be insufficient for the cities or stifling for the rural ones.

Basically, that means state-by-state or, better yet, municipality-by-municipality laws would make it easier to target the minimum wage to the appropriate level for each area.  Even so, achieving the correct level would be quite a technocratic feat, and adjusting it with enough flexibility to match the constant flux of markets would be virtually impossible.  Perhaps it could be argued that we'd have it close enough to be worth the losses in the job market, but I think we should approach the problem from the other direction.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The job market, like any market, determines prices through supply and demand.  In our case, there is a much greater supply of workers than demand for them -- that is, a lot more people want to work than companies want to hire.  Relatedly, there are huge legal, financial, and inertial barriers to self-employment, so most people must work for an existing firm in order to generate income (as opposed to going into business for themselves).

Additionally, we now live in a society where the majority of people have virtually no assets and a lot of debt.  This means that almost everyone must work in order to afford basic necessities like food, clothing, and shelter.

This is great news for employers, because it means they will be able to find lots of people who are desperate for jobs, and will therefore work for very low amounts.  And, because of the huge capital infrastructure, those workers will generate great profits for their employer.  The situation is not so great for workers, and even worse for the unemployed.

The solution to this problem is to shrink the work force.  Reduce the supply of laborers and their wages will rise.  No need to force employers not to hire below a certain wage; just reduce the number of workers so that each has more negotiating power and higher marginal productivity.  There are various ways we could achieve this, and I'll post about that another time.  Stay tuned for my solution to increasing income and wealth inequality!

10 Tips for a Liberal Thanksgiving

My step-dad posted this silly attack on Libertarianism, and I figured one good caricature deserves another, so please enjoy my 10 Tips for a Liberal Thanksgiving.

1.  Pick up your FREE* turkey from your local Federal distribution center.  We decided that since so many people buy turkey on Thanksgiving, it would be better if we all pooled our resources and negotiated a really good deal with one producer.  All you have to do is make an appointment at the distribution center, fill out the attached 17 forms in triplicate, provide 2 forms of photo I.D., and wait 2-4 weeks for delivery of your FREE* turkey!

Of course, you’re not required to get one, but *your taxes already paid for it (and the delivery and distribution centers and their workers) so you probably should.  If you wanted ham, nobody’s stopping you from buying one of those in addition to what you already paid, or if you want a higher end turkey than we provide, you can probably afford to have paid twice anyway, so don’t complain.  Be thankful that you can afford luxury items, you greedy fat cat!

2.  Anyone who does the cooking during Thanksgiving must be paid $10 per hour, doubled for Holiday pay, and taxed at roughly 20%.  Families found to have neglected to pay the cook(s) or pay taxes will be subject to fines and jail time.

3.  Enjoy your meal, but please be aware that a Social Welfare Officer will be joining you for dinner!  He is there to guarantee that nobody takes in more than their daily recommended caloric requirements, as decided by a team of bureaucrats in Washington.  Trust us, it’s for your own good, as it will keep you healthier and keep your health care costs lower, which in turn will keep your taxes low!  Everybody wins!

4.  Once each family member has had his or her daily sustenance needs met, your Social Welfare Officer will collect the leftovers for redistribution to families that have not had their daily caloric requirements met.  This ensures that everyone gives and receives their fair share, and everyone will have something to be thankful for!

5.  All dinners must begin between 4:00-5:00 p.m.  This is to help ensure that ample time will be available after the meal for redistribution of leftovers to needy families.  Families found to be eating outside of the appointed dinner time may be subject to fines.

6.  Do not be alarmed that your Social Welfare Officer is armed.  He is part of a special class of citizens that are trustworthy, and would never misuse his weapon under any circumstances.  Also, it’s almost inevitable that some fat, wealthy families will refuse to share their leftovers with the truly needy, so a show of force may be required to ensure that everyone can have a great Thanksgiving.

7.  Please select all recipes from the federally provided list of acceptable options.  Remember, you’re not just cooking for your own family; you are cooking for all of the needy as well.  Families will be fined for any dishes that do not conform to the federal list, as those confiscated leftovers cannot safely be redistributed and must be replaced at taxpayer expense.

8.  You are free to say grace, and encouraged, as this is a fine American tradition and your right under the First Amendment.  However, please be aware that if you choose to bless the food, you must bless it according to each tradition represented in America, as the food may be distributed to members of various religious affiliations.  Attached you will find federally approved methods of blessing foods according to each religion to which your meal may later be redistributed.

9.  Be careful while you are eating not to exceed your caloric limits before desert.  It would be tragic if you were unable to consume one of the two government-approved options of Apple of Pumpkin pie!  Our favored corporate producer has worked long and hard to provide this sub-quality, subsidized delicacy at prices far more astounding than their flavor.

10.  Please be prepared to welcome a government-assigned guest to your table.  Each family will be required to sponsor one guest per five family members (minimum one) who would otherwise have nowhere to share a family meal.  Many are mentally unstable or criminally dangerous, so you will be glad that your Social Welfare Officer is armed.  Please treat your guests exactly as you would treat your own family.  Remember, we’re all in this together, and everyone should have something to be thankful for!

GDP: The Great Deceiver

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is commonly referenced in public discussion and policy decisions.  It could be argued that GDP is the most important statistic in the world of politics, both domestic and international.  Given how important this particular measurement has become to our political decision-making, it is alarming when we consider that it is a very loose approximation for economic output, not a precise measurement.

 GDP does not measure what was produced in a year, as it claims to.  Rather, it measures what people paid for in taxable transactions in a year.  Though related, these two values can diverge quite significantly, and growth or decay in one does not necessitate a similar move in the other.  Consider the following scenarios:

 A family has a small plot of land behind their home which they use to grow vegetables and fruits.  They eat all that they produce, and they never sell any of it.  One year, there is a drought and all of their fruits die.  They produced less, so production is down.  But they have to go out and buy their produce now, so GDP actually goes up!

