The following article is largely the product of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and is taken and edited from their web site. My additions to its text are displayed in italics.
The article as amended argues from a legal perspective. No one doubts that the cultural influence of Christianity has helped shape our society from its colonial beginnings to the present day. So too have Israel, ancient Greece and Rome, the Renaissance, English common law and the Enlightenment thought of John Locke and others.
The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, We the people, and contains no mention of God or Christianity. Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust (Article VI), and Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). These added bits of ritual are the inventions of politicians more wily than thoughtful.
In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under his successor, John Adams. The Constitution explicitly declares that treaties, so submitted and ratified, are the supreme law of the land. This treaty is so unremarkable that few histories even bother to mention it.
What about the Declaration of Independence?
We are not governed by the Declaration, nor is it a law. Its purpose was to dissolve the political bonds with the British monarchy, not to set up a religious nation. It . . . was based on the idea that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.
The references to Nature's God, Creator, and Divine Providence in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural. He even edited his own copy of the New Testament to delete references to Jesus’ so called miracles from the virgin birth to the resurrection, and to excise references to Jesus’ divinity. Copies of “The Jefferson Bible” (Beacon Press) can be found for sale online using www.bookfind.com.
What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?
The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were Pilgrims seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?
Roger Williams, a Puritan preacher and a separatist from the Church of England, arrived in Boston in 1631, resolved to follow his own conscience in matters of faith. He left in the dead of winter, one step ahead of the colonial authorities, and with a few disciples founded Providence, Rhode Island, in 1636, the first place in modern history where citizenship and religion were separated. Well before Jefferson, “Williams was the first to use the phrase ‘wall of separation’ to describe the relationship of church and state” (Wikipedia). In time his growing congregation became the first in the country to term itself “Baptist.”
Others soon joined him, notably Ann Hutchinson and her followers. In 1658 15 Jewish families founded a congregation near by and so prospered that, a century later, they built the Turo synagogue in Newport, where it still stands and continues as a place of worship (See Historic Preservation Magazine, Nov/Dec 2011).
Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the wrong faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanting no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.
Do the words separation of church and state appear in the Constitution?
The phrase, a wall of separation between church and state, was used again by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words separation of church and state do not appear in the Constitution; neither do separation of powers, interstate commerce, right to privacy, and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles, derived from court decisions on the common law principle of stare decisis.
What does separation of church and state mean?
Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.
The Supreme Court has forged a three-part Lemon test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.
A law must have a secular purpose.
It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority. It has kept government from ever establishing one form of Christianity as the Church of the United States, as in England and, once again, in Russia.
What about majority rule?
America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.
Not only is it un American for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.
Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion?
No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches, temples and mosques abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.
Some countries, such as the former USSR., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ( one nation under God ), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.
The First Amendment deals with Congress. Can't states make their own religious policies?
The Supreme Court has ruled that, under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.
In deciding the pivotal case of Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court, wrote "It is emphatically the province of the court to say what the law is." From that day forward the Supremes have ruled on the constitutionality of the laws cited in cases accepted for review and the other two branches of government and the several states have abided by their rulings. Once several states decided not to remain in the Union. War resulted and those states did not win.
What about One nation under God and In God We Trust?
The words, under God, did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, In God We Trust was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as Mind Your Business. The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ( Of Many, One ), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.
Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments?
Not at all The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. . . The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.
Our secular laws, based on the human principle of justice for all, provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.
Why be concerned about the separation of church and state?
Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.
America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation. Anne Gaylor, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, points out: There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent.
Nontract No. 6. © 2007 Published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., PO Box 750, Madison WI 53701, is the basis for this post.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
The Death Penalty: A Modest Reform
Our death penalty rituals are no longer satisfying: new ceremonies are needed. The very notion of justice through execution can fall into disrepute if not applied to the satisfaction of all parties involved -- with the obvious exception of the drama's leading actor.
Let us begin by making the best possible case against the very idea of capital punishment. Maybe its critics do have a clue about what's wrong. Most critics of capital punishment conclude that it should be replaced by unrelenting life sentences. Their case, followed by succinct rebuttals from death penalty advocates:
Cost. Our extreme timidity about killing somebody unjustly has driven the budgets for supreme punishments through the roof. Keeping an inmate on death row through the years of appeals now exceeds the cost of “three hots and a cot” behind bars for life. There is no doubt that money is tight and a legal killing expensive. String 'em up and then give 'em a fair trial! Throw a party with the savings.
Method. Ancient ways to execute -- lions in the arena, burning at the stake, drawing and quartering, crucifixion -- are out of style. Somewhat newer methods – stoning, the firing squad, beheading, hanging – are also not much in vogue any place most would care to live.. Democratic societies still in the business uneasily debate electrocution vs a lethal cocktail (injected, not shaken or stirred). The ideal way would kill without hurt or dread. Luck with that. Keep looking.
Deterrence. Murder most foul is the major reason the justice system executes. We hope that others hot to murder will cool down, not wishing to die similarly. However, the abundant headlines of the “Man Kills Family, Self” variety cast some doubt. Most murderers don't think at all ("I don't know what came over me!" “It was an accident!” “I loved him! ”), and deterrence by definition requires prior scheming. We haven't invited the public to a hanging or a beheading in a long time. More research is needed.
