Redistribution and Taxation in America

The Tax Foundation recently summarized a report by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The report points out that the U.S. has the most "progressive" tax systems in the economically developed world. Progressive taxation is simply defined as the more you make, the more you pay. The left in this country often admires the social welfare states of Europe as models for America.

Why, then, is the left not satisfied if America taxes its rich people more than Europe? Is it because our unemployment rate is lower than France? Germany? the EU overall? Is it because, despite our government having the largest budget of any nation on Earth, one that exceeds the record profits ExxonMobil made by more than 200 times, it still isn't big enough? Is it because we are not as politically correct, or that our electorate is center-right instead of center-left or far left? Is it because our government's level of social and economic control isn't enough? One can only wonder.

I happen to like capitalism--not unfettered, not utterly unregulated, but not owned or controlled by the government. Governments exist to spread resources more or less equally to soothe a restless populace. Capitalism exists to allow individuals to compete and produce new goods and services at the lowest costs and highest profits possible. Simple supply and demand determine what those costs and profits will be. In the realm of government, costs and profits can be and are regulated, not according to supply and demand, but according a nebulous definition of fairness, with that definition changing constantly, depending on the political priorities of the ruling party. When government gets too involved in capitalism, you end up with crony capitalism, as happened at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Once government starts trying to pick winners and losers, either through political favors or "fairness," it inevitably becomes less "fair," more expensive, and much more intrusive.

What bothers me about the two presidential candidates (Obama more directly than McCain, but McCain is just as willing to interfere with the market) is that neither of them has my full confidence that they will restore some sense of rationality, independence, or competition to the market. Everything is becoming "too big to be allowed to fail," from banks to insurance companies to car makers and airlines, so government "must" step in to "save" these businesses. This salvation comes in the form of a government bailout, which must be paid for somehow out of the public treasury, which in turn must come from the taxpayers.

If businesses fail due to bad management and the government partially bails them out, their employees become unemployed, and they might or might not find jobs. The unemployed who remain unemployed do not pay taxes and collect unemployment insurance from the government, becoming a double "cost" to the government. So then one must ask: where is all the money supposed to come from to save future businesses and all the other stuff the two candidates want to do?

It has been suggested to me that we could cut the military. Swell. As long as we go bipartisan on this issue and start cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits. Or maybe cut the Department of Education, which spends more and more for worse and worse results. Or we could be seriously suicidal with our nation's future and cut federal infrastructure spending--roads, basic science research, and space.

Another suggestion I've heard is to cut the capital gains and corporate tax rates--America has some of the highest tax rates in those two categories, too. Might as well try it at this point; if the Fed lowers the interest rate any more, they're going to start reaching negative numbers. And I love it when I hear that "tax cuts for the rich" line. Having already established that we tax the rich more than anybody and (in a previous posting) that 50% or more of the American public invests in the stock market, why should the American people be offended by efforts to help businesses? Where do they think the value of their pension funds or 401(k)s was coming from? If the health of businesses improves due to tax cuts, and millions of Americans' retirement accounts immediately increase in value, that's not just "trickle down" economics--that's a direct benefit to 50% of the American public!

Never mind. I can just wait for Obama to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, sink the economy further, and watch the government take over even more of the private sector so I can wearily say, "I told you so." But don't think I'll do it with any sort of pleasure. It's my country, too.

Lobbyists Working Hard to Get a Piece of the Bailout Pie

I'm shocked, shocked...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081025/D941MO9G0.html

Book Review: The Soul of Battle

Victor Davis Hanson made a name for himself as one of the intellectuals of the neoconservative movement. His best-known work is probably Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power. In that book, Hanson explained how men of the West became the dominant military power on Earth through the use of heavy infantry capable of direct, vicious clashes with other troops. This "shock" type of warfare allowed everyone from Greek hoplites to American GIs to overcome enemies as varied as the Persian Empire and the Japanese Empire. What's interesting about his 1999 The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny is that it seems to undermine the 2002 thesis of Carnage and Culture. Why? Because while Carnage and Culture focuses almost exclusively on "shock" warfare and concentration of power, The Soul of Battle, written before 9/11, focuses on indirect methods of warfare.

What, then, is The Soul of Battle about? Starting with a little-known Greek general, Epaminondas, the book covers two other generals--William Tecumseh Sherman and George S. Patton--and their careers as leaders of democratic armies.

Let's start with Epaminondas. If you were asked who was the first general to destroy a slave-holding society by attacking that society's infrastructure--the homes and fields--you might think first of the Union Civil War General Sherman. However, 2,300 years before Sherman, a Theban named Epaminondas ravaged the Spartan countryside, ended the Spartan practice of holding fellow Greeks as slaves (helots), and ensured the Peloponnese a generation of peace before Alexander the Great's father Philip II of Macedon destroyed Greek democracy forever.

We tend to remember and glorify Sparta's gallant stand of the 300 against the Persians and overlook their rougher, more imperialistic behavior before, during, and after the Peloponnesian War. After Athens was defeated in that war, Sparta continued its domination of Greece, until a general of Thebes, Epaminondas, conceived of the idea of invading Sparta, burning its farms and homes, and destroying its vicious form of slavery. With a force of around 30,000 hoplites, the newly democratic city-state of Thebes destroyed the slave-state of Sparta, established the free city of Mantinea, and ensured the safety of another democracy, the city of Megalopolis.

Most of this military activity, performed over the winter of 370-369 B.C., occurred with few pitched battles. Instead, this army of farmer-warriors mostly just ravaged the countryside, pillaging and burning Spartan homesteads while freeing helots, who often joined their assault. By the time the Theban army reached Sparta itself, the once-proud warriors were hiding on the high ground, hoping that pitched battle would not come to them, even as Epaminondas and his troops challenged them to direct battle. The Spartans would not leave their walls, and the Thebans continued their ravaging of the Laconian countryside, freeing even more slaves, and helping them build a city before returning home. Epaminondas was eventually charged with treason and other crimes for keeping an army in the field beyond its appointed time, and yet the general's army eventually fought again, until Epaminondas was killed in action. After that, the army's soldiers returned to civilian life. It would be nearly 2,300 years before another army repeated the social and political circumstances of this forgotten Greek army of liberators. Sparta never mounted another serious attack within the Greek world.

William T. Sherman is a renowned and (in the part of the United States where I live) infamous general who fought along the Mississippi River, in Tennessee, and Georgia before beginning his famed "March to the Sea" from Atlanta to Savannah, Georgia, then a further march up through South and North Carolina. He engaged in few pitched battles after conquering Atlanta. Instead his army, consisting mostly of Midwesterners (my folk--people from Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois), took it upon themselves to destroy the plantation homes and culture of the rich slaveholders who advocated for secession from the Union. Sherman's theory was that these Southern planters were most responsible for goading the Confederacy into war, and so must bear the brunt of punishment for starting that war. Along its way, Sherman's army destroyed property, took food and provisions, and freed slaves on the plantations it encountered along a 100-mile-wide track through the South.