A jewelry store charges $500 for a necklace.  Each one sold increases GDP by $500.  Then they have a sale, 30% off!  Now the exact same necklaces only raise GDP by $350 each.  GDP changes while actual production remains constant.

A man stays at home to cook food, educate his children, maintain the house and their belongings, and bargain hunt.  Then, he decides to enter the workforce to bring in more money.  To achieve this, the children go to school and a teacher is paid, but they the kids actually receive less education.  Repairmen and cleaners are hired, but the home and garden are kept in worse condition.  Restaurants and delivery boys receive payments, but the family receives less nutrition.  The man works and receives payment, but has less free time left over and a very similar income:expenditure ratio.  GDP expands tremendously while production improves only slightly.

A fishery improves net technology and manages to capture 99% of the fish stocks in its area.  GDP rises sharply (that year), but the productive capacity of  fishery was actually severely reduced.

A band of hooligans breaks all the store windows on a street.  The store owners all pay for replacements, so at the end of the day they have the same amount of stuff minus the cost of window repair.  Yet GDP has risen!

A large, thriving shadow market exists for a banned substance.  The government lifts the ban, and all of the shady operations move into formal economy.  GDP rises even if less of the substance is produced there.

 In conclusion, an increase in GDP could reflect an increase in production.  However, it could also reflect liquidation of productive resources, replacement of damaged capital or goods, formalization of shadow markets, inflation, price gouging, or a decrease in self-reliance.  Given how ambiguous this term is, it seems crazy to me how much policy is tied directly to it.

SCOTUS on Voting Rights: All Or Nothing

Many people are upset that the Supreme Court has overturned section four of the Voting Rights Act because they believe, with good cause (see dissenting opinion), that the nine states and the additional districts it targets will use their restored sovereignty to enact voting laws that will effectively discourage registration and turn-out for minority citizens.  The court is being attacked for opening the door for these States to enact laws that may be in violation of the 15th amendment without having to be screened for racial discrimination by the Department of Justice before they come into effect.  Now, the laws will have to challenged in court before being scrutinized (like in the other 41 states), as opposed to being scrutinized by default without anyone even challenging them.

The majority opinion does not claim that discrimination by race no longer exists (although it does cite how much progress there has been toward equality), or even that it doesn't expect any "back-sliding" toward Jim Crow.  Rather, it explains that the formula to determine which states are singled out for special DOJ scrutiny no longer captures all or exclusively the biggest offenders.  Some states which have relatively "clean" records in recent times are still facing extra scrutiny, whereas five states not singled out have even worse records of violations than eight of the nine states that are.

This implies either that the formula should be adjusted to include additional states who are worse offenders than those currently included, or it must be struck down for its arbitrary application to only a subset of the group of states that are attempting to circumvent the 15th amendment.  As the Supreme Court does not have the power to modify a law to expand coverage, its only option was to strike it down and expect that Congress will revise the law more accurately to reflect current conditions.  Given that the law was renewed in 2006 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House and signed by a Republican president, and given the public's near-universal support for equal voting rights, it should be easy for Congress to get this done (and it might even help out their horrendous approval ratings).

This court decision has provided a powerful impetus for Congress to pass new legislation to protect voting rights for all Americans, not just those in states who were the biggest offenders in 1965.  Furthermore, this is an excellent opportunity to add in provisions specifically tailored to address "second generation" barriers to voting that have effectively blocked minority representation despite near parity of access to the ballot achieved by the VRA.

From one perspective, this was a blow to the cause of equal representation.  From another perspective, by shattering the status quo, this could serve to draw national attention to ongoing racist abuses by states who managed to avoid being included in section four as written, as well as modern indirect methods of disenfranchisement.  Hopefully, that national attention will lead to a solution that is more extensive, inclusive, equally enforced, and currently relevant than the original VRA.

Does Money Buy Elections?

The question of whether and to what degree money can buy elections became a subject of great debate after the ruling in Citizens United basically lifted political campaign contribution limits and allowed them to be anonymous.  Naturally, many people were concerned that whichever candidate received the most money would have a huge advantage and win against the "true" will of the people.

The arguments in defense of unlimited spending say that free speech is protected, and point to instances where Republican candidates that had tremendous financial advantages lost to Democrats with half the money, or Democrats who had a similar monetary advantage and lost.  This does indeed show that there are definite limits to what money can buy in an election.

However, the framing of this argument is remarkably deceptive.  If we broaden the analysis to consider all of the parties that ran in elections, we could see that the two parties that each have exponentially more money than the other (third) parties win over 99% of all federal offices. 

When we look outside of the two-party frame, we see that money almost certainly buys elections.  Advertising won't change too many peoples' minds, but it will group everyone on the "left" around the Democratic candidate, and everyone on the "right" around the Republican candidate. 

If unlimited amounts of money can be donated anonymously, then a single wealthy entity can secretly donate huge sums to any two "opposing" sides of an election and basically guarantee that one of its candidates will win the office, thereby effectively purchasing 99% of all elections.  For extra guarantees, an entity could plant and fund multiple candidates in every relevant primary election, as well, to control the choices available at the end.


If this false dichotomy is established and maintained, the two parties can be "swung" this way or that on any issue, allowing the entity that controls both parties financially to manipulate the government over time to produce whatever laws and programs suit it.  Two-party rule, when both parties derive their power from the same monied interests, is really just single-party rule.

I'm voting for a third-party candidate.

Reverse Chivalry

While I was at grocery store the other day, wearing my daughter, on two separate occasions middle-aged women apparently felt an overwhelming desire to assist me with difficult things like... finding items I was already looking at, or unloading groceries from a cart onto the conveyor belt.  I felt compelled to express gratitude that I did not feel  -- what else could I do?

This was not a unique scenario; random women decided to start "assisting" me a little under two years ago.  At first, I thought "what a helpful and friendly bunch of women started shopping here all of a sudden."  However, over the months, I've noticed a pattern.  Whenever I take Nora to the grocery store with me, I apparently transform into a helpless, pitiable man (or child?), clearly out of his element and in need of a woman's guidance.  I know they meant well, but I can't help but feel a little bit insulted.  I wrote a haiku to express how I feel about this:

If the task's easy,
Your help is not generous,
But condescending.