Justice. Is not justice as ably served by life imprisonment as by delays so long that most sentenced to death die naturally before we can pull the plug artificially. But is justice what we want? See below.
The Horror. A more squeamish public no longer hankers for a public event. Calls for televised public spectacles are usually a tongue in cheek way of suggesting that society should not do what it cannot watch. People die on TV nightly: we just don't call CSI or the Iraq war a snuff series. This both reassures and acclimatizes the children.
Obedience to Scripture. The Apostle Paul taught that, “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Can Christians in good faith usurp the work of their God? A helping hand is not usurping. Are you saying God lacks television?
But even in devout America not all are Christians, and not all Christians closely follow St. Paul. Besides abolition would leave friends, lovers and family of the victims unable to heal, find closure and begin life anew. Only the Old Testament “eye for an eye,” it seems, will do that. St Paul and his anti death penalty crowd would deprive us of what we really want: the raw desire for sweet revenge. Only death gives the heavenly victim and his earthly tribe that solace.
So what new deathly ritual should we adopt to better slake this acknowledged thirst for revenge? How about we allow a willing executioner to volunteer from among those closest to the victim? He or she would flip the switch, plunge the needle, trip the trap, light the fire, etc., and, if so moved, lead the public in a fist pumping cheer for revenge at last. Now that's closure for you.
Meanwhile, in fairness, we should also offer the condemned his choice of killing method. Borrowing from economic game theory, we could call the subsequent scenario "The Executioner's Dilemma." What's wrong with executions resembling Texas Hold'em -- no limit, everything at stake?
A wily prisoner facing death might choose to have Henry VIII's axe imported from the Tower of London or the guillotine from Paris, causing the occasional nearest relative to shrink from his duty -- even with technical support from expert officials. But another less squeamish cousin would no doubt step up, especially for serial killers. No doubt public interest would occasionally be high enough for a good riot, but so what's new?
Thoughtful readers will have already noted that revenge doesn’t save money, possibly rehabilitates quaint old methods of execution, does nothing much to deter other criminals, scares the horses and other sensitive beings, and does not necessarily do justice.
Thoughtful readers will also know the meaning of the Latin phrase reductio ad absurdum -- which is more than one can say about the country's state and national legislators, and unfortunately most of those who vote for them. We will continue bungling the final scene to the occasional dismay of all, most notably the plays protagonist.
But we will have new ceremonies to enjoy or deplore as we wish. Change is good. Only progress is uncertain.
.
Let us begin by making the best possible case against the very idea of capital punishment. Maybe its critics do have a clue about what's wrong. Most critics of capital punishment conclude that it should be replaced by unrelenting life sentences. Their case, followed by succinct rebuttals from death penalty advocates:
Cost. Our extreme timidity about killing somebody unjustly has driven the budgets for supreme punishments through the roof. Keeping an inmate on death row through the years of appeals now exceeds the cost of “three hots and a cot” behind bars for life. There is no doubt that money is tight and a legal killing expensive. String 'em up and then give 'em a fair trial! Throw a party with the savings.
Method. Ancient ways to execute -- lions in the arena, burning at the stake, drawing and quartering, crucifixion -- are out of style. Somewhat newer methods – stoning, the firing squad, beheading, hanging – are also not much in vogue any place most would care to live.. Democratic societies still in the business uneasily debate electrocution vs a lethal cocktail (injected, not shaken or stirred). The ideal way would kill without hurt or dread. Luck with that. Keep looking.
Deterrence. Murder most foul is the major reason the justice system executes. We hope that others hot to murder will cool down, not wishing to die similarly. However, the abundant headlines of the “Man Kills Family, Self” variety cast some doubt. Most murderers don't think at all ("I don't know what came over me!" “It was an accident!” “I loved him! ”), and deterrence by definition requires prior scheming. We haven't invited the public to a hanging or a beheading in a long time. More research is needed.
Justice. Is not justice as ably served by life imprisonment as by delays so long that most sentenced to death die naturally before we can pull the plug artificially. But is justice what we want? See below.
The Horror. A more squeamish public no longer hankers for a public event. Calls for televised public spectacles are usually a tongue in cheek way of suggesting that society should not do what it cannot watch. People die on TV nightly: we just don't call CSI or the Iraq war a snuff series. This both reassures and acclimatizes the children.
Obedience to Scripture. The Apostle Paul taught that, “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Can Christians in good faith usurp the work of their God? A helping hand is not usurping. Are you saying God lacks television?
But even in devout America not all are Christians, and not all Christians closely follow St. Paul. Besides abolition would leave friends, lovers and family of the victims unable to heal, find closure and begin life anew. Only the Old Testament “eye for an eye,” it seems, will do that. St Paul and his anti death penalty crowd would deprive us of what we really want: the raw desire for sweet revenge. Only death gives the heavenly victim and his earthly tribe that solace.
So what new deathly ritual should we adopt to better slake this acknowledged thirst for revenge? How about we allow a willing executioner to volunteer from among those closest to the victim? He or she would flip the switch, plunge the needle, trip the trap, light the fire, etc., and, if so moved, lead the public in a fist pumping cheer for revenge at last. Now that's closure for you.
Meanwhile, in fairness, we should also offer the condemned his choice of killing method. Borrowing from economic game theory, we could call the subsequent scenario "The Executioner's Dilemma." What's wrong with executions resembling Texas Hold'em -- no limit, everything at stake?
