NewThinking

"Michael Moore's Action Plan: 15 Things Every American Can Do Right Now" | MichaelMoore.com

2009-10-22T15:52:00.000-04:00

"Michael Moore's Action Plan: 15 Things Every American Can Do Right Now" | MichaelMoore.com

OpEdNews - Article: Are You a Progressive or a Conservative? Are You Sure?

2009-09-24T14:09:00.001-04:00

OpEdNews - Article: Are You a Progressive or a Conservative? Are You Sure?

Posted using ShareThis

My new novel - Neitherworld

2008-12-25T17:02:00.000-05:00

Check out my new 2 volume novel, Neitherworld, available on Amazon.

Kirkus Discoveries said of Book One:

"Blending Native American myth, archaeological detail, government conspiracy and a sci-fi flair, Baker covers a lot of ground, but does so with dexterity and grace. The author populates this unique story with alien civilizations, 17th-century Ojibwe shamans, shady government agents and professional archaeologists. In doing so, Baker tries to tap numerous niche audiences...Baker is a talented writer and an adept syncretist. Akiiwan begins in the 1600s, during which time a talented Native American shaman--Voice-in-the-Sky--is contacted by members of an alien race who are interested in living with the Ojibwe people and sharing with them their secrets and talents. Fast-forward to the modern day, when government agents hire skilled archaeologist Samantha Horner to learn more about Voice-in-the-Sky and the mysterious powers he may have possessed. But from the moment her excavation begins, strange occurrences--violent storms, unexpected attacks on crew members and baffling disappearances--suggest to Horner that something strange is afoot. Baker tells Horner's tale with a skillful ease. His prose is elegant and precise and his descriptions--both of his characters and of the natural world--are beautiful and evocative."

And of Book Two:

"Few are the fantasies so peculiar and satisfying as this, a deliciously weird mix of alien races, Native American culture and government intrigue. Ishpiming picks up where the first in Baker's NeitherWorld series (Akiiwan, 2007) left off. This time around is the story of archaeologist Samantha Horner, an Ojibwe expert called in to excavate a singularly unique site in Minnesota. The site--which not incidentally piques the interest of crooked U.S. government agents--houses the body of 17th-century shaman Voice-in-the-Sky, a Native American leader who made contact with an alien race. Ten-year-old Orenda--herself a descendent of Voice-in-the-Sky--has mysteriously transported Horner and members of her dig team to a far-off world. Only here does Horner come to realize that the conflicts surrounding her excavation have taken on interstellar import. Dangers multiply, and Horner and her team learn that the nefarious designs of corrupt Washington bureaucrats are the least of their problems, for humanity is endangered by the Lupok, an alien race hell-bent on conquering Earth and enslaving all who live there. This volume is an even stranger and more ambitious work than its predecessor. Filled with strange creatures, extraterrestrial landscapes and a startling array of alien races vying for galactic ascendancy, Ishpiming taxes the imagination. But much to the author's credit, readers will remain entranced by this strange new world. Like the best fantasy authors, Baker has a knack for fleshing out his marvelous creations, making the oddest of creatures--e.g., the eerie pink caterpillars that inhabit the NeitherWorld--as real and believable as his human characters. He has a strong faith in the power of his fiction, and that faith is strangely infectious. An audacious but thoroughly enthralling fantasy."

Redrawing the Lines in the Sand: a new Approach to solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict

2008-12-24T16:51:00.000-05:00

Redrawing the Lines in the Sand: a new Approach to solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict

I'm 50 and this conflict has literally been going on longer than I've been alive. There have been ebbs and flows, ground gained and lost, population shifts, but no new progress. I've come to the conclusion nothing will change unless we change the parts of the equation drastically. I take a 30,000-foot look at this, and most, problems of the world and I believe in turning problems into solutions and in synergy. Keeping that in mind, here is what I see and propose:

The Palestinian people are now de facto split into two regions. For simplicity, let's take the most violent region - Gaza - for now. The basic problem, beneath all the rhetoric and mutual blame is this:
The militants launch missiles, almost daily, and then Israel, understandably alarmed, retaliates with superior force. Geographically, Israel controls access to Gaza from the sea, north, and east, but not south, which is where a lucrative tunneling business keeps the Gaza militants supplied with weapons to fire on Israel. Egypt intervenes only lightly, if pressed, and mostly not at all, because their own population would not stand for them blocking the "tunnel trade" to protect their cold enemy, Israel.
OK, here's how you turn a problem into a solution, though I admit all parties would howl at first suggestion of this.
America should broker a deal to redraw Israel's southern border 50 miles south of Gaza, relocating Egyptian villagers away from there, with money and rebuilding support and in coordination with Egypt.
The benefit for Egypt: Egypt gets this mess off their back door. They can still be pro-Palestine, and anti-Israel, but with only a border with Israel, their peace treaty with that country would apply. They would not have to worry about tunnelers; that would be Israel's new problem. The Muslim Brotherhood etc. would protest, but in the end, they will neither attack Israel, nor do anything more to destabilize Egypt than they are already doing, and if humanitarian aid is provided by the United States (see below), that should mitigate some of this protest.
The benefit for Israel: Control over the access points where weapons are smuggled and eventual reduction in violence through de facto reduction in the factors that cause it (missile parts and guns). Also, perhaps, a chance to move settlers to these new lands and off the West Bank, so that the West Bank might truly become a Palestinian state someday.
The benefit for Gaza Palestinians: Not obvious at first, but there can never be peace if the militants are allowed to fire into Israel indefinitely. This “lifestyle” choice has to end so that a true building up of the bankrupt Gaza economy and an end to the blockade can begin. America, as well as Israel, can help with this, but the shooting has to stop first. This is a war and it has to end before peace can begin.
The benefit for the United States: Taking control of the situation in a novel way that brings peace to both sides would be an immeasurable coup for America, worth almost any price. It would end the “cause,” manipulated by Iran and Syria for their own ends. It would provide a true way forward, and repudiate the poorly drawn and forever controversial British lines in the sand.

I’m too old to have much hope that the current dance will ever accomplish anything, except maybe by accident, or worse, by horrific miscalculation costing thousands or millions of lives.

Solving the Derivative collapse

2008-09-17T12:20:00.000-04:00

The next president will have the opportunity to assume FDR-like powers. The first thing he should do is to declare all derivatives placed outside of legally regulated markets (90%) null and void. These "bets" - worth $180 trillion according the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in America alone, and up to $450 trillion worldwide - could not have been made in regulated markets because the players did not have sufficient collateral. If the parties object to the elimination of their derivative bets, they should be reminded of the penalty for fraud. Because for every buyer there is a seller, the amounts lost would zero out and no one would gain an advantage. We would just get to reset the clock. What's causing the panic in the markets right now is the realization that the losers have insufficient money to pay the winners. The domino effect of multiple collapses cannot be stemmed by any government, even by running the printing press overtime. The only solution is to wipe them off the books and ensure these bets are never made again by sending those who make them in the future to jail.

Solving the Iranian Crisis peacefully

2008-08-04T11:21:00.001-04:00

Bush continues his relentless march to war, at any cost. Now that he's checked off his to-do list "Talk to Iran," he'll continue pressuring the rest of the world for sanctions. This will continue to get us precisely nowhere, as China will continue to buy Iranian oil, and Russia will continue "doing business" with Iran, whatever THAT means. Then, after election day, when all this chest-thumping all but ensures an Obama victory, Bush will act the spoilsport and either give the green light to Israel to bomb, or make some sort of cross-border incursion into Iran in the name of defending Iraq that will virtually guarantee an Iranian military counter-response, and then it's off to a full middle east war and $200+ oil.
Sanctions won't work - unless the world is willing to stop buying Iranian oil, and stop shipping them refined gasoline. Nothing else matters much at this point.

Here's another way:
1. Acknowledge, as even Dick Chenney did in his unguarded moments, that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the NNPT they signed. Of course, we need MUCH better inspection capability and that really is a basis for negotiations.
2. Make a formal declaration that we will respond with full military force if Iran attacks Israel - i.e. we will "wipe Iran off the map." If it comes to that, I think even the arabs will not blame us for destroying such a dangerous neighbor.
3. Continue to assist Israel in every security measure they need, and make it publically known we are doing so.
4. Investigate and encourage Iran to develop alternative nuclear power producing methods that do not produce plutonium, such as pebble bed reactors. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
We have to keep up with the latest technology, especially when it can lead to a more peaceful world. This technology is proven, more efficient, and less dangerous to operate and doesn't produce plutonium which can be used in nuclear weapons. God/Allah help us if McCain gets elected; ha can't even "do a google" as he puts it.

I've given up expecting innovative solutions form this administration. I hope we can avoid WWIII until the next one.