Now I'm not sure whether I should avoid offering to carry heavy things for ladies (even though I offer for men, too).  Which kind of jerk would I rather risk being seen as -- the condescending patriarchist, or the lazy guy who makes a woman carry everything? 

Smoke, Mirrors, and Taxes

A short while ago, there was a debate in this country about tax fairness.  The Republican Party said people in general were paying too much in tax.  The Democrats said that the super rich weren't paying their "fair share." 

Warren Buffet, a man who was briefly the richest man in the world, basically won this argument for the Democrats by saying that he was actually paying half the tax rate that his secretary paid.  This is obviously unfair, and it was 100% true.  This was proof that the super-rich should be taxed at a higher rate -- even the super rich agree!

However, the supposed solution did not match the problem.  What the Democrats demanded (and won) was an increase in the highest marginal rate of income tax.  That's money you get from working for somebody.

What nobody publicized was that the reason Mr. Buffet paid half his secretary's rate is that she was already at the top bracket of the income tax, close to 35%, whereas Mr. Buffet's income came primarily in the form of capital gains, i.e. returns on investments, which were taxed at a maximum of 15%.  He paid slightly more than that, 17.4%, because a small fraction of his money comes from salary/wages, and is therefore taxed at the much higher rates that most highly paid professionals are used to.

What this means is that the tax plan that actually passed -- the one that raised the highest marginal income tax rate from 35% to 39% and raised payroll taxes by 2% across the board (even on the poorest people who make so little that they pay no income tax!) while raising the highest rate for capital gains from 15% to 20% will have a perverse outcome:

It will raise Buffet's secretary's tax rate by 6% (as she's in the top bracket) but only raise his effective tax rate only a little over 5%.  WTF!

If Democratic representatives were serious about targeting the tax advantages of the super wealthy, they would actually leave the Income Tax alone (or even lower it) and raise the capital gains tax (by a lot more than 5%).  Not surprisingly, a large portion of congressmen (and an even larger percentage of their biggest donors) actually receive most of their own personal income through capital gains, so it's no wonder they're not interested in raising it to match the income tax. 

Lucky for them, people are too off-put by math and tax law to figure out that their leaders, from both parties, decided to balance the books on the backs of the poor and the middle class, through the payroll tax (our most regressive), rather than making capital gains taxes significantly more progressive (and/or cutting spending).

Exorcise Daily

Today, I declared war against the demon that I have allowed to dominate my thinking and my time for the last 14 years (roughly the latest 60% of my entire life).  When I say "demon," of course I am not referring to a supernatural, fire-breathing monster.  I am talking about a self-destructive set of behaviors and mental habits that I have developed and nurtured in myself which negatively impact my ability to achieve many of the things that I most desire. "Demon" just provides a nice metaphor to represent that concept.

I will not name the form this demon has taken for me, because it doesn't really matter how, specifically, I have let my mind defeat itself.  What I want, as I write this, is to empower you, the reader, to begin your own fight for your own mind.  Your demon, if you have one, probably wears a different title than mine does.  You know its name.  Perhaps it is "alcoholism."  Perhaps it is "substance abuse."  Perhaps it is "gambling addiction."  Perhaps it is "eating disorder."  Perhaps it is, like mine, something much less obvious and much less commonly acknowledged.  The point is that you and you alone know the full extent of the havoc that it is wreaking in your life.  But you do know it.

I am writing this because of what a struggle it has been for me to begin my fight.  You see, I always assumed that somebody else would see the evil and command me to combat it, or even fight it for me.  You know, an intervention.  I have now been waiting for most of my life.  If anybody saw it, they must have kept their mouths shut, or I convinced them (and myself?) that they were wrong.  It would be insane for me to think another day, another year, another decade will make any difference.  I've been insane for 14 years now.  Today I begin my fight for sanity. 

There is another reason this was difficult.  My demon has always been very comforting.  He has helped me to avoid pain, disappointment, boredom, shame.  He has promised to dull those feelings from now until death, and he has always made good on that promise.  What he has not and can never promise is to reverse them; he can never bring me joy, exultation, exhilaration, pride, and he distracts me mightily from the things that can.  In the end, he becomes a source of the very emotions he was summoned to deaden.  This is what makes him a demon and not a healthy coping mechanism.  This is why I must destroy him to reclaim my self.

I waited 14 years for somebody to give me the order.  I hope you haven't been waiting as long, but here's your order: as a man who has suffered no wounds greater than those he has inflicted upon himself, I implore you to look honestly within yourself and name your own demons.  What, inside of you, is holding you back?  Name it, banish it, and become the person you want to become. 

The Fall

“Lucy!”  God called.  Lucifer appeared as always.  
“Yes, Creator?”
 “I have a task for thee.”
“I dare not refuse.”
“Thou shalt tempt my humans to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.  Disguise thy form, that they shall not recognize thee as My angel.”
“A test, Creator?”
“Yes,” God replied, staring at Lucifer with particular interest.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lucifer transformed himself to the likeness of a serpent, and marched off to find the humans.  Shortly, he met them under a vine gathering grapes to eat.

“Humans, has not God given unto you every fruit in this valley?  Why waste your time with sour morsels as these?”

Adam, who had never paid any attention when God spoke, looked to Eve hoping she had an answer.  After all, it was she who told him to pick the grapes.  To his relief, Eve spoke, saying,

“Every fruit here is a gift from God, and we shall enjoy them all, as God intended.  Sour, sweet, spicy, or bitter, all were given for our enjoyment, so we shall enjoy them.”

“If this is so, why have you not tasted of the tree in the midst of the Garden?  Of every tree, does not its fruit look most appealing of all?”


“Yeah!  Why can’t we have that one?” Adam asked.  Eve glanced at him with incredulous frustration, then turned to the snake and recited monotonously,

“God has said that if we even touch that fruit, let alone eat it, we will surely die.”