While Ulysses S. Grant was engaged in direct confrontation with the Army of Northern Virginia and the 19th century version of immobile trench warfare, Sherman was performing a war of rapid maneuver that involved little direct confrontation with Confederate troops. As the author puts it, there was little in the way of civilian killing, raping, or the usual mayhem that might be expected during a typical "sack" by an invading army. Instead, this ideologically minded army was focused on destroying the infrastructure and martial spirit of its Confederate enemies. And, come the day when the war ended (in no small part due to Sherman's approaching General Lee's flank), Sherman's army of 65,000 marched triumphantly down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, before disbanding into the civilian populace.

The third general discussed in The Soul of Battle is perhaps the most famous American general of modern times, George S. Patton. Having been immortalized in a motion picture, the details of Patton's story tend to get lost. For instance, Hanson reveals some of the petty jealousies and outright sabotage that occurred within the American Army to prevent Patton from achieving even greater fame. The section on Patton is written somewhat differently from the other two sections, as it is written in reverse chronological order, focusing on the various places where Patton had (five!)opportunities to wipe out the armies of the Third Reich and was denied by more cautious superiors, namely Omar Bradley and Dwight Eisenhower.

Patton comes across as somewhat of a dramatic figure compared to the more "bureaucratic" Bradley and Eisenhower. While we think of political correctness as a function of the present day, the practice of softening language to cover up ugly behavior (e.g. killing) was already well underway in the 1940s. Patton was determined to turn his Third Army into a cadre of ideological killing machines, determined to destroy the German Nazis. And yet, after the Third Army's amazing drive from Normandy to Czechoslovakia ended in 1945, it was dissolved six months later, and its commanding general was dead by the end of the year.

What is the point of this narrative? Why focus on these three generals? Hanson is trying to teach an important lesson about the armies of democracies in time of war. He wants to demonstrate the lethal destructiveness that democratic armies are capable of under military geniuses like Epaminondas, Sherman, and Patton. More importantly, he wants to explain for a modern audience the need for such generals and armies in the current day. Once upon a time, men of the West would gather and fight to destroy evils like sadistic helotage in Sparta, a similar slavery in Confederate America, or the cold-blooded genocide of Nazi Germany. Patton's Third Army, indeed, might be the most recent and last example of an army of free people going forth to destroy a pernicious ideology. Hanson references Gulf War I (Soul of Battle was written in '99), and points out that all three generals of his narrative would not have stopped short of Baghdad, as Schwarzkopf did in '91.

The Soul of Battle, however, while it does not cover Gulf War II, anticipates the rapid thrusts and quick victories that armies of liberating democracies are capable of, such as General Tommy Franks' assault on Baghdad in 2003. It also points out that

democratic armies do not fight well when they are not attacked, when they are stationary with nowhere to march, when they fight to preserve privilege or empire, when they are not supported at home, when they are led by careful clerks and bureaucrats who command by consensus--in short, when they are not moving forward with every means at their disposal to destroy the enemy in the cause of freedom.

On the other side of these weaknesses, Hanson encapsulates the heart of warfare in the democratic age, as articulated by William T. Sherman:

He perceived that the resisting power of a modern democracy depends more on the strength of the popular will than on the strength of its armies, and that this will in turn depends largely upon economic and social security. To interrupt the ordinary life of the people and quench hope of its resumption is more effective than any military result short of the complete destruction of the armies.

This is, in short, what terrorists are trying to do without the benefit of massive forces or logistical tails. The question remains: how does one counteract such destabilizing strategies in the new era of fourth generation warfare? We'd best learn that lesson quickly, as Americans were pioneers in this type of warfare. That, I suppose, is the lesson Hanson teaches most clearly in this informative and highly philosophical work on war.

Socialism, Reconsidered

Rather than clog my message center, I'll respond to a comment from my buddy Doc here in the blog.

Government takeover/ownership of banks, assets, or other massive quantities of formerly private property IS socialist. I don't approve of the bailout, even if McCain did support it. McCain is a Republican, but he is not a conservative. Massive government intervention into the economy is not conservative, it is socialist or at best liberal, both of which I disagree with.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

[Socialism is a] social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members. (Emphasis mine)

We're heading down the path of government control of the banking system, which affects every aspect of human endeavor, because without money, the economy won't function. The government, via Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency, has also done its level best to control natural resources by restricting who can exploit them and how/where.

I've heard this line about the government buying these assets and then selling them at a profit, to the benefit of the taxpayer. Who actually believes this? Are we, as "stockholders," going to receive a dividend every quarter from the federal sale of these assets? That would be preferred, but in all likelihood, the profits/proceeds from these sales will just go to feed more government spending. Isn't $3 trillion enough already? What happens when all of the assets the government purchases in the bailout are sold? Who's to say the government won't continue this process of "bailing out" more banks in the future? As the government "rescues" more banks, it increasingly de-privatizes profit and takes over ownership, not just for large businesses, but individuals as well.

Increasing taxes = less money for you, the individual, and more money and more power for the government. Why is the greed of the private sector frowned upon but the greed of the government for more and more money never questioned? Why must businesses be forced to scale back in bad economic times, but never the government?

I am not going to say that I am a complete laissez-faire capitalist or that government has no place in regulating the market. It does. However, the government (and the market) functions best when it protects individuals from harm and fraud, maintains the "rules of the road," and allows individuals and businesses to rise and fall with the marketplace. It functions worst when it tries to run things or pick winners and losers, as when it allowed Lehman or other outfits to fail but is choosing a special few banks to save.

I'd be quite happy with a balanced budget amendment, along with a law that states government taxes cannot exceed a specified amount of GDP. Throw in term limits for congressmen and senators to limit the empire-building that comes with long terms on Capitol Hill. But no, I don't want the government to take more of my money. I do not think raising taxes is a smart idea in the middle of a recession--all that does is slow down economic activity further. I do believe that taxing "the rich" or "Big Business" for the sole reason of giving that money to people who don't pay taxes is no smarter than declaring an oligarchy and forcing non-taxpaying citizens into chattel slavery. That is flat-out redistribution of wealth, and is, per the definition above, socialist.

A lot of this boils down to what one perceives at the ultimate "unit" of society. If you believe that the individual is the most important unit of a society, then you do what you can to ensure equality of opportunity and reduce the number of expensive laws/regulations/taxes that cause individuals to otherwise fail. If you believe that "society" as a whole is the basic unit, you're likely to want/expect the goods of society to be distributed more or less equally (equality of result). The problem with this approach is that the individuals producing goods and services will eventually stop working, move away ("brain drain"), or take their own turn at the public trough. Why should anyone work hard if the state is going to provide for them "for free?"

Here's a small microcosm of the problem. The State of Hawaii recently closed down their universal child care program after nine months because it was too expensive to maintain. Why? I'll let AP 'splain:

Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."

That might not have been the intent, but that's human nature, and it's something this brilliant government program overlooked.

Anyhow, I respectfully disagree: the direction of the government--under both parties--is moving toward socialism; and as a capitalist, I don't like it. All I can do, however, is vote and hope for the best.

"A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. ... [O]nce a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so..." They'll vote themselves bread and circuses every time "until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader [such as] the barbarians enter Rome."

