Back to Economics and Politics

Recently our new President has been called a “socialist”. What is very interesting about this is; he has been called a socialist by some on the right and some in the center, while those to the left complain he is not socialist enough. So I began thinking about my definition of socialism. It is a very fuzzy definition at best. It turns out there are more than a few of us with an unclear definition. I checked several definitions at different places. The best definition with some explanations for my confusion, and maybe yours, can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/ .

Briefly, I find that I am confusing the old school definitions of types of governments and types of economics. I learned that I am not a pure socialist but am probably a democratic socialist or something similar. After reading a little about this type of politic, I found mention of a philosopher, Axel Honneth, who was apparently more of a socialist, and in the older style than I. I also read a little about Anthony Crosland, a British politician and socialist theorist. Here is a quote I found in two different places, so it must be good. It really is if you think about it. Sometimes though generational advancement may not be a good thing, energy use and global warming.

"What one generation sees as a luxury, the next sees as a necessity."
Anthony Crosland

Social Democrats believe in some things with which I find I agree. According to what I found, Social Democrats believe in both free enterprise and government run programs of education, safety nets for the poor, and health care for all who need it. Theoretically they believe in government regulation of private enterprise. That one makes much sense to me at this time in our economy. When it comes to foreign policy, Social Democrats believe in multilateral ism. Again this makes sense after the last 8 years. There is a good listing of the theories and the philosophies of Social Democrats at this address:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy .

Here is an interesting thought I found at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism:
Apparently Karl Marx considered Socialism to be the rung on the ladder on the way to Communism.
No wonder some of the extremists or the politicians running for office in 2010 are quick to call their competitors, “Socialists”. We still have that old fear of communism in this country. We just don't think about it out loud anymore.

On the economic side of things Wikipedia has another good article. This one is on Keynesian and “The Chicago School”, Milton Friedman, economics. I give you this quotation:

“Friedman, for example, argued that the Great Depression was result of a contraction of the money supply, controlled by the Federal Reserve, and not by the lack of investment as Keynes had argued. Ben Bernanke, current Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is among the economists today generally accepting Friedman's analysis of the causes of the Great Depression.”

While researching these things, I found an article about an article written about the writings of Mr. Crosland. The previous sentence is about as much fun to understand as the whole 1960's article on Crosland. However, wade through it I did. I would like to share with you the following excerpt. Read and reread it please. Then someone let me know if they notice the application to the way the present administration is handling the banking/financial mess.

“It emerges from the nature of his proposals for the extension of public ownership, in those instances where he is willing to consider such steps. He is for government share-buying:
...the object is not to acquire particular capital assets with a view to their control; it is generally to increase the area of public ownership. There is therefore no need for the compulsory purchase of entire firms or industries; it is sufficient to extend public investment in any direction ... Indeed, it would be a positive nuisance to be saddled with control...
What stands out about this method of extending "public ownership" is that it is the one which guarantees completely leaving all management rights and relations undisturbed. It is designed to leave the same bosses in control no matter what level of "public ownership" is thereby reached. Crosland is utilizing the well-known split between share-ownership and management control to introduce the same schism between public ownership and public control. His program for "extension of public ownership" is at the same time a program for maintenance of managers' control.”

Source URL: http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2007/07/25/hal-draper-anthony-croslands-social-democratic-reformism

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this stuff hard to follow and hard to get in my head. It is important to try even though it is so difficult. You may wonder why, sometimes I do. Just remember you can vote. You can write a blog. You can write your congresspeople. You can talk to friends and neighbors. You know the routines use them. Others will and do.


Here is an postscript, update, to an earlier posting, Discretionary Spending Feb. 24, 2009. The F-22 production is definitely in trouble. Don't despair. The Military-Industrial Complex is keeping busy. They are working hard to get new bigger contracts on a couple of other planes, the C-17 transport and the F-18. Keep track of their “hard work” and remember the manufacturing plants and suppliers are scattered all over the country. You have to give them credit for thinking ahead when they got those jobs scattered around. It is hard for a congressperson to cut back on those huge contracts when they have to go home or run again for office.
Unemployment is already extremely high.

Poetry I Don't Get It

I have never been a serious poetry person. But since there are poets in the family, I figure I ought to try to “get” poetry again. So I reviewed some of what I learned years ago and found a little new about poetry on-line. What I found is: I am not a serious poetry person.

