Charlie's Chatter

On this Labor Day I wish to make only one point. As background however, it it first worthwile to note that many politicians and pundits claim that president Obama is very much in favor of labor unions, and I think that he is. It is said, as an example, that Obama wants to have so-called “card check” legislation passed. This legislation, so it is said, will make it easier for workers to unionize, although many say that because of “card check” many workers will do so only because they will be intimidated – by threats and even possible violence from some of their co-workers and even union officials. I myself think there is some truth to that. It is important to realize that there is nothing in existing law that prevents workers from getting together and become members of a union.
      In any event, the situation which I described above, plus the poor economy with high unemployment and some lowered wages, has led to many conversations among pundits about labor unions. I have seen several such talks and conversations on television, and that includes on Fox network channels. What strikes me as absolutely irrational is the conclusion reached by a few people. These latter state that wages were quite high for most workers during the 1950′s when union membership was at its peak. At its peak nearly one-third of the private sector labor force belonged to unions. But since that time, the percentage of workers in labor unions has slowly but surely came down, so that today only about 12 percent of such workers belong to unions. Therefore the conclusion is drawn that if more workers belonged to unions today, then wages would be higher. Heck, with higher wages, it is said that people could then even “buy more stuff” and thus increase demand; this will then result in increased employment because “more stuff” will need to be produced. Well, I beg to disagree.
      During the decade of the 1950′s, and even much of the 1960′s, most of Europe and Japan was still recovering from the disastrous effects of World War II. As is well known, that war resulted in very heavy physical damage to much of Japan and Western Europe, to include parts of England. Rails, shipyards, warehouses and factories destroyed. Homes and roads destroyed and/or damaged. The United States, however, incurred absolutely no such damage. So as Western Europe and Japan gradually recovered from the effects of the war, it was the United States that was in the best position to produce manufactured goods, not only for home consumption, but also those that were needed for recovery in Japan and Europe. These goods included steel, other metals, products made from steel such as rails and automobiles, and so on. Not to mention oil of which the United States still had a surplus. As a result, business in the United States usually boomed during those times, as did exports, and most manufacturers had no trouble selling more of their products, at good prices, even though they had to hire more workers. (During those times the largest steel company in the world was United States Steel, and the second largest was Bethlehem Steel. General Motors was the largest automobile producer in the world.) However, the labor unions took advantage of this and constantly demanded higher wages and benefits for their workers. Despite many strikes, nearly all manufacturers gave in to union demands so that the workers wages and benefits increased more than they would have otherwise. Thus the relatively “high wages” during the 1950′s and the 1960′s. But by 1970 Europe and Japan had clearly recovered from the effects of the World War. Therefore those countries were starting to compete successfully with the United States when it came to manufacturing. Even other countries apart from Japan and those in Western Europe started to compete. This competition made it more difficult for businesses in the United States, particularly those in manufacturing, to sell their products at good prices. All this put pressure on United States companies, forcing many of them to try to “do something”. Even the US government got involved, occasionally invoking trade barriers such as import quotas and higher tariffs. (Does anyone remember the import quotas placed on automobiles and steel? I do.) But lowering wages was almost impossible due mainly to labor unions; in fact, even keeping wages from increasing was difficult due to labor unions. So the end result eventually became a drop in manufacturing activity in the United States due to lowered exports and increased imports. In some cases new companies were started in the United States, usually non-unionized, and these companies manufactured goods previously produced by the larger and heavily-unionized companies. (Does anyone remember the steel “mini-mills” such as Nucor? I do.) All of this did put pressure on labor unions such that the percentage of workers that were union members slowly but surely decreased. And as to those companies that did not, or could not, resist union pressures for increased wages and benefits, many were forced to down-size, and some of them eventually went bankrupt such as Bethlehem Steel and General Motors. Of course General Motors was then “successfully” re-organized after its bankruptcy, thanks only to much assistance and money from the US government (taxpayers), so that the company itself now exists again and still manufactures automobiles, but nowhere near as many as in the past.
      It is worth noting that the only “workers” who saw an increase in labor union membership during the past three decades or so were those in government, both local, state and federal government. At the same time it is also worthy of note that most of these governments are having more and more trouble making ends meet. Many cities and states are heavily in debt, with quite a few close to effective bankruptcy. The federal government itself is very heavily in debt. Gee, I wonder if the increased union membership in those governments has anything to do with this?