--Robert A. Heinlein, To Sail Beyond the Sunset

Socialism, Distributism, Etc.

First, there's this bit from Jerry Pournelle on what "distributism" is: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2008/Q4/view541.html#Distributism

Then there's this bit from the Kansas City Star, which states that calling Obama a "socialist" is code language for "black." http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2493 (Stupid question here, but why should anyone require code for something that is patently obvious?)

Weird world.

The New Era of Space Continues

The Indian space agency has launched its first probe toward the Moon, Chandrayaan-1: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7679818.stm. Good for them!

Chandrayaan-1 was developed, in part, with assistance from the U.S., as one of its onboard instruments was built by NASA. Data from this orbiter will most likely help Constellation pick future landing spots for our astronauts (though, of course, any discoveries made will be confirmed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter).

Between the cooperation in space and the recent deal on nuclear power, the U.S. and India are fundamentally shifting the shape of politics in South Asia, as the two largest democratically elected governments on Earth are now seen as cooperating, if not actual allies. This is a huge change after the Cold War, when socialist India was much closer to the Soviet Union. Having finally embraced capitalism, India is now moving closer to the U.S. This is to our advantage, especially given the potential threat of China--on Earth or in space. We could do a lot worse, and this country could use all the allies it can get!

*

In the course of my job today, I got to listen to the following speech by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=29544. It was an interesting topic--integrity--for a man who many pundits seem to assume will not have a job come the next administration.

Obviously Dr. Griffin has felt wounded and insulted by the criticism the Constellation Program has endured for the last four years. However, the speech also served as a reminder to the NASA internal audience: the proper functioning of a government bureaucracy requires behaving with integrity.

That said, Griffin remained "on message." He stated that the current Constellation architecture will continue. Is it perfect? No, but it is the best architecture given the constraints the agency had to operate under and the requirements the Constellation mission had to use.

*

Griffin's speech was given at the American Astronautical Society's Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium here in Huntsville. The first panel of the morning--the one that most concerned my day job--was the Ares panel. After that was Griffin's luncheon speech and then a panel on the other parts of the Constellation Program, including the Ares V cargo launch vehicle, the Altair lunar lander, and Orion crew exploration vehicle. Wayne Hale, former Space Shuttle Program Manager, had a great and sometimes hilarious presentation on exploration and science.

The best speech I heard all day came from John Horack, Manager of the Science & Mission Systems department at Marshall Space Flight Center. I've heard Horack speak before, but he hit a sensitive spot for me today, as he discussed the "why" of human exploration. I have some notes, but they don't begin to capture the man's delivery or message. I'm hoping to get a copy tomorrow to pull some actual quotations, but I'll try to give some of my impressions now.

He spoke about the fact that space exploration is one of the few things this nation does that exists to create a better future. This is important when so many governmental actions exist to prevent negative consequences. He spoke of the need to build a better future, and how NASA exemplified that need. He spoke of how Abraham Lincoln, in the midst of the Civil War, still decided to fund the Transcontinental Railroad, and how that investment "made the future that much better." He spoke about the need for a better future, and challenged the audience to explain to their children, if we cut the space program completely, why we believed America would no longer exist or that the future would no longer be better for them. It was fundamental stuff, things we probably don't hear often enough, and things I obviously needed to hear. I promise to post some better quotations from Horack's speech as soon as I can obtain them.

And it bears noting how Horack introduced himself: "Hi, I'm John Horack, and I'm a scientist." There's this bizarre competition between science and engineering within NASA, but you hear none of that from Horack, even when I'm sure some of his programs have taken budget hits to pay for Shuttle or Constellation. He believes in exploration and what it can do for science, and that goes a long way toward helping others see the potential for cooperation and synergy. Now the cynic in me should probably qualify this, and say, "He says he believes in exploration," but jeez, why go to all the trouble? Why put one's best thoughts and words toward ideas one doesn't believe? Anyhow, I liked his speech a great deal, and given some of the negativity I've heard and expressed lately, I probably needed it.

Space and Science in the New Era

"Forgive me. I was wrong to despair."
--Legolas, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

A few days ago, I felt overwhelmed by, and decided to rant about, the larger forces threatening to erode our scientific and technical future (you know, because I have nothing better to do with my time). I was talking with a guy from my church this morning about these concerns when the answer just sort of fell out of my mouth:

"The only way this nation is going to be able to afford all of the things it's committed to doing (welfare, defense spending, etc.) is to be rich. Science and technology are what have made us rich. We need to continue spending on those things if we want to afford the future we want."

So, great. I have a theory. Now comes the hard part: what do I do with it?

Jerry Pournelle, in his 1976 book A Step Farther Out, calls this approach "survival with style." Survival is one thing--we can muddle along or conserve or reduce our lifestyles and survive, though the future won't be nearly as exciting--surviving with style means continuing to have progress, improving lifestyles, and ongoing advancement. There are plenty of technologies we haven't tried in earnest yet: ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC), tidal power, space solar power, safer nuclear plants, helium-3 fusion, etc. If we're serious about having a better future, some or all of these should at least be attempted.

The whole point of scientific progress is that it must progress. And that progress requires a few basic conditions to continue:

• Funding for research.
• Free and open communications for sharing findings.
• A stable political system capable of responding to changes.
• Private property and intellectual property rights, to allow inventors to profit from their work.
• A reasonably stable currency to ensure value.
• Respect for, and equality under, an impartially administered rule of law.
• Freedom of the press to ensure citizen audit of government actions.
• Civilian control of the military.
• Separation of the state from state-formed churches.
• Social mobility and equality of opportunity.
• Religious tolerance.
• Safety, security, and peace.
• Educated students capable of learning and advancing knowledge.
• Representative government.
• Non-confiscatory taxation.

The whole of these concepts represent some of the most important advances over 500 years of Western Civilization. How many of these basic concepts are now in serious danger? What can individuals do to maintain them? Whatever route one takes or what issue one chooses to support, there's plenty of work to go around.

Losing a Bet

Awhile back, I wrote the following:

I'll take a bet on this: President Bush, being the stand-up guy that he is, will get on the tube and admit the bailout didn't work before the Democrats (the problem is, what's he gonna say next?).

Well, I stand corrected. President Bush has not backed down from the bailout or admitted anything of the sort. Instead, he's getting the leaders of the major industrial powers together to come up with an even bigger socialist "solution" for the current mess:

The president has backed the steps European nations have taken to stem the downturn, and wants the summit to include the Group of Eight industrialized powers plus other emerging economies like China and India.

Oy. I guess I should understand a fundamental fact about American politics: no leader will admit a failure unless cornered like a rat and no other solution presents itself. Apparently things haven't gotten that desperate yet.

I would like to remind my Democrat friends once again that George W. Bush is not, Not, NOT a conservative Republican. He might have support from the Christian Right on social issues, but when it comes to international or economic issues, Bush is a neoconservative (i.e. a "big government" guy). His stances on international issues (U.S. intervention and "transformation"/remaking of the Middle East) and economic issues (U.S. Government intervention into domestic affairs) are, again, NOT conservative!