The Atheist's Lament

2007-12-07T17:01:00.000-05:00

I get so tired of holier-than-thou holy men like Mitt Romney (what kind of name is Mitt anyway?), preaching that you have to believe in Him (not Her) in order to be a moral person. People have committed and ARE committing the worst imaginable atrocities in the name of religion. Religion gives one an excuse to do anything to one's fellow human beings. Perhaps that's what makes it so enduring - that, plus the promise to eliminate the certainty of Personal Extinction, to ascribe conscious intent to random events (or, at least events where we can answer the "How" but never the "Why" because there is no intelligence behind them), and that somehow, there is fairness in the universe, though, oh boy, it can be awfully mysterious. It's been shown that Atheists are no less moral than anyone else - and perhaps slightly MORE moral. That's not surprising given thelatest scientific discoveries that show morality is hard-wired into the human brain, except in the case of sociopaths and certain church leaders. Think of it this way: if you believe in God, you can always blame Him, or better yet, the Devil, for making you do something. But if you believe there is no God, the buck stops with You.

Pay for being well

2007-05-31T14:28:00.000-04:00

I just read an interesting statistic - 5% of Americans are responsible for 49% of America's health care costs. We need to tip the balance somehow. Here's an idea:
Instead of having an HMO industry that makes money by kicking people off the benefits roles, why not incentivize them to take on the sickest by rewarding them for making such individuals better? For example, take a diabetic man who's overweight, doesn't exercise and doesn't go in for regular checkups. If the HMO could convince him to change his behavior, his health would improve and the HMO and the taxpayer (ultimately and indirectly) would save money through reduced healthcare. Government could pay the HMO to provide an incentive for them to take on such patients. It wouldn't be cheap, but neither is caring for chronic diabetics, especially if you figure in the indirect costs - missed workdays, care by family members (and their missed workdays) etc. Maybe the HMOs could provide some of their incentive directly to the patient as HIS incentive. I don't know, but the creative business people ought to be able to come up with something. I don't know what the breakeven point is, but given that chronic health debilitating conditions exist disproportionately among the poor, a relatively modest reward for staying well might be effective. And no, the reward of being healthy is apparently not enough.

I am not idealogically right or left - I am only interested in programs that work. What do you think?

Solving the Health Care crisis with Healthier Americans

2007-03-23T15:50:00.000-04:00

It always amazes me that when people talk about an energy policy solution, or a solution to the Middle East's basket of crisises, they talk about a comprehensive solution, but when it comes to health care, it's always about how to pay for medical care - as if sickness and disease were inevitable facts of life, especially as one gets older, and we just had to decide how to cover it.
They are not, and deciding who should pay is not the main issue either.
Before you say human nature is too intractable to change, consider: in two generations, the number of Americans who smoke has declined by roughly 2/3 while the number of overweight Americans has increased by about the same amount. Leaving aside the speculation the first change somehow caused the second, it does show that mass changes in behavior are possible - in the first case for the better and in the second case for the worse, but both grand scale changes nonetheless. Furthermore, it's no secret that the fastest rising diseases are caused by lifestyle choices (if choice is really the right word when you live in a neighborhood with nothing but fast food joints and bodegas that sell food by the sugar load, or go to a school where lunch comes from a vending machine and gym has been eliminated due to budget cutbacks).
Get rid of smoking, overweight, and get more people to exercise and wear seatbelts and you could pretty much eliminate the health care crisis. Don't, and there's no amount of financial finagling that will fix it. If people are too uncomfortable with cutting people off from health care when their misbehavior lands them in the hospital, then how about the reverse: pay people who get and stay healthy. How much would the average person require annually to go the gym regularly, stop smoking (or never start), and keep a healthy BMI? $1,000/year? $5,000/year? The point is we really don't know. Maybe it would pay to pay for health. The cost of paying for diadetes, in contrast, can run into the hundreds of thousands, take years or decades to play out, and ultimately end in misery. It's as thinkless to treat as it is awful to have, yet their is a fairly simple solution to type II diabetes at least - watch your diet and don't be overweight. We could also pay neighborhood gyms to set up exercise classes for the overweight who might not pay to join otherwise. Yes, I know, it smacks of the dreaded S word - Socialism - but in practical terms it costs less to keep someone healthy than to treat them after they've become sick. And let's not fool ourselves into thinking they will not be treated - eventually - and then at great cost in health and wealth.
I also believe the fourth R - Recreational Fitness - needs to be stressed in school as much as the other three Rs. Too many kids are waddling between classes, slugish and inattentive, with no experience with the positive body and mind building routine of exercise and sport. Again, pay a little now or pay much more later.
All of these changes in behavior would have to be verifiable of course, and we have to resist turning America into the Nanny state, but the fact is we can't carry people who don't act in their own self-interests. Like everything else, people become motivated when it hits them in the pocketbook. Most experts agree we will simply be unable to pay our healthcare - e.g. Medicare - in 20 years as well as our other budget requirements, like say, National Defense, unless we act now to curb the problem. Plus we need a healthier, more vigorous population to compete in today's global marketplace.
Nifty("div.genericSCorner","top");

Why we should get out of Iraq - NOW!