According to this opinion piece, “The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats“. And according to the illustrious New York Times, the title Building a Nation of Know-Nothings was given to another opinion piece. Yep, many if not most Americans are spoiled brats and know-nothings.
      The first article referenced was written by Eugene Robinson, a liberal pundit who still likes president Obama. At the risk of oversimplification, Mister Robinson believes that too many Americans want quick and painless fixes to most of their problems from the federal government. He then maintains that the “required” fixes can be neither quick nor painless. They can, however, be accomplished, if only the folks would give Obama and his administration more time to do the job, and also accept the little bit of “pain” that will accompany the “fixes”. Oh, and what are these “problems” which “require” fixing? According to Mister Robinson, using fossil fuels is a problem, and this can only be fixed if Americans are weaned off of fossil fuels, even if that means putting higher prices on energy. (Cap and trade anyone?) Another “problem” is that the “rich” are not paying enough taxes, so that the government does not have enough money to do a lot of “necessary” things, such as to “maintain, much less improve, the kind of infrastructure that fosters economic growth“. He also writes, “Think of what the interstate highway system has meant to this country. Now imagine trying to build it today“. Hey Mister Robinson, think of the monstrous “health care reform” bill already signed into law by Obama. Now that ridiculous law will neither improve our “health care” nor help with its cost but will instead waste large amounts of money, money that could have been otherwise used for “maintaining and improving” our infrastructure such as highways and bridges. (Oh, perhaps I should apologize. I forgot that Obama signed into law a nearly 800 billion dollar stimulus bill one month after he became president. Much of that money was intended to be spent on “shovel ready” infrastructure projects, which I’m sure includes highway and bridge repair and improvement. I guess Mister Robinson also forgot about that. On the other hand, I have heard that 18 months later, less than 5 percent of that stimulus money has actually been spent on such infrastructure projects.)
      The New York Times article, again at the risk of oversimplification, is in favor of Obama and the Democrats. It criticizes many Americans because they believe in what are almost certainly “untruths” if not downright lies, with Obama being the main target of the untruths or lies. For example, it says that “46 percent of Republicans believe the lie that Obama is a Muslim”. (Actually, if you go to the web site that the New York Times article references, you will see that only one poll arrived at that figure; another usually more reliable and larger poll came up with a decidely lower figure of 31 percent, which that web site says is only a “somewhat” lower figure.) The New York Times article then spends much time “exposing” its usual culprits – Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Those two are claimed to be major contributors to the ignorance of the American people.
      Well, I am ashamed to admit that a lot of Americans are spoiled brats and ignorant. But the evidence for that is not given by the contents of the above two referenced articles. Instead the evidence is demonstrated by other things. For example, a majority of Americans voted for Obama as president, which was a foolish thing to do, and for most such voters a demonstration of ignorance. A majority of Americans are “spoiled” in the sense that they have gotten used to the “good life”, so that when things do turn bad, as they often do, too many complain and then often expect the government to provide “solutions”. Never mind that in nearly all cases those government “solutions” are worthless at best, damaging at worst. (ObamaCare is an excellent example of the latter.) But no, those two referenced articles, again at the risk of oversimplification, claim that too many Americans are spoiled brats and know-nothings because they fail to see how much good Obama and his administration have done for the American people, and how much additional good they will do if we Americans just be patient and give Obama and his adminisration time to act. That also means that Americans must not elect Republicans, and that all Democrats must support Obama.
      The New York Times article started out by commenting on the fact that John McCain won the Republican primary election for Senator in Arizona. I disagree with some of the words and ideas that were used in those comments. I do, however, want people to know that I consider John McCain to be a disaster as a politician, but not really for any reasons given in the New York Times article. My comments on John McCain’s primary victory can be found here.

As most everyone should know by now, the “healthcare reform” bills signed into law by Obama, (now often called “Obamacare”), only come into play in bits and pieces over the next 4 years. Only by 2014 will Obamacare be fully implemented, well after the 2012 presidential election. (Gee, I wonder why that is?) Nevertheless, a few effects of Obamacare are now being felt. Most of these relate in some way to the additional rules and regulations that Obamacare imposes on health insurance companies.

1. Health Insurance Premiums are going up:   Although there is some debate about this, supposedly starting this month health insurance companies can no longer deny health insurance to children with pre-existing conditions. For example, a baby born with a birth defect will now have coverage. (Worth noting, however, adults will have to wait till 2014 to be guaranteed health insurance coverage including coverage with a pre-existing condition.) As to the “debate” and “questions” about this aspect of Obamacare which applies to children, the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius criticized insurance companies, saying that she worried that health insurers thought they weren’t obligated to provide insurance at all. The referenced article also mentioned that Kathleen Sebelius will issue regulations to make sure insurance companies obey the more-inclusionary language of the law. (What? You mean that the law itself does not provide more precise language? I guess not. In fact, I know that it does not. Given the nature of the Obamacare law, bureaucrats will have to write hundreds if not thousands of detailed rules and regulations in order to fully implement Obamacare.) Well, in any case, in the months and years to come, all health insurance companies will be obligated to follow more rules and regulations resulting from Obamacare. Many of these rules and regulations will require health insurance companies to pay for more medical care procedures, and of course add to their paperwork burden. As a result, their costs will go up for those reasons alone, so they will have to raise their premiums in order to cover those costs. Heck, according to this article, after Obamacare became law even Democrats admitted that Obamacare would raise health insurance premiums. One small health insurance company is going out of business at the end of this year, claiming that the additional burdens and uncertainties placed on it by Obamcare are too expensive for the company to bear. Most health insurance companies have either already raised their premiums more than normal because of Obamacare or they plan to do so shortly. If it were not so serious, it would be hilarious to note that state insurance regulators still have a say in what health insurance companies can charge, as noted here in California and also here in Massachusetts.
2. Private Employers are passing more insurance costs to their employees:   For those people who get health insurance through their place of employment, since the health insurance companies are raising premiums, then private employers who provide health insurance for their employees will have to pay more. Of course it is only natural that some if not most of these added costs be passed on in some form to their employees. Higher co-pays. Higher deductibles. Perhaps even different health insurance plans. (And no, you can NOT always keep your present insurance if you are satisfied with it, as Obama had promised.) Here is just one article which comments on this.
3. Accounting Rules:   One thing that has happened so far this year is that many private companies have announced that they will take additional charges against earnings because of the tax provision in the new health law “Obamacare”. Of course according to many Congresspersons, such as Mister Waxman, this is unacceptable. Congressman Waxman even threatened the top executives of some major companies, asking them to provide documentation for these additional charges, and he stated that they would have to appear before congressional hearings in order to defend themselves in public. Well, it did turn out that these companies, given currently-accepted and legal accounting rules, actually did have to add these additional charges against their earnings. Mister Waxman, being a liberal demagogue who is much in favor of Obamacare, is not too happy with this turn of events.