One might rail against John McCain for voting for Bush policies 90% of the time, or whatever (somehow, it's still okay for Obama to vote 95% with his party--go figure), but I would also remind my liberal readers that John McCain is also not a conservative. The most conservative thing he ever did after several six-year terms in the Senate was select Sarah Palin for his running mate. And quite frankly, if McCain serves a full four-year term, Palin's influence will be close to zero, like most VPs before her.

Book Reviews: Inferno and Inferno

No, I haven't gotten my books wrong. There are, in fact, two books named Inferno: one by the medieval poet Dante Aligheri (translated by John Ciardi), and one by contemporary science fiction writers Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.

Dante's Inferno is well known, starting with his warning above the gates of Hell: "Abandon all hope ye who enter" to its circles and increasingly creative ways of punishing sinners of various sorts. As a work of poetry, Dante's Inferno is one of the legendary pieces of Western literature. Not being able to speak Italian very well, I picked up the Ciardi translation of this piece of the "Divine Comedy," as well as Purgatorio and Paradiso, all of which were dedicated to Dante's great love, Beatrice. All three books, I am told, are written in superb Italian. I cannot speak to that, but I can say that Ciardi has done a master's job of putting these works into well-spoken and rhyming English.

What, then, is the Inferno? It is, quite simply, a travelogue through Hell. Dante, writing as himself, is taken on a guided tour of the infernal reaches by Virgil, the Latin poet he most admired. It starts in lighter realms, among the virtuous pagans, who obeyed the Ten Commandments, but were never baptized into the Christian faith, and moves its hideous way down to the Devil himself. Along the way, Virgil explains to Dante what the various levels or "Circles" of Hell mean, and why people are punished they way that they are. The sins start mildly, with the carnal and the gluttonous, and work their way further down through heresy, violence, blasphemy, and eventually betrayal of benefactors (think Judas Iscariot).

During this tour, Dante also encounters people he knew in life who have since passed on, to make clear to his 14th century audience (he completed the Comedy in 1308) what sorts of people he thought would end up in which circles. Given that Dante was already in exile at this point in his career, it is not surprising that he takes potshots at many who put him into that situation, not omitting a few Popes. The Purgatorio and Paradiso take the reader on similar guided tours through Purgatory and Heaven itself. Inferno is always described as the most interesting of the three works, perhaps because it is the most colorful or pernicious. Individuals unable to control their baser instincts are chased around great circles, whipped along by demons, while liars and bad counselors are forced into rivers of excrement and spout as much whenever they open their mouths. It is grotesquery with a purpose, and the purpose is to turn the reader away from sin. The concerns of the Comedy are mostly those of the Middle Ages, and the description of Hell is as "scientific" as one can make it--it is written about a generation after St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, which attempted to reconcile faith and reason.

What, then, is one to make of a work written by a couple of science fiction writers neary 700 years later? Try to imagine, if you will, a 20th century science fiction writer (who falls from a hotel balcony after drinking too much at a science fiction convention) finding himself in the Hell described by Dante. You might think you're in for a bit of depressing literature. Such is not the case. Inferno is hilarious, if one has a sense of humor tuned to the dark and slightly twisted side.

Niven and Pournelle's character, a man named Allen Carpentier (a fancy way of restyling his actual name, Carpenter), does not accept Hell. Nor is he terribly accepting of Heaven, for that matter. He spends most of the novel trying to understand where he is, and what's going on. He is vaguely familiar with Dante, and so assumes that someone or someones have recreated it for strange purposes of their own. And yet along the way, Carpentier's guide Benito shows him 20th century equivalents to the sinners of Dante's era.

Who would have thought that individuals who prevent bridges being built (environmentalists) might end up in the circle of hell designated for Wasters or individuals offering divinity degrees through the mail might end up in the circle set aside for simony? (Don't chastise Niven and Pournelle too much for conservative-mindedness: they also have a special circle of hell for individuals who destroy the environment.) And yet it's not just this retelling and recontextualizing of Dante's Hell that makes this book enjoyable, it's the way their character reacts to it. Where a religious-minded person might see the terror of demons and furies of Dis, the authors' SF writer sees updrafts, upon which he might build a glider to fly out of Hell. Or, in the circle where one previously found vicious dogs, one now finds self-guiding attack sports cars, which Carpentier and his companions decide to drive to get where they want to go. And there's also some of Carpentier's wilder speculations on where he actually is that make the humor that much grimmer. The SF writer's desire to use what's available to solve problems is so typical, so wonderfully goofy, that one can only admire Niven and Pournelle's chutzpah for suggesting them.

And yet the authors have a purpose here. As Carpentier travels deeper into Hell, he starts asking more and more serious questions--why are people forced to suffer in this way? Why would (a) God allow such a place? What purpose would such a Hell serve?

I fear such a retelling of Inferno will offend believers, and yet the book offers good lessons for the questioners in the SF community. It's a book, oddly, that provides a route through to faith for someone who might be questioning otherwise.

I highly recommend Dante's Inferno, as well as the Niven and Pournelle version (there's a sequel coming out soon). The two books, together, just might scare the Hell out of you.

Space and Science Spending in the New Economic Order

This will be as close to a nonpartisan rant as I can manage, partly because I don't see either of the two presidential candidates as being greatly different, and partly because regardless of who is elected in a couple weeks, either of them would have to face the same set of circumstances:

• A $700 billion promise of a congressional bailout, on top of $3 trillion in federal spending on defense, entitlements, and homeland security.
• An aging workforce, which will soon require a great deal of Social Security and Medicare assistance.
• An increasingly competitive global market in science and technology.
• A dysfunctional elementary and secondary government school system.
• More and more national and international problems based on science and technology.

There's also this: a Republican friend of mine reminded me today that she didn't think space was a worthwhile expenditure by the federal government. Darlene the Science Cheerleader recently posted some comments on the value of "funding discovery." My response is worth posting here because if I can't plagiarize myself, I'm in real trouble.

Once upon a time, very rich people in America and aristocrats in Europe funded institutions of research and learning for the sheer joy, pleasure, and worthwhile nature of understanding the physical world. I’m not sure whatever happened to that practice, but if those folks are no longer willing or able to do that, then government should. The research and discovery of new knowledge are common goods, and as such belong to everybody.
Private investments in research can and should be more practical (applied science) and focus on translating known facts about the physical world into new products and
processes that can be patented and owned.

I still believe that federal funding of pure research and private funding for applied research is a good model. However, science has not been an easy sell to the American public. Or, rather, space exploration hasn't been an easy sell in my lifetime. Once upon a time we put men on the Moon and sent multiple spacecraft to all of the outer planets. But then the Cold War ended. NASA funding shriveled. Bush Sr.'s plan to go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond (the $450 billion, 30-year Space Exploration Initiative) was torpedoed. The world's largest atom smasher was built in Europe. Magnetic-levitation trains were built in Germany and used in China. The list goes on, but I'll leave it to Neil de Grasse Tyson to finish the litany for me. See here and here.