2007-03-09T11:59:00.000-05:00

Many, even in the supposedly enlightened newly elected Democratic Congress still don't get it. They think that by leaving Iraq, we are cutting and running. This is why they can barely muster themselves to pass a bill compelling a withdrawl in fall of 2008. With the usual Bush stalling tactics, this effectively means he will get his wish to pass this war onto the next administration. Here is why we should leave immediately - within three months (We do need a little time to make an orderly withdrawl and protect our forces along the way).
First, the premise that by leaving we are "losing" is wrong. As a recent intra-government agency report pointed out, among others, Al-Queda and its like are a relatively small part of the factional violence in Iraq. The rest are 1400 year old religious factions (Sunnis, Shiites), criminal gangs, and foreign interlopers. Therefore we cannot *lose* to the home-grown terrorists anymore than we can lose to any other particular faction by leaving - since none of them are in a position to win Iraq in the first place. Al-Queda, by the very nature of their anarchistic, nihilistic philosophy, can never govern anything more than a training camp.
Second, this is not the war we were promissed. We were told we would be fighting to rid that section of the world of WMD, but none were found. Then we were told we were fighting to get rid of Saddam, but he is long deposed and now dead. The American people, and even Congress, has never agreed to fight to bring Democracy to Iraq, and never would have if we had been told the truth.
Third, we owe the Iraqis nothing at this point. This is harsh, but the reality is, getting rid of Saddam is more than any country should expect of another. If they can't govern themselves, it is not our role to do so. Our own General Patreaus, among others, admit no solution is possible without political settlements. So if we are not going to use our dwindling leverage in the political sphere, then why bother? And as one Iraqi minister put it, "if (we) are not willing to let one side lose (presumably the Sunnis), this thing will just go on forever." Tough love perhaps, but consider this too: there are really very few innocent Iraqis left who haven't been either killed or forced to flee in the general Middle Class exodus to neighboring countries. After all, are you really innocent if you rasie your children to blindly follow the will of the Iman, or - if you have a daughter - to instill in her that she must follow her man, no matter how violent and destructive he is. If the women in Iraq refused to go along, to support their men and rasie their sons to be violent martyrs, I wonder how nihilistic the next generation would be. As for the fathers, just because they have become too old to pick up a gun doesn't mean they are innocent. It is to the elders that we look for the values of wisdom, restraint and compromise. The average age of greater Arabia is 15 - is it any wonder the vast army of disaffected, unemployed youth and angry and violent?
Fourth, every Sunnis jihadist who kills a Shiite or vice versa is making a gift to us. If the civil war does widen, that would be a *good* thing, not a bad thing, in that more angry muderous young men would purge themselves. There is no place in the modern world for backward, nihilistic, ignorent thugs like these. If they would rather die than live with anyone who disagrees with them, I say bring it on. It's also time the Saudis, Syrians etc. started to reap what they've sown. Why should we spill American blood and dollars to protect their elitist lifestyles? In many Arab countries, foreigners do all the work, for relative pennies a day, while their elitist masters pray five times a day and do other useless activities that do nothing to advance their cultures.
Fifth, if oil supplies are disrupted this would be a good thing for America in the long run because it would finally force us to invest in alternative technologies, which is a triple win - good for the world because:
A. it deprives the starry-eyed Middle East potentates of our petrodollars, which it then dispenses into useless Madrasses instead of creating jobs and a thriving economy (we must stop funding both sides of the war), and
B. It begins to reverse the potentially devestating rise of greenhouse gases by redirecting our energy sources to sustainable non-polluting sources, and
C. It stimulates the rise of green industries here in the U.S. Anyone who thinks we can all just become an investor class, spreading our wealth all over the globe while every other country does all the hard work, should take a look at the post-Columbus downfall of Spain, among other cultures. As Bill Gates recently pointed out to Congress, we are neither producing enough educated engineers and science majors, nor are we importing them from other countries. Meanwhile, we are squandering our precious wealth in "foreign entanglements" rather than investing in a greater return-on-brainpower (ROB) here at home. America is not the world leader it thinks it is and we need to return our resources to where they can do the most good.

