Investigations of Madness

Recently President Obama and Republicans in Congress have been trading proposals about how to avoid going over the so-called "fiscal cliff" while also getting the U.S. budget deficit under control. On this matter, the Republicans, and to a lesser extent, the White House, seem to be having a bit of a reality problem. Namely, they are having the problem with the fact that there is no way to balance the budget without making a lot of people upset. They avoid this problem by refusing to make specific proposals. It seems worthwhile to point out why.

This year the government will spend about 3.56 trillion dollars while taking in 2.43 trillion dollars in revenue. So we have a 1.13 trillion dollar deficit. This can be eliminated by raising revenue or reducing spending. In order to raise revenue you have to raise taxes either by raising rates or changing the rules of the tax code. Either way, someone will have to pay more taxes, and they will probably be upset. So let's try to fix it just by making spending cuts. Well, here is how we spend money:

     Mandatory Spending (Health Care and Social Security):  2.05 trillion

     Defense: .67 trillion

     Non-Defense Discretionary Spending: .62 trillion

     Interest on Debt: .22 trillion

That means it is IMPOSSIBLE to balance the budget just by cutting non-defense discretionary spending. Not only is it impossible, but even if you got rid of all of it (which can't be done anyways) you would only be about half way there. So in order to balance the budget you have to do at least one of the following:

1. Cut defense spending dramatically and upset a lot of people.

2. Cut Social Security and/or health care benefits and upset a lot of people.

3. Raise taxes on the wealthy and upset a lot of people.

4. Raise taxes on the poor or middle class and upset a lot of people.

Mitt Romney: Let's make today the start of a better chapter that we'll write together. Click “Like” if you’re ready for real change on November 6th.

Joe Biden. I know this is supposed to be a gaffe. The Republicans have called it unacceptable, but I want to defend it. Not only is this a fair thing to say, but it is exactly what more people should be saying in this country.   In a country where an African American male has a 29% chance of spending some time in his life in prison (greater than his chance of going to college), it is not hyperbole to speak of the Republicans putting African Americans is chains. The Democrats surely share responsibility, but it is the Republicans who continue to support the policies that created this injustice. 

  It is Republicans who continue to support the deregulation that drove us into a recession that has driven the African American unemployment rate past 14%. It is the Republicans who continue to support a war on drugs that disproportionately imprisons blacks despite the fact that studies show that whites are no less likely to use drugs. It is Republicans who want to gut education and social services which might help reverse the economic injustices that are the legacy of American slavery.

So in the news this week we have been hearing about Obama wanting to keep the Bush-era tax cuts for the "middle class" (American making under $250,000) but end them for the "rich". The Republicans oppose this because of various economic arguments about punishing job creators. The Democrats retort that taxing the rich is a good way to limit the budget deficit while not crippling the economy since lower income people spend a larger portion of their income as consumers. Both sides are just obviously pandering to their political base and couldn't care less about what happens to the country.

But that is not what I am interested in talking about. What I want to talk about is:

WHEN IN THE FUCK DID SOMEONE MAKING A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS EACH YEAR START TO BE MIDDLE CLASS?!?

For reference, that is over 10 times the U.S. poverty line for a family of 4 and over 130 times the U.N. poverty line for a family of 4. In fact, this seems to be the low end of spectrum of possible cut-offs for admission to the middle class in the minds of our political leaders. The Chicago Tribune reports:

Senator Richard Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, told reporters that few, "if any, Democratic senators," will back the extension of all Bush-era tax cuts. Some have said they favor a extending the cut beyond the $250,000 earning level - which they say no longer defines the middle class in some expensive areas of the country - to those earning up to $1 million.

In order to combat this absurd attempt to define the middle class in a way that includes everyone, I have decided to post a series of questions to help rich people determine that they are not middle class. 

1. Do you say things like: "Well honey, it looks like we are going to have to wait till next year to buy that boat?" 

2. Do you worry that a downturn in the stock market will make you portfolio dip below a million dollars? Or do you know for sure that it won't?

3. Do you regularly eat at restaurants that cost more than $20 per entree?

4. Do you live in a gated community?

5. Does an economic downturn make you worry about the mortgage on your vacation home?

Just about a year ago, the United States government authorized the extra judicial killing of Osama bin Laden. As far as I can see it, our best legal argument for killing him is that we are at war with al-Qaeda, and he was their leader. But we don't treat al-Qaeda members as soldiers and prisoners of war; we treat them as criminals. We cannot simply execute people without a trial and call ourselves a just society.