There are several approaches space advocates have used:

• Fear of others (the Chinese, Russians, or Indians)
• Fear of external threats (asteroids, comets, solar radiation/flares)
• Economic development and gain (space launch services, satellites, mining materials, tourism, power systems, new jobs, increased prosperity, etc., etc.)
• Scientific knowledge (discovery of other life forms, new chemistries, new galaxies, stars, or planets, new scientific laws)
• New frontiers (other places to live, have families, develop political/social systems, get away from life on Earth, or go to somewhere cool)
• New technologies (technology development on Earth, building new and better stuff that works in space, applying technologies or knowledge from space to Earth-based problems/spinoffs)
• Fun (new sports, new hobbies, new activities)

Even a combination of all of these approaches has not been enough to "sell space" in a healthy economy, which is quite frankly frustrating. But what will all these great reasons and ideas matter in a seriously constrained economy or federal budget? I've been chided by several friends about my negative perception of the government bailout and its potential impacts for the future. Am I hallucinating 30 years of reading history, most of which has told me that bad things happen when government spends beyond its means? Do people no longer study the actual events of the Great Depression in America or Weimar Germany or 1917 Russia?

Okay, I'll take off my frowny-face mask for the moment and assume that all my optimist friends are right: the economy will be fine, socialism will dissipate, and the budget will resume its normal cycles. To quote (of all people) Hillary Clinton, that requires a large suspension of disbelief, but I'll try. The fact still remains that we've got the same long-term problems I listed initially, even without the bailout! Now what? We can't stop Baby Boomers from aging. Can we prevent them from retiring or going on the government dole unnecessarily? Can we fix our public school system so that slow students can catch up while gifted students are allowed to excel on their own or in nurturing environments? Can we get the federal government to spend serious coin on basic research and space exploration? If so, how? I guess my brain is baked because I'm out of ideas.

Suggestions welcome.

Hmmmm

So today's Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 936 points. Far be it for me to look a gift horse in the mouth (that's an 11 percent gain and a bit of a load off my 401(k)), but I'm forced to wonder why there is this sudden exuberance. Has the Dow Jones decided that national and international socializing of the banking business is an inherently good thing? Are they in fact saying, "Oh, goody! Our cheese has been saved! Uncle Sugar and his cousins are going to bail us out!"?

The news media is now reminding us that we are in a mixed economy, and that government action is helping to prevent another Great Depression. That doesn't mean it's right, just that it is so. What sorts of lessons is this situation teaching future big businesses, bankers, and other capitalists? It's teaching that if individuals and companies are part of a sufficiently large segment of the economy, and that segment suddenly faces unexpected or near-catastrophic losses, the government will bail them out. In which case, it will be okay to continue giving executives golden parachutes because, again, the tab will be picked up by Uncle Sam. If you have any doubt about why the non-executive voters are p.o.ed about the bailout, this would be why.

Here's the subtle temptation of socialism: if you're the one receiving the benefits--bailouts, direct cash payouts, or government subsidies--you have a vested interest in continuing to vote for public officials who will perpetuate the system of patronage--which is exactly the point. We make people at all levels of the citizenry dependent on government.

*

In the interests of full disclosure: I received a government loan to allow me to attend graduate school. Note, however, that I am paying off that loan and that I am doing so ahead of schedule. Odds are, if I were to default on said loan, I would not get a bailout of any kind. Mind you, I would have preferred to obtain my "credentials" as a technical writer without getting another degree, but the economy has become such that only the diploma will ensure employment. That requires a different fix from the current student loan program. And yet one must also ask how much government intervention in the educational system has caused students to start out their lives deeply in debt, and whether the price tag is worth it. Having attended a state school, I suppose I got off lucky. I'd be paying off my grad school debts well into my 40s if I'd attended some sort of Ivy League school.

Do I consider my federally funded loan to be socialism? Probably. Have I benefitted from it? Undoubtedly. Would I have preferred another method of funding my schooling? Yes. As Milton Friedman puts it,

[G]overnment has assumed the financial costs of providing the education. In doing so, it has paid not only for the minimum amount of education required of all but also for additional education at higher levels available to youngsters but not required of them--as for example in State and municipal colleges and universities. Both steps can be justified by the "neighborhood effect" discussed above--the payment of the costs as the only feasible means of enforcing the required minimum; and the financing of additional education, on the grounds that other people benefit from the education of those of greater ability and interest since this is a way of providing better social and political leadership. Government subsidy of only certain kinds of education can be justified on these grounds.

The late Mr. Friedman, being a good free-market guy, must provide some consolation for my conservative conscience. And still, I might hope that education--the process and the funding--might eventually become more privatized. Is a college education a "right?" That can be argued, though it's amazing how few people do. The whole thing would undoubtedly cost less if government weren't as involved (consider our health care system as a similar example) or if there wasn't an expectation of, or demand for, a college degree in order to obtain jobs in particular lines of work.

There are lots of problems out there; I just wonder if the two characters running for President are concentrating on the right ones.

Airsick Yet?

As of now (October 13, 2008, 9:56 a.m. Central Time), the markets are up, perhaps in response to the global bailout, which amounts to the G7 nationalizing the capital market, perhaps because they think and hope that the market hit bottom last week. One can hope.

The Weekly Standard had an article last week about how conservative Republicans have gotten their reaction to the market all wrong. We're too nationalist, too protectionist, too anti-free trade. Here's the problem with unlimited free trade (also called "globalization"): supply and demand pushes businesses to move their labor-intensive, unskilled work to places with plentiful cheap labor and fewer regulations. This puts unskilled workers in the U.S. out of work. If those unskilled workers are unable to find other work or go where the work is, they can end up on the welfare rolls, creating a drain on the economy. Jerry Pournelle is not a huge fan of labor unions, though he does consider a minimal protectionist tax on imported goods enough of a buffer to preserve some jobs in the U.S.

We still make a lot of stuff, but as more nations' populations become industrialized and educated, the more competition we will face. Our lead in exports comes from creating and exporting high-tech, big-ticket items like commercial aircraft. What happens when our workforce is no longer as skilled as it once was--and government schools are not what they once were? There are a lot of things going on, and our leaders need to give them serious attention:

• Our borders need protection.
• Our children must be educated in both intellectual and physical trades.
• Our citizens need jobs that support families.
• Our energy supplies need to be increased and new energy technologies developed.
• We need accountability among individuals, in businesses, and the government on the subprime mortgage and capital market crash.

*

And then there's this little bit from Barack Obama. His commercials lately have been touting a tax cut for 95% of Americans. Impossible, ladies and gentlemen. The bottom 50% of taxpayers get all their money back after April 15. Here's why:

Mr. Obama's campaign promise, which he has repeated in his speeches and in the presidential debates, stems from his "Making Work Pay" tax cut that will give a $500 refundable tax credit to every worker or $1,000 to each working couple. But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is "refundable," a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that [sic] Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the U.S. Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers. [Emphasis mine.]

That is not a tax cut. That is a giveaway. It's a handout, like those "stimulus checks" we got this year and after 9/11. It's redistribution of wealth. Call it what you will, but calling it a tax cut is a lie. It's taking money from those who have more of it and handing it off to those who don't have as much and hoping they spend it in ways that will keep the economy going. In other words, the standard socialist policies we've seen before from this party.

