Teddy Bloggie Blog Blogging

From the poor man. Funny. Sad. Disturbing.

The Poor Man: Christmas Reading

Christmas Reading

"Bush at War" was on sale a Sam's Club, so I read that. I guess it's okay, although there's really not very much to it - this book would have been a lot more effective at 25-30 pages - it reads like a heavily-padded term paper, and it repeats itself a lot. The plot of the book is that we beat up Afghanistan, and then Bush listened to Rumsfeld and Cheney about Iraq, and Cheney ran his mouth off in public one time, but now Bush is under Powell's wing and we're all safe - or so they would have you believe! The other big news is that Bush is a fucking dumbass. On North Korea:

"I loathe Kim Jong Il!" Bush shouted, waving his finger in the air. "I've got a visceral reaction to this guy, because he is starving his people ... It is visceral. Maybe it's my religion, maybe it's my - but I feel passionate about this."

"They tell me, we don't need to move to fast, because the financial burdens on people will be so immense if we try to - if this guy were to topple. Who would take care of - I just don't buy that. Either you believe in human freedom, and want to - and worry about the human condition, or you don't."

On Iraq:

I'm not a textbook player, I'm a gut player. ... I'm the kind of person who wants to make sure all the risk is assessed.

I'm so glad that the development of nuclear weapons by lunatics has enabled you to figure out what kind of guy you are. It sounds like an amazing voyage of self-discovery, like tripping on Big Sur or some shit. And thank God - I mean, THANK FUCKING GOD - that we finally have someone in the White House who cares about the human condition! If there's one thing that the internet has taught me, besides where to find pictures of two chicks making out, it's that all problems in the world are simple questions of good guys and bad guys, and it is just a matter of having the courage to choose to be a moral person, preferably ungrammatically and in all capital letters. Because everyone else is stupid and bad.

Now, I will admit that this is a bit unfair. If Bush delivered the Gettysburg Address tomorrow, I'd probably find something to complain about. Whatever - I'm a real bad guy. Still. There's something a little peculiar about thinking that the way to approach political issues is to decide what kind of guy you are. Something a tad narcissistic, perhaps. Or incredibly, shockingly stupid.

DJ and I've been talking about this for years, it seems like...usually after we've both been drinking. Anyway, it seems official. Gravity propagates at the speed of light. That's right, I can't feel your pull until I can see you... Now, that's something to think about.

Einstein Was Right on Gravity's Velocity

That's what I'd say to Amazon if I were on Springer. I'll explain. I just bought two books on Amazon based on the reviews given by Brad DeLong. They are:

Toward Clarity and Grace (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing)
by Joseph M. Williams

and

The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software
by Charles Petzold

The first book might come in handy for the writing section of the GRE class I'm teaching, plus I'm always second guessing myself when I'm writing - unsure of how to phrase sentences and engaging in awkward, sloppy composition. The computer book is something I've been looking for (DeLong too) for a long, long time. I've always wanted to know how computers work. I get a piece of the answer everytime I ask, but I still don't get IT. I want to know how copper and silicon with a little electricity is able understand information, process information and display it back to me. Hopefully, I'll know after I read this book.

BUT Here's the reason for the post... after my purchase, Amazon recommends these titles for me:

Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right by Ann H. Coulter (Hardcover)

Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists Criminals & Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores by Michelle Malkin (Hardcover)

When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country by G. Gordon Liddy (Hardcover)

The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization by Patrick J. Buchanan (Hardcover)

Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson by Kenneth R. Timmerman (Hardcover)

Does this mean that people who write and want to learn about the innards of computers are crazy right wing folks? I always thought they'd more likely be Bohemian Bourgeoisie but I'm neither. Maybe for having an interest in these two books I'm more likely to get stock dividends? I don't know, but it's a little scary that not only are these books written with their "Dem colored peoples are taking over the whole god damn country" themes but that these books were recommended to ME! Maybe I should check these out just to understand the dark side.

The Bush administration is trying to rally a resurgence of Reagan loving for their own benefit. I like the former prez too, but it's laughable how republicans want to make you believe Reagan's economic plans were superior to Clinton's. Yeah, Reagan looked presidential, had great presence in front of the American people and could communicate with them in ways that were both surprising and effective. But his economic plans were better? Hah! In every measure of economic success that I know of the Clinton years were more prosperous. Republicans disagree.