The only poetry for me is poetry that is straight-forward, painting, pastoral pictures.

Poetry does not need to rhyme for me. I do like the rhyme of poetry for children whether written by kids or for kids. I even like singsong poetry, supposedly not good poetry from my studies thus far.

I do not want to read all poems again and again, a little rereading for meaning is OK, but I am lazy. I don't want to figure out what the deep, psychological meaning is. Some play with words is fine-that is the why of poetry I think.

My definition of poetry is the shortest or best words, even if very unusual words, to describe a person, place, or thing. Thing in this case can be an emotion.

I know people and the “real” world are not always nice so I want be entertained or taken to a better place. I like my poetry like my old “fun” movies, escaping to a fun place or a mystery that will have an ending.

Then I thought maybe if I tried writing a verse maybe I would get it. Then my older brother and I were talking about food when he mentioned “beans and fried potatoes”. That combination of words are music and visuals of growing up . So here are the beginnings(and probably the end) of my poetry efforts but watch out... I want it to be read in a singsong manner.

If you want you can analyze the verses and let me know what you see and hear.

The Music That Is Me

Dirty face and well worn trikes
brown beans and fried potatoes.
Mosquito sprays and steaming trains
tailin' piles and sink holes.

"Do the job and do it right"
Swept porch and broom ed yard.
Summer leaches and washed cars
burnin' coal and drip lard.

"Play with me." "I'm gonna tell."
Steam rollers and road graders.
Drawing gate and ticking lock.
A Whine sack Baby Brother.

Hand me downs and Doris Day
mud pies and paper dolls.
Taking care and cleaning house
A-men-Able My Sister.

Be the best and run away
sickly sun and worry.
Trouble then and Mentor now
Thou Hector Older Brother.

Squirrel Wars May Just be Just Wars

What would lead a far-left-of-center person to declare and to justify a war on squirrels? It is actually a war of selfishness, laziness, and greed by all involved parties.

It is a War of economics justified by the cost of feeding birds under my “sphere of influence”. A War of “exceptional ism” justified by changing the world to suit myself. A War of “Manifest Destiny” justified by my right to interfere in nature. All justified by feeding birds where I want them fed to suit my selfish needs without any “injurious competition” from squirrels.

The squirrels are invading my territory and taking what is rightfully mine. They have no work ethic. They should hunt and eat in their own territory.

As you may note by the blog photo my husband took, I am an amateur photographer of “deck” birds. I try to take what I call “birds with attitude” photos. Then, I do pencil drawings from them.

It all started with just trying to get as many types of birds as possible to come to the deck to eat “Up close and personal” so to speak. It was an investigation into common birds on the hill and their feeding habits while taking into account laziness of the watchers-me and the cat, Boo Kitty. I call it Boo Kitty television. We added some camouflage in the forms of bark and pieces of firewood for better bird-portrait backgrounds.

Of course we got critters too: snakes, coons, possums, and squirrels. (Yes, we take pictures of these critters along with the bird photos.) The possums, the coons, and the snakes that come aren't much trouble to keep under control but the squirrels are another tale. They eat and eat and eat. Bird seed is expensive. So far I have not seen the beggars eating the suet we put out.

I tried "corncob and stick" diplomacy. I bought a squirrel feeder and some corn (on the cob) to put on it. My husband put it out on a tree far enough from the deck so they wouldn't come eat the seeds. That didn't work. They inhaled the corn and then came in for sunflower seed dessert. So back to watching and scaring them off the deck.

It is a daily on-going chore to run off the squirrels. We even have many of them named though they don't know it. We actually encouraged one unusually light colored squirrel last year. By encouraged, I mean we didn't run her off. But now we have a few unwanted “left-overs” from last year and a bevy young “hooligans”.

According to what I remember from my psychology classes I need to extinguish the learning of sunflower-seed-is-available by removing all reinforcement. If all reinforcement is not removed the learned behavior, sneaking to the feeders and finding those sunflower seeds to munch, will not be extinguished it will actually be reinforced. Some squirrels will learn how to wait me out. Oh wait they did! So, in order to stop the squirrels I would have to totally remove the positive of food. Note I said totally.

