LOS ANGELES — As the director of high schools in the gang-infested neighborhoods of the East Side of Los Angeles, Guadalupe Paramo struggles every day with educational dysfunction.

For the past half-dozen years, not even one in five students at her district’s teeming high schools has been able to do grade-level math or English. At Abraham Lincoln High School this year, only 7 in 100 students could. At Woodrow Wilson High, only 4 in 100 could.

For chronically failing schools like these, the No Child Left Behind law, now up for renewal in Congress, prescribes drastic measures: firing teachers and principals, shutting schools and turning them over to a private firm, a charter operator or the state itself, or a major overhaul in governance.

But more than 1,000 of California’s 9,500 schools are branded chronic failures, and the numbers are growing. Barring revisions in the law, state officials predict that all 6,063 public schools serving poor students will be declared in need of restructuring by 2014, when the law requires universal proficiency in math and reading.

“What are we supposed to do?” Ms. Paramo asked. “Shut down every school?” 

                            --------------end of excerpt------------

Yes, that is exactly what we must do, Ms. Paramo. Shut 'em down!

Then, re-open them under new (Private) management and let the magic of competition and accountability work - as it does in every other field in which it exists!

The above NY Times article should be read in its entirety by anyone who is concerned about K-12 education in America. The numbers are staggering - in California alone, more than 1000 of 9500 schools are "chronic failures", and 6043 schools that serve poor students need restructuring by 2014 unless the law is changed.

Not surprisingly, the NYTimes article is a thinly disguised screed against George Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. If the schools are failing, it must be the law that is causing their failure. Note: I'm not a huge fan of the NCLB law - at best, I consider it a bad compromise that was brought on by the need to mollify various political groups.

It is interesting to note that there is very little mention of Free Enterprise solutions to this problem. Although one of the provisions of NCLB is that failing schools could be turned over to a private firm or a charter operator, that solution isn't considered very favorably by the entrenched (and unionized) education Mafia.

The takeover of a failed school by the State is another provision under NCLB. Although I don't believe that this will make much difference, it is interesting that "so far, education experts say they are unaware of a single state that has taken over a failing school in response to the law. Instead, most allow school districts to seek other ways to improve."

What we need is a 10yr phased privatization of K-12 education.

PHASE1 (1st five yrs)
* school choice - vouchers that are redeemable at any accredited private or public school for every eligible kid
* tax deductibility of tuition to any accredited private school

PHASE2 (next five yrs)
* school choice - vouchers ONLY for the poor, redeemable at accredited private and public schools
* tax relief for everyone else
* end tax deductibility of tuition

PHASE3 (the future)
* no more public schools
* vouchers ONLY for the poor, redeemable at accredited private schools (now a flourishing, self-sustaining part of the economy)

What would the effect be on all the players: teachers, administrators, students and parents?

Teachers & administrators: more pay for competence
Students & parents: higher quality, more choice, lower cost

Suggested links:

Free Enterprise Education

Education & economics

Imagine .. a pro-education presidential candidate

Johnny can't read .. it's time to think outside the box

Inspired by religious doctrine - or by feel-good liberal atheists - selflessness occupies a great deal of our attention.

Somewhere in America:

- A moist-eyed politician with a quivering lip (but impeccably coiffed hair) conjures up visions of starving or homeless people somewhere in the world

- a charismatic and telegenic preacher speaks with great conviction of our duty to help our less affluent fellow men

- presidential candidates speak of 'public service' in altruistic terms while indulging in shameless self-promotion

- admission committees at major universities consider the spirit of 'progressive volunteerism' as an important attribute in their applicants; in some cases, this can be as important as the applicant's academic record

- our political process is tilting Leftward, with each new entitlement as a stepping stone towards others. Failure of past entitlement programs is not an obstacle - as long as our intentions are 'selfless'.

- inefficient 'non-profit' ventures are placed on a pedestal, while it has become common to impugn the motives of 'for-profit' ventures; e.g Public Schools vs Private Schools

- there is a disproportionate sense of upliftment in the fake smarminess of 'donations', 'volunteerism' and 'not-for-profit'. Not that those actions are bad, but they certainly don't accomplish as much as 'for-profit' ventures. Observe that non-profit ventures would fail but for the contributions of people whose incomes are tied to for-profit ventures.

Instead of relying upon (and demanding) professionalism and competence, we are becoming a nation of parasites and willing victims.

What is killing us (softly), is the "S" word ..

S E L F L E S S N E S S 

Conversely, it is true that the word 'selfish' can be mis-construed.

But there appears to be no other way to describe it. Also, think of the way in which 'selflessness' is mis-construed on a regular basis:

* it has become perverted into the ideological basis of Leftist rationale for Welfare, Public Education

I'm familiar with the point-of-view that personal selflessness is 'good' while the enforcement of 'public' selflessness is 'evil'.

But that distinction is just not enough. We have become predisposed to accept all forms of selflessness (real or imaginary) as a political and economic trump card.

As a result:
* non-profit proposals get more public support than profit-oriented proposals
* selfless-sounding (but unworkable) policies become the law of the land; e.g. Public Education, Welfare, Universal Health Care
* foreign policy based on American self-interest becomes watered down into 'saving' other nations

And, in the end ..
* socialism will replace capitalism in America

If you think that is a stretch, wait until Nov '08 

A comment that is often heard relates to parenting: "How can you speak ill of selflessness? After all, think of parents, who toil selflessly to provide for their kids."