A wily prisoner facing death might choose to have Henry VIII's axe imported from the Tower of London or the guillotine from Paris, causing the occasional nearest relative to shrink from his duty -- even with technical support from expert officials. But another less squeamish cousin would no doubt step up, especially for serial killers. No doubt public interest would occasionally be high enough for a good riot, but so what's new?
Thoughtful readers will have already noted that revenge doesn’t save money, possibly rehabilitates quaint old methods of execution, does nothing much to deter other criminals, scares the horses and other sensitive beings, and does not necessarily do justice.
Thoughtful readers will also know the meaning of the Latin phrase reductio ad absurdum -- which is more than one can say about the country's state and national legislators, and unfortunately most of those who vote for them. We will continue bungling the final scene to the occasional dismay of all, most notably the plays protagonist.
But we will have new ceremonies to enjoy or deplore as we wish. Change is good. Only progress is uncertain.
.
A Lesson In Courage From Norway
On 22 July 2011 Ander's Breivik, a quiet, apparently normal Norwegian citizen, killed 76 of his fellows by exploding a fertilizer bomb in downtown Oslo, the Norwegian capitol, and then going on a shooting spree at an island camp for young people, mostly children of Labor Party members.
Breivik had posted a 1,500 page screed on the web, partly copied from the manifesto of the American Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, that showcased the hidden workings of the mind of yet another extreme right wing, fundamentalist christian, delusional, conspiracy nut.
His methods of murder were from the playbook of Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, who also built his car bomb from fertilizer and oil. He also echoed the methods of Al Quaida, by using one murderous attack as cover for yet another.
Consider the Norwegian tragedy from an American perspective. Norway is a nation of 4.9 million people. In contrast the 2010 census counted 305 million Americans, or 71.4 times as many. Multiply that last number by the 76 who died by bomb and gunfire in two places in Norway on 7/22 and you get 5,403.
Norway is feeling what we would feel if that many Americans had died at the hands of terrorists in a single day.
Slightly less died on 9/11 and at Pearl Harbor combined (5,379). If, like me, you were young at Pearl Harbor and still around for 9/11, you can begin to know the true dimensions of the shock that has rocked this most peaceful of countries.
As we did, the Norwegian nation is searching it collective soul for reasons, lessons and remedies. No doubt they are examining our responses to the attacks on the twin towers and the naval base as well as the Oklahoma City bombing and its striking parallels to their own still raw experience.
Some responses are automatic. Both Presidents Roosevelt and Bush ordered a formal inquiry and acted on the recommendations made.. Norway’s Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg is taking the same path. One certain finding is that intelligence was inadequate. Failures in gathering, assessing and communicating information about the enemy will be deemed the fault of intelligence community agencies. Otherwise, how could "this" have happened.
But Norway’s PM has also done something more courageous. He has rallied Norwegians, not to demand vengeance, but to preserve their open and trusting society: “The answer to violence is even more democracy. Even more humanity,” he said.
That there is a risk to just carrying on is obvious. Less obvious, but no less real, are the self inflected wounds that can follow hasty, intemperate actions fueled by fear and xenophobic thoughts of revenge.
Our history has often been sullied by such over reactions. After Pearl Harbor to our shame we rounded up American citizens of Japanese ancestry residing mostly in California and stuck them in barren relocation camps in the name of national security. Thieving neighbors were allowed to steal their property and the possessions they could not carry. Franklin Roosevelt approved the order and the Supreme Court upheld his right as Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces to issue it during time of war.
This of course was unnecessary as our belated apologies and meager restitution a half-century later made uncomfortably clear. In the then territory of Hawaii, where the wreckage of the Pacific fleet still smoldered , officials refused to follow California’s example with their own large Japanese American population. They picked up a few old men of known divided loyalty – mostly for their own safety -- and that was that.
From that act of courage, independent thinking and forbearance came more courage of the highest order. The 442 Regimental Combat Team, composed entirely of Japanese Americans primarily from Hawaii, came out of the European theater of World War II as the most highly decorated unit in U. S. military history. No sunshine soldiers these.
One the eve of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, when we will dedicate a towering memorial to the casualties of that dreadful day, we should also take stock of the self inflicted collateral damage that has since been done to our reputation and our liberties out of fear and in the name of dubious security.
The record is not pretty. The fallout from Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay and those unnamed CIA interrogation camps dotted about the globe now illuminate our repute in the world’s eyes more brightly than the Lamp of Liberty in New York harbor.
No less ugly is what we did to ourselves. We traded away a measure of liberty and a lot of privacy in return for massive surveillance programs. Sure we have pounced on an occasional collection of would be terrorists who mostly talked to impress each other. And, yes, there has been no repeat of acts of terror anywhere close to the scale of 9/11. But, deep down, we know that what we have lost is more precious than the precarious safety we perhaps have gained.
Ben Franklin said it best: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” He could have also added, "And they lack the courage to be free."
The Norwegians, not lacking in that courage, are on track to test this ancient sentiment of one of our wisest founders. We should follow their progress carefully. We might relearn something.
Breivik had posted a 1,500 page screed on the web, partly copied from the manifesto of the American Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, that showcased the hidden workings of the mind of yet another extreme right wing, fundamentalist christian, delusional, conspiracy nut.