Bushies' new tax plan is a rehashing of Reagan econmics. The Republicans are pushing a similar increasing deficit, increasing defense spending, decreasing social benefits budget and tax plan as was implemented in the Reagan administration. Admittedly, I think running a large deficit in the current economy is both necessary and prudent, but it should be done right. It should follow a new round of Keynesianism that would get government to invest where industry isn't and thereby increasing employment and bolstering growth. It should be targeted at building U.S. infrastructure, getting money to states that are in serious, deep fiscal trouble, and securing social programs like health and low wage housing that are on the brink. Pragmatically, Republicans don't want to help most states because most of them are led by Democratic governors who are required to run balanced budgets (something the federal government isn't constrained to do). "So let the poor in those states suffer - we'll win the next election" Republicans seem to say. Bah Politics.

The most obvious flaw with Bush's tax plan is that the centerpiece shouldn't be the elimination of dividends. It's double taxation Republicans claim; but what isn't? Most people get taxed on income and then pay sales tax. They pay payroll taxes plus income taxes. Why this focus on dividends tax unless you're trying to shore up political support from the wealthy? It makes no economic sense.

Cheney was out defending this plan recently, meaning he was lying through his teeth again: Cheney Returns Fire in Battle on Tax Cuts. "The fact is that 54 million Americans own stocks that pay dividends," he said. "Moreover, 45 percent of all dividend recipients make under $50,000 a year." It's plain evil that he would even say such a thing. Most people do not own individual stocks that pay dividends. They may own them in IRAs or 401K plans, but the dividends you receive in retirement programs are not taxed in the first place. Also just because 45 percent of all dividend recipients make under $50,000 doesn't mean they're going receive the same benefit from the tax plan. I received a grand total of $1.50 in dividend income last year. That would mean a reduction in taxes of about 30 cents. Woo-hoo! Am I one of the 45 percent of dividend recipients? What Cheney's statistics don't tell you is that there's a problem of sample size and degree of benefits. Let's say there are only 100 people receiving taxable dividends out of a thousand and all 55 of the most wealthy will receive significant benefits from the elimination of dividend tax while out of the bottom 945, 45 will receive some benefit, but most likely a very small tax reduction since they hold fewer shares. I mean, short of writing a bill that out right gives millionaires a huge tax break, elimination of dividends tax is the next best thing. How can Cheney even say with a straight face that this isn't targeted toward the wealthy (like himself) and quote irrelevant, misleading statistics to back up his claim?

Brad DeLong says this:
Ah. We are told that the Bush tax cut means that every year "ninety-two million Americans will keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money." But this is not what the average family will receive: think $265 instead. (On the other hand, it is worth $90,000 a year to the average family making more than one million a year.)

Also with some REAL numbers from the Urban Institute - Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center (click image to enlarge):

With almost 30% vacancy rates in commercial real estate in certain parts of the bay area I don't see how the residential real estate market isn't tanking a little more. I mean, someone's gotta work to pay the mortgage, right? Or am I not understanding this? I know residential real estate prices are more "sticky", but it should be falling a little more than it has. Maybe they can convert some of the commercial space into residential space. I've always wanted an industrial loft.

COMMERCIAL SPACE VACANCIES
Fourth-quarter vacancy rates and average rents in central business districts and outside CBDs. Source: Cushman & Wakefield

See Valley vacancy rate highest in U.S. Nearly 30% of offices in South Bay are empty

Doogie Howser M.D. sat at his blue screen and typed up the lesson of each sitcom episode. I'm kind of doing the same here at evolving type. Except, it's usually not a lesson or moral. I don't get that personal, and other people can read this (if they want to). I think I'm a bit ahead of Doogie though. He had a blue screen, I have the internet. He had a pager, I've got SprintPCS.

But he's an M.D., and I'm still trying to leave school behind.

Well, at least I have evolving type. Doogie would probably have a weblog if he were still around.

Shell shocked Israel is getting ready for their election in about a week and a half. There are many serious issues on the table: war, terrorism, corruption, economic crisis and weed.

Que? Mari--juana?

Yep, the rising Green Leaf Party in Israel might pick up between 2-12 seats. That's a lot for pushing pot politics in a country that's running scared. Between not knowing if the next bus they take will blow up and killing their neighbors with helicopter gunships, I bet they need a little hashish and marijuana just to relax. It may not be the answer to all their problems, but the problems will undoubtedly seem farther away when they're laughing uncontrollably while wrestling over the bag of Doritos. Why the hell not?