Personal anecdote (perhaps other parents can relate to this): when I held my newborn son for the first time, I was conscious of an emotional surge that was more powerful than any other I have previously experienced. As I looked at him I felt a sense of self - he was my son, and I would do anything for him. I felt the same surge when my 2nd son was born.

I cannot feel that bond with anyone else's child. At that moment, there were, perhaps, 50 other kids in the hospital nursery - but they didn't exist for me. It was (and remains) a selfish emotion that binds me to my children.

A parent who abandons their child clearly doesn't feel that bond with their child. Such a parent has no sense of 'self' - s/he is selfless in the purest sense of the word.
----
Selfish (def): one for whom the self is the sole purpose in life
----
A personal adaptation of the above definition: I include my children (I have two), my wife, my parents and my siblings within the bubble that I call my 'self'. To varying degrees I accept responsibilities towards those in my 'selfish' bubble. Since I voluntarily chose to get married and have kids, I accept a higher level of responsibility towards my wife and kids.

I believe that others feel similarly selfish - but are conditioned to feel guilty about such emotions by our culture's fascination with altruism. We therefore fall prey to anyone else (a politician, for example) who professes to actually adhere to those 'finer feelings' that we know we lack.

And that is the double-fraud of selflessness. It is inconsistent with human beings, but we are 'supposed' to feel guilty if we lack that quality.

Because, in order to believe in selflessness, we have to defraud ourselves into believing that:

1) Selflessness is a virtue
2) Humans are selfless creatures

If the above statements were true, then Communism would've succeeded. It didn't!

Religious people (and socialists) preach one form or another of selflessness as a panacea. It is worth thinking, however, could it be that we just aren't 'selfish' enough?

I realize that it is the prevailing fashion for people to put selflessness on a pedestal. Most of the teachings of organized religion also praise selflessness - in fact, without that concept, there wouldn't be much organization in organized religion.

But, is it possible that we are actually drowning in an orgy of selflessness? Consider that selflessness is the 'enabling agent', the gateway to:

* the welfare state
* multiculturism
* socialism
* affirmative action

Consider some of the most selfish actions that a human being can commit (and I'm guilty of them all):

* getting an education
* working to improve one's own life
* creating one's own biological children
* putting one's family first

By my definition, a male (or female) who abandons his/her biological children is truly selfless! It is an inversion of our morality (and language) that defines such actions as selfish.

This isn't just a linguistic or semantic interpretation. The 'selfless' mindset is what gives moral permission for people to abdicate their own responsibilities.

For example, if a person volunteers precious, productive years in 'selfless' efforts to help the 3rd World - surely their 'nobility' entitles them to have others pay for their medical care, if they happen to contract some disease in the process?

Imagine if everyone indulged in their 'selfless' fantasies. Can anyone seriously expect utopian results from such a worldview?

We are obsessed with 'lifeboats' such as SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program), Universal Health Care, Welfare, Medicare and Public Education. Usually, Leftists begin their arguments with "if America is a compassionate nation, how can we not take care of ____ !"

Leftist solutions almost always rely on higher taxation, which inevitably ensures that more people will need such lifeboats.

Observe how much of our discussion is centered around the few Americans who 'have not'. A visitor from Mars would think that there must be some kind of ongoing calamity in America that causes so much attention to be directed towards relief efforts. The same Martian visitor would simultaneously be confounded by the reality that America is actually quite an affluent, prosperous place. While success in America is by no means guaranteed, a minimal standard of living is reasonably easy to achieve. However, that minimal standard of living does not necessarily include the highest level of Health Care - or filet mignon every night for that matter!

The truth is that whining about compassion makes for great political rhetoric - and not much else. The (D) party has figured out that we Americans are suckers for sanctimonious do-goodery.

The (R) party is also powerless to resist that 'lure of easy money', as exemplified by the fact we are witnessing competing proposals from both parties - both of which expand SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program).

Soon, we will see competing proposals for Universal Health Care. Republican candidates will bleat that they are fighting vigorously to stem the Leftist tide, while offering proposals that are only slightly less obscene than those from the Democrats.

In the end, we will become a nation of lifeboat-dependants, while the main ship falls into decay due to the neglect caused by false incentives. It is also very likely that the ship sinks under the weight of the gold plated lifeboats that we have constructed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/getaways/09/11/cuba.forbidden.ap/index.html
HAVANA, Cuba (AP) -- Barack Obama would lift restrictions on visits by Cuban Americans to the hemisphere's only communist country if elected president. A growing chorus of Democratic and Republican lawmakers would go even farther, loosening the U.S. embargo enough to allow all Americans to travel to Cuba.

* Thousands flout ban to see 'forbidden treasure' of Cuba

* Cuba said about 37,000 Americans not of Cuban origin came in 2006

* 19 Americans have paid fines for sneaking to Cuba since January 2006

Since January 2006, 19 Americans have paid fines for sneaking to Cuba, including four people involved in making Oliver Stone's documentary about Castro, "Comandante." Fellow filmmaker Michael Moore is now being investigated for filming "Sicko" without permission in Cuba.

Traveling to Cuba is not as easy as punching dates into an Internet site, however. Travelocity recently agreed to pay $182,750 in fines for booking nearly 1,500 flights between the United States and Cuba from 1998 to 2004. The company says it fixed technical glitches and no longer lets such trips go through.