His methods of murder were from the playbook of Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, who also built his car bomb from fertilizer and oil. He also echoed the methods of Al Quaida, by using one murderous attack as cover for yet another.
* * * * *
Consider the Norwegian tragedy from an American perspective. Norway is a nation of 4.9 million people. In contrast the 2010 census counted 305 million Americans, or 71.4 times as many. Multiply that last number by the 76 who died by bomb and gunfire in two places in Norway on 7/22 and you get 5,403.
Norway is feeling what we would feel if that many Americans had died at the hands of terrorists in a single day.
Slightly less died on 9/11 and at Pearl Harbor combined (5,379). If, like me, you were young at Pearl Harbor and still around for 9/11, you can begin to know the true dimensions of the shock that has rocked this most peaceful of countries.
As we did, the Norwegian nation is searching it collective soul for reasons, lessons and remedies. No doubt they are examining our responses to the attacks on the twin towers and the naval base as well as the Oklahoma City bombing and its striking parallels to their own still raw experience.
Some responses are automatic. Both Presidents Roosevelt and Bush ordered a formal inquiry and acted on the recommendations made.. Norway’s Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg is taking the same path. One certain finding is that intelligence was inadequate. Failures in gathering, assessing and communicating information about the enemy will be deemed the fault of intelligence community agencies. Otherwise, how could "this" have happened.
But Norway’s PM has also done something more courageous. He has rallied Norwegians, not to demand vengeance, but to preserve their open and trusting society: “The answer to violence is even more democracy. Even more humanity,” he said.
That there is a risk to just carrying on is obvious. Less obvious, but no less real, are the self inflected wounds that can follow hasty, intemperate actions fueled by fear and xenophobic thoughts of revenge.
Our history has often been sullied by such over reactions. After Pearl Harbor to our shame we rounded up American citizens of Japanese ancestry residing mostly in California and stuck them in barren relocation camps in the name of national security. Thieving neighbors were allowed to steal their property and the possessions they could not carry. Franklin Roosevelt approved the order and the Supreme Court upheld his right as Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces to issue it during time of war.
This of course was unnecessary as our belated apologies and meager restitution a half-century later made uncomfortably clear. In the then territory of Hawaii, where the wreckage of the Pacific fleet still smoldered , officials refused to follow California’s example with their own large Japanese American population. They picked up a few old men of known divided loyalty – mostly for their own safety -- and that was that.
From that act of courage, independent thinking and forbearance came more courage of the highest order. The 442 Regimental Combat Team, composed entirely of Japanese Americans primarily from Hawaii, came out of the European theater of World War II as the most highly decorated unit in U. S. military history. No sunshine soldiers these.
One the eve of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, when we will dedicate a towering memorial to the casualties of that dreadful day, we should also take stock of the self inflicted collateral damage that has since been done to our reputation and our liberties out of fear and in the name of dubious security.
The record is not pretty. The fallout from Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay and those unnamed CIA interrogation camps dotted about the globe now illuminate our repute in the world’s eyes more brightly than the Lamp of Liberty in New York harbor.
No less ugly is what we did to ourselves. We traded away a measure of liberty and a lot of privacy in return for massive surveillance programs. Sure we have pounced on an occasional collection of would be terrorists who mostly talked to impress each other. And, yes, there has been no repeat of acts of terror anywhere close to the scale of 9/11. But, deep down, we know that what we have lost is more precious than the precarious safety we perhaps have gained.
Ben Franklin said it best: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” He could have also added, "And they lack the courage to be free."
The Norwegians, not lacking in that courage, are on track to test this ancient sentiment of one of our wisest founders. We should follow their progress carefully. We might relearn something.
Friday, April 22, 2011
A Twelve Step Program: Banish Debt and Deficits
To conqueror our addiction to debt and banish today’s deficits and economic doldrums join the "Friends of Adam" and pledge to take these 12 steps to grow the economy, cut expense and raise revenue.
Grow the economy:
1) At mortgagees’ option, reduce residential mortgages to current value and interest rates and award lenders any future equity growth up to the amount of the original loan minus owner's down and principal paymets.
We will languish in an economic slough of despond until we accept that those real estate values we never had have vanished for now. Lenders' books are full of fictional balances which the ritual dance of foreclosure will not restore. Their one hope of recouping something from a home under water is to take an equity stake and hope for the best. Endless rounds of foreclosures offer no hope to those who need it and will only confirm lenders' losses. And, if old values do return even partially, only mostly speculators will gain.
Meanwhile households need not break up or neighborhoods further decline. The housing resale market will quickly start working again once prices are realistic, and workers -- mobile once again -- can sell, move to where the work is, and buy again.
The late bubble was born of venal lenders and stupid borrowers, midwifed by inept governments at all levels and in all branches, the greed of Wall Street and the complete moral collapse of the rating agencies. There is in short blame all around. We can only hope that lessons are learned as the medicine goes down.
2) Quadruple and sustain investment in basic scientific research and education in the physical sciences in the new decade--and do it cooperatively world wide. Emphasize especially thermodynamics (energy), materials properties, information theory, molecular biology, ecological economics.
The most basic level of human existence, that of societies of hunter-gathers, was grounded in fundamental knowledge, painfully learned, of edible plants and animal habits. Our societies, past and future, have been and will be no different. While our knowledge of the physical world is well beyond rudimentary, there is still much to learn about the biosphere--while there is a biosphere to learn from.