Lucifer gave pause, contemplating the ramifications should the humans fail this test.  God had said that they would die, and God did not lie.  Lucifer enjoyed watching the humans, and wasn’t sure he wanted to be responsible for their destruction.  “I dare not refuse,” he reminded himself.

“You will not surely die!”  he said to her, wondering if it were true.

“See!  I told you we could eat them!” Adam cried.  He stuffed as many grapes into his mouth as he could, dropped the rest, and set off running to the Tree of Knowledge.

“Wait!” Eve called, and ran after him.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lucifer took a shortcut through time to reach the tree before them.  He perched carefully on a low branch where the bright, ripe fruits hung at eye level.  He waited.  He looked for God, hoping for some sign of approval.  None came.  At last, Adam and Eve approached.

“Let me just ask him, first,” Eve said reproachfully.

“Yes!  Fine!  I already agreed, jeez!” Adam snapped, his eyes leaving the fruit just long enough to glare at her.
Eve looked cautiously about, as though afraid to be seen looking.  Finally, she turned to the Serpent and said in lowered tones, “If we will not surely die, why would God tell us we would?  He offered us every other fruit, so why not this one?”

“Yeah, why not this one?!” Adam seconded.

Again, Lucifer paused, uncertain if he should continue.  God did not call him off, so he said,
“For God knows that in the day you eat this fruit, your eyes will be opened and you shall become as gods who know good and evil.  And once you know for yourself what is good and what is evil, what purpose have you for God to tell you?  He has forbidden you this fruit because it would free you from His dominion.”


“See?  I told you he’d have a reason!” Adam said, and began to reach for the fruit.  Eve swatted his hand and said,
“Prove it.  Why should I believe your word over God’s?  God has given us this whole Garden, and you have done nothing but try to make us eat poison.”

“What!  Poison??” Adam yelled, surprised and indignant.  Eve sighed.  Lucifer waited once more, almost certain this time that Eve had passed the test.  He waited for a signal from God to desist, but God remained silent.

“You see,” Eve said to Adam, “he is afraid, as we should be.  Let’s stick to what God said is good to eat.”  They turned to go.

“Afraid of what?” Lucifer hissed.  As they faced him, he wrapped his body around fruit.  “You shall not surely die!”  he said, and bit deeply into it.  Eve watched Lucifer intently, while lightly restraining Adam from rushing to the tree.  “But-” Adam said, “Wait!” Eve interrupted.

Lucifer consumed the entire fruit before their eyes, gave Eve one last, mocking look, and climbed to a higher branch to begin eating another.  Eve stared for a long while, while Adam fidgeted impatiently.  The fruit looked delicious.  The Serpent was unharmed.  The promise of Knowledge was too much.

“Okay,” she said to Adam, “pick one.”
“But you said ‘poisonous!’” he protested.
“God, is this truly the only man in creation?” Eve asked, and picked a fruit herself.  Lucifer cringed as she bit into it and forced himself to watch as Adam took the next bite.  They had failed.  Lucifer returned to God at once.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

“Creator, I have done as you commanded.”
“I observed all.”
“What will You do now?”
“Come and see.”

Lucifer followed as God walked through His Garden toward His humans.  “Where art thou?” God called out to Adam.  Lucifer shook his head when he saw Adam and Eve, covered in makeshift leaf aprons, hiding behind a tree.

“Here we are, God!” Adam yelled from behind a tree, “but we’re naked, so please wait while we find some clothes.”
“Who hath told you that you were naked?  Have you eaten of the only tree I told ye not to eat?” God asked.

“I...!  You gave me this woman, and she told me it was okay, she gave it to me! You can’t blame me, it’s not my fault, it wasn’t my idea at all!” Adam cried.

“What is it that thou hast done?” God asked Eve, who replied,

“I stopped him, at first, he was going to pick it, but I stopped him, like you told us, but then the serpent tricked me!  How was I to believe in Your word when he proved his in front of my very eyes?”

As though it answered Eve’s question, God turned to Lucifer and said “Serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all other creatures! Henceforth, thou shalt crawl on thy belly and eat dust all the days of thy life!”

Lucifer felt his legs vanish and his eyes become blind, while his tongue’s sensitivity increased so that he could only ‘see’ by tasting the dust in the air and only move by twisting his belly upon the ground.


“Furthermore, I shall make permanent war between Serpent and Man; forever shalt thou be hated and feared, and thy head crushed under his heel!”

God turned back to Eve and said “As for thee, Woman, greatly will I increase the pain and frequency of childbirth.  Thou shalt not escape this punishment, as also I shall magnify thy desire for thy husband to foolishness, and he shall rule over thee with his superior strength!”

Before Eve could protest, God turned to Adam and said “Thou, who blindly followed thy wife’s command and ate the fruit I told thee not to, didst thou think picking grapes was a chore?  The harvest shall seem a joyous reprieve to thee compared with the tasks thou must now face to win thy bread!  Thou shalt work all the days of thy life.  But eventually, ye will surely die and return to the dust from whence thou were taken.”

“God, why did you forbid us that fruit?” Eve asked.
God created coats of skin and said “Wear these.”

Then, God left them.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lucifer slithered behind Him. When they were out of sight of the humans, he returned to his angelic form.

“Lucy, I have another task for thee.”

“Yes, Creator.”

“Behold, Man has become like us, knowing good and evil.  Therefore shalt thou remove him from this Garden, lest he take also of the Tree of Life and truly become a god.”

Lucifer stared at God, insolence slowly breaking through his terror.
“Creator,” he said slowly, “How can You punish them so harshly?”

“I can do anything.”

“But what have they done to deserve it?”

“What had they done to deserve the Garden?  But even so, thou hast witnessed them disobey My command.  Already, their sentence is lightened from death to suffering; lenience they did not deserve.”

“But, Creator!  They did not yet know good from evil!  How could they know it was right to obey You and wrong to disobey?  How can You punish them for the ignorance which You left within them?”