Doesn't it seem inconsistent that we have a trade embargo against Cuba while encouraging trade with China? Both are Communist countries that pose a threat to the United States.

It would seem that a case could be made for both points of view:

1) Embargo countries that espouse Communism
Let them watch their standards of living spiral downwards every decade, until they hit rock bottom. Even with that eventuality, Communist regimes can keep going at the expense of their people - by building walls, or other barriers to keep those darn Capitalists from sneaking in. Has our embargo against Cuba really helped defeat Fidel Castro?

The question is "what would replace Communism under those circumstances?". Unfortunately, the alternatives that often appear in such countries are military rule, or religious fundamentalism.

2) Trade with them.
Do to them that for which we greedy capitalists are often accused - the 'exploitation' of their cheap labor & raw materials. You know, that which Leftists call the Rape and Plunder of predatory Capitalism, but which actually raises standards of living on both sides? Their Govts will resist, but the people will demand some relaxation of their draconian policies, so that they can earn a living! Over time, they will become entrenched in a kind of Capitalism (a la China).

Of course, the Communist leaders will claim that it is their policies that are succeeding. And, for a while, it will prop up those regimes. But, when Communism reaches its eventual demise, it is more likely to be replaced with a semi-Capitalist system.

Hmm, plan #2 is starting to look better ..

Two years ago, I offered the employees at my company a choice in Health Insurance plans:

* traditional (70/50 PPO) 
   -OR-
* 100/70 High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP, with Health Savings Account (HSA), and a $50/mo employer contribution).

For those who are unfamiliar with HSAs, here are some interesting features:

* contrary to popular belief: HSAs do NOT have an annual use-it-or-lose it policy, unlike the FSAs of old!
* HSAs are owned by the individual, so they are completely portable - not tied to the employer or to the insurance provider.
* In our case, each individual gets a debit card (M/c or Visa) that can be swiped while buying prescriptions, eyeglasses, or even vitamins at a grocery store. Remember, these are tax-exempt dollars that are being used!
* Visits to doctors' offices can be paid for via a checkbook that draws on the individual's account. Once again, these are tax-exempt dollars that are being used to pay for visits to doctors' offices!

From an employer's perspective: The total expenditure per employee is roughly the same for my company irrespective of the choices made by employees. However, as an employer, I prefer HSAs because the premium costs for PPOs rise much faster than those for HSAs. And, I'd rather put $50/mo in my employees' accounts than pay it to the insurance company.

Initially, there was a 'fear of the unknown'. In the first year, about 50% of the employees opted for the HSA. As an employee/owner I opted for the HSA for myself (and family).

Now in the second year, 66% of the employees opted for the HSA. Mainly this occured because more employees realized that it left more money in their pocket. The 'fear of the unknown' also subsided when employees figured out that their colleagues with HSAs didn't appear to be dying horrible deaths - in fact, most seemed quite happy with their choice.

Some think of it as a 401(k) for healthcare! And that is not a bad analogy. The Govt permits Employees to contribute pretax dollars on a voluntary basis (up to the annual deductible).

It would be nicer if the annual limit was higher - it could actually become a tax sheltered investment vehicle for more people. Having more investment choices would also make it more attractive. 

Critics charge that those with serious health problems wouldn't benefit from HSAs. The reality is that HSAs benefit those with either:

* infrequent usage (folks who are generally healthy) - because they get to accumulate dollars in their accounts
* high usage (folks who routinely hit their annual deductibles) - because many HDHPs offer 100% coverage, once the deductible is reached.

However, HSAs (in their current form) result in more out-of-pocket expense than traditional PPOs for those who are on regular, expensive medication. But that would change if more people opted for HSAs.

Conclusion: HSAs work! While the rules can (and should) be improved (e.g. increase the voluntary, pretax contribution limit to be similar to that of a 401(k)), they are a step in the right direction.

Suggested links:

A 10 year plan to fix Healthcare

http://www.treas.gov/offices/public-affairs/hsa/pdf/all-about-HSAs_051807.pdf

http://www.treas.gov/offices/public-affairs/hsa/

The following is from an Iranian blog, translated by the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center from the Persian - excerpted from a NYTimes article titled "Blogging Ahmadinejad in Teheran".

"Most Western news agencies like CNN and Fox News, which are branded by the regime as the agents of a Western cultural war, broadcast the speech of President Ahmadinejad live. It is interesting that none of the channels inside our country did that. What does this mean? Does it mean we don’t trust ourselves? Does it mean that we worry we might let something slip? Does it mean that we fear that our president might let something slip?

It means that knowing is not a right our people have! It means that other countries abide by democracy more than we do. It means that even we don’t believe ourselves, even that we fear ourselves. We fear that we might say something by mistake and that our lies would be revealed to the people. Really, why are the state officials against open access to information? Why don’t the people even have the right to hear the speech of their elected president? Why can’t they hear his reasoning for issues like nuclear power, democracy in Iran, and so on?

What is interesting is that we claim the Americans want to prevent our voice from being heard, so why do we censor ourselves? "

— Poor Iran, yaghiha.blogfa.ir, Sept. 24

VoR: It is interesting that the blogger refers to the branding of CNN and Fox News as 'agents of a Western cultural war' by the Iranian regime. This tends to support a propagandist image of Western media which is decried in the Middle East as a means to export depravity. Islamic regimes paint a picture of a depraved Western media and culture to attact support from traditionalists to their own anachronistic ways. By focusing their attention to our excesses (which come from the freedom to make fools of ourselves), they miss the main point - that economic and political freedom are requirements for affluence and stability.