We need a greatly expanded knowledge base for two immediate reasons: (1) to keep from trashing the planet to the point of our own extinction and (2) to create a world of opportunity that puts the good life within reach of all. We want to know more because it is fun. Ultimately, we will want to know enough to spread beyond this or any other planet made uninhabitable by the death thros of its sun.
We will want to make this continuing investment because today's woes will be trivial compared to what our current blundering ways will bring us. Though all of us can't be scientists, all of us will have to learn to think and behave by the high standards of that community.
3) Implement a system for interoperable electronic medical records (and require its use); build a unified North American electrical grid with Mexico and Canada, and create affordable high speed Internet access for everyone.
Energy and information are the new factors of production, joining the more venerable land, labor and capital. We will greatly prosper when energy is again cheap and abundant, and when information is ubiquitous and virtually free. The automation of medical information and procedures is especially important to that transformation of medical care we will need to curb the expenses of an aging population that grows ever more politically dominant.
4) Strictly enforce open, ethical, competitive business practices from main to wall street; otherwise get out of the way.
Business ethics is an oxymoron because cheating pays, especially when done "in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations," as the lawyers are always saying when their clients are caught out in some obvious bit of chicanery. It is hard, perhaps impossible, to change the basic fact that every retail buyer enters every marketplace more ignorant that its sellers. But we somehow need to make it clear that "buyer beware" is both a necessary and an insufficient slogan, especially in a world composed of ever more sophisticated products and services. Marketplaces can be left alone only when they serve both buyer and seller rather than exploit the ignorance of buyers., If they are not properly policed even the honest capitalist, who loves his family and country and goes to church will be obliged to cut corners to stay in business.
But when the rules of the road have the back of honest purveyors of goods and services who reflexively put the customer first nothing works better for the betterment of all than that intersection of supply and demand that we call the free market. To borrow a coinage from the "news" business, markets must be "fair and balanced. "
Cut expense:
5) Bring the military home from Europe, Japan and Korea in two to four years and from Iraq and Afghanistan not long after.
Our defenses can be second to none without costing more than all possible enemies – and most friends -- spend put together. We can project power without maintaining hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground in cushy outposts in friendly now peaceful nations such as Germany.
"Waste, fraud and abuse" is an empty slogan mostly, but not when applied to inter-service rivalries (waste), the contracting habits of defense contractors and their military and congressional allies (fraud) and the empire building proclivities of the senior military (abuse).
6) Reimburse medicine and education for outcomes.
Be open to precise criticisms of "Obamacare" and the educational “Race to the Top” from practical vice ideological viewpoints. Make it clear to doctors, hospitals, teachers and professors alike that professional standing comes with a price, and results come before golf, conferences in the sun, summers off and sabbaticals. We must also accept that outstanding pros deserve and will get outstanding pay.
7) Eliminate most subsidies and tax expenditures and deductions.
It is probably not possible to have a tax code that is both fair and simple. But as much as possible we should raise revenue from those who can afford it to pay the expenses of government and and not use the tax code to manipulate behavior. There are many culprits to bring to heel and justice for the housing boom and bust, and the tax code's subsidies for home owners is surely one of them.
8) Declare victory in the wars on drugs, vice and "immoral" conduct, starting with cannabis.
We will get the kids (and ourselves) off drugs when we convince them (and ourselves) that "doing is dumb." But prohibition, we should have learned a century ago, is stupider still. It is not necessary to address all addictive and/or intoxicating substances alike. Using and dealing are two separate activities and decriminalizing demand doesn't mean that creating supply cannot be carefully controlled.
Curbs on cannabis are especially ripe for dismantling. Grass is only mildly intoxicating, probably not physiologically addictive, already socially acceptable, easily grown, processed and consumed. There is even a budding culture of connoisseurship as with scotch whiskey and and fine wine. Only unlicensed dealers should be jailed. Of course, school children should be taught the virtues of abstinence and moderation, and of the debilitating effect of constant, prolongued use. Of course rehabilitation should be offered through self help groups when possible (friends of Zonker?), and more formal medical programs -- cheaper than jails -- made available.
While we're at it we should also decriminalize any and all sexual acts among conscenting adults, whether money changes hands or not. It wouldn't hurt society to raise the legal status of prostitutes at least to the level of used car dealers and time share salesmen. Nor would the republic fall if any and all loving couples were to enter into binding contracts -- usually called marriage -- by way of advertising the permanence of their relationships.
One sensible way to resolve the religious controversies over same sex marriage would be for all couples, gay or straight, to cede the term "marriage" to the believers to apply if they wish only to their members tieing the knot at their alters. The rest of us would have what legally we have always enjoyed, a civil union. Of course we could always shop around for a more welcoming congregation. But I digress. Back to balancing the budget and paying our debts.
Raise Revenue:
9) Roll back the Bush tax cuts over four years, the wealthiest fifth of taxpayers now, the next three quintiles in the next three years and the poorest fifth never.