It's too bad George Bush and his administration has so little faith in the American people and their ability to innovate and change course. He is *not* pro-growth, he is pro-big business (oil) and big money. Fortunately, I believe the American people will solve our energy dependence despite government interference and ineptness, and a moderately disfunctional education system, but unfortunately, many more prime American men and women will have to die in the useless war before that happens.

Buy the crop in Afghanistan

2007-03-06T12:57:00.000-05:00

The surge no one is talking about: Afghanistan this Spring.

As Bush prods NATO into a renewed attack on the embedded Taliban this Spring - a surge which has already cost scores of innocent Afghan lives as well as those of our own troops - it's worth asking if there is not another way. Another way to curb the Taliban influence that does not involve shooting people.

History is helpful here. In the 1970s, Turkey was the largest supplier of Heroin in the world. Then, the United States got smart and just started buying the poppy crop - we still do. The government sold it to U.S. pharmaceutical firms to make legitimate drugs - remember, there are no bad plants, only bad uses for plants. The drug cartel lost control of Turkey and today Turkey is one of our staunchist allies in the Middle East.

Facts from the CIA world fact site etc: The GDP of Afghanistan in 2006 was something under 40 billion. 60% of Taliban monies come directly from poppy production. Growing food staples is either uneconomic for the average afghan farmer, or outright forbidden by the Taliban militia who control the rural regions.

We should buy the crop - all of it - from the Afghan farmers. This would:
A. End 60% of Taliban income immediately.
B. Put us on the side of the Afghan farmer instead of us making war upon him. Hearts and minds...
C. Put a serious dent in the Heroin trade - a concern for Russia and Europe as well as us, and they blame us for the current drug problem.
D. Allow us to influence the Afghanistan people by becoming their respectful partner instead of their bullying enemy (there is something extremely unseemly about a country of our size, might, and moral stature going around burning the fields and dropping bombs on subsistence farmers in a desperately poor country).

Bush's answer to foreign policy seems to be to either go to war or threaten to. There are other answers (many of them, in fact) IF people are willing to examine history and be creative.

Sinai - Israel's biggest blunder

2007-01-30T10:48:00.000-05:00

The history of Israel will record 1979 as the year Israel made its biggest geographical mistake in returning the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for the coldest possible peace. In fairness, its erstwhile friends including the United States and France, pressured it to do so. But the fact remains, Israel would be energy independent, would have more than double its land space (think Texas instead of New Jersey), would have at least partial control over the Suez canal - making it a de facto partner with Egypt, instead of having Egypt as its smoldering enemy, would have been able to stop the infiltration of arms into the Gaza strip instead of relying on Egypt to do it (which they haven't), and would be in a far better position to deflect the charge of being merely a "cancer" in greater Arabia made by Ahmadinajad et al. One of the reasons Israel finds itself in the precarious position it is in today is that there is too *little* Israel, not because there is too *much* Israel.

If this administration was really a friend of Israel, it would broker a three way deal to buy most or all of the Sinai back from Egypt by making guaranteed loans to Israel. Unlike Iraq, which is peopled by thugs with a bankrupt ideology, Israel could be counted on to develop this new resource to its utmost potential, including the oil we can't seem to get enough of, and repay us in a couple of decades, with regional security as a bonus.

Of course, in the meantime, Israel needs to stop giving away pieces of itself - and this includes the Gaza strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Historical arguments notwithstanding, the fact is, dozens of countries have come and gone in the time the Palestinians claim their territory has been "occupied." It's time to take a firm stand and redraw the map, and wipe the Palestinian territories off of it.

Ending the Iraq Crisis

2006-12-23T05:53:00.000-05:00

The war is not now, nor probably ever, primarilly a battle against terrorists, though they may be there to exploit the opportunity to rally against the West. It is primarilly a continuation of the 1300 year old grudge of Shite against Sunni. Most people now understand that Iraq is a lost cause, begun under false pretenses, and that it is not worth losing more American lives and money over. Personally, I can think of nothing better than allowing Shite Iran to meet Sunni Suadi Arabia and Syria in a grand conflagration with their bretheren in The-Country-Formerly-Known-As-Iraq and let their young ignorent hotheaded men kill each other off. I figure 10 to 20 million deaths should calm them down a little. There is precident for this in the Iran-Iraq war of the 80s, which petered out when both sides ran out of bodies to throw at each other. This is how things are resolved in the primitive arab nations, where no one is truely innocent and revenge is always sweeter than justice (actually, it's the same thing to the arab mind).