But, as indicated by the Iranian blogger, the openness of Western media and the sharp contrast to their own restricted media is not missed by segments of the Iranian public.

Another article worth reading is "An Act of War" from TH's own Crawfish! Here is an excerpt:

SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq — An Iranian officer accused of smuggling powerful roadside bombs into Iraq was arrested Thursday in northern Iraq, the U.S. military said.

The arrest could add to tensions between Washington and Tehran already strained by the detention of each other's citizens as well as U.S. accusations of Iranian involvement in Iraq's violence and Iran's disputed nuclear program.

The military said the suspect was a member of the Quds force — an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards — and was seized from a hotel in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah.

The Iranian officer was allegedly involved in transporting roadside bombs, including armor-piercing explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, into Iraq, according to a military statement. It said intelligence reports also indicated he was involved in the infiltration and training of foreign fighters in Iraq.

VoR: The greatest danger  that we face (from external sources) is a nuclear-armed, terrorism-supporting Iran.

The capture of an Iranian agent with munitions that are used every day against our soldiers should warrant a Declaration of War. It should begin as a two pronged strategy - with covert ops and a focused PR campaign that links up with their political dissidents (and there are many). These would yield good results and will also unearth other irrefutable evidence of Iran's misdeeds - laying the support for a full attack on the regime.

The Iraq operation should have been presented to the American people as Round#1 of a strategy of bringing the Middle East into the modern age; 9/11 gave us the motivation to deal ourselves into this. Instead, we got a watered down set of UN-approved reasons to go to war, that made our case weaker for Round#2 (Iran).

In our currently muddled way of thinking, political calculations seem to dominate. Also, Leftists have gained enough traction in our country to emasculate our political will.

Frankly, I am not optimistic that there will be a suitable response. The political games in our own country have weakened us. Can you imagine what would happen if some information was leaked (by the obliging MSM) about our covert ops in Iran?

Despite having our special ops teams in harms way, these mainstream media maggots would expose our tactics in order to win ratings and the approval of their Leftist supporters.

It wouldn't surprise me if a few unprincipled (D) legislators (who must be consulted, as a result of their committee positions) would deliberately leak such information for their own political advantage.

Our covert ops have to face two threats - one of which is the threat of exposure (for political advantage) by the American Left. So, it makes it that much harder for a C-in-C to authorize such measures.

I have just finished reading Dinesh D'Souza's new book "The Enemy at Home - The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11"

In "The Enemy at Home", D' Souza illustrates the following paradox:

* the Islamic world despises the West for the values (or lack thereof) of the cultural left
* it is the American Right that has the guts to defend the West against Islamic extremists
* Leftists (both cultural and foreign policy types) oppose the American Right for political reasons

So, strangely, the Left - that is largely the object of Islamic hatred - is politically aligned with Islamic extremists. 

In addition to exposing the above paradox, he points out some of the inconsistencies in our approach to foreign policy. He skewers the Left AND the Right, while simultaneously showing the true nature of America's external enemies - who make very little distinction between Left and Right in their mission to destroy America.

D'Souza also makes some interesting points:

* Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida have never attacked Israel, despite the fact that Al Qaida appears to sympathize with the Palestinians. He makes this point to prove that Al Qaida is not the enemy of 'traditional' people. It is difficult to argue against the fact that Al Qaida hasn't attacked Israel - but the analysis that he derives from that fact seems to be a bit of a stretch.
* Conservative Americans face two enemies - as manifested by the GWOT and a war against the cultural left. Clearly, Islamic terrorists are the larger threat. The Left, however, is a significant impediment that has to be overcome politically and socially
* The American Left sees conservatism as a disproportionately larger threat (in relative terms) when compared with the threat from Islamic extremism.

He suggests the following:
* we should encourage traditional Muslims to drop their support for radical Muslims. In D'Souza's view, this can only be done if we also drop our support for the cultural left - showing traditional Muslims that there is a 'mainstream' conservative, religious America that doesn't believe in the values of the cultural left.

In my opinion, D'Souza exaggerates the cultural gap between the cultural left and conservatives in America. Although there is a gap, and conservatives publicly abhor the excesses of the cultural left, they are not 'traditional' in the manner of traditional Muslims. This may be a result of the cultural left's control of the media (and Hollywood), or due to a slow drift in what is considered 'mainstream'.

D'Souza is not afraid to 'name names' - his rogues gallery of the cultural left include many of the usual suspects, for example  Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy,  Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark & Ward Churchill. For this alone, the book will find an interested audience among conservatives.

Personally, I thought that the book was well written and recommend it highly. While it will no doubt be criticized by most liberals (and some conservatives), it should be seen for what it is - an appeal to traditionalists (some of whom may be liberals) - to distance themselves from the excesses of the cultural left.

Paul Krugman has a new blog that is titled "The Conscience of a Liberal".

In his introduction to the new blog, Krugman explains the name of his blog : "... because the politics and economics of inequality will, I expect, be central to many of the blog posts – although I also expect to be posting on a lot of other issues, from health care to high-speed Internet access, from productivity to poll analysis."