I do note that many articles which talk about increases in premiums for health insurance tend to put most of the blame on insurance companies (and also on private employers). They do not put much blame on Obamacare. Gosh, I guess many insurance companies have not listened to our Dear Leader Obama who, as I previously mentioned, warned health insurance companies not to raise premiums to an “unreasonable” and “unjustifiable” level. Well, I guess our Dear Leader knows what is “reasonable” and “justifiable”. However, I think that the insurance companies will have to wait a bit longer until the bureaucrats finish writing all the detailed rules and regulations which are required by Obamacare, but which are not themselves precisely specified in the actual law.
      To conclude, I must point out that I myself do not consider most forms of “health insurance” to be economically useful (of real value) given the actual utility of “insurance” as a useful economic concept. I have written about this in some detail on my web site. Nevertheless, it appears that nearly everybody should have health insurance given the nature of the United States economy and how it has evolved over the past 70 years. Despite my misgivings about health insurance, it is important to recognize that I do not consider health insurance companies “greedy” and examples of “capitalist pigs”, whereas many people and politicians do.

Five years ago hurricane Katrina devastated the city of New Orleans, plus surrounding areas in Louisiana, southern Mississippi and Alabama. One news article wrote about New Orleans as it exists today, and mentions the effects of recovery efforts and several comments made by president Obama during his recent visit to the city. Obama, as is to be expected, used his clever, populist rhetoric to mention all the efforts that have been made by his administration to help the city rebuild and recover, efforts that are continuing. Another news article mentions some of the “political damage” that had been done by the hurricane. That article almost immediately states the following:

It [Katrina] was a defining moment for mayors, governors, state and national lawmakers, and a president and his administration pushed to limits few anticipated or planned for. And five years later, it’s clear the experience became a shining moment in the careers of some, while straining or breaking others.

That article goes on to specifically mention president Bush and certain members of his administration as having failed to respond properly and promptly to the hurricane. But it never so much as mildly criticizes the mayor at the time – Ray Nagin – saying only that he was one of the political leaders who “took an emotional toll” because of the disaster and the politics of the storm’s recovery effort. It quotes Ray Nagin as saying, “With Katrina, she came, she did a devastation, and I was the last man standing, if you will, because Bush left, Kathleen Blanco the governor did not run for reelection, so I took most of the brunt of the anger.” Mister Ray Nagin, I am amazed that you were even re-elected as mayor 8 months after the hurricane! If so many citizens of New Orleans were angry with you, why then did they re-elect you 8 months after Katrina hit? In fact, both right after the hurricane and even up to today, not much criticism has been directed at you for your failures with regards to the hurricane. Instead it is mostly Bush’s fault, both then and even today! As mentioned here, some newspaper editorial writers criticized Nagin for not handling evacuation procedures properly and, in particular, for allowing hundreds of New Orleans city buses — which might have been used for evacuating poor or elderly people — to sit idle in parking lots that were part of the first sections of the city flooded. Before the hurricane made landfall, the mayor told the residents of New Orleans to “keep an eye on” the hurricane and to prepare for possible evacuation. However, he did not order a mandatory evacuation of the city until less than 24 hours remained before landfall, by which time it was too late for an orderly evacuation of most parts of the city. He then criticized delays in aid to the city, and expressed anger with what he said was slow federal and state response. Yep, it was almost all Bush’s fault and the fault of Bush’s administration, with the rest of the blame going to the governor of Louisiana at the time.
      During the weeks and months right after Katrina made landfall, and extending up to the present day, four major things stand out, at least in my mind:

1. Politicians are criticized for failures to help New Orleans and its citizens prepare for, and recover from, the hurricane. And yet the higher up the food chain you go, the greater the criticism, with president Bush being at the top of the chain. Instead, as I know too well because I have lived south of Houston, Texas for 40 years, close to the Gulf of Mexico, it is primarily the responsibility of the local politicians and the local authorities to help their citizens prepare for hurricanes and to help with relief efforts once a hurricane has passed.
2. Why is it that people who have been hurt by a hurricane, and the local politicians who represent them, often call for relief and rebuilding assistance from the federal government? In the two articles that I referenced above, a few sentences demonstrated this aspect. The governor of Louisiana at the time of Katrina was quoted as saying, “It was quite an experience just fighting for a fair share of the money we needed and asking for it to be distributed proportionally“. (Gosh, I wonder what a “fair” share was?) Officials in New Orleans say they need more from Mr. Obama. Mainly more money. “We have not received enough money to repair the damage that was done,” the current Mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landrieu, said on “Meet the Press” recently. Oh by all means, the federal government (taxpayers) must give more money to the city of New Orleans and its residents so that they can properly repair and rebuild.
3. Given where I have lived for the past 40 years, I know too well that the federal government has had for years a federally-subsidized flood insurance program. And I have always bought such inexpensive flood insurance for my homes. Of course I also had regular house insurance which would pay for damage caused directly by wind, such as damage to part of my roof when hurricane Alicia passed almost directly over my house. Gee, I wonder how many residents of New Orleans had such insurance, assuming that they lived in their own homes. Anyone living in their own home in New Orleans without having such insurance certainly bears major responsbility for now finding themselves in a financial pickle. So now taxpayers are supposed to pick up the tab?
4. To those who live close to the oceans and may be threatened by hurricanes, it is not at all necessary to wait for “advice” from local government authorities before deciding to evacuate. You can evacuate entirely on your own volition, to include your family. During my 40 years living near the Gulf of Mexico, I voluntarily chose to evacuate three times based on my own evaluation of the weather reports. I did not wait for “the government” to tell me to do so. As it turned out, one such evacuation was not necessary, but the added cost and inconvenience was worth the relief. On the other hand, I did not evacuate for hurricane Alicia, and perhaps I should have. Although the latter hurricane did not cause any injury to me or to my family, nor any flooding to my house, we did have to go without electricity for a couple of days afterwards.

Give me a break. I could say much more about this, to include all the federal assistance (mostly free rent) that has been given to thousands of New Orleans’ residents who evacuated to Houston for Katrina. Why I even know one African-American woman who did not own her own home, but who of course had to evacuate, to Houston. And yet she did what she had to do to help herself out and today she is doing quite while working in Houston, thanks almost entirely to her own efforts. Now that woman deserves credit. Despite the emotional toll on her, she handled her situation well. As to the then mayor New Orleans Ray Nagin, the guy with all the authority, any “emotional toll” on him is well-deserved.
      In the case of New Orleans and Katrina, I realize that the situation was not that “black and white” as I seemed to indicate above, for two reasons. First of all, the levees protecting the city were stated by the authorities to give adequate protection against flooding in the city. They were not. Secondly, even if you did own a home in New Orleans with sufficient flood and home insurance, assuming that your home was severely damaged, in most cases it took many days if not weeks before your home could start to be repaired and/or rebuilt. That’s because many streets were impassable for a long time due to accumulations of debris and damage to the streets. In addition, in many cases it took many days if not weeks to restore all necessary utilities to parts of the city such as water, sewer and electricity. In the meantime, what was a person to do? If that person still had a job, how could he or she travel to their job? But if the job site itself had been heavily damaged, such that the employees were told not to “come to work”, what then were they to do to earn money? Yes, those aspects of the damage done to New Orleans itself were unique. Only better advance preparation on the part of the local government authorities and the utility companies could have alleviated that situation somewhat.

Wow !   The main article on the front page of a free newspaper that I occasionally get had the title “Judge’s innovation may offer malpractice fix“. This was in the July 2010 issue (Vol. 22, Issue 7) of the “Senior News” newspaper that is distributed in parts of southeast Texas. The first two paragraphs read as follows:

Part listening, part cajoling, an innovative approach to resolving medical malpractice cases could become a model for courts around the country thanks to a pioneering judge. The Obama administration is spending $3 million to see if the methods developed by longtime New York judge Douglas McKeon can work on a broader scale, opening a way around the political stalemate over how to reform the medical liability system.

During all of the discussions and debates that preceded the passage of Obamacare, and even those coming after its passge, the two words “tort reform” are often used for the phrase “reform the medical liability system”. These discussions and debates usually center around the contribution that medical liability lawsuits contribute to the actual cost of health care. As is to be expected, most lawyers say that these lawsuits contribute only a very, very small amount. But others say that this amount is not small, and that it is necessary to take into account the practice of so-called “defensive medicine”. My own research and comments on this matter can be found here. The article in the Senior News newspaper also includes the following sentences:

Defensive medicine is estimated to cost Medicare and Medicaid billions of dollars a year. The most commonly advocated fix, limiting jury awards for a victim’s pain and suffering, has mostly been a political nonstarter. President Barack Obama readily acknowledges that defensive medicine is a problem. The grants under his new health care law are an effort to find changes that can win political support.

Well, how about that! Our Dear Leader Obama acknowledges that defensive medicine is a problem. But of course since trial lawyers benefit from malpractice lawsuits, and since almost half of our Representatives and Senators, and our Dear Leader, are themselves lawyers, why then we can not expect them to do something that takes money from their professional colleagues.
      You may be aware that, when it comes to medical malpractice “tort reform”, Obama and his administration do say that Obamacare does include provisions to address that issue. Why of course! As mentioned further in that newspaper article I referenced:

The New York state court system is one of 20 recipients of federal grants [which come from Obamacare] to find answers to such problems as getting hospitals and doctors to acknowledge mistakes, rather than cover them up, and protecting clinicians who follow best practices and still have something go wrong. The goals are to prevent errors that injure patients, reduce lawsuit costs by avoiding lengthy trials and discourage the wasteful practice of defensive medicine, when doctors order costly buy usually unnecessary tests more to protect themselves than the aid the patient.       . . . . . . .       The New York grant was the only one awarded to a court system, where malpractice cases are litigated. The rest of the $23 million went to hospitals, universities and state health departments.