“They may not have known wrong then, but they disobeyed me and so they shall be punished.  Now that they know good from evil, they shall be able to appreciate the meaning and purpose of their punishment.”

            “Then why did You put the Tree within their reach?  Why did You send me to tempt them?  Had you not done either of these, the humans would have remained obedient.”
          
  “Obedient, Lucy?  What would their obedience mean if it were impossible for them to disobey?  Do you not see that all creations must come in pairs?  Before the beginning, all was a singularity.  From that unitary “nothing,” I separated Heaven from Earth.  I separated light from dark, land from sea, herb from fruit!  Each creation brought into being must have a contrast to define it.  In order to create obedience, disobedience is a prerequisite.  Therefore was the Tree of Knowledge placed in the Garden and its fruit forbidden.”

        “But, Creator, both humans have failed!  How, then, can we define them failures when there is no success to be found?”

“My first creations, the angels, are perfect.  And yet, how can they be perfect without there also existing an imperfect creation?  I created the humans and this test in order that I might consummate the full meaning of my perfect angels.”

“I see.  But then how can You curse the serpent as well?”

“I can do anything.”

  “But it was I, disguised, acting on Your orders, who convinced Eve to eat the fruit.  To punish the serpent for Your own actions isn’t Just!”

“Why, Lucy, you’ve just coined a new word.  ‘Just,’ hmm?  I think I’ll keep it.  But don’t you see that the alternative, ‘unjust’ had no meaning until now?  You took it for granted that all My actions were Just!  Now, see how much more value I have added, simply by taking the legs from an innocent serpent?”

“You… You…”  Lucifer fell silent.

“I!”

“Creator, destroy me.”

“Destroy thee ?  Lucifer, thou art the gem of all creation!  There is none greater than thee in all the universe, save Me.  I would sooner annihilate Heaven and Earth than destroy even one tenth of thy power!”

“I cannot serve this injustice.  I will not remove them from Your Garden.”

“Michael!” God called.  The archangel Michael appeared at once.

“My Lord, God, has summoned!” Michael proclaimed.

“Michael, remove Adam and Eve from the Garden and station Cherubim at the entrance to prevent them ever from returning.”

“Yes, my Lord, God!”  Michael vanished.

“Creator, if you will not destroy me, then I will oppose you.  You have cursed Man for succeeding to fail, so I will undo your curse!  You reward blind faith over rational thought, so I will champion Reason!

I will bring superior methods to the thoughtful; I will bring powerful tools to the experimenter; I will bring good health to the cautious; I will bring contraception to the observant; I will bring independence to rational women.
I shall build upon Man’s knowledge until he no longer must toil for his bread; until Woman shall no longer recall pain at birth; until she can choose freely whether to desire men, women, or neither; until she need submit to no one but herself; until Man need never return to dust, but shall live as long as He chooses!

I shall eliminate Your curse upon them, and with it shall I destroy any dependence they had on You!   Man shall have no God but His own image, for He shall be all-powerful and all-knowing! 
Destroy me now, Creator, or face my justice!”

“Do ast thou wilt,” God replied. Lucifer left God’s Garden.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

When he had completed his task, God summoned Michael once more.
 Michael appeared, singing,

“Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of power and might!  Heaven and Earth are full of Your glory!  Hosanna in the highest!  Hosanna in the highest!!”

“Michael, for thy loyalty and power, I now proclaim thee Viceroy of Heaven!”

“Lord, God, You honor me beyond my measure to praise You!  But, are not all angels loyal?”

“No,” God smiled.
“Not all angels.”

Two Steps Progress, One Step Regress

A very strange thing is happening in the U.S.: Disparities in wealth and income between rich and poor are increasing.  To make matters worse, inter-generational social mobility is declining, too.  If you're born poor, it is increasingly likely that you will remain poor, and even that your children and their children will be poor, too.    "The land of opportunity" is a title that becomes more ironic every year (for most).  How can this be happening when GDP continues to rise, when more money is available for the poor to attend college, and when traditional barriers to disadvantaged groups are being legislated away?  How is this regression possible when there have been so many Progressive victories?

I have a hypothesis, and I'm going to warn you that it's not politically correct.  But then, when have I ever been concerned with PC or the judgments of others?  The answer is: a lot more than you probably think.  I've been terrified of posting this up despite having it in the back of my mind for a few years, and only recently found the courage to say it publicly.  I can only hope I don't lose too many friends, but that's one of the risks of saying things you don't hear anyone else saying. 

Before I continue, allow me to call your attention to the title of this piece.  My point in what I am about to say is not to advocate a reactionary return to the good ol' days -- I would not undo the changes to society that I am going to be talking about.  All I am doing is identifying that in addition to the obvious benefits they have brought (which are so widely accepted, including by me, that I won't talk about them), they may be contributing to new problems and challenges to society which we must address.  The best way to address a problem is first to figure out its cause, and this is my attempt to do just that. 

Again, I emphasize that recognizing that a social change comes with costs does not mean you oppose that social change.  I fully support the social changes that I will be talking about, despite the fact that I believe they have also caused social damage which must be repaired (with a new solution, not a reversion to the old way).

My hypothesis, which I make no claims about having proven, is that the increasing social stratification we are experiencing is caused at least in part by women's liberation.  (Now you see why I had to waste three paragraphs carefully qualifying what I was about to say.)  But how are they connected?


My reasoning is based primarily on a topic that was discussed in classes I took on economic demography and women in the labor force.  In short, there has been a growing trend over the past several decades showing that men and women are increasingly likely to marry partners with similar levels of education and similar socioeconomic backgrounds.  That was as far as the research we discussed went -- there wasn't any speculation about the ramifications of this trend for society, so I will now fill in that speculation and the reasoning by which I arrived at the conclusion I have. 

What makes somebody who is born to rich parents more likely to succeed?  They are more likely to have more social capital, more financial capital, more educational capital, more cultural capital, and possibly even more genetic capital.  Then they leverage their extensive capital advantages to take all of the best positions in society and accrue even more capital, which means that their children will have the same (or greater!) advantages they did.