Well, it would be downright ungracious to ignore his valuable comments on these subjects - so, readers of this blog can expect to find frequent commentary and analysis of Krugman's articles!

Krugman's introductory post is a lament about the great divergence in America - he says: "a chart that’s central to how I think about the big picture, the underlying story of what’s really going on in this country. The chart shows the share of the richest 10 percent of the American population in total income – an indicator that closely tracks many other measures of economic inequality – over the past 90 years, as estimated by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. I’ve added labels indicating four key periods. These are:



Select quotes from Krugman's descriptions of the above periods:

The Long Gilded Age: ".. income remained about as unequally distributed as it had been the late 19th century – or as it is today. Public policy did little to limit extremes of wealth and poverty, mainly because the political dominance of the elite remained intact; the politics of the era, in which working Americans were divided by racial, religious, and cultural issues, have recognizable parallels with modern politics."

The Great Compression: ".. was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. As the chart shows, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains. Economic historians call what happened the Great Compression, and it’s a seminal episode in American history."

Middle class America: "That’s the country I grew up in. It was a society without extremes of wealth or poverty, a society of broadly shared prosperity, partly because strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality. It was also a society in which political bipartisanship meant something: in spite of all the turmoil of Vietnam and the civil rights movement, in spite of the sinister machinations of Nixon and his henchmen, it was an era in which Democrats and Republicans agreed on basic values and could cooperate across party lines. "

The great divergence: "Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent. "

The first thing that struck me, as I read Krugman's post, was that it exposes his view that economic equality is (and should be) the yardstick by which the success of a political or economic system should be measured. He doesn't seem to care whether equality is achieved by spreading poverty, or by raising the economic level of those who are poor. The 'great compression' that he speaks of in glowing terms was caused by the Depression; FDR's New Deal helped in prolonging the length and severity of the Depression . In Krugman's world, those were good times, because everyone was relatively poor!

Later in the article Krugman notes that: the great reduction of inequality that created middle-class America between 1935 and 1945 was driven by political change; I believe that politics has also played an important role in rising inequality since the 1970s. It’s important to know that no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality .."

It is difficult to understand how a trained economist like Krugman can miss the point about Capitalism being a political and economic force for good. FDR's experimentation with socialism took America away from the path of Capitalism - and our society paid dearly for it. The period of equality that Krugman praises was actually one of unemployment and shortages.

Likewise, the inequality (since the 1970s) that he disparages actually came from increased productivity that was achieved by the existence of free capital markets and relatively low taxes. Although there were more rich people in America (spiking the 'inequality' graph), there was also an expanding and enriched middle class. It could be said that after absorbing the punishment of FDR's policies, the American economy finally began to grow its way out of the decline of those terrible years.
 
Krugman continues: On the political side, you might have expected rising inequality to produce a populist backlash. Instead, however, the era of rising inequality has also been the era of “movement conservatism,” the term both supporters and opponents use for the highly cohesive set of interlocking institutions that brought Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich to power, and reached its culmination, taking control of all three branches of the federal government, under George W. Bush. (Yes, Virginia, there is a vast right-wing conspiracy.)

Because of movement conservative political dominance, taxes on the rich have fallen, and the holes in the safety net have gotten bigger, even as inequality has soared. And the rise of movement conservatism is also at the heart of the bitter partisanship that characterizes politics today.

Surely Krugman cannot miss the causal linkage between lowering taxes and increasing wealth. Could he be so ignorant as to reverse cause and effect?

By pretending that wealth is a zero-sum concept, Krugman uses a typical Leftist trick. The reader is led to the assumption that lower taxes (a nasty Republican device) cause inequality, which must be bad (because Krugman said so, and it just seems unfair). Therefore, Republicans are bad.

The reality is that lower taxes release more capital that can be used to produce more wealth. The increase in a nation's wealth is predominantly in the hands of those who take risks, work hard, invest capital etc. While this may be disproportionate, it is by no means unfair! Any effort to curb the success of the productive minority in this country will have disastrous effects on the entire economy. However, those curbs will be successful (in Krugman's view) because they would help to equalize poverty.

Although all citizens benefit from having more capital in their economy (raising more out of poverty, and enriching the middle class), there will always be inequality - as long as people have different abilities - and that is not the evil that Krugman claims it to be.

Krugman's world-view is one of inverted reality. FDR's New Deal is something that he praises, despite the clear evidence of its failure. In fact, the stench of the New Deal lingers to this day in the form of a growing welfare state that harms the welfare of the state(*). A thriving economy, fuelled by tax cuts is disparaged by Krugman - despite the obvious increase in the standards of living of middle-class America.

A clever use of statistics, Mr. Krugman, but your analysis doesn't pass the smell test.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) this phrase was adapted from a similar phrase in one of George Will's recent columns!

Leftists often complain bitterly about the harsh grittiness of Capitalism.

In their view, Capitalism suffers from the following fatal flaws:

* it creates a society that is competitive - some would say that it is brutally competitive
* it rewards risk-taking, but punishes mistakes
* it does not provide a safety net for the less competent

The above flaws, Leftists say, can be removed by means of a layer of control (usually via the Govt), acting as a benevolent force for good. Although well-intentioned, those controls inexorably chip away at the source of Capitalism's power - the freedom of individuals to improve themselves, thereby reaching a higher level of success.