*

I was recently accused of hating the poor. The individual thought I wanted the poor to be poor. No, wrong. Wrong squared. I want everyone to have the opportunity to get rich! That means reducing taxes and regulations that hamper businesses. It means allowing individuals to keep more of their money. Why should I work hard to get rich if the harder I work, the more the government takes? And who the heck is the government to say that they have the right to take my money if I someday manage to make $250,001? Why should any of us accept this? Arrgh. I'm heading for the showers. Let's be careful out there.

Jim Benson Dies

http://www.spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=285

This is a shame. I had occasion to meet, interview, and write about Benson a few times. He was one of many IT execs who made a ton of money during the dot-com boom and decided to reinvest his money in the space business. He dreamed big. If he didn't reach all his goals, my hat's off to him for at least setting some worthy ones. Requiescat in pace.

Socialism Continues on the March

Here's an interesting bit from Investment News: http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081007/REG/810079894/0/FRONTPAGE

It deserves to be dissected, Bartish style, so here we go:

A wide range of sweeping changes to the 401(k) system were proposed Tuesday at a hearing on how the market crisis has devastated retirement savings plans.

Chief among them was eliminating $80 billion in tax savings for higher-income people enrolled in 401(k) retirement savings plans.

Translation: "This is $80 billion that the government isn't getting because 401(k)s are tax-free. We want it." Wait, the chutzpah gets more brazen.

This was suggested by the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.
“With respect to the 401(k), it appears to be a plan that is not really well-devised for the changes in the market,” Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said.
“We’ve invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,” he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings.

"We've invested???" What the heck are these people smoking? The government didn't invest a d@mn thing, individuals did. "Subsidizing" is usually something government does when it gives money to industries or individuals for particular activities. The government can't give this money. It's not theirs, it's yours, if you've got a 401(k).

With savings rates going down, “what do we have to start to think about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that is not generating what we … say it should?” Mr. Miller said.

Translation: "We don't think Congress is getting enough money because these investments are tax-free. We need to think of some way to get at that money." Here's a wacky thought: if Congress isn't getting $80 billion that it wanted or expected (and my heart bleeds for them, truly), why don't they cut spending and learn to live within their means like the rest of us?

Congress should let workers trade their 401(k) assets for guaranteed retirement accounts made up of government bonds, suggested Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at The New School for Social Research in New York. When workers collected Social Security, the guaranteed retirement account would pay an inflation-adjusted annuity under her plan.

This is actually pretty hilarious. Remember the ruckus Congress kicked up when Bush suggested that individuals be allowed privatize/invest a small percentage of their Social Security in funds of their own choosing? If I remember the objections correctly, opponents of privatizing Social Security didn't like the notion of the government not controlling all of the money coming into Social Security. And then there was the red herring about potential losses: "Suppose the market goes down, and the person who invested the private part of their Social Security deductions ended up with nothing?"

Now this college professor wants Congress to take your privately invested funds (of your choice) and replace them with a government annuity--what amounts to a Social Security payment--sometime in the future. We're already facing a crisis because millions of people paid into Social Security in the prime of their earning years, only to now face a potentially bankrupt Social Security system. Does anyone truly believe that this bait and switch would work? So what happens if we hand over our funds to the government and those investments increase in value? (And in the long run, they will--we know it, and so does this professor. Otherwise, why would they be so eager to get their hands on them?) The end result here is that government would get profit from your investments and you would have to get by on whatever annuity they're willing to parcel out to you. No, I refuse.

“The way the government now encourages 401(k) plans is to spend $80 billion in tax breaks,” which goes to the highest-income earners, Ms. Ghilarducci said.
That simply results in transferring money from taxed savings accounts to untaxed accounts, she said.
“If we implement automatic [individual retirement accounts] or if we expand the 401(k) system, all we’re doing is adding to this inefficiency,” Ms. Ghilarducci said.

Only Congress would consider tax dollars that they aren't getting "spending." And notice, again, the reference to "higher-income people" and the "highest-income earners." As if people in the middle class don't have 401(k)s. Wrong again. Fifty percent of the American public owns stock, either through 401(k)s, IRAs, direct purchases, or other investment vehicles. That's why the attacks on "the rich" and "big companies" are disingenuous. If big companies are prospering (profiting), 50% of Americans benefit through increased dividends in their 401(k) and pension plans. If large companies are in trouble, as they are now, everyone's future is threatened.

Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., raised the issue of which investment advisers are allowed to offer workers investment advice.
The Department of Labor is considering “loopholes” that would allow advisers to offer “conflicted investment advice if the advisers work for subsidiaries of financial services companies that sell the investments,” he said.

What business is it of Congress who people get advice from? Didn't Congress try to separate investment departments from financial services departments already? What ever became of that?

With American workers facing $2 trillion in losses from retirement plans over the past year and Democrats expected to gain seats in the House and the Senate, actions being contemplated by the committee are an important harbinger of what could come out of Congress next year.

I love the bit about "Democrats expected to gain seats in the House and Senate." It sounds like flat, unemotional, unbiased, "objective" journalism, but it's a flat-out assumption. The elections haven't happened yet. Democrats passed the bailout package, and the bailout hasn't worked. Yes, there will be some backlash against Bush, but what about the Congress that came up with the bill? Certainly there is the possibility of backlash at them, too, right? Wow. What an interesting amount of foolishness for such a short article. Watch your wallets, folks. And your investment portfolios.

And the Fun Continues

Another trillion dollars gone from the stock market. Where's the bailout? Who's going to accept responsibility for the bailout not working? I'll take a bet on this: President Bush, being the stand-up guy that he is, will get on the tube and admit the bailout didn't work before the Democrats (the problem is, what's he gonna say next?). The Democrats' reply message will be something like, "Well, yeah, it didn't work, but it's not our fault. It's the fault of overpaid CEOs, deep systemic problems in the financial system, and unscruplous lenders." They will not admit that their policy fix didn't work.

*

I got into a bit of a philosophical discussion with a friend today about government, human nature, and the American Constitution. We both agreed (approximately) on the following:

• The current system is geared toward people skilled at getting and staying elected, not necessarily governing.
• Power and resources (money) are concentrating into fewer and fewer hands.
• Human nature tends to reach for more and more power.
• The Constitution, understanding human nature, was established to limit the ability of individuals to seize power.
• Unfortunately, the Constitution was established by an aristocracy of honorable men of similar social standing who created a government that assumed future generations of men like them would continue to run it. This process lasted as long as the Founding Fathers lived. Political leaders since then have spent the last 200 years or so undoing the careful structures the Founders erected to prevent centralized power.
• The items above are not good for the Republic.

Why does this concentration of power and the direction of the Constitution matter?

Senators used to be elected by the legislatures of the states they represented. This ensured that said Senators would be more responsive to the interests of their states rather than some national party or constituency. The 17th Amendment undid this part of the structure. With more-or-less independent Senators, accountable only to their own attitudes, it became easier for lobbyists to focus on two people instead of multiple people in state legislatures.

Federal regulations and Supreme Court rulings also have done their part to reduce the power of the 10th Amendment...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

...taking power away from the states.