The Village Voice: Features: Letter From Israel: Keep on the Grass by Sylvana Foa

...Marijuana has been a medicine-chest staple in this area for centuries. A few years ago, Israeli scientists found cannabis residue with the skeleton of a young Jerusalem girl who evidently died in childbirth 1600 years ago.

The scientists said the marijuana was probably used by the midwife to ease the girl's pain.

Israelis are very fond of ancient lore, and of traditional medicines in particular. According to the Israeli Anti-Drug Authority, there is a market for about 25 tons of marijuana and hashish every year in Israel.

Green Leaf, which says it will pay for all those extra social welfare programs with taxes on grass, is growing by leaps and bounds thanks to the rising contempt of young voters for the existing political establishment.

The polls show the party winning between two and eight seats in the 120-seat Knesset. That may not seem like many to you, but pollsters say Sharon is unlikely to win more than 35 seats, which means he will be scrounging around for coalition partners when he tries to form a government. With eight seats, Green Leaf could write its own ticket.

Green Leaf has a modest proposal for dealing with an Iraqi nerve gas attack. Instead of injecting ourselves in the thigh with the drug atropine that comes with gas mask kits, Green Leaf suggests that citizens might simply light a joint, lie back, and enjoy the show.

Green Leaf cites research conducted by the U.S. Army and the Israel-based Pharmos Corporation. Rats were exposed to nerve gas and then injected with dexanabinol, a synthetic substitute for hashish. The army tests reportedly showed that the injection reduced brain damage by more than 70 percent.

Green Leaf says that what a synthetic will do, the real stuff can do better. It's demanding that the Israeli army consider providing the population with this natural antidote. The grass, Green Leaf says, could come from confiscated dope stored in police warehouses. And there is said to be tons of it. Just one toke should do the trick, so there'd be plenty to go around....

My former Econ 100B macro-economics professor, Peter Orszag, who resembles the nerdy kid in school, helped set the Democratic Policy Committee straight when he was invited to testify on Bush's latest round of tax cut proposals. I bet they noticed his nasal-sounding voice, but I'm also sure they learned a lot. I did. Part of the reason I took up the Economics major. Go Bears!

The Administration's Economic "Stimulus" Proposals

Senator Dorgan, Ms. Pelosi, and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify this morning on the Administration's recent economic stimulus plan. As you know, that plan consists primarily of a new tax cut for dividends (and capital gains), and acceleration of most (but not all) of the provisions from the 2001 tax cut that were scheduled to take effect in future years. My testimony makes four basic points:

* Even according to the Administration's own analysis, the proposals would have a negligible effect on economic activity during 2003 and would reduce job growth after 2004. In the short term, the plan would have only a modest impact because it is not targeted to boosting demand for goods and services; in the long term, any positive effects would be offset by the expansion in the budget deficit and associated reduction in national saving.

*The package is fiscally irresponsible, with a budget cost through 2013 of more than $925 billion (including debt service), and a long-term cost that exceeds one-quarter of the 75-year actuarial deficit in Social Security. These costs are in addition to the other substantial tax cuts already enacted or proposed by the Administration; collectively, the tax cuts amount to between 2 and 3 times the size of the actuarial deficit in Social Security over the next 75 years. Especially in the face of the coming retirement of the baby boomers, it would be reckless to adopt policies that would exacerbate the projected long-term budget imbalance.

* The package would provide a tax cut of $100 or less to almost one-half of tax filers, while providing an average tax break of $90,222 to those with more than $1 million in income. The tax cuts would also reduce the share of total Federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent of the income distribution, and would widen the already substantial disparities in after-tax income between those at the very top end of the income distribution and others.

* The dividend exclusion proposal would fail to achieve its ostensible goal of taxing corporate income once and only once. It would not address the component of corporate income that is not taxed (or is preferentially taxed), despite the fact that the non-taxation or preferred taxation of corporate income is arguably at least as significant a concern as double taxation. It would also undermine the political viability of true corporate tax reform and create costly new loopholes in the tax code.

Condolezza Rice writes a vague and equivocal op-ed. She titles it "Why We KNOW Iraq Is Lying", but it really should be "Why We FEEL Iraq Is Lying". It seems Bush, Rice, Cheney, and Co. don't want to get bogged down in details, or rather, choose the details to confuse the public. I think it's important to look at the details left out of her piece before sending Americans into harm's way.