The result is often much harsher, and certainly a lot grittier! Opponents of Capitalism would say that the lack of success of the alternatives just mean that they (e.g. Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea) just didn't find the right mix of benevolent Government and freedom. They would like to tweak the recipe and keep trying, in the hope of finding that magic formula.

The reality is that the very concept of a well meaning 'nanny' Government kills the incentives and the accountability implied in Capitalism. The safety net of a mixed economy is not protectively under citizens - it is above them, keeping them down, eliminating that which makes people work harder, take risks and prosper.

By ensuring the best use of resources, Capitalism reduces the overall level of poverty. The fact that this is achieved without it being a stated goal renders moot the effusive smarminess and sloganeering of Leftist propaganda.

Our country was founded on the basis of freedom. A novel idea, this meant that people were free but Govt was bound. Americans were free to do anything except those few actions that were legally proscribed (murder, robbery etc). On the other hand, Govt was bound to do only that which it was permitted, by the voluntary consent of citizens.

In economics, the above priniciples led to Capitalism. After all, unlike other economic systems, Capitalism isn't a rigid set of rules - it is what naturally evolves in the marketplace when there is an absence of Govt control.

With its philosophical underpinnings of freedom, and its economic incentives aligned with human predilictions, the American economy sputtered to life. Within two centuries of its birth - a relatively small time span in terms of societal evolution - it became a roaring engine that sustained the growth of a magnificent nation. Before long, it became the dominant economy in the world. This was because most of the other countries were mired in the muck of monarchy, feudalism or savage cannibalism (aka socialism) in which the economic incentives ran counter to individual desires. The stated intentions of the Governing class in those countries had very little to do with their actual outcomes - they were doomed because of their misaligned incentives.

Somewhere along the line, the "meddlers" awoke in America. Mostly these were 2nd or 3rd generation Americans who inherited (rather than earned) their affluence. A generation or two removed from the mostly virtuous actions that had led to their affluence, they felt culturally deprived, strangely envious of other cultures that had cultural legacy, but weak economies. They donned the mantle of "intellectuals" and embarked on the process of "improving" the barbaric conditions that Capitalism had imposed on America. They found many people in other countries who were envious of America's affluence, but who sneered at its perceived gaucherie and gaudiness. This didn't keep them from shamelessly riding the coat tails of American success (which they disparaged) while seeking economic and/or military support from Americans when their so-called elite & cultured societies faltered.

With altruism as a stage-prop American 'intellectuals' were able to convince many people that Capitalism was savage and unkind. In a way they were correct - Capitalism is all of those things, but it works because it is consistent with proclivities of free human beings.

The intellectuals used religion-inspired altruism to denigrate the very concept that had led to prosperity in America. This allowed the less successful, guided by morally fraudulent intellectuals, to seek the transfer of wealth from their betters. By codifying their concepts into subjective law and taxation, they were able to legalize robbery - and call it justice.

This is the secret weapon of the Leftists - and it is a one-two punch - the concepts of altruism and unearned guilt are the two components. Its a case of Heads - they win, and Tails - you lose! 

Socialism's biggest victory (albeit a Pyrrhic one) has been the voluntary acceptance of the producers that they should live for the sake of their parasites.

In America, many hardworking people who are not of the looter / moocher persuasion routinely vote for entitlements, or for politicians who support ever-expanding programs such as Universal Health Care, Public Education and Welfare.

To be a successful 'producer' in a competitive economy, one has to be reasonably smart. So why do so many get smart people get conned?

In the Leftist credo: Altruism is worshipped as an unlimited virtue & an un-earned Guilt is reserved for those who succeed. Unless the producers in our society reject both those principles, they are easy prey for Leftist moochers.

A recent article in the New York Times caught my attention. It is titled "Jobs Abroad Support ‘Model’ State in India" and may be found at this link.

Although the NYTimes correspondent Jason DeParle attempts to show both sides of this story, a reader can't help being impressed - at least initially - by the achievements of the Socialist state. After all, when one considers that the state (which has been run by the local Communist Party since 1957) is a role model that boasts:

* a life expectancy of 74 years - almost as good as the average of 77 years for Americans,
* a 91% literacy rate - approaching the 99% literacy rate in America,
* a well-established minimum wage, and Government run health clinics and schools,
* hostility to business, with heavy regulation & militant unions,
* Government as the largest employer,

wouldn't everyone want to live, work and prosper there?

But that is exactly the problem! 

Despite the glowing statistics mentioned above, one-sixth of the State's workforce are migrants who live & work abroad while remitting $5B annually to their state's economy. Those remittances account for 25% of the State's economy, which is not bad considering that the unemployment rate in the State is at 20%.

What do the 'experts' think of all this?

* a United Nations report praised the state’s “impressive advances in the spheres of health and education.”
* Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in economics, argues (in a book with Jean Dreze) that its “outstanding social achievements” were of “far-reaching significance” in other countries.
* In a book on three places that inspire global hope, Bill McKibben, an American, wrote that the State "demonstrates that a low-level economy can create a decent life” and shows that “sharing works.”

To be fair, the NY TImes article also mentions some critics:

* "far from escaping capitalism, they say, this celebrated corner of the developing world is painfully dependent on it"
* “There would have been starvation deaths in Kerala if there had been no migration. The Kerala model is good to read about but not practically applicable to any part of the world, including Kerala.”
* “So many educated people are here, but we have no jobs,”

While the article strives to be even-handed, the overall tone is positive, ending by quoting an admirer of the State's policies: Professor Franke, the Kerala admirer, said the economic forces that lead people to migrate were beyond the state’s control. “But what’s unique about Kerala is that the benefits are likely to be shared in a more fair and just way,” he said.