These cuts stuffed uneeded funds into pockets of the most flush among us. They were supposed to wisely and prudently invest "their own money" and lead the way to new plateaus of growth and prosperity. Instead they blew up the housing bubble and played in the casino of highly leveraged financial instruments among other rentier behaviors that produced nothing useful or of service. When the inevitable ill economic winds blew their house of cards away they took the homes and jobs of the rest of us along for the ride. Instead of going up tax revenues dropped as well and the only remedies for the short fall on offer from the wealthy is to shrink government spending on the poor, the old and make up the balance short shifting the kids. No way.
10) Eliminate over time the corporate income tax and compensate by adding two more tax brackets at 44 and 49% and continuing the inheritance tax indexed for inflation after the first million in graduated steps identical to those used for the income tax.
Taxing corporations is a fools game that merely raises consumer prices in most cases and gives corporations incentive to lobby for loopholes and leading to undue influence over, if not coruption within, the legislative process.
11) Adjust social security by indexing retirement age to longevity, taxing all earned income and recouping excess payments from retirees’ estates.
These steps will do much to put social security on automatic pilot. Congress will no doubt continue to tinker with benefits formulas but these steps would ensure that the trust fund grows as the economy grows. It will also ensure that excess payments to the wealthy don't enrich undeserving heirs.
12) Tax carbon -- not gasoline – directly and forget about cap and trade.
Eliminating the federal gas tax in favor of a broader tax on carbon should be a popular trade-off with the public as the price of gasoline at the pump continues its inevitable climb. Emitting corporations, freed from income taxes, can free themselves from this tax by investing in mitigating technology, eliminating the need for the EPA to step in with frequently ineffectual regulations.
Grow the economy:
1) At mortgagees’ option, reduce residential mortgages to current value and interest rates and award lenders any future equity growth up to the amount of the original loan minus owner's down and principal paymets.
We will languish in an economic slough of despond until we accept that those real estate values we never had have vanished for now. Lenders' books are full of fictional balances which the ritual dance of foreclosure will not restore. Their one hope of recouping something from a home under water is to take an equity stake and hope for the best. Endless rounds of foreclosures offer no hope to those who need it and will only confirm lenders' losses. And, if old values do return even partially, only mostly speculators will gain.
Meanwhile households need not break up or neighborhoods further decline. The housing resale market will quickly start working again once prices are realistic, and workers -- mobile once again -- can sell, move to where the work is, and buy again.
The late bubble was born of venal lenders and stupid borrowers, midwifed by inept governments at all levels and in all branches, the greed of Wall Street and the complete moral collapse of the rating agencies. There is in short blame all around. We can only hope that lessons are learned as the medicine goes down.
2) Quadruple and sustain investment in basic scientific research and education in the physical sciences in the new decade--and do it cooperatively world wide. Emphasize especially thermodynamics (energy), materials properties, information theory, molecular biology, ecological economics.
The most basic level of human existence, that of societies of hunter-gathers, was grounded in fundamental knowledge, painfully learned, of edible plants and animal habits. Our societies, past and future, have been and will be no different. While our knowledge of the physical world is well beyond rudimentary, there is still much to learn about the biosphere--while there is a biosphere to learn from.
We need a greatly expanded knowledge base for two immediate reasons: (1) to keep from trashing the planet to the point of our own extinction and (2) to create a world of opportunity that puts the good life within reach of all. We want to know more because it is fun. Ultimately, we will want to know enough to spread beyond this or any other planet made uninhabitable by the death thros of its sun.
We will want to make this continuing investment because today's woes will be trivial compared to what our current blundering ways will bring us. Though all of us can't be scientists, all of us will have to learn to think and behave by the high standards of that community.
3) Implement a system for interoperable electronic medical records (and require its use); build a unified North American electrical grid with Mexico and Canada, and create affordable high speed Internet access for everyone.
Energy and information are the new factors of production, joining the more venerable land, labor and capital. We will greatly prosper when energy is again cheap and abundant, and when information is ubiquitous and virtually free. The automation of medical information and procedures is especially important to that transformation of medical care we will need to curb the expenses of an aging population that grows ever more politically dominant.
4) Strictly enforce open, ethical, competitive business practices from main to wall street; otherwise get out of the way.
Business ethics is an oxymoron because cheating pays, especially when done "in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations," as the lawyers are always saying when their clients are caught out in some obvious bit of chicanery. It is hard, perhaps impossible, to change the basic fact that every retail buyer enters every marketplace more ignorant that its sellers. But we somehow need to make it clear that "buyer beware" is both a necessary and an insufficient slogan, especially in a world composed of ever more sophisticated products and services. Marketplaces can be left alone only when they serve both buyer and seller rather than exploit the ignorance of buyers., If they are not properly policed even the honest capitalist, who loves his family and country and goes to church will be obliged to cut corners to stay in business.
But when the rules of the road have the back of honest purveyors of goods and services who reflexively put the customer first nothing works better for the betterment of all than that intersection of supply and demand that we call the free market. To borrow a coinage from the "news" business, markets must be "fair and balanced. "
Cut expense:
5) Bring the military home from Europe, Japan and Korea in two to four years and from Iraq and Afghanistan not long after.
Our defenses can be second to none without costing more than all possible enemies – and most friends -- spend put together. We can project power without maintaining hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground in cushy outposts in friendly now peaceful nations such as Germany.
"Waste, fraud and abuse" is an empty slogan mostly, but not when applied to inter-service rivalries (waste), the contracting habits of defense contractors and their military and congressional allies (fraud) and the empire building proclivities of the senior military (abuse).