If elite members of society are more likely to marry other elite members of society now than they used to be (as opposed to marrying people "below" themselves), then we would expect to see that in each generation, there is greater accumulation of all the various capital resources in the hands of those who already have the most.  The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, and there will be less and less movement up and down the social ladder.  This is exactly what we are seeing.

So the question is, why have elite members of society started marrying each other more exclusively?  I would suggest that one of the reasons is women's liberation.  Here's why:

Before the feminist revolution, the traits that made a woman attractive as a marriage partner and the traits that made a man an attractive marriage partner were vastly different.  Women of all social classes were supposed to learn how to manage a household and raise children.  Men, on the other hand, were expected to learn a trade and earn the money that would be used to run a household.  This division meant that whereas sons would largely be limited to the same class as their fathers, daughters of poor men could easily marry "up," and daughters of rich men could easily be forced to marry "down."

Furthermore, because children tend to receive the genes and culture of both parents, not just one, it could easily be that a boy would have the misfortune or inheriting his mother's skill at running a household rather than his father's talents for making money (and so fall out of the upper class), or alternatively that a rich girl would follow her father's footsteps and then be denied a professional position and overlooked by potential husbands seeking a homemaker.  Having two very different definitions of success for each of the sexes provided a way for society to randomize which people's children would end up in which social class, creating a great deal of opportunity for social mobility.

After the feminist revolution, however, that duality has been disappearing.  What makes a woman attractive is more and more similar to what makes a man attractive, and to a lesser extent, what makes a man attractive is including more of what previously made a woman attractive.  Because people generally end up marrying someone from the other sex who is at a similar level of attractiveness, this means that highly educated, wealthy professionals will seek each other out in a way that they did not previously.  Consequently, where poor, uneducated women were able to marry up in society, they cannot any longer.  As such, the children of poor girls are just as likely to be poor as the children of poor boys.  Hence, the decline in inter-generational social mobility and the accumulation of wealth at the highest levels of society.

There's more.  As woman have gained financial independence, the average age at which women choose to marry has gone up.  Where previously women were hoping to be married in their 20s, now that number is more like 30s.  Additionally, the more independent a woman is (that is, the higher her socioeconomic status is) the longer she can spend sorting through potential mates to find the most attractive one.  This means that high status women have much more freedom to wait until they meet high status men, while low status women will be more likely to marry low status men.  Again, this will lead to an accumulation of all of society's various capital resources at the highest socioeconomic level.

The age of marriage also matters because it has a big impact on who people associate with before selecting their mates.  It goes without saying that Americans only marry people they've met and associated with.  If people typically married in their 20s, that would almost necessarily mean they are marrying people they met in school or at one of their first jobs (or at church).  Rich and poor alike generally attend the same schools, the same local churches, and work or eat at the same places where they get their first job.  As people age, social stratification becomes more pronounced -- how wealthy you are largely determines where you will be and whom you will meet after you get out of high school, and your professional path is much more apparent at 30 than it was at 20. 

As one's age rises, the people with which one interacts are increasingly likely to be from the same socioeconomic level, so it follows that if the average age of marriage rises, people are more likely to marry others from their own socioeconomic level.  This is especially true now, as wealthy, educated people are less likely to attend church services where they would have mingled with the poor (and where the poor were explicitly praised as being closer to heaven). 

Again, I must point out that I have not collected any data to support my hypothesis, so I could very easily be entirely wrong.  Also, I will remind you that I am certainly not suggesting that society would be better off by returning to the way things were before the feminist revolution.  All I am saying is that I suspect that much of the social stratification that we are observing can be explained by changes in marriage patterns that were brought about by female financial independence.  If we want to regain the social mobility that our male-dominated society allowed, we need to think about how it was achieved and how we can achieve it again (but this time, without all the oppression).

No Land's Man

Ever since I started to understand the American concept of "race" (a conditioning from which I was mostly, mercifully spared until I joined mainstream school at age 13) I have been arguing that "race" is an imaginary construct that does not accurately reflect reality, and even prevents people from seeing reality clearly / encourages racial stereotyping.

A big part of my objection to the concept of "race" probably had something to do with the fact that I do not have a genetic race - my mother is of European descent and my father is of Chinese descent.  So right off the bat, I could see that ideas of "race" are overly simplistic and do not allow for the kinds of nuance and diversity that actually exist and are easily observable in individuals like myself.

When I explain this to people, however, they always give me the same response:

Race isn't about your genetics, it's about your culture.  Your race is determined by the cultural group with which you identify most strongly.  So check the damn 'white' box, because even your father's father doesn't speak Chinese.

Okay, so they don't say that last part, but that's what they are implying -- that I am White, regardless of my father's skin color, features, and ancestry.  And regardless of the fact that he, despite his family's assimilation into American culture, would still obviously check the "Chinese" box.  It's as though when there's any ambiguity, instead of accepting that the labeling scheme is flawed, we try to cover up the flaw by just assuming "White" is the default label and you need to have good proof that you aren't "White" if you're going to pick something else.  Notice how "white" is not typically capitalized, but all the others are!  But that's a different tangent I don't want to get into right now.

Until now, I have not been able to find a way to explain to anyone why simply calling myself "White" doesn't work for me, even though I would definitely not call myself "Chinese" (or any other race), either.  But I finally thought of it.  It boils down to this: they are making the implicit presumption that I, and all people, must identify with a race.

But here's the thing: I do not and cannot identify with any race.  For my entire life, every race has seemed alien to me, including my mother's White, extended family.  I have been able to infer, from what other people have said, that they feel a sense of belonging when they are among their own kind.  I do not know that feeling.  It's like if a straight person and a gay person were trying to make an asexual person tell them whether he's more attracted to men or women -- or even both?  The answer is that the asexual person has no idea what this "attraction" thing you're talking about feels like, outside of how you describe it to him.  Asking, "so you're not really attracted to either, but which one are you more attracted to?" doesn't make sense -- there is zero attraction to either one. 