Watching for squirrels all daylight hours is required. When they appear I must appear before they get one bite of food. In the meantime am I keeping some birds away? Of course I am. Or just don't feed the birds this way and get a feeder with a baffle. But wait again! I trained the birds to eat in front of the windows and where I camouflaged the deck rail. Now I can take the pictures from very close up and in the winter I sit right inside the kitchen window with the camera without spooking the birds.

So Scruffy Squirrel sits there right now and eats because I have run him off several times already this morning and I'm sick of it. H mm. Who is training Whom here. If only he could find a way to extinguish completely my “startle” behavior, he and his followers would be victors, the greater power, the ones to claim exceptional Manifest Destiny.

Transparency, A New President, and Just War

Transparency in Government, a phrase we now hear and see, was absent without leave for 8 years. The present administration may not be as transparent as we would like but now we can read white papers on-line or in the papers; we can check the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on-line; we can examine the US Budget on the White House website; we can check the OMB website for another view of the Budget; we can communicate with the administration through the Office of the Public Liaison; we can check the finances and donations of our congress people; and on and on. Of course it all takes time and energy but transparency has really started to make a comeback.

We can even read articles on how this President and his advisers communicate. How his decisions are informed by others.

We have a President giving us a “virtual” town hall meeting. Did you participate? We have a President who can speak on many levels on many subjects. We have a President who understands the value of all venues for communicating with his constituents and uses those venues even though some, mainstream media maybe, don't like it.

If this President can keep this communication with the public going and leave behind a legacy of transparency, he has done great things already.

The latest white paper, easily found on-line, was an Inter-agency policy paper on Afghanistan and Pakistan. How great is that?

Yet, it is easy to please us for the very fact that we had no transparency at all for many years makes us easy. Still skepticism abounds-what are they not telling us...Are there or have there been secret energy task force meetings or secret government-within-the-government meetings to feed the President what he wants to hear in order to lead him down some path or the other?

The white paper on new Afghanistan and Pakistan policy suggestions led also to these thoughts on this war or any other war.

The President had such a different tone when he made his announcement on the new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even when read the tone is more serious, and more somber than most of his speeches or talks. Not to say he is not often serious but this time there is a real difference, as should be.

Going over his speech, announcement, again leads to thoughts of "just war", if there is such a thing, he even used the word "just" at one point. “...a cause that could not be more just.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/27/A-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/) This statement makes you wonder if he grappled with his own conscience or is he just soothing ours. If you read the announcement in its entirety, you may find much with which to agree and can even see signs for hope that we, the US, won't be there forever or just leave a mess and quickly withdraw one day when people will take no more. But when is a war ever really, honestly now, just?

When is it just to ask a mother to give up her child to protect mine? When is it just to tell a mother the child she lost as a result of an error in intelligence or an error in a guidance system was a sacrifice for the greater good? When is it just to spend all that money on destruction instead of on building whether it is in the US or abroad?

A Birthday to Forget or Maybe Not

Happy Birthday? March 19th

It has been six years to the day since we woke to “SHOCK and AWE”. I remember it well, it is my birthday too. Though I am just a tad more than 6.

In that six years, more than 4200 US troops have died and who knows how many Iraqis have died. Millions of Iraqi citizens displaced. US troops killed in Afghanistan somewhere around 600-700. The trust of American Citizens in their government is low. Hope is high but mistrust is still ever present. Yet, we search for someone to keep our hopes up.

Whether it is a right-wing radio talk show host or a left-wing newsletter, we still want someone or something to trust and in which to hope.

We can't trust our our own senses: eyes, TV or newspapers; ears, radio. The media will give us what they think we want. So now we don't trust ourselves either. We research and we seek more information but who or what can we trust in our research. By reading or watching and listening to many sources we can hope to make a judgment.

A few days ago a picture ran in the NY Times newspaper showing a pipeline diverting water to a mine in one extremely dry place in Chile where the towns and villages are “drying up”, people leaving. On the same front page was the article about AIG paying those bonuses. There was greed in both picture and text. Actually greed did not seem a strong enough word anymore. (NY Times, Mar 15, 2009)

Then too we have the radio entertainer getting paid hundreds of millions to complain about how high the cost of replacing some part in his private jet while he tells his audience the government is raising his taxes and theirs. And they hope. The audience listens and hopes because they are still convinced they will be one of the very wealthy too. This audience has worked hard and they deserve to be rich. If the government will just stay out of their way, they will be in the top income percentages soon. They haven't made bad decisions they deserve to be rich.