As for terrorist camps being set up in what used to be Iraq, let them build. At least we'll know where to drop the bombs. After all, it took us less than a week to wipe Afghanistan (remember them?) clean of terrorist camps. Our forces should protect us from terrorists, yes, but let's stop trying to nation build. History shows we never do it well anyway. Maybe in thirty years, we can look back at the Middle East, as we are at Vietnam, and wonder what all the worry was about. After all, Vietnam was supposed to be the first in a long string of dominos that would lead to world wide communism. Now, they're a primary trading partner taking on China's outsourcing and selling directly to America. It could happen in the Middle East too, but only if we allow nature to take its course.

Oh, and one more thing. The Pallestian situation has nothing to do with the Iraq rebellions. Does anyone seriously think Iraq would quiet down if there was a country of Pallestine? Just the opposite, since the Jihadis would be emboldened. No, we need to support Israel, give them almost anything they want, and start considering the so-called West Bank and Gaza as simply their bad neighborhoods, to do with as they will. It's been nearly 40 years since the 67 war. It's time to accept those areas as part of Israel. Entire countries have been recognized in much less time. Let the arabs help the Pallestians cope or relocate there, if they have anything left over after hating each other.

Should Government get out of the marriage business?

2006-10-26T12:07:00.000-04:00

I've long thought government should get out of the marriage business - confining itself instead to legal civil unions. Since only consenting and competent adults are eligible to sign legal contracts, such as a civil union, that would eliminate minors and other people not able to make responsible choices. As for what goes on in the bedrooms, I take a libertarian view: Don't Ask, Don't Care. Frankly, people should be embarrassed to make judgments on other people's sex lives. Have they no shame?

As for Marriage, it should encompass all the legal rights and responsibilities of civil unions, but also add whatever moral and cultural strictures the Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Shopping Malls etc. see fit to add. Let the free market decide what are the most popular arrangements. Let people have choice.

Re-elect Bill Clinton

2006-09-21T00:05:00.000-04:00

I was thinking of setting up a site dedicated to reelecting Bill Clinton - the Clinton America *really* wants for President. Here are some of my initial observations for discussion.

1. The 22 Amendment. Let's get rid of this impediment first. The Democrats have a good chance of capturing the house. Many or most of the state Governors will be democratic. This is a good opportunity to push for repeal of the 22nd amendment barring a President from seeking a third term. Think it can't be done? The 18th amendment to prohibit the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages lasted from 1920-1933 before it was repealed. It will take 3/4 of the states to do this, but see the comment on the state Governors above. In 1951, 4 years after it was proposed in Congress, the 22 amendment was passed limiting the President to two terms, plus less than two years of another one if he or she assumed office for a partial term.

Why?

Because Congress decided the American people had to be saved from electing a Benevolent Dictator. As if! Was the country so harmed by electing F.D.R. for three full terms and part of a fourth? No, he is remembered as one of our greatest presidents, and probably the President who save the country from imploding during the Great Depression with the New Deal, and guided us through most of World War two.
Since then the American people have shown great capacity for throwing the bums out:
Harry Truman - served the rest of Roosevelt’s term and was elected in 1948
Dwight Eisenhower - two terms, but he decided not to run for a third even though he could have due to a loophole in the 22 amendment for the sitting President (him), based on low poll numbers.
John Kennedy - Assassinated in first term, but probably would have won a second. Would that have been so bad? Would you rather have…
Lyndon Johnson - served the rest of Kennedy’s term and one on his own. It was front page news when he took himself out of the running for 1968 rather than run for a second full term because of the quagmire of Viet Nam. That led to…
Richard Nixon - 1969-1974. Barely into his second term, he was undone by Watergate. On the other hand, he opened up China to the west, began the E.P.A., signed the endangered species act and got us out of Viet Nam. Except for Watergate, maybe he could have been a three termer? Given what George Bush has done, some would argue Nixon was a whole lot cleaner and more progressive.
Gerald Ford - the end of Nixon’s term, though never elected to either the Presidency or Vice Presidency, but the American people failed to re-elect him, choosing instead a peanut farmer named…
Jimmy Carter - who served one term. Interestingly, Jimmy Carter served as the role model for Bill Clinton when he left office more than anyone else - so says a recent article in New Yorker Magazine about Bill Clinton today. But he was defeated after one term by…
Ronald Reagan - two solid terms and it’s possible he could have been elected to a third, but Alzheimer’s certainly would have cut it short. These are the chances we take, but remember, Reagan was the oldest President in history.
George H.W. Bush - a one termer, though from the perspective of history, he will almost certainly go down as a much better President than his son, George W.
Bill Clinton - the Man! Two terms of the greatest economic prosperity the country has ever known in the 20th century - yes, even better for more people than the roaring twenties. A soaring stock market, a balanced budget with a small surplus, controlled foreign entanglements with clear goals and accomplishments, and the lowest unemployment in history. He could have won a third term in a walk. Technically, his Vice President, Al Gore, actually did, but the Supreme Court took a long weekend and effectively ceded the election to George W. Bush. Maybe we could reunite the team with Al Gore? Instead, thanks to the pesky 22nd Amendment, this is who we have today…
George W. Bush - two terms. Would he run for a third if able? Probably, but Clinton could defeat him in a walk. Politically, I don’t think we’ll get the 22nd amendment repealed without giving the Republicans a chance to run Bush again - if they dare. Bill Clinton’s approval ratings hover somewhere near twice George W. Bush’s.