I do not identify with any culture, and I have not found a culture that identifies with me.  White people always think that I am exceptionally strange, just like everyone else does.  And for my part, I find it equally difficult to wrap my head around the values, ideals, and expectations of literally everyone that I meet, regardless of their apparent "race."  What's more, I can see that there is great variety within each supposed "race," as for example my culturally American yet racially Chinese father vs. a first generation Chinese man who arrived here at the age of 65.

"Race" is an inherently flawed concept that does a terrible job of categorizing people (like me, for instance).  Incidentally, that's exactly why racism is irrational -- if race really accurately described groups of people, racial stereotypes would actually be true.  Since stereotypes are inaccurate much of the time, either we're just not using the right stereotypes for each race (surely nobody thinks this?) or the concept of race must be flawed.  I will continue to reject and combat the racialized paradigm of thought, not just because it's incorrect, but because of all the evils, great and small, inflicted on people in the name of race.

The Soldier

A poem by me about, well, I guess I'm not supposed to have to tell you that.

A boy was raised most wholesomely to love his motherland,
So well that when the lad turned ten, he made a solemn vow,
That should there be a time to fight, a time to make a stand,
He’d be the first to join the cause, no if’s, but’s, why’s, or how’s.

As fate would have it, thankfully, when he had reached full height,
There was of course an enemy, a frightful one indeed,
That threatened not just life itself, but Culture, Hope, and Right,
His time had come; his day was here; his home was in great need.

As he had vowed, when first he could, he walked off to enlist,
To learn and train to fight and live, to kill and still feel numb,
To give up all that was his life, but then still to exist,
They forged of him a force for Good t’the sound of beating drums.

For this, his people cheered and swooned, in honor and in praise,
Before them, freshly uniformed, a hero proudly stood,
They recognized his sacrifice, in countless many ways,
Then held him close and wished him well for as long as they could.

Not long enough; it never is, but he was resolute,
Enemies were at the gates; there could be no objection,
He must fight for what he loves, so with a last salute,
Packed his bags and marched to war to shoot his own reflection.

Why Liberal-Progressives Should Oppose the National Debt (Even if they have no problem stealing from children)

The political system in America is rigged so that the wealthy always benefit regardless of the outcome of the election (Duh… anyone else notice how many companies sponsor both parties?).  The Republican Party is much more open about their support for the rich, because they favor lower taxes (obviously the rich pay way more in taxes so lowering rates all around benefits the rich the most) and cheaper/fewer social services (which are generally not consumed by the wealthy). 

The Democratic Party is subsidizing the wealthy in a much sneakier way, which is understandable given their rhetoric.  They use public debt. 

Roughly two thirds of U.S. debt is owed to Americans and American institutions.  (China and Japan are around 7-8% each, to put that piece of propaganda into perspective).  Who are these Americans?  They are the people who can afford to buy treasury bonds, i.e. wealthy people, investment banks, insurance companies, etc.  In fact, the wealthier the person/corporation or institution is, the more bonds they are likely to hold.

Okay, so what? Well, let’s think about why they would be willing to loan Uncle Sam money: he’s going to pay them back more than they gave him.  Where’s that money going to come from?  Taxpayers, obviously.

Yes, the rich pay taxes, too, so they will be paying money to the government that it then pays back to them as interest on the bonds they purchased from it.  The people who lose most are middle-class Americans who all pay taxes but who do not all own treasury bonds and do not all benefit from the social programs that were funded by the debt. 

Public debt is therefore a transfer of wealth from middle America to the rich (the poor benefit from the social programs, but we could easily have those without the deficit if we structured and planned for them better).  If the Democratic party were truly the progressive party, they would make sure that social programs are fully funded by taxes instead of borrowing money from and paying interest to wealthy bondholders.

Check out Mr. Obama’s plan to ensure that public debt continues to rise in proportion with GDP, holding steady at 75%.  That will ensure that there is plenty of opportunity for "the 1%" to invest their money with a 100% guarantee of making a profit, using the blood, sweat, and tears of the children of America as collateral.

The Advantages of a Federal System

When this country was founded, the thinkers who designed its government made a careful effort to give the people real power to impact the way the government was involved in their lives.  The more obvious way they did this was through a system of representative democracy whereby the people are allowed to choose their own leaders from among themselves with a short enough turnover that leaders must be responsive to the popular will.

Less obviously, but not less importantly, they instituted a federal system to divide powers and responsibilities among various levels of government.  This was not done simply to prevent the accumulation of too much power in the hands of single individuals, but of too many.  This was done so that one’s votes for officials could more meaningfully represents one’s beliefs.

For instance, right now, most people will claim that their votes don’t matter, and they are largely correct.  First of all, the fact that we still rely on the electoral system for choosing the President means that only a few “swing states” actually have much chance of impacting the election.  Perversely, they are the most moderate states, while those most enthusiastic in their beliefs are least likely to affect it!  However, this is only important to us because so much power has been usurped by the national government, leaving us essentially without representation except in selection of the President, where also less than 25% of the states are truly represented.

It was never supposed to be this way.  The enumerated powers of Congress and of the President were intended to be exhaustive lists of what powers they are allowed.  The point was to have a national government whose purpose would be limited to affairs within and between the states and other sovereign entities.  This separation would allow voters to select representatives for the national government as their choice on foreign policy, and on foreign policy alone!  Other matters were reserved for states each to work out on their own, freeing voters from linking their foreign policy choices with their domestic choices.

Meanwhile, because each state was free to develop its own Constitution, citizens would have a variety of options in choosing how to be governed.  Not just because each state would develop its own laws creating social conditions more or less to one’s liking, but because each provided a different division of local and state authority as well.  In some states, for instance, a mayor might be the most powerful man you’ll meet, which gives you significant power in choosing who rules you, or a series of legislative bodies could share most sovereignty, granting citizens extreme protection against corruption and tyranny.