But even if he was a soldier, we could not legally kill him in cold blood. All accounts seem to point to bin Laden being shot unarmed by Navy SEALs who were ordered not to take him alive even if he surrendered. These soldiers were in a foreign country and a country who we were not at war with. They had no legal authority to carry out such an act. In short, the U.S. government carried out a murder and a potential act of war against Pakistan.

However, this wasn't the most disturbing part of it all to me. The United States acted illegally, and, in the long run, the rule of law is more important than killing a single terrorist. But the world is a better place without bin Laden, so i could forgive that. What was really disturbing was the celebration that followed. People all over the country went on the streets and celebrated not just an illegal act but the death of a fellow human being. The did not cheer, "We are safe!" They cheered, "He is dead!" It was a truly sad moment in our history. 

Now, the one year anniversary has come and it seems like the celebration will start again. President Obama's campaign has already put out a horrific ad which attempts to score political points from this assassination. I encourage everyone who reads this to condemn such blatant politicization of a death and to not join in the celebration of an illegal killing. 

Should the United States government be able to mandate that its citizens buy a private product? Does Congress have any right to legislate such a mandate?

Sadly, the answer is pretty clearly no, and the Supreme Court justices seem to agree. I say sadly because I think the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is a substantial improvement over that state of American health care before it. Here are some of my thoughts:

1. Many of the arguments presented in the debate commit a slippery slope fallacy. No one is going to start mandating buying broccoli. There is a decently clear line we can draw between necessities like health care and products like broccoli that are a matter of choice.

2. Other arguments are valid. What if you are morally opposed to the practices of all American health insurers (and it seems like one reasonably could be). Does the government really have the right to MANDATE that you do business with them? It also seems like it could lead to other kinds of mandates (burial insurance for example) which are logical extensions of the mandate on health care. I agree that the government should not have the right to mandate that people do business with private companies.

3. This debate ultimately has nothing to do with a real debate about socialized medicine. There is no real question about whether a single payer system (like the rest of the developed world) would be constitutional. Such a system would be constitutional for the same reasons Social Security is constitutional. The irony is that the Republicans oppose a single payer system even more strongly.

In the past few days, the video campaign Kony 2012 has been spreading across the internet with remarkable speed. The video was created by the charity Invisible Children, and its purpose is to raise awareness about the atrocities committed by Joseph Kony of the Lord's Resistance Army. The LRA is responsible for committing rape and murder against civilian populations and for kidnapping children to serve as soldiers. It originally operated in Uganda, but has since moved to the Central African Republic, the Congo, and South Sudan. The LRA's actions have long been known by those who take an interest in issues of international law and crimes against humanity. I first learned of them after reading P. W. Singer's Children at War (Pantheon, 2005), which I strongly suggest that everyone read. However, the wider public has largely remained unaware of these events.

Changing this is what Invisible Children has done really well. By mobilizing social media, a massive number of people who had no idea who Joseph Kony was or what he has done now know about his crimes. I am fully supportive of that effort, and I am glad these issues are being raised for discussion. However, I also am concerned by a number of aspects of the campaign:

1. The campaign seems to suggest that sending 100 American military advisers into Uganda is an ideal international response to this issue. This is disturbing because it endorses America's self-appointed status as a global police force. It also portrays the United States as a force for justice and peace in the world when we are just as frequently supporters of despicable regimes (Saudi Arabia) or countries carrying out systematic oppression of other religious/ethnic groups (Israel). An ideal response would be something like an international peacekeeping force with a United Nations mandate. In addition, the fact that the United States has clearly prioritized having not a single casualty for its own soldiers over saving the lives of thousands of civilians reveals disturbing set of values.

2. The campaign is too narrowly tailored. Child soldiers are used in many conflicts around the globe. In fact, the LRA has lost most of its power over the last few years. That is not to say that Kony should not be brought to justice. However,  there are a lot of conflicts that are doing a lot more harm. Why focus on this one? 