2. The Hillary problem is not necessarily a problem at all. Hopefully, she will be in position to become the de facto Majority leader in the U.S. Senate. Even if the Democrats fail to take the Senate, she can be a powerful force when reelected. Hey, she’ll be sleeping with the President! Also, she could eliminate the perception she’s an opportunist simply by doing the statesman like thing and supporting the choice the people want in 2008. Then, in 2012, when her term happens to end, she could run for President with two solid terms as Senator behind her. Let’s be honest here, folks, she cannot win. She won’t play outside the northeast and the very bluest of states, and yes, she’s a woman. She’s a woman at a time when our enemies are the most misogynist regimes on Earth. Do we really want to scale that mountain now? While she’s running to prove a point, McCain will get elected. Instead, she can do what’s best for the country and satisfy the stand-by-your-man crowd in the red states too. Hey, they’re out there and Bill will need them too. Also, Bill is warm, she’s cold. Bill is worldly, she’s New Yorky. Bill never met anyone he didn’t like, with her you can’t tell if she likes you or not.

3. Monica - it’s going to come up. Listen to Bill talk about that episode. Listen closely because he’s a lot more discrete than the country was over this. Personally, I would have rather never have known. F.D.R. had an affair. So did Kennedy. Jefferson had a child with a slave, for crying out loud. But Bill Clinton has managed to say that he almost died before his heart surgery, and that he’s 60 now, whenever Monica comes up. He’s telling us, in clear terms, that the days of youthful indiscretion are behind him and he will behave. Ask yourself, who’s more truthful - the man who lied about a highly personal affair, or the man who led us into an intractable war under false pretenses?

4. Bill Clinton has already gone on record as saying the 22nd Amendment should be modified to allow a President to run again after an interval from the end of his second term. Is 8 years long enough?

5. There is already a proposal to repeal the 22nd amendment in the House! See it here and write your Congressperson and Senator:
=====
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
(Introduced in House)
HJ 24 IH109th CONGRESS
1st SessionH. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 17, 2005
Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:`Article --`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

I could go on - and maybe I will on a site if I have the time and expertise to set one up. In the meantime, please share your thoughts.

Doctrine of Enforced Humanitarianism

2006-07-28T03:27:00.000-04:00

I've been reading articles on Darfur for some time, and those of other "human catastrophe zones" such as nearby Chad may be becoming. I don't think any of the present approaches will solve the current genocide in Darfur. They are all too little, too meek and too badly defined. First, do the nations with the power to change things really care? If not, they should own up to it and say, "well, this is a tragedy, but that's life - for those in that part of the world anyway - and there is not much we can do about it." That wouldn't be a noble position of course, but it would be an honest one. If they do want to do something, there should be a hard and effective policy. I've even come up with a name for such a policy - I call it the Doctrine of Enforced Humanitarianism (DEH).
It would work something like this: in any region or country where there is no rule of law, where there is systemic violation of the most basic human rights not to be tortured, raped or killed, where there is international recognition of these problems and recognition that these conditions will not or cannot be rectified by the government of the area, then the international community has a right, even an obligation, to go in and enforce these basic human rights - even at the point of violating national sovereignty. The last point is key because it gives an international force the authority to set up protected zones where people will be safe, and even be able to function and scratch out some sort of subsistence living. What to do if, in Darfur's case, the Janjaweed attack?

Shoot them.

I'm serious. Let the Sudanese government protest, if they dare. They can't stop the slaughter (I'm being charitable here since it's more like they *won't* stop the slaughter) so the world should. Of course, the U.S. being the biggest military power in the world, would have a disproportionate role in things. We should make clear we are not in there to take over the country under DEH rules - which would be carefully spelled out in the U.N. - but merely to preserve lives and provide stability in those regions where neither can be expected. Some form of village government might have to be set up by local leaders - provided they renounce violence and leave policing and protection to the international force. The DEH would go on as long as necessary.

