Posts from — April 2011

From a CNN poll:

Americans estimate that foreign aid takes up 10 percent of the federal budget, and one in five think it represents about 30 percent of the money the government spends. But the actual figure is closer to one percent. [...] The public estimates that the government spent five percent of its budget last year on public television and radio. [...] The real answer is about one-tenth of one percent.

This is hardly news, unfortunately.

The most important areas: Defenese, medicare/medicaid and social security are all about 20% each.

By the way, if PBS got 5% of the US budget, that would be over 170 billion dollars. That could buy a nice set for Charlie Rose!

David Sedaris tells a story about Easter in a hilarious reading from his book “Me Talk Pretty One Day”:

If you enjoy that story, you should read the whole book.. it’s pretty good.

I spent my traditional San Francisco Easter with these people:

(picture by David Oliver on Flickr)

Some people with similar political views and a similar sense of humor to me say that they would love to have Sarah Palin run for President, as it would be hilarious and would be an unsuccessful campaign. As far as I can recall, I’ve never bought in to this for a couple of reasons: the prospect is too scary to begin with and I am still hoping for some sort of legitimate intellectual conservatism to emerge.

I’m not sure I really have as much restraint in the face of Donald Trump. He’s just such a great caricature of the tea party that I can’t help but watch. When talking about how he was a better businessman (and therefore more qualified candidate) than Mitt Romney, he recently said: “[I have a] much, much bigger net worth. I mean my net worth is many, many, many times Mitt Romney.” I seriously can’t wait for this year’s Republican primaries.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops recently put out a statement about the federal budget, including:

“The moral measure of this budget debate is not which party wins or which powerful interests prevail, but rather how those who are jobless, hungry, homeless or poor are treated. Their voices are too often missing in these debates, but they have the most compelling moral claim on our consciences and our common resources. A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.”

(via)

I generally agree with this, but also think there’s another voiceless party here: future generations who will have to pay the debt we use to keep our bubbles inflated.

Inflation-adjusted military spending over time:

.. always brings me back to this:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.”
– Dwight D. Eisenhower

(chart by johnpseudo on wikipedia)

Outside Lands is a 3-day annual music festival in Golden Gate Park. I haven’t been to it in a couple of years, but I’m hoping to make it this year. Here’s the lineup:

(click to enlarge)

John Jay (NY delegate to the Continental Congress, NY Governor, and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) is quoted as having said “Those who own the country ought to govern it.” While this sort of sentiment would likely be disagreeable to all but the most objectivist modern American, it’s very much a reflection of what we have right now. This is nothing new: if anything, it has become less blatant. By some estimates, over half of white men were barred from voting at the time of the Constitution (source), largely caused by property requirements. At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison said:

Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

While I of course wouldn’t support it, there are some arguments for land owners to have more control in the government: they have a stronger long-term vested interest in the affairs of the state. Similar arguments support the expectation that those who earn more will contribute more money in taxes.

Vanity Fair had a must-read piece about the causes and effects of income inequality in America. It begins:

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. [...] While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top.

And on the effect of this inequality with government:

Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

And finally, one thing I’ve seen too many times myself:

This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Far too many smart people have worked to create financial instruments beyond comprehension and control. These people could have been working on solving actual problems, but instead worked on finding better ways to gamble. Blind adherents to free-market theology would argue that anything that makes money within the boundaries of the market must inherently be good, but I don’t think any honest person looking at the financial industry in the last decade can continue to make such claims with credibility.

Some would claim that raising these sorts of issues would constitute “class warfare”, as if engaging in class warfare makes the argument inherently invalid. Whatever it’s called, it doesn’t seem like the current trajectory is sustainable.

I’d say that this ad could us some slightly modified spacing:

This blog will consist only of “possibly misread labels” from here on out.

(Edit: Alternate title: “Doctor Congo, I presume?”, though that was in Tanzania)

Conflict History is an interactive timeline and map of conflicts throughout recorded history. It’s interesting to browse.. there’s always more than I expected.

(via)