3. Kony 2012 seems to be more about making a bunch of Westerners feel good about themselves rather than actually addressing difficult issues. It seems like the goal is to have the Americans come in, save the day, and then we can all feel good about the fine advocacy that we have done. What about addressing more difficult issues? Is there any discussion of why African nations cannot deal with their own internal violence? Not that I have seen. Such a discussion would have to go into the impact of European colonization and the impact of proxy wars between the United States and the Soviet Union in destabilizing the region. But Kony 2012 isn't about having difficult conversations. It is about having an easy conversation. I think that is disturbing. 

Rush Limbaugh

  So I thought Rick Perry's "Strong" ad was just about as low as a public figure could go. Could anyone possibly top such a disgusting and concise distillation of the bigotry and creepiness of the Republican party? I thought no. Well, as much as I love being right, I must now admit I was wrong. Rush Limbaugh has really gone beyond anything I could have imagined.

  First of all, providing people with contraception in great public policy. It is an inexpensive policy and the things it prevents like unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are incredibly expensive for society to handle. The real reason Republicans are opposed is because they want to impose their sexual morality on others, which is something that is completely contrary to democratic principles.

  I believe that having sex with other consenting adults is a human right. I also believe that it is a great part of being human and something that we should more freely enjoy. The fact that creeps who live in small worlds in which they only talk to other narrow, bigoted, old, white men like themselves want to try to prevent that is bad enough. But the fact that in trying to prevent that they would go after a college student who had the spirit of civic duty to take her time to testify before congress is truly disgusting. The way that Limbaugh did so reflects how little respect he has for the dignity of any person who disagrees with him.

  I could hardly respond better than Sandra Fluke did herself. So here is her response:

  First, I guess my reaction is the reaction a lot of women have when they’ve been called these names. Initially you’re stunned but then, very quickly, you’re outraged because this is, historically, the kind of language that is used to silence women, especially women who stand up and say that these are their reproductive health care needs and this is what they need. And what’s been amazing to me today is the outpouring of support. Everyone from members of Congress to Georgetown faculty to so many women who’ve contacted me, and I think it’s clear from what they’ve said that they’re not going to be silenced by this.

I should begin this piece by pointing out that I am in no way antisemitic. Don't believe me? Look up at the quote that I put up on my blog. Spinoza, the single figure I have spend the most time studying, was a Jew (by heritage and up bringing, if not by choice). I have studied Jewish civilization in the Middle Ages, and I have a profound respect for the cultural and intellectual traditions of Judaism. On a more person level (and by some completely bizarre coincidence) every girl I have been on more than a single date with has been at least half Jewish (admittedly n=3) and that hasn't bothered me a bit.

Neither am I a huge fan of Iran. I don't particularly enjoy stoning adulteresses (on a more serious note I think it is a truly despicable violation of basic human rights), and I don't support rigging elections or oppressing dissenters. Quite frankly, I think Islam (with the exception of some of its less political forms) lost its way some time around the Almohad Caliphate. Islam used to be a religion that embraced multiculturalism and scientific knowledge more than any other, and its descent over the centuries into its current state of intolerance is a truly sad story. But I digress.

What I mean to talk about is Israel and the United States and how the media seems to take it for granted that these powers have the right to tell Iran not to make a nuclear weapon. On what grounds? Everyone knows is that the United States and Israel both have nuclear weapons. In fact, they both have a lot of them. Now, the United States and Iran are both signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which gives the United States the legal right to have those weapons. So maybe that explains it?

But then there is this other country. In fact, this country is responsible for a vast human rights catastrophe. A little over 60 years ago the people who formed this country started moving into an area of land that none of them had ever lived on before. They had "permission" to migrate into this land from its colonial masters, but no one thought to consult the people who already lived there. After fighting a number of wars with the locals, these new settlers managed to achieve dominance expelling many of the local people to live in refugee camps in neighboring countries. 

This country, of course, is Israel. Both the government and private individuals in the Unites States have funded its existence from the beginning. The United States has used its veto in the Security Council more times than any other nation and many of them have been to protect Israel from resolutions concerning its human rights record. In recent years, the government of Israel has become increasingly nationalist and increasingly unwilling to negotiate with its enemies. Worse, the country has a long history of unilateral aggressive actions against its neighbors (who admittedly have a long history of aggressive actions against it). Does this seem like the kind of stable, peaceful nation that we would want having nuclear weapons? No, no it is not. But did that stop the United States from giving it to them? Nope.