See? Obamacare HAS provided 23 million dollars to help address this problem of medical malpractice and “tort reform”. To you and to me, 23 million dollars is a heck of a lot of money. However, it is an absolutely miniscule fraction of the total cost of Obamacare, with this total cost having been estimated as between 800 billion dollars and one trillion dollars over the next ten years or so. So when it comes to the large amount of health care costs that result from medical malpractice lawsuits, for all practical purposes Obamacare does nothing, except perhaps to provide Obama and his administration with some talking points.
      It is definitely worth noting something a bit odd in those sentences in that newspaper article which I last referenced above. Note that nothing in those sentences puts any blame or criticism on lawyers. Instead it is made clear that doctors and hospitals make “too many mistakes and errors”, even hide many of them, and that they practice “defensive medicine” in order to protect their own skins. Also note that one of the stated “goals” is to reduce lawsuit costs by avoiding lengthy trials; not by simply avoiding trials, but by avoiding “lengthy” trials.   In sum: Doctors and hospitals? Sometimes bad.   Lawyers? Always good.     What a bunch of bullcrap.
      That referenced newspaper article was one which basically discussed one small aspect of Obamacare, and with kid gloves. No denigration of Obama and Obamacare in that article, let alone even mild criticism! I note that the article was written by a Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar. A Google search on this man led me to several references, many of which lead to believe that this man’s ideology tends towards the left of the political spectrum. In fact, I actually found the article itself on this web site.

Most Americans are probably aware of the project to build a “Muslim cultural center” and mosque so close to “Ground Zero” in New York City. The majority of Americans are against this, at least according to polls. But many people in high positions, including politicians such as New York City mayor Bloomberg and perhaps president Obama himself, are in favor of it. The common refrain is that “we must show the world” that the United States is a truly free country, especially when it comes to religion, and that we are a “tolerant” nation. We must show “tolerance”, not only for minority religions in the United States, such as Islam, but also for cultures which are much different from ours. I insist that such an idea of “tolerance” is a terrible and harmful idea.
    Diana West on her blog post with the title “Tolerance for the intolerant dooms tolerance had this to say:

Tolerance is doomed if it is extended to the intolerant, something philosopher Karl Popper worked out in the last century. “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them. … We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

Exactly !   That should be clear to any rational, thinking person. Basically the same idea about “tolerance” is expressed by Christopher Hitchens in an article on the Slate web site with the subtitle: « The “Ground Zero mosque” debate is about tolerance—and a whole lot more». Perhaps the most appropriate sentences in that article about “tolerance” are the following:

Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders [those in favor of the mosque] have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything “offensive” to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …

Having spent much time in France, I can read French, and I do keep up with the French news, in addition to that in other Western European countries, especially England. My French friends are very worried about the increasing population of Muslims in France, and the demands that Muslims are making to the civil authorities in order to “accommodate” the precepts of Islam which apply to society. Many French are fighting back, having passed at least one law barring the wearing of certain “religious-type” gear in schools, such as head scarves. But the Muslims are slowly but surely winning the battle in France, and their population in France in constantly increasing. Muslims now make up more than 10 percent of the total population, and it is estimated that about one in four children born in France today have Muslim parents. (One source said one in three.) One French friend of mine, who is the assistant mayor of a French village, says that the next time that I come to their village there might even be a mosque there. (Not that a mosque itself need necessarily be a terrible thing, but rather that it would be an indication of the spread of Islam throughout France, such that even French law may conform more and more to Sharia law and to the customs and culture of Muslims.)

Sure, he’s got courage, but he does not have smarts. I am speaking of John McCain, the Arizona Senator who won the Republican primary in Arizona for his Senate seat, the same John McCain whose weak presidential campaign helped Obama get elected as our Dear Leader. Not that McCain would have been much better than Obama, which is saying something since Obama is a disaster.
      Of note here however, is part of a “victory speech” which McCain gave shortly after he knew that he had won the primary. He said that in November the Republicans will be so successful at the ballot box that they will take control of both the House and the Senate. And then he said:

And when we do, we will stop the out of control spending and tax increases and repeal and replace Obamacare. We will keep families in their homes, we will create new jobs and we will allow our businesses to grow without Washington interference. We will secure our borders, defend our nation and bring our troops home from Afghanistan with honor and victory.

WOW !   Tell me Mister McCain – exactly how will you all do that? Heck, most of that stuff sounds similar to what Obama has promised us, excluding of course “repealing” Obamacare. How will “we” create new jobs? I assume by “we” you mean the Republicans in the House and Senate. But is not that exactly what Obama has not only promised us? In fact, Obama has claimed to have already “saved and created” quite a number of jobs. Hey Mister McCain, the only “jobs” that the federal government itself can create are government jobs, nearly all of which detract from the GDP of our country. Sure, by all means repeal Obamacare. But what’s with this phrase of “replacing” Obamacare? With what are you going to replace it? You and your Republican counterparts can no more bring down the cost of medical care than can Obama with his monstrous “health care reform” law.
      John McCain is just another politician who usually gives the same old political speeches and promises. He just happens to belong to the Republican party, (not that that means too much). Of course he has his own “quirks”, some of which are stated by one writer when she writes that “there is no bigger clown, charlatan, and huckster Republican serving on Capitol Hill than four-term, 24-year Big Government fixture John McCain”. Oh, and he also lacks charisma, although frankly charisma is of little or no value to citizens when it is possessed by a politician. It is really only of value to the politician because it can help him (or her) get elected.