6) Reimburse medicine and education for outcomes.
Be open to precise criticisms of "Obamacare" and the educational “Race to the Top” from practical vice ideological viewpoints. Make it clear to doctors, hospitals, teachers and professors alike that professional standing comes with a price, and results come before golf, conferences in the sun, summers off and sabbaticals. We must also accept that outstanding pros deserve and will get outstanding pay.
7) Eliminate most subsidies and tax expenditures and deductions.
It is probably not possible to have a tax code that is both fair and simple. But as much as possible we should raise revenue from those who can afford it to pay the expenses of government and and not use the tax code to manipulate behavior. There are many culprits to bring to heel and justice for the housing boom and bust, and the tax code's subsidies for home owners is surely one of them.
8) Declare victory in the wars on drugs, vice and "immoral" conduct, starting with cannabis.
We will get the kids (and ourselves) off drugs when we convince them (and ourselves) that "doing is dumb." But prohibition, we should have learned a century ago, is stupider still. It is not necessary to address all addictive and/or intoxicating substances alike. Using and dealing are two separate activities and decriminalizing demand doesn't mean that creating supply cannot be carefully controlled.
Curbs on cannabis are especially ripe for dismantling. Grass is only mildly intoxicating, probably not physiologically addictive, already socially acceptable, easily grown, processed and consumed. There is even a budding culture of connoisseurship as with scotch whiskey and and fine wine. Only unlicensed dealers should be jailed. Of course, school children should be taught the virtues of abstinence and moderation, and of the debilitating effect of constant, prolongued use. Of course rehabilitation should be offered through self help groups when possible (friends of Zonker?), and more formal medical programs -- cheaper than jails -- made available.
While we're at it we should also decriminalize any and all sexual acts among conscenting adults, whether money changes hands or not. It wouldn't hurt society to raise the legal status of prostitutes at least to the level of used car dealers and time share salesmen. Nor would the republic fall if any and all loving couples were to enter into binding contracts -- usually called marriage -- by way of advertising the permanence of their relationships.
One sensible way to resolve the religious controversies over same sex marriage would be for all couples, gay or straight, to cede the term "marriage" to the believers to apply if they wish only to their members tieing the knot at their alters. The rest of us would have what legally we have always enjoyed, a civil union. Of course we could always shop around for a more welcoming congregation. But I digress. Back to balancing the budget and paying our debts.
Raise Revenue:
9) Roll back the Bush tax cuts over four years, the wealthiest fifth of taxpayers now, the next three quintiles in the next three years and the poorest fifth never.
These cuts stuffed uneeded funds into pockets of the most flush among us. They were supposed to wisely and prudently invest "their own money" and lead the way to new plateaus of growth and prosperity. Instead they blew up the housing bubble and played in the casino of highly leveraged financial instruments among other rentier behaviors that produced nothing useful or of service. When the inevitable ill economic winds blew their house of cards away they took the homes and jobs of the rest of us along for the ride. Instead of going up tax revenues dropped as well and the only remedies for the short fall on offer from the wealthy is to shrink government spending on the poor, the old and make up the balance short shifting the kids. No way.
10) Eliminate over time the corporate income tax and compensate by adding two more tax brackets at 44 and 49% and continuing the inheritance tax indexed for inflation after the first million in graduated steps identical to those used for the income tax.
Taxing corporations is a fools game that merely raises consumer prices in most cases and gives corporations incentive to lobby for loopholes and leading to undue influence over, if not coruption within, the legislative process.
11) Adjust social security by indexing retirement age to longevity, taxing all earned income and recouping excess payments from retirees’ estates.
These steps will do much to put social security on automatic pilot. Congress will no doubt continue to tinker with benefits formulas but these steps would ensure that the trust fund grows as the economy grows. It will also ensure that excess payments to the wealthy don't enrich undeserving heirs.
12) Tax carbon -- not gasoline – directly and forget about cap and trade.
Eliminating the federal gas tax in favor of a broader tax on carbon should be a popular trade-off with the public as the price of gasoline at the pump continues its inevitable climb. Emitting corporations, freed from income taxes, can free themselves from this tax by investing in mitigating technology, eliminating the need for the EPA to step in with frequently ineffectual regulations.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Challenger: Two Teachers To Remember
The Challenger disaster of 25 years ago is front center again in media around the country. The story of Christa McAuliffe, public school teacher, especially, still resonates country-wide.
Young and attractive, Christa was eager to bring the lessons of space into her classroom. She reminds us of those special teachers in our own lives who made a difference, perhaps by striking just the right chord one day, or by helping us over an extended rough patch when comprehension came hard.
The tales told by those of us whom Christa inspired to grab the brass ring that slipped from her hands on that long ago day of abrupt tragedy have been especially heartening to read a quarter century later..
What we perhaps have forgotten, and ought to recall, is that a second Challenger failure, more fiasco than tragedy, unfolded in slow motion in the months that followed. A necessary official inquiry turned into a slippery game of dodge the blame.
Diplomat William P. Rogers, a former, forgettable Secretary of State under Richard Nixon was nominated by President Reagan to head the inquiry commission. Institutional preservation soon replaced finding out what happened as its undeclared goal.
Fortunately, the process was jolted back on track by an electric moment, one that was played out on national television for all who cared enough to tune in and to learn from yet another inspiring teacher who was also the maverick member every such commission needs..