We have young people with no health insurance unless not so rich parents, or sometimes grandparents, can pay for it: we see tent cities in the US: we see long lines of people seeking jobs, any job; we see the working-poor losing their homes or close to it. People are hungry here in the US. Actually people have been going hungry in the US for quite a while but not so many as to get any real attention. People have been living in cars and on the streets for years but they must have made poor decisions.

All the while our Congress argues about increasing Americorps, argues about changing bankruptcy laws to cover residences not just vacation homes. Congress continuously argues about who is to blame for what problem. Congress legislating after the fact and never trusting themselves or us. Deregulation was not really about trust. Absence of regulation is not the presence of Trust. There will always be greed.

Perhaps all we can do is try and hope. If you are a religious person, maybe you pray. If you are a spiritual person maybe you pray. Though our religious institutions are in doubt. We heard things from political leaders about praying and God talking to them. A President of the US said God told him to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We heard from some religious leaders about the coming of the end or not. Some religious leaders told us it is OK to kill in the name of God. Of course this was not the first time religious leaders told people or rulers it was OK but that was history and this is the 21^st Century surely not the same. Surely we have come further or have we?

Read these documents http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp and http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf for partial answers. The first two are different explanations of “Just War”. The third is a file of American War and Military Operations Casualties prepared for Congress and last update shown was 2008.

The past 6 years have been interesting but let's find other interests, please. It is spring maybe we can try gardening or birdwatching. There are so many beautiful things still in this world let us look around. That is all it takes and maybe we can help others see the beauty too.

We can take pictures. We can paint pictures. We can write poetry. We can make movies. We can write music. We can write stories. We can talk. We can teach. But we don't need to use “Shock and Awe” to get a point across.

So just a Birthday to you Iraq War, “Iraqi Freedom” ? (and me too) I hope I don't ever awaken to another birthday like that one 6 years ago. And I wish everyone a better year.

Are We Addicted to Arguing?

Normally, well who is to say what that means, my television is on C span for many hours a week. If not listening to Congress, I spend quite a chunk of time on-line reading about the latest political maneuvering and the “analysis” on the latest bill or the latest resolution. Or researching some “facts” mentioned somewhere. (I know,I know “get a life”).

When I listen to Congress, either house, there are many times I talk loudly to them. Sometimes I just do whatever else I am doing and say, “yeah, yadda yadda”. Lately while reading blog postings for various media outlets, I realize I am again thinking yeah, yadda yadda. The writings may differ in style from the speeches in Congress but what is written is similar. The comments actually get meaner. The extreme comments many times end up making no sense. Eventually the comments are the same “stuff” that I read many times before. “Clinton did it; Bush did it; liberals are socialists; conservatives are hardworking; the media did it; the CEO s did it; the poor did it. I have my views on all these statements but that isn't what I am questioning here.

What I wonder is do the right, left, center, and so-called independents all take lessons on what to say about what. (Actually some really do.) Is someone sitting somewhere just monitoring blogs and columns with the intent of causing a discussion to break down into angry temper tantrums? No matter which blogs I read there is such a similarity in reader comments and the patterns of comments. It usually starts with relative calm posts or comments then it begins to deteriorate.

Some comments try to use techniques that include quotations and statistics, some use the same old blame-on rants that I'm pretty sure they get from emails they receive from some political group or the other, while some try to respond in kind from their point of view. Eventually the rants win and the blog seems to just bog down in a boiling thick primordial soup. I admit it is tempting to just scream back in print at some particularly stupid rant. Just read about the first lady showing her shoulders or the President taking his coat off in the oval office.

For a short, very short, span of time after the last presidential election it was more quiet. The ranting started again since the congressional speeches, where supposedly the right “found its voice again”, got antagonistic. All the media jumped.

Both parties talk about unity turning states from one color or the other to a blended color, but they are actually encouraging behaviors that keep the electorate divided. Especially at this time when one party feels they have to “rebuild” and it is apparent they don't know how far to go for 2010 votes. Yet if you listen to their speeches you realize they are just appealing to the same groups they have before. Check out the news from CPAC. I know the other party is doing something similar after reading their appeals for money.

What happened to discourse? When did it happen? Has it always been this way and I wasn't aware of it?