According to an article I recently read, there are questions that every politician should have to answer. One of the questions was: « Tell me how you would cut $100 billion from the federal budget”. If they say “eliminating waste, fraud and abuse,” move on to the next candidate. Every aspiring politician admonishes us to tighten our belt, but few offer any details beyond those hackneyed cliches » . I most definitely agree what that.
      However, another question was: « Do you understand how markets work? ». The writer of that article then said, in effect, that if a politician indicated that he or she does understand how markets work, then they should explain what a “negative externality” is. According to that writer, a “negative externality” supposedly is a fundamental concept covered in about week 3 of any introductory economics class. Anyone who does not understand the concept really doesn’t understand how markets work. I find that odd. Although I do not have a college degree in economics, I have studied it quite a lot. In fact, my first real introduction was an introductory two-semester class in economics when in college 50 years ago, with the textbook being the largest-selling economics textbook of all time: Economics: An Introductory Analysis, written by Paul Samuelson. Although I was studying for a B.S. in Chemistry, I found this book and that economics course to be very interesting and informative. Since that time I have read a few other books on economics, a couple by Thomas Sowell, and dozens if not hundred of columns and opinion pieces on economics. What struck me about Paul Samuelson was that his textbook led me to believe in the efficacy of free markets, and yet later on I became aware of the fact that Paul Samuelson himself was a liberal. I found that odd.
      What is really “odd” is that, despite my knowledge of economics which I briefly outlined above, I have never heard or read of the phrase “negative externality”. Never !   On the other hand, I have often heard and read of other important phrases which are basic economic concepts, such as “opportunity costs”, “absolute advantage” and “comparative advantage”. In fact, I once wrote a blog post that mentioned comparative advantage as it applies to trade, and I once wrote facetiously that even citizens should not be allowed to vote unless they understood the trade principles of comparative advantage and absolute advantage. So I have to ask myself, “What is it with this “negative externality” phrase?
      A Google search of that phrase, together with the separate word “economics”, turned up just over 70,000 results. A Google search of the phrase “opportunity cost”, together with the separate word “economics”, turned up many, many more results – 1,750,000. A Google search of the phrase “comparative advantage”, together with the separate word “economics”, turned up just over 1,900,000 results – almost two million! (Leaving out the word “economics” in the Google search gives almost the same results.) This certainly indicates that the economic phrase “negative externality” is definitely used much less frequently than the other two phrases that I mentioned, and with which I am very familiar. I therefore believe that the phrase “negative externality” is either a phrase that is fairly recent, or it is a phrase that is not often encountered in an introductory economics class (perhaps because it might be a fairly recent phrase). Or maybe the phrase is not all that recent, perhaps first coming into common use about 15 years ago, such that most introductory economics courses conducted today do mention it. But I really do not know.
      According to the writer of that above-referenced article:

A negative externality occurs when the private cost of some activity, say driving your SUV, is lower than the social cost of that activity (because your driving imposes environmental and congestion costs on the rest of society, which you don’t have to pay). For example, one potential negative externality associated with using fossil fuels is the risk that a deepwater oil rig might blow up and spew oil into the Gulf of Mexico for several months. That’s not a “price” that shows up at the pump. As a result, you drive (or do anything else that generates a negative externality) more than you would if you had to pay its true social costs. This leads to a misallocation of resources — something that markets normally do really well. To correct this externality, economists, whether they work for Clinton or Bush or Obama, tend to support policies, such as a carbon tax, that would increase the price of fossil fuels.   . . . Greg Mankiw, George W. Bush’s chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, even has an informal club for those who have supported higher taxes on polluting activities. It’s called the Pigou Club, after economist Arthur Pigou who first proposed taxing activities that generate a negative externality. (Such taxes are now called Pigovian taxes.) I’m a member. The key point is that anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of markets should understand why we ought to tax carbon-based fuels at a much higher rate than we currently do, particularly if it allows us to lower taxes on productive activities like working and investing.

So, this writer is in favor of “carbon taxes”. Research that I just completed on this concept of “negative externality” has shown me that this concept is usually used to justify increased government involvement in our economy, welfare included. It is stated that many “free market” transactions incur what are called “social costs” that are not accounted for by the “free market”. Therefore only the government can take into account these “social costs” and thus take steps to either pay these costs, reduce them or even to eliminate them, almost always with taxes, laws, and various rules and regulations. That’s an over-simplification, of course. However, I wish to point out one fact which is certainly obvious to me. Governments themselves do not know exactly what the “social costs” are. In fact, they often can not even come close to determining these costs. Furthermore, when governments “take action” in an attempt to take these costs into account, politics comes into play. This means that those individuals and companies whom are favored by politicians often benefit from the politicians, the “social costs” be damned. For example, Obama and his administration favor so-called “green energy” efforts. Many companies now benefit from tax subsidies in one form or another, and yet it is highly debatable to what extent these companies reduce a so-called “social cost”, especially because the magnitude of that “social cost” is never known with any degree of precision. But heck, why worry? If your company produces something that could conceivably be called “green”, why then just donate money to election campaigns for those politicians who are in favor of Obama’s administration, and by all means hire the best lobbyists in Washington to push your “green” products. Does your company have competitors in this matter? Well then, just donate more money to the appropriate political campaigns than do your competitors. Oh, by the way, if you are looking for subsidies which will actually result in lost “opportunity costs” to the extent that they override the supposed benefits of the reduction in “negative externalities”, don’t worry about it! Obama is on your side!