His name was Richard Feynman. What he did one day, during a televised commission hearing, was show us how effective it is to think like the scientist he was. Specifically, he dipped a segment of o-ring taken from a model of a critical connection on Challenger’s solid rocker booster into a glass of ice water. It lost resiliency just like the whole part had done in the uncommonly freezing temperatures at Canaveral on launch morning, causing it to catastrophically fail in flight.
While short of the name recognition of his fellow teacher, Christa, Feynman was not unknown. A Nobel Laureate in 1965 for work in theoretical physics, an alumnus of Los Alomos’ Manhattan project, beloved professor at Cal Tech, theoretical pioneer in nanotechnology, contributor to the theory of parallel computing, samba style drummer, raconteur, man-about-town, accomplished artist specializing in nudes and author of two successful memoirs and numerous professional books and articles, he was actually hard to miss.
He was even harder to steer. Slipping the leash Chairman Rogers attempted to rein him with, Feynman soon found an appalling disconnect between NASA’S engineers and technicians and its top managers over known past o-ring problems. A similar cultural void existed between engineers and suits at NASA’s contractor, Morton-Thiokol. Risk analysis was more akin to a game of Russian roulette than the application of probability theory.
When his findings were denied a hearing in the commission’s final report, Feynman first refused to sign it, wrote his own and insisted that it be included as written as an appendix before he would sign on. Therein he said: “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
It would be nice to report that NASA had humbly and thoroughly learned its lesson, but we all know Columbia broke apart 17 years later on reentry, scattering craft and crew the length of Texas, when a known and discounted problem with loose foam pieces turned critical.
Feynman died in 1988, age 69, two years after Challenger. It took two rare forms of cancer a long time to bring him down; both were trying when he accepted a place on the Challenger commission. His last words were typical: “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
Perhaps we could bring a scientist’s perspective and methods to the divisive problems of our day. We could approach them calmly and analytically instead of wrangling over ancient ideologies that are inadequate for making sense of our modern political economy. The infighting may be sporting, but all it accomplishes is to prompt the media to entertain us with endless articles of the “lets you and him fight” variety. Again, Nature is not fooled.
Young and attractive, Christa was eager to bring the lessons of space into her classroom. She reminds us of those special teachers in our own lives who made a difference, perhaps by striking just the right chord one day, or by helping us over an extended rough patch when comprehension came hard.
The tales told by those of us whom Christa inspired to grab the brass ring that slipped from her hands on that long ago day of abrupt tragedy have been especially heartening to read a quarter century later..
What we perhaps have forgotten, and ought to recall, is that a second Challenger failure, more fiasco than tragedy, unfolded in slow motion in the months that followed. A necessary official inquiry turned into a slippery game of dodge the blame.
Diplomat William P. Rogers, a former, forgettable Secretary of State under Richard Nixon was nominated by President Reagan to head the inquiry commission. Institutional preservation soon replaced finding out what happened as its undeclared goal.
Fortunately, the process was jolted back on track by an electric moment, one that was played out on national television for all who cared enough to tune in and to learn from yet another inspiring teacher who was also the maverick member every such commission needs..
His name was Richard Feynman. What he did one day, during a televised commission hearing, was show us how effective it is to think like the scientist he was. Specifically, he dipped a segment of o-ring taken from a model of a critical connection on Challenger’s solid rocker booster into a glass of ice water. It lost resiliency just like the whole part had done in the uncommonly freezing temperatures at Canaveral on launch morning, causing it to catastrophically fail in flight.
While short of the name recognition of his fellow teacher, Christa, Feynman was not unknown. A Nobel Laureate in 1965 for work in theoretical physics, an alumnus of Los Alomos’ Manhattan project, beloved professor at Cal Tech, theoretical pioneer in nanotechnology, contributor to the theory of parallel computing, samba style drummer, raconteur, man-about-town, accomplished artist specializing in nudes and author of two successful memoirs and numerous professional books and articles, he was actually hard to miss.
He was even harder to steer. Slipping the leash Chairman Rogers attempted to rein him with, Feynman soon found an appalling disconnect between NASA’S engineers and technicians and its top managers over known past o-ring problems. A similar cultural void existed between engineers and suits at NASA’s contractor, Morton-Thiokol. Risk analysis was more akin to a game of Russian roulette than the application of probability theory.
When his findings were denied a hearing in the commission’s final report, Feynman first refused to sign it, wrote his own and insisted that it be included as written as an appendix before he would sign on. Therein he said: “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
It would be nice to report that NASA had humbly and thoroughly learned its lesson, but we all know Columbia broke apart 17 years later on reentry, scattering craft and crew the length of Texas, when a known and discounted problem with loose foam pieces turned critical.
Feynman died in 1988, age 69, two years after Challenger. It took two rare forms of cancer a long time to bring him down; both were trying when he accepted a place on the Challenger commission. His last words were typical: “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
Perhaps we could bring a scientist’s perspective and methods to the divisive problems of our day. We could approach them calmly and analytically instead of wrangling over ancient ideologies that are inadequate for making sense of our modern political economy. The infighting may be sporting, but all it accomplishes is to prompt the media to entertain us with endless articles of the “lets you and him fight” variety. Again, Nature is not fooled.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)