I only know that it is so bad that when we do hear someone appeal to our better natures we don't trust them. Or do we just like a good fight? I got tired of watching one PBS show because it is, as I call it, the “yelling show”. The show follows the same old format 2 Conservatives, 2 Liberals, and a “moderator”. But most of the time the people on the panel are the extreme conservatives and extreme liberals. The moderator has actually changed the position from which he guides the conversation since the election. Now he rants from a different political bent.

Maybe loud rants are what we do want. Perhaps we are so afraid of the truth we don't want to hear it. Perhaps it is more fun to only hear the outrageous. When I enjoy a black and white comedy or mystery movie from the late 30's I watch them on many levels. Sometimes I just don't want to face present day reality at least for a while. Maybe that is what is going on with our political rants. We enjoy the argument more than facing reality. Reality is sometimes full of fearful monsters we cannot control by ranting at them.

I fear we are addicted to the arguments and the battles more than any real attempts at answers to our problems. Political radio, TV, and editorial rants are becoming more entertainment than help.

What a let-down when we don't have a crisis whether it is WAR, economic messes, or a religious battle of some kind. If things get too quiet we may have to face the reality of our own daily lives. Maybe we don't know what to do with it anymore. We can only shop so much whether at a charity thrift store, a large discount store, or at an exclusive shop.

Or maybe we truly are more engaged in what our government is doing than we have been in many years. That can be great but let us hope we can handle it in a civilized manner.

Discretionary Spending?

This is a long one so be sure you have time to read it and study it. I am still doing research.


I started researching defense spending as part of the US Budget. Really I wanted to see percentages through the years since WWII. But, it is hard to find good solid numbers. I wanted to be ready when the Congressional speeches focused on how spending for defense is not “spending” in the same way the Recovery Act is “spending”. Why the debt incurred for defense is not as bad as debt incurred for other discretionary items in the budget. Is there such a thing as defense “PORK”?

Being a liberal made it harder. Like the media today I found myself bending over backwards, trying hard to be “fair and balanced”. Yet, I find the statistics, especially from the last years, are skewed. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been in the defense budgets.

Why am I trying so hard to prove a dove, or such a terrible thing as a liberal, can be fair? I am not sure. It may be liberals, real liberals, always listen to the other side; always give the benefit of the doubt to other ideas. After reading and rereading former Republican President Eisenhower's speech from 1961, I decided to go for it. Sometimes called the military-industrial warning speech, the speech contains the following words:

“...We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. …(Pres. Eisenhower 1961)

These past weeks during the discussions of the Recovery Act I waited for someone to bring up the costs of “defense” and someone to counter with the “jobs lost”. Sure enough I read it in articles about the F22. The original fighter was planned in the early 80's during the Cold War. The plane, like most defense spending, is over budget and perhaps has little use these days. Apparently President Obama must soon make a decision regarding the inclusion of the plane in his budget. The cut will affect somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 jobs in these days of high unemployment. Gottcha! Eisenhower's words ringing so true in my ears. “Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.”


The above quotes from the speech certainly warned perhaps with a sense of fatalism of our times. The General continues:

“Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.”...

The speech ends with this prayer:

“To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.”
Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

( http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html )

Below are a few links so that you may investigate for yourselves how well we fulfilled the “prayerful...aspiration”.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/#
The above link is great for graphics and text on US Military Spending in a variety of ways. I find this article on US military spending compared to world military spending mind boggling.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_discretionary/
Is the article on Defense as a part of discretionary spending in the budget
containing this quotation:

“ February 4, 2008

The Fiscal Year 2009 budget request includes $997 billion for discretionary spending, money the President and Congress must decide and act to spend each year, roughly $541 billion of which will go to "National Defense" (Function 050). The "National Defense" category of the federal budget for FY'09 represents over half of all discretionary spending (54 percent). [NOTE: These totals do NOT include funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the $70 billion requested for the "Global War on Terror" were included in both the request for the Department of Defense and the total for discretionary spending, the percentage of Pentagon spending of total discretionary spending would jump to over 57 percent.]

Want to read the 2009 budget for defense? It has lots of pictures and is easy to read-not like the old days. Of course you are just getting the easy parts.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

To me, we have not done well as “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry...” to “..compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. …”(Pres. Eisenhower 1961). Perhaps all we can do is just keep trying.