“I wouldn’t say it discredits the model,” Mr. Franke said of Kerala’s migration. “It shows that it has weaknesses.”

Clearly, there is nothing wrong with the people of the State of Kerala. They are literate, industrious and capable of putting up with adverse conditions in foreign countries to keep their families afloat. In fact, they are to be commended for their tenacity and hard work. It is the socialist system that has failed them.

Parallels may be found in other Socialist or semi-Socialist countries. Their most notable exports are their hardest-working, educated, entrepreneurial citizens.

But, what about the vaunted halls of academia that one hears about in Socialist countries?

Well, in a sort of back-handed way, the lack of private enterprise actually helped make their Universities better .. and this applies to countries like China, India etc. For more on this read: Successful Soviets - an oxymoron?

PHASE1 (1st five yrs)
* Medicare/Medicaid vouchers for the poor and elderly - yes, this perpetuates the status quo, but fairness dictates a short term 'amnesty'
* cease Medicare 'deduction' and employer match
* return the previously extorted Medicare funds (with interest) into the Health Savings Accounts of individuals
* continue tax deductibility of Health Savings Accounts - employers may choose to contribute into the Health Savings Accounts of their employees
* fee for service begins to eliminate the need for insurance companies EXCEPT for catastrophic coverage
* costs start to come down (supply-and-demand at work)

PHASE2 (next five yrs)
* Healthcare vouchers ONLY for the poor and/or for those who are above a certain 'cut-off' age
* tax relief for everyone else
* end tax deductibility of Health Savings Accounts

PHASE3 (the future)
* no more Medicare, Medicaid etc.
* the poor are helped by voluntary, private charity
* Return to fee-for-service
* Health insurance is relegated to its rightful status - as a hedge against catastrophic illness

Opponents will charge that it is too cold & heartless. Inevitably there will be some who can't afford medical care, requiring private charity to intercede on their behalf. In reality, the lower costs would ensure that there would be a decrease in the number of people who can't afford medical care.

Actually our healthcare system is less screwed up than our education system! At least Govt does not (with some exceptions) own and operate most of the hospitals. So, the above solution is easier than my proposal for fixing K-12 education 

The above solutions do not 'feel good', but they will work. However, it may be difficult to get a Presidential candidate to take this 'tough love' approach - for fear that it may not resonate in present-day Peoria where populism prevails.

Note: TH blogs are rife with verbal jousting between people from all four quadrants of the Secular/Religious, Liberal/Conservative divide. Upon closer inspection, it appears as though some adversaries actually share similar values - although those values may be derived from different sources.

For the sake of clarity, let's start with some definitions:

Values: that which an individual seeks to obtain or retain; e.g. most Americans would agree that Education is a Value.

Virtues: actions taken to obtain or retain values; most Americans would agree that working hard and staying in school are virtuous actions taken to obtain a good Education.

Joy: achieved when one succeeds in obtaining or retaining one's values; what a person feels when they graduate from school or college with a good Education! 

The above definitions apply to atheists and religious people as well. 

It is true that differences can exist in the values that different people hold - but more often, rational people share similar values, although the source of those values may be different.

For example, many secular people and most religious people believe in the value of marriage, particularly when children are involved. In the case of religious people, the source of that value may be a religious covenant. Secular couples on the other hand, may arrive at the same value without the religious significance of marriage.

But when debating which one 'wins' - it really matters what values are being considered on both sides. Also, the actions that different people suggest to attain the same values may differ.

So, it is possible for an atheist and a religious person to have the same values. Of course, there could also be complete disagreement in the value system of two religious people, or two atheists.

Examples of complete disagreement despite seeming similarities:
* an anarchist-type atheist, who thinks that it is OK to rob or kill vs. an atheist who believes in hard work, consistency and disciplined self-interest.

* a religious bomber (whether Mohammed Atta or McVeigh) vs. a religious person who believes in a strong work ethic, family etc.

A few moments of introspection usually help crystallize a person's world-view along the value-axis. Then, without debating the different sources of those values, we can focus on the values themselves. It may surprise us to find that there may be more similarities than differences within the American public despite the labeling that politicians use to divide us!

But, we should also consider that a suicide bomber feels a perverse kind of 'joy' just before he blows himself up. After all, he has just attained his 'value' which just happened to be the destruction of innocent lives. In his loony-tunes world, his action is 'virtuous', truly deserving of multiple virginal defloration rewards in his benighted paradise.

For the record, my sympathies are with the poor virgins!

So, it comes down to this: happiness depends on your value system. So, the 'pursuit of happiness' (per se) cannot be defined as a universal 'virtue', although it has come to be known as the foundation of a free society.

Values, on the other hand, make all the difference.

There hasn't been anything like this since 1925, when Jennings and Darrow clashed in Dayton, TN - in the trial that came to be called the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Now, coming soon to a television screen near you - brought to you by the Fox(N) and CSPAN(Z) faux networks - a debate that will provide definitive answers to a divided nation on crucial economic questions of the century such as "What is the correct role of Government in American Economics".