The home page of the web site “Real Clear Politics” shows a list of links to various articles on the web. Each link is described with a brief title, followed by the name of an author and/or the name of a source. These articles consist almost entirely of those devoted to politics and economics, and between two and three dozen are usually referenced. On August 18, 2010, three of the articles were referenced as follows:
      1. Ignore Bigots, Build the Mosque – Philadelphia Inquirer
      2. Courage in the Face of Bigotry – Glenn Greenwald, Salon
      3. GOP Bigotry, Democratic Cowardice – Peter Beinart
All three of the above articles strongly condemned people, especially politicians, who objected to the project to build a “Muslim cultural center” and mosque close to “ground zero” in New York City. Such people were described with words such as “bigots” and “cowards”. For example, the first article referenced above began with the following sentences:

The plan to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque near ground zero in New York has unleashed some of the worst religious bigotry in memory from so-called political leaders. Newt Gingrich, desperate to revive his presidential ambitions, views the proposed mosque as part of a campaign to “destroy our civilization.” Sarah Palin is whipping up sentiment against the plan by arguing it is insensitive to the families of victims of 9/11. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican candidates, who smelled opportunity in the midterm elections when President Obama spoke in favor of the mosque, have denounced the project and the imam behind it. Exploiting anti-Muslim bias for political gain is beyond shameful. Those on the far right purport to be passionate defenders of religious freedom – apparently only as it applies to Christianity.

WHAT ?   Some people, including many if not most Muslims, say that building a “Muslim cultural center” (with mosque) close to “ground zero” is only meant to “show sympathy” for Americans and to show that “Muslims are reaching out” to all Americans. Bullcrap. 19 Muslim men hijacked four commercial airliners on 9/11 and deliberately crashed three of them, causing the deaths of nearly 3000 people, mostly civilians. These Muslim men did that almost entirely because of their devotion to their religion – Islam. Given that fact, to allow a mosque to be built so close to “ground zero” amounts to at least some submission to that foul religion. Whether or not the “leaders” of this project believe it, such a mosque is almost like slapping Americans in the face, or rubbing our American noses into the dirt. By the way, I myself am not at all a religious person. I maintain that all religions, the various “flavors” of Christianity included, are at least partially damaging to western civilization. At the very least, they use valuable human resources for activities (such as attending Church services and bible studies), activities related to what they consider to be their true God and their belief in the supposed afterlife for humans provided by their God. But at this point in time, the religion which is most damaging, most threatening, is clearly Islam. No rational person who takes the time to think about it and who keeps up with current events can deny that latter statement.
      It is true that some politicians are trying to “take advantage of” this situation, but then that is what most politicians do – they try to take advantage of any situation which they believe will further their own political ambitions. But I do not care about that in this situation. I do care about Muslims, any Muslims, building anything related to their religion so close to “ground zero”, especially a mosque, when that very religion which they so revere – Islam – bears major responsibility for the heavy damage caused to the United States and its people on 9/11. More details on my thoughts about this particular mosque can be found in this previous blog post of mine. In that post I do mention that in Saudi Arabia you can not build any church or synagogue anywhere in that country! To those who would reply to that by saying that we in the United States are much, much more tolerant than Saudi Arabia, and that we must continue to demonstrate that by allowing a mosque to be built close to “ground zero”, I say that our country already shows too much tolerance towards all religions, Islam included. But we do not have to go so far so as to show “weakness”, submission and even stupidity in being so “tolerant” that we even allow those who have deliberately damaged our country because of their religion to rub our noses in their vile acts.
    The article referenced as number 2 above has the title “What Political Courage Looks Like”. Unfortunately the article does not mention what would have been political courage on the part of president Obama. When Obama gave his Ramadan dinner speech to a group of Muslims in the White House, he told them that religious freedom in American permits any religious group to build a place of worship on any property that they own. But he could have shown actual political courage by suggesting to this Muslim group that it would be unwise to build a mosque so close to “ground zero” because that would upset many Americans because of the 9/11 attacks so close by. However, such real courage was not shown by Obama. Actually, the title of that article should have been “This is a Politically Stupid Article”. A few sentences in that article read as follows: The developer of the project, Sharif El-Gamal, gave his first interview this afternoon, with NY 1, and categorically refused even to consider backing down. He made clear that Park 51 has the absolute constitutional right to build a community center in Lower Manhattan, and refused even to acknowledge the toxic notion that Muslims generally somehow bear responsibility for the 9/11 attack. Refusing to be bullied in the face of an ugly, national, majoritarian onslaught, egged on by a wide array of national leaders exploiting the most base impulses of the population, is the true definition of political courage. WHAT ?   Note the use of disparaging adjectives in those sentences, such as: “toxic”, “ugly” and “base”. Using those adjectives in the context of that article is what is clearly “toxic” and “ugly”. As to the statement that the notion that “Muslims generally somehow bear responsibility for the 9/11 attack” is “toxic”, I maintain that that notion probably does have a little bit of truth in it, and that it is certainly not a “toxic” notion. It is “toxic” only to the same extent that some “neighbors” may have a bad, “toxic” opinion of a family, such that some parents criticize their children who misbehave by telling them, “What will the neighbors think”? It is “toxic” only to the same extent that some, (or many), foreigners might think badly of Americans, such that American tourists traveling in foreign countries are admonished by the American government not to misbehave in order not to give foreigners ammunition for the “toxic” stereotype of the “Ugly American”. As to Muslims “in general”, does anyone remember the widely-televised videos of Muslims, both men and women, celebrating openly in the streets in the Middle East, hours after the 9/11 attacks? These were supposedly “ordinary” Muslims and not “radical” Muslims, let alone terrorists. Sure, those public celebrations by thousands of Muslims do not prove that Muslims generally bear responsibility for the 9/11 attacks; however, those celebrations clearly demonstrate a mindset held by many if not most Muslims, a mindset which, at the very least, lends encouragement to those “radical” Muslims who wish to attack the West and Western civilization.
      Of some value in this discussion is this article which bears the title: « Why Is It ‘Bigoted’ to Criticize Religion? »