A de facto "second state" might arise if it went on long enough. So be it. When a government fails in the most basic protection of its citizens, it renounces its right to govern those citizens, according to the Doctrine of Enforced Humanitarianism.

Anything short of a hard and uncompromising solution like this, in my opinion, is destined to fail.

Interest Rate Hikes cause Inflation

2005-06-17T04:08:00.000-04:00

Conclusion: Interest Rate Hikes are a cost of doing business that, while business is still growing, can and are passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices, which by definition, equals inflation.

When does the Fed raise interest rates? When the economy is expanding and "needs" to be cooled off, right? Right. And when the economy is expanding it is because the businesses that drive it are expanding, meaning they have some pricing power. Now, business might prefer not to raise prices, just as they certainly would prefer not to borrow money to expand at the higher cost of borrowing, but when the economy is still strong, and when their competitors are subject to the same federal policy, they can and do borrow money, and can and will pass that cost on to the consumer. Why not - after all, they judge that things are good and their customers can afford to pay a little more. Well...

Higher prices = Inflation.

So, if interest rates are the price of money, then the fed is causing inflation in the cost of money.

Since the economy is very elastic, it can absorb these higher costs for a while, before the cumulative effect becomes overwhelming (usually when it's least expected), causing a rebellion by the consumer and a consequent slowdown in spending. This causes businesses to sell less, reduce output, layoff workers, contract and all the known effects of a contractionary - or in the worst case, recessionary - cycle.

The Fed gets us into Recessions, every time it overshoots by raising rates - which is nearly always. Rates were raised too much in 2000 - at which, in retrospect, was the peak of the Y2K/tech bubble (I have some personal experience with this since, as an IT manager at the time, I could buy ANYTHING if I claimed it would help my employer survive the Y2K challenge). Then, rates were dropped too low, giving us the housing bubble. Then, they were raised too high, just as that bubble was bursting. Commodity prices are rising now, presaging new inflationary forces. The Fed will probably be too late to stop that too.

Solution: Let growth, competition and innovation reduce the pressure to increase prices when demand exceeds supply.

In today's very fast moving modern economy, there is little to fear from short term (1-6 months) price inflation. High returns on goods and services always open the way to innovative ways of doing things - cheaper. The Fed almost never needs to raise rates significantly above the rate of inflation, and should spend its time measuring inflation accurately. Measuring inflation accurately is especially challenging in a service economy where even profound innovations become rapidly commoditized - e.g. computers and software, mutual funds, energy production etc.

There is always a new innovative way of doing things that is better, cheaper and more efficient. By raising rates onerously - that is, significantly beyond the rate of inflation - the Fed takes money primarily away from those who need it most; the startups, inventors and entrepreneurs who would invigorate the economy, and not from the established, high cash flow, large companies, who have deep reserves and do not need to borrow as heavily. In other words, by charging excessive interest rates, the Fed discourages innovation and change and encourages the status quo and stagnation (stagflation too).

Let innovation drive down inflation, not punishing interest rates. Specifically, figure out the historical spread between inflation and interest rates since the modern economy began in WWII, adjust rates quarterly on a specific date using a transparent formula to end the Guess-what-the-Fed-will-do-today game, and let innovation work its magic in between. This will produce a smoother stock and bond market, thereby attracting more investment and slightly higher returns overall as risk is reduced and risk-averse investors are drawn in.

Isn't it about time we move away from having a multi-trillion dollar market subject to the whims of one unelected official?

NewThinking

"Michael Moore's Action Plan: 15 Things Every American Can Do Right Now" | MichaelMoore.com

OpEdNews - Article: Are You a Progressive or a Conservative? Are You Sure?

My new novel - Neitherworld

Redrawing the Lines in the Sand: a new Approach to solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict

Solving the Derivative collapse

Solving the Iranian Crisis peacefully

The Atheist's Lament

Pay for being well

Solving the Health Care crisis with Healthier Americans

Why we should get out of Iraq - NOW!

Buy the crop in Afghanistan

Sinai - Israel's biggest blunder

Ending the Iraq Crisis

Should Government get out of the marriage business?

Re-elect Bill Clinton

Doctrine of Enforced Humanitarianism

Interest Rate Hikes *cause* Inflation

Interest Rate Hikes cause Inflation