And then there's the military. The National Security Act of 1947, changed the nature of the President's relationship to the armed forces. Prior to 1947, the President had control of the Department of the Navy, which handled seaborne and limited Marine engagements, while the Congress had control of deploying the Army, since it was assumed that the Army would only be deployed in the event of full-scale war. The 1947 Act put all armed forces under the Department of Defense, and the Department under the President.

The War Powers Act and the All-Volunteer Force, which were passed in 1973 as a means of preventing "another Vietnam," actually allowed Presidents to send American armed forces to more places without a declaration of war. The War Powers Act still allows the President to deploy U.S. forces for up to 60 days without consulting Congress and without a draft.

Understand that I have the highest respect for the U.S. Armed Forces. I couldn't cut it, doing what they're doing, and I salute them for doing it. But here's the problem with an all-volunteer force: politically, it is much easier to send professional soldiers than draftees. Again, the Constitution's system was set up the way it was on purpose. It was fine for the Navy to be under the control of the President because any engagements it participated in were necessarily limited. It was supposed to take a declaration of war before deploying the Army.

So anyway, now we've got social engineering, military, homeland security, regulatory, taxation, legislative, news media, and judicial powers concentrated in Washington. Thus a horde of lobbyists can more easily descend on one city and influence policy there rather than disperse to the 50 states and hope for the best. It's a matter for serious thinking for all voters, since both parties have contributed to this centralization, though most of that centralization can be traced to a party I haven't voted for.

And I, by grousing about sticking to the forms of the Constitution, am considered a right-wing nut job. Frightening.

Tonight's Dose of Snarkasm

Boy oh boy, I'm sure glad they passed that bailout bill! Gosh, just minutes after signing the bill into law, President Bush and the Democrats in Congress sent the Dow into record positive territory! The sub-prime mortgage properties began rising in value! The credit freeze melted, and expansion was on the upswing! The international markets picked up the positive buzz, and saw their indices skyrocket! The economy looks to be the best it's been in 70 years! Why, I think I've become so rich on today's gains, I might just retire right now!

*

I think the point's been made. The situation did not improve, and now we've got a Congress and a President who have empowered themselves to spend another mythical trillion dollars that they don't have and we can't afford.

Happy Monday.

Movie Review: An American Carol

There's been maybe one person who managed to make propaganda funny, and that was Walt Disney, in Der Fuehrer's Face.

After that, face it: propaganda is what it is: it's a humorless rant for your side against the other side. Alas, for every nearly humorless conservative propaganda piece there are about ten liberal ones. Regardless, An American Carol is more pedantic than funny. The big studios could have let it flop on its own merits (or lack thereof). Instead, they made the mistake of refusing to market the film, thereby giving the conservative base a chance to push the film via underground marketing.

But I digress. What is this film about? Imagine that a Michael Moore-type Hollywood director experiences a series of Christmas Carol visits from patriotic spirits who try to show him the error of his ways as he tries to ban Independence Day. Now here's the problem I had with the film: I really like David Zucker's films. Airplane II is one of my favorite bits, and I usually laugh my way through most of the movie.

Such is not the case here. Where one might persuade with humor, Zucker becomes pedantic. The funny bits in the movie tend to NOT be political, but Zucker's usual slapstick or wordplay. The concerns of the film and the characterizations/impersonations will not age well because they are very much a product of their time. In fact, they're already past their time: this film would've had more of an impact about 5 years ago, when the Iraq War was hot and heavy.

Be that as it may, I suppose the conservatives deserve a B for effort. This one film stands up in the face of Fahrenheit 9/11, Rendition, Syriana, Sicko, Munich, Redacted, The Road to Guantanamo, and other anti-war films and says, "To heck with it, we're gonna laugh at YOU!" Again, the problem I have is that it's not as funny as it could have been. For instance, there was one bit that was taken out of the final cut of the film where a bunch of police officers is stopped at airport security while a group of bomb-carrying terrorists is allowed to just pass by. Now to me that's funny because it's aggravating and has a grain of truth. Alas, the scene didn't make the final cut. But then, let's be serious for a moment: it's very difficult to make the war on terrorism funny, period.

And then there's this: any piece of propaganda runs the risk of becoming forced, desperate, creepy, or contrived. Consider, for instance, the faux grandeur of "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" in Cabaret.

Or one might consider the attempt to create "great leader" songs for children of Obama voters.

So anyway, An American Carol is every bit the piece of red meat for conservatives to devour as Fahrenheit 9/11 is for liberals. If you go in knowing that, you may devour it (or not) as you see fit. Personally, I like my red meat served with a little better seasoning and taste, to extend the metaphor.

Of course, just for fun, I'd advise my conservative friends to go see the movie once or twice, just to jack up the sales and annoy some liberal entertainment reporters for a week. But after the first week, buy a ticket, then go sneak into Appaloosa instead because Viggo Mortensen can do no wrong, and he even manages to be funny occasionally.

Tired of Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils?

Now you might have differing opinions from mine on which political party constitutes the lesser evil, or has the less-informed candidates, but odds are you're not happy with either party in Washington right now. So, what's a concerned voter to do? If you're irritated enough, perhaps you could push for voting citizens and candidates to pass the same citizenship test that new immigrants must pass if they wish to become legal citizens.

Quick! Without using Google or a textbook or asking anybody, see how many of the following questions you can answer:

A: Principles of American Democracy
1. What is the supreme law of the land?
2. What does the Constitution do?
3. The idea of self-government is in the first three words of the Constitution. What are these words? 4. What is an amendment?
5. What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution?
6. What is one right or freedom from the First Amendment?
7. How many amendments does the Constitution have?
8. What did the Declaration of Independence do?
9. What are two rights in the Declaration of Independence?
10. What is freedom of religion?
11. What is the economic system in the United States?
12. What is the "rule of law"?
B: System of Government
13. Name one branch or part of the government.
14. What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful?
15. Who is in charge of the executive branch?
16. Who makes federal laws?
17. What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress?
18. How many U.S. Senators are there?
19. We elect a U.S. Senator for how many years?
20. Who is one of your state’s U.S. Senators now?
21. The House of Representatives has how many voting members?
22. We elect a U.S. Representative for how many years?
23. Name your U.S. Representative.
24. Who does a U.S. Senator represent?
25. Why do some states have more Representatives than other states?
26. We elect a President for how many years?
27. In what month do we vote for President?
28. What is the name of the President of the United States now?
29. What is the name of the Vice President of the United States now?
30. If the President can no longer serve, who becomes President?
31. If both the President and the Vice President can no longer serve, who becomes President?
32. Who is the Commander in Chief of the military?
33. Who signs bills to become laws?
34. Who vetoes bills?
35. What does the President’s Cabinet do?
36. What are two Cabinet-level positions?
37. What does the judicial branch do?
38. What is the highest court in the United States?
39. How many justices are on the Supreme Court?
40. Who is the Chief Justice of the United States now?
41. Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government?
42. Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the states. What is one power of the states?
43. Who is the Governor of your state now?
44. What is the capital of your state?
45. What are the two major political parties in the United States?
46. What is the political party of the President now?
47. What is the name of the Speaker of the House of Representatives now?
C: Rights and Responsibilities
48. There are four amendments to the Constitution about who can vote. Describe one of them.
49. What is one responsibility that is only for United States citizens?
50. Name one right only for United States citizens.
51. What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?
52. What do we show loyalty to when we say the Pledge of Allegiance?
53. What is one promise you make when you become a United States citizen?
54. How old do citizens have to be to vote for President?
55. What are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy?
56. When is the last day you can send in federal income tax forms?
57. When must all men register for the Selective Service?
AMERICAN HISTORY
A: Colonial Period and Independence
58. What is one reason colonists came to America?
59. Who lived in America before the Europeans arrived?
60. What group of people was taken to America and sold as slaves?
61. Why did the colonists fight the British?
62. Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?
63. When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?
64. There were 13 original states. Name three.
65. What happened at the Constitutional Convention?
66. When was the Constitution written?
67. The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name one of the writers.
68. What is one thing Benjamin Franklin is famous for?
69. Who is the "Father of Our Country"?
70. Who was the first President?
B: 1800s
71. What territory did the United States buy from France in 1803?
72. Name one war fought by the United States in the 1800s.
73. Name the U.S. war between the North and the South.
74. Name one problem that led to the Civil War.
75. What was one important thing that Abraham Lincoln did?
76. What did the Emancipation Proclamation do?
77. What did Susan B. Anthony do?
C: Recent American History and Other Important Historical Information
78. Name one war fought by the United States in the 1900s.
79. Who was President during World War I?
80. Who was President during the Great Depression and World War II?
81. Who did the United States fight in World War II?
82. Before he was President, Eisenhower was a general. What war was he in?
83. During the Cold War, what was the main concern of the United States?
84. What movement tried to end racial discrimination?
85. What did Martin Luther King, Jr. do?
86. What major event happened on September 11, 2001, in the United States?
87. Name one American Indian tribe in the United States.
INTEGRATED CIVICS
A: Geography
88. Name one of the two longest rivers in the United States.
89. What ocean is on the West Coast of the United States?
90. What ocean is on the East Coast of the United States?
91. Name one U.S. territory.
92. Name one state that borders Canada.
93. Name one state that borders Mexico.
94. What is the capital of the United States?
95. Where is the Statue of Liberty?
B: Symbols
96. Why does the flag have 13 stripes?
97. Why does the flag have 50 stars?
98. What is the name of the national anthem?
C: Holidays
99. When do we celebrate Independence Day?
100. Name two national U.S. holidays.

There are other questions I'd be tempted to ask, like:

• If the federal budget isn't balanced (that is, the government spends more than it takes in through taxes), where does the money come from to make up the difference?
• What protections does the press enjoy under the Constitution?
• What types of laws protect people from the press?
• If a business makes a profit, who owns that money?
• What are "Miranda rights?"
• How does the War Powers Act limit the actions of the President?

Regardless, you might've read those questions and felt like it was a bad flashback to high school. And at that age, you might've asked, "Why do I have to know this stuff?" Because, quite frankly, if you don't, then you deserve the leaders you get. Once you know what the United States Government was formed to do, you can better form ideas about what it shouldn't do. And that's why we vote.

This nation cannot function well without an educated citizenry. We're not the first nation to be formed based upon an idea, but we might be the first that was based on the idea of freedom and representative government, and those premises have a lot of history and context behind them, which can easily be lost if the citizens don't have a clue about where they came from or what they mean.

*

Now, how would one go about getting this type of test proposed and enforced? What sorts of political difficulties would be involved? That would be an education all in itself.

*

By the way, the answers to questions 1-100 above can be found at http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/100q.pdf. If you want to know the answers to MY questions, well, you'll just have to go out and learn them.

An Alternative to Jumping Out the Window

A New York stock broker got off the fast track and became an Eastern Orthodox monk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3123516/Wall-Street-trader-becomes-a-monk.html

I'm willing to bet that quite a few folks on Wall Street will get religion before this mess is all over.

The Gulf Between the Parties

I wanted to share an illuminating discussion with a friend of mine. Mostly to the left of center, he manages to get along with me because I don't insist on having my way in our various political discussions. He expresses himself in a jovial and logical way, and thus I can engage in conversation with him without things getting too heated. Anyhow, he said that the difference between himself, as a liberal, and most conservatives was that he had no problem with a) the government providing "free" healthcare or b) paying more taxes.

Well, my thought after the fact (and I know he reads this blog occasionally, so of course I'll be diplomatic) was, "If you want to pay more taxes, be my guest. You have an opportunity every April 15. But don't presume that I share your willingness to let the government take more of my money."

*

As near as I can tell, the difference in attitude between left and right lies in the perception of the individual and their relationship to society.

The American liberal mindset says, "The primary social entity is the state, and it is the responsibility of the state to see that right is done to the greatest number. Individuals cannot be trusted to do what is right unless required to by human authority. It falls to an enlightened few to exercise that authority."

The American conservative mindset says, "Individuals are the most important social entities; they each know best how to pursue their own ends, and they will support themselves or provide charity to others in accordance with their personal conscience. Everyone has the opportunity to be in government, but everyone is also subject to the same flawed human nature, so no one should act like they're better than anyone else."

Now imagine these two viewpoints trying to figure out how to "fix" this mortgage mess. One side believes in government pledging support for those in need in some sort of latter-day noblesse oblige; the other side emphasizes individual responsibility in a sort of Darwinian "put up or shut up" scenario. Is it any wonder Congress is at an impasse? (Though I must point out that the Democrats, with control of both houses, could pass a bailout bill today, if they really wanted to.)

*

Another political behavior that's become of great concern to me of late, not with my friends, but within the blogosphere and various social networking pages is the utter dismissiveness of one side toward the other. This dismissiveness can take many forms, the most obvious of which is snobbery: if someone isn't Ivy-League-educated, of the right social class, associating with the right groups, or on the "correct" side of certain issues, they are beneath contempt. If they're not from Blue State America or agreeing with the ideas prevalent in those places, then they're gun-toting, Bible-thumping, inbred hicks.

Sarah Palin is simply the latest Republican target because she represents all of this, as did George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Dwight D. Eisenhower before her. And why is it that Republicans are always cast by the nation's major newspapers or television news outlets as fools and idiots while the Democrat candidates are always depicted as superior, nuanced, or possessed of higher, better knowledge? Could it be that the individuals working in those news outlets share that snobbery and contempt for the people and beliefs Republicans represent? Perish the thought!

Occasionally, I hear, "Oh, but you're different, Bart. You're pretty nice, for a Republican/conservative." Good grief, is that supposed to be a compliment? I want to respond, "Well, gosh, thanks. And you're not too condescending, for a Democrat." I mean, really! What would you say?

The Romans had this problem, once upon a time. Cicero, perhaps Rome's greatest Senator and orator, was a provincial, and so was subject to mockery of this sort. And no doubt it has happened in every large society humankind has ever built. But d@mmit, this is America. We're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to believe that "All men are created equal." Perhaps it's time we took a step back and asked ourselves whether we really believe that still and if so, what do we mean when we say it.