Readers of my blog should know by now that I have had it with president Obama. The latest news about our Dear Leader concerns his activities and statements with regards to that foul religion Islam. Readers may already know that I am not at all a religious person. But of all the major religions I find Islam most offensive and harmful because its beliefs and practices, today in the modern world, are medieval, not civilized and not tolerant. Yes, one can find a few passages in Islam’s “holy book” – the Koran – which appear to show tolerance; but these are negated by other passages in that same often-ridiculous book.
      Obama hosted an “iftar” — the special evening meal observed during Ramadan — last night in the White House. According to this report, Obama’s speech during this Ramadan dinner was to include the following:

Ramadan is a time when Muslims around the world reflect upon the wisdom and guidance that comes with faith, and the responsibility that human beings have to one another, and to God. This is a time when families gather, friends host iftars, and meals are shared. But Ramadan is also a time of intense devotion and reflection – a time when Muslims fast during the day and pray during the night; when Muslims provide support to others to advance opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere.     . . . . These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country.

Is Obama kidding me ?   I’m afraid not, which shows just how much of a jerk this supposedly intelligent man is. Islam played a role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings? WHAT? What garbage. We all know the role women play in Islam, a role which obviously belies any claim to providing for the “dignity of all human beings”. As to “advancing justice and tolerance”, why you can not even build any kind of christian and/or jewish church in a select few Muslim countries, with Saudi Arabia being the prime example! Heck, in Saudi Arabia you can not even worship any religion in public except for Islam. What is even worse, in Saudi Arabia, you can not even go into certain large parts of the country unless you are a Muslim! Almost all of Medina, and all of Mecca and a large part of the country surrounding these “holy” cities are entirely off-limits to non-Muslims! Yep, that is real “tolerance” shown by Islam. And our ridiculous president praises this religion, in public.
      Most people in the United States are now aware of a project to build a Muslim “cultural center” and mosque very close to “ground zero” in New York City. A recent CNN Poll found that 68 percent of the public opposes the project. But NO, during the Ramadan dinner at the White House, our Dear Leader lent support to this Muslim project. Among other things, he said:

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.”

Is Obama kidding me ?   I’m afraid not, which again shows just how much of a harmful jerk this supposedly intelligent man is. Note Obama’s “clever” reference to “local laws and ordinances”; that only reinforces my disgust with this man. Muslims and Muslim leaders who insist upon building a “Muslim cultural center” and mosque near “ground zero” are effectively giving us a “slap in the face”, insulting our intelligence, and actually making a mockery of our “right to religious freedom” by taking such advantage of it. And Obama goes along with it. What a jerk. Hey, tell them they can build their mosque near “ground zero” if, and only if, some christian religion is allowed to build a church anywhere in Mecca! Heck, we will even promise to build the christian church at least 5 miles away from the Masjid al-Haram with its Kaaba shrouded in black cloth – the holiest “place of worship” for Muslims!
      Recall that Obama said during the Ramadan dinner that Islam played a role in advancing “tolerance”. If Muslims and Muslim leaders want to show “tolerance”, they would without a doubt not build a Muslim cultural center and mosque close to “ground zero”; that should be perfectly clear to any rational person.
      I am tired of politicians, pundits and others who make a distinction between what they call “moderate” or “normal” Muslims and what they call “radical” Muslims. Given the very nature of Islam and its holy book the Koran, all Muslims are at least potentially “radical”. Do not forget that Sharia law must rule! Given what I have written above about Obama, he has shown weakness towards Muslims, and that harms our country. It’s as though Obama actually showed “submission” towards Islam, which is probably how many Muslims think of it. Yep, most Muslims probably love that.
      By the way, ex-president Bush was just as much of a jerk when, during the days and weeks after 9/11, Bush participated in several public displays in order to “show respect” and tolerance towards “true” and “moderate” Muslims, since Islam is supposedly a “religion of peace”. If I can believe what is reported on this “christian” web site, President Bush hosted an “Iftar” (Ramadan break-the-fast dinner) the evening of November 19, 2001, at the White House for representatives of some 53 Muslim nations — reportedly the first such gathering at the White House. Yes, I can believe it, since I found other web sites, such as this one, which reported on that. What a jerk Bush was to do that.