A clash of Titans - panel leader Krugman (for the Left) and panel leader Sowell (for the Right).

Are you sick of the posturing and pandering that usually accompanies debates on economics when Presidential candidates 'debate' these subjects? Do you sometimes feel that none of the contenders in the debate have the credentials to address the topics at hand, except in the form of sound-bites?
 
The shallowness that we have come to expect (from both sides) during presidential debates is partly the result of the format of the debates. More significant blame rests on the contenders themselves! After all, none of the presidential candidates have much in-depth expertise on the entire range of subjects - so, during the pre-election period, they tell us only what plays well in Peoria - or, in these modern times, what points-of-view have polled well with various demographics and 'focus-groups'.

After an election, the President must rely on policy advisors and experts with (hopefully) a lot more knowledge than the President. As long as the resulting policy directives are not in direct contradiction with the politically inspired, pre-election rhetoric of the candidate, all is well. And, if there are some inconsistencies, it can be palmed off as "facing up to new realities" or some other well-tested cliche conjured up by the President's handlers .

But this time, it is going to be different! 

Introducing, the Touchstone series of debates. Wiki definition: A touchstone is a small tablet of dark stone such as fieldstone, slate or lydite, used for assaying precious metal alloys. The metaphorical use of the word touchstone means any physical or intellectual measure by which the validity of a concept can be tested

Folks, in this series of debates, you will see policy experts frame important issues for the whole country, with facts and unequivocal analysis on subjects such as "Entitlements in general, and Universal Health Care in particular". With this background, none of our presidential candidates can posture and pander their way to electoral success at the expense of the country.

Fox(N) and CSPAN(Z) have teamed up to bring this to you, because it is important to have these "Expert debates" before the funny season begins! Primaries and national elections will continue, but there will be an expert, intellectual basis on which to proceed, instead of the current political calculus that sound more like football game strategies. With the important issues framed by experts, the politicians (and the public) will be less likely to ask for or propose unworkable solutions. There will be a new ‘touchstone’ for public policy, and hopefully, a return to common sense in our politics.

Sponsors include the RNC and the DNC. Look for their exciting local or nationwide political ads during commercial breaks. Other sponsors include your favorite blog-sites, issues groups and and all the other usual suspects. For product placement opportunities (I mean, just think of the vision of Paul Krugman or Thomas Sowell thoughtfully sipping a can of (your product here)). Contact the abovementioned fake networks for more on these exciting sponsorship opportunities..

Stay tuned for more announcements about this exciting (but completely fake) series of debates. The series on Economics will be followed by other Expert Series with different panels weighing-in on topics such as Education, Foreign Policy, the Environment and Law. Finally, there will be a series devoted to Societal & Family Matters, in which a special panel will address complex social issues .

Format (for the economic debate): Sowell, Williams et al on one side, facing Krugman et al. With full access to data, fact checking by experts & peer review. No time limits, no sneaky mediator questions, no in-studio audiences or cheering sections to distract from serious, factual discussion.

The debate on economics will span five days, with one 3hr session every morning devoted to a particular topic. Each side would present a multimedia presentation, to be discussed and dissected in-depth. Each days morning session would be followed with an afternoon Q&A as well as peer review, so that neither side could get away with incomplete, unsubstantiated or incorrect arguments.

DVDs and transcripts will be available through the usual fake commecial channels. Pre-order your copy today!

 

From "Urbanlegends.about.com"
New Dollar Coin Omits 'In God We Trust'

Netlore Archive: Email rumor claims the motto 'In God We Trust' was omitted from the new one-dollar U.S. coin issued in February 2007

Description: Email flier
Circulating since: February 2007
Status: Partly true
Analysis: See below

Email example contributed by George S., 27 February 2007:

This new coin came out this month The U.S. Mint hopes the redesigned $1 coin will win acceptance with consumers. It does not have In God We Trust on it. Another way of leaving God out. Send this on and let consumers decide if it will win acceptance or not.

Comments: (Updated) According to the U.S. Mint, an unknown number of new one-dollar George Washington coins (at least 50,000 of them, by one estimate) were erroneously struck without the motto "In God We Trust" and found their way into the batch of 300 million issued on February 15, 2007. A rumor (see above) began circulating soon afterward to the effect that the religious slogan, which has been a standard inscription on U.S. coins since 1938 and the national motto since 1956, was intentionally omitted from the entire run of one-dollar coins. The rumor is false, though it remains unclear whether it was inspired by the minting error or the fact that the newly designed coin, properly manufactured, bears the inscription "In God We Trust" on its outer edge instead of its face, per the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005:

About.com Coins Guide Susan Headley has been following the minting snafu since it was first discovered by collectors in February 2007 and sums it all up in her Washington Dollar Plain Edge Coins FAQ.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- "This is our life now; it's going to start again!"

CNN's Arwa Damon at times found herself forgetting she was on live TV.

Anita, an interpreter with the U.S. military, screamed into the microphone over the celebration racket after Iraq won the Asia Cup this weekend.

I had a ridiculous grin plastered across my face during our coverage. I kept turning toward the screen whenever the room erupted, not wanting to miss a moment, forgetting that I was live on air.

For the Iraqis, faces covered in paint, and the Americans who joined them in jubilation -- some even sporting Iraqi sports uniforms -- the victory was a moment the country never expected to enjoy. 
 
Read the CNN article titled: "Rare jubilation for a war-torn nation"