Condolezza compares Iraq's disarmament process with that of South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. It's a little disingenuous to think that Iraq is really comparable. Why not then compare U.S. disarmament with South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan? The U.S. hasn't disarmed, gotten rid of its nuclear stock pile, the world's largest, under UN supervision either. You're shaking your head thinking, "but that's not really a comparable situation. We're not a belligerent nation!" Hmm...

In any case, Iraq has given UN inspectors access to every palace, bunker, and home they've requested access to. Iraq has been reluctant no doubt, but they have reluctantly allowed the inspection to go ahead. Iraqis feel with just apprehension as though the world is walking over its right of sovereignty. Unlike South Africa, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, there's no carrot for them at the end of the disarmament process. There's only a suggestion that they'll get wacked by a smaller stick - no guarantees though.

Hypothetically, would the U.S. sign a non-aggression treaty with Iraq if they cooperated fully? Doubtful. Why sign a treaty with Iraq if you can force your hand?

Condolezza Rice also makes a big deal with the empty missles in a forgotten bunker and tries the scare the reader by hypothetical extension saying, "In the past, Iraq has filled this type of warhead with sarin — a deadly nerve agent used by Japanese terrorists in 1995 to kill 12 Tokyo subway passengers and sicken thousands of others. Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people." Well, whoopdy-doo. If they had a nuclear bomb they could kill millions more. Is evidence that A could lead to B proof that A will lead to B? The point is there are no VX filled warheads being found. The fact that the UN is finding forgotten small empty warheads is a sign of progress and a sign that disarming Iraq in a peaceful manner is both favorable to war and an effective means of resolving this conflict (if the conflict is solely concerned with disarmament).

The truth is, Condo and other cabinet level personnel in the Bush administration are seeing the tide turn against them, in this country, and abroad. More people are realizing that a choice confronts them; the violent path of war and the more sedate path of inspection. Perhaps some still feel that war will lead to the toppling of Saddam Hussein and Iraq will become a shining democratic, capitalistic frontier post in the Middle East, bringing that region closer in image to our own society. This view is wistful but improbable at first glance. You don't need to look far to see how the U.S. has already abandoned Afghanistan and that country's democratic future remains uncertain. Outside the capital city of Kabul, the courtry is ruled by warlords. When you examine more carefully this optimistic mirage of post war Iraq, the real image emerges. It is an image of ourselves, scared and impatient. The Middle East after all seems like a stranger. It is the unknown. It is where terrorists come from. Maybe if we bomb them, they won't bomb us. Maybe the next generation of Iraqis will watch MTV-Iraq. They will eat at McDonalds. They will be like us and learn to like us. Perhaps only then can we learn who they are and not be so scared? It's not a pretty image...and we don't have to get caught up in it.

Nor does any other country want us to conjure up images of the the world split in two; reenacting the Cold War (remember how scary the Russians were?). Nor does any other country want us to play the role of assilimators. France has come out against the war. Germany, China, Russia are following. Even our closest ally, UK, has become an advocate of giving the inspection team more time. Can we be right and the rest of the human race be wrong? Is the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes a right reserved by the world's only superpower to impose its will upon its neighbors? The impatience shown by Bush concerning Iraq stands in stark contrast to the way he's approach the problem on the Korean Penninsula. The unequal treatment of those two countries has also provided some evidence of the U.S. having ulterior motives. To fend off criticism Bush has recently declared that oil properties in Iraq willl be put into a trust for the Iraqi people. The promise hasn't put anyone at ease. Bush has oil on his hands. The oil men from Texas administration lacks credibility in these matters; they feign good-guy candor, but everyone sees their rabid impatience for war.

The heedless administration seems almost unstoppable in their appetite for war, as though alternatives have never been examined, and the UN inspection regime was never accepted in lieu of war but strictly as a prelude to military action. I'm left to wonder: What's the rush? Where is the evidence that this administration promised to provide us? If we KNOW that they have weapons of mass destruction, why haven't we shared such information with the inspection team? Why haven't we found them or destroyed any weapons? If they believe so strongly that Iraq has such weapons, shouldn't we get the inspectors to find and destroy the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons before endangering American troops? If we destroy such weapons do we still need to send in our troops? It makes no logical sense.

Condolezza Rice writing such fallacious op-ed pieces, telling us how we should feel instead of giving us facts, only worsens the situation. It's bad enough there's war brewing, but it's a few folds worse when the war-rallying comes from people your guts don't trust. After all, there are fine distinctions between KNOWING and FEELING.

Why We Know Iraq Is Lying