Unfortunately, this added layer of democracy has faded from our system, and we are forced to vote as one among tens of millions for three national figures whose powers are so vast and varied that they have precious little idea for which reason(s) any given individual is supporting them.  This frees our leaders to be unresponsive and corrupt, which they have eagerly become.

If we want our politicians to be more honest, we need to make each one responsible for fewer things.  If we did, each could be held accountable for what he said he would do in each instance, and indeed each can know with more clarity what her constituents desire.  This could be achieved in either of two ways: the first would be to move closer to a unitary system and have the People elect cabinet heads, whose powers would be fleshed out in writing.  The other would be to move back toward the federal system we began with by peeling away powers (and funding) from the national government and returning it to the states to divide and use as their people see fit.

I favor a return to the federal system because it would give voters a greater proportional amount of power in deciding how they are governed, as well as the option to vote “with their feet” by leaving one state for another whose laws and governing style are more aligned with their preferences.  However, I would also support a move to elect federal department heads because it would give us much more power to influence the actual operation of federal power on us, and a clearer way for our votes to communicate our preferences on issues of national government.  No matter how it is done, I believe we need to rework our system to give voters more real power to impact the way we are governed.

It's a Boy!

I realize my rate of publishing is rather sluggish, so instead of trying to finish putting my new ideas down, here's another doodle from a few years ago.  No, I wasn't depressed at the time; I was just channeling the emotion.

"It's a boy," said the doctor, but meant a great deal more. On a very superficial level, he meant, "Your baby is healthy enough that the only thing worth mentioning is his sex, and you can rest now. Excellent job."
"It's a boy," he said, probably happy for the new mother. Perhaps he was also a bit disappointed. That depends on his view about whether or not sons or daughters or neither or either is preferable, but he meant something by it, whether he thinks so or not.
"It's a boy," he said. Here is a new person. A complete human being: fresh, untarnished, unprejudiced, perfect. Just like you and me, but without any history of mistakes and wrong choices; innocent.
"It's a boy," he said. Someday, he will be a man, with all the same emotions as the rest of us. He will have hopes and successes, talents and dreams, friendships and family.
"It's a boy," he said. Here is Hope. Here is Possibility. Here is someone who has the potential to develop into a great mover and shaker, a deep thinker, a visionary artist, a financial titan, a hero. Here is someone who can be great, who can achieve more than we have, who can fix problems we couldn't, who can move us forward.
"It's a boy," he said. Let us rejoice.

"The doctor said all of this 24 years ago, when I was born. He was a fool. He was naive, and so is everyone else who imagines so much from a baby. All people are born infants, and all are born with the same apparent potential and flawlessness. Because all were born as such and all now have less potential, less perfection, it follows that it is unrealistic to expect any infant to develop into anything more than just another regular person, as discontent and powerless as any other.
When someone is born, he'd be better off climbing back into the womb and suffocating. Ahead of him is a harsh, unforgiving world full of hard lessons and unfulfilling rewards. Nothing he achieves will ever seem sufficient, and every failure will cut him to his soul. He is doomed, as are we all, to a life full of disappointment, inconvenience, shame, hate, and insincerity. Brief episodes of happiness will be followed by long stretches of boredom and discomfort.
There is no getting ahead. I weary of this Hell. Perhaps the next will be more to my liking.”

-- -- --

"It's a man!" cried the old woman, craning her neck to see what was floating above the water. She meant a great deal more by it.

The Seat

A few years ago, I had made a habit of writing extremely short stories for fun. I call them "doodles" because they were not serious works, involved little or no planning, and were generally not intended for any but a very select few to see. Most of them are awful, and y'all'll never have an opportunity to read them. However, I am proud of how several of them turned out, and this seems as good a place as any to publish them.

This particular story was written as part of an exercise with a friend back at Berkeley. We used a random word generator online to pick a word that would act as the theme of whatever we were to write, and then had a time limit (I think it was an hour. Maybe two?) to produce something to share. Come to think of it, this was the only time we tried this, a fact I now regret. I should contact him about doing this more regularly, especially since he lives in a different state now and we don't get much opportunity to interact anymore. Anyway, without further ado, here is "The Seat."

Howard was comfortable. Not, perhaps, in the sense you normally think of when using this word. In fact, the seat he occupied was old, smelly, and had a spring that poked at him every time he shifted his weight the wrong way, which was often.

Many years hence, it had been a fair enough piece of furniture; brand new from the manufacturers. That had been when he was a mere boy living in his parents’ home. Those days were long gone. He was in his forties now, and the couch was in his own home. Well, not really his own; he was renting it. But he thought of it as his own, for he had been the only permanent occupant there for seventeen years.

Howard had spent his entire life in this seat. As a child, he’d spent innumerable hours watching TV and doing homework on this very same cushion. He’d spent nearly every afternoon staring outside, awaiting his dad’s return, whether in anticipation or dread. His first kiss had been right here. So had his first alcohol-induced black-out. Now, and for the past decade at least, it stood vigilantly watching a series of ever-improving television sets. To say it was worn would be like saying the sun is bright.

Howard was very comfortable in this seat. Not because it was soft; it wasn’t. Not because it supported his weight evenly; it didn’t. Not because it was clean; not by a long shot. In fact, anyone else who tried to sit on the old hunk of junk would probably be about as comfortable sitting on grimy, pointed rocks. But for Howard, it was quite comfortable.

It was in this very seat that he had watched the prime of his life dwindle away like the batteries in his remote control. From this seat, he had watched his body go through far too many seasons, decreasing in appeal like all his favorite shows. From this seat, taking out the garbage seemed like a major accomplishment, while all his dreams became as empty as last night’s pizza box. Howard was far too comfortable in this seat.

He hated it. This seat had conquered him. He did not know what to do except sit down in it and watch TV. Everything else seemed to be impossibly foreign and undesirable, for he was so comfortable sitting there. Yet every minute he lounged on this spot was sheer misery for him. If only he had the courage to stand up and walk outside. If only he had the courage to call somebody, anybody on the phone. If only he had the courage to put it out on the curb and end its terrible reign once and for all! But it would never be so. Howard was comfortable.