Talking Politics

Spam as an economic indicator

I wonder if you've noticed a shift in the type of spam you receive. I have.

The quantity hasn't changed. But I noticed a distinct shift in the topics of the messages quite a while ago.

Right about the time home foreclosures started to set new records--again--and before they even started to bring down the banks that held them, I saw a change.

Before, my spam filters were clogged with links to overseas pharmacies, offers to match me with my perfect mate, and esoteric claims to be able to "enhance" various body parts--some of which I don't even have. I still get a few of those, but far, far fewer.

Now the topics are jobs: job training, job opportunities, ways to make money in my spare time. They offer credit repair. Ways to save my home. New cars with bad credit. Free or reduced merchandise. Gift cards to stores. Ways to unload unwanted timeshares. How to repair my credit. And, perhaps saddest of all, offers to buy broken gold and silver jewelry to earn extra money.

I've no doubt these new claims are every bit as bogus as the old ones. It seems to me that craigslist would simply post job openings on their own service if they really had them. And not everybody in the whole country can get a good-paying job as a crime-scene technician.

But spammers need to keep their pulse on people's needs in order to have any hope of enticing even a few to open their junk. When times are good, folks care about their love life. They want to be happy, popular, or sexy. When times are bad, they just want to survive. To save what they have. To get a few pennies off. To scrape up whatever they can to get by.

To tell the truth, the spam made me nervous. More nervous than the news. At the time, the Bush administration was still trying to convince the world that everything was okay. This was a typical market swing and would right itself with time and the magic of the free market.

Today, we can see that was clearly a lie. Not the first we've heard from Bush and his buddies.

Of course, a lot of us suspected it was a lie. Whether it was because we were already seeing the effects in our own lives or communities, or because we have learned from harsh experience that Mr. Bush has a tendency to tell whoppers, many of us suspected the truth. Some got it at just a gut level. Others more consciously.

But the spammers knew. They were prepared and ready to take advantage of the fall they clearly saw coming.

Next time, I may listen to my spam filters instead of the Treasury Department.

Too big to fail?

I've recently heard a lot in the news about financial institutions that are "too big to fail." This has been the justification for adding substantial amounts to the national debt to guarantee the stability of companies whose failure could have ramifications for the wider economy.

What puzzles me about this argument is that the solutions do not match the justification. What the U.S. treasury department--and international agencies--is doing is to create much larger financial institutions. Two "solutions" have been to lend government money to companies so they can continue to grow, and to sell off all or part of failing firms to even bigger ones. Both of these simply create bigger and bigger banks. If there was a danger to the economy before from the failure of large institutions, it seems we have created an even bigger threat with ever-bigger enterprises.

The behemoth banks still hold the bad debts and shaky financial instruments of the smaller firms they acquired. They have gained their assets as well. But, if the assets were inadequate to capitalize the debt for the failed firms, it strikes me that the acquisition has only served to dilute the capital ratios for the acquiring company.

Instead of a larger number of shaky firms that could fail and spread instability throughout the economy, we have a smaller number of ever bigger institutions with larger and larger balance sheets of dubious debt. If the failure of one of the smaller banks could imperil the economy, what could problems at one of these few remaining huge institutions do? And, by persuading them to take on more and more bad debt, are we only increasing the likelihood of such a problem?

I'm not an economist. I'm a woman who has worked my whole life, managed family finances, and owned a couple of small businesses. Whatever economic knowledge I have is strictly experience and street sense--most of acquired by costly trial and error. But it strikes me that a little street sense is in order here. And I don't mean Wall Street. There, bigger is always better.

On the street where I live and work, I wonder if that is really true.

What does the solution look like?

I’ve heard it said that, if all you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Surgeons are notorious for recommending surgery for just about any ailment. There are probably more examples of this. But the idea is that every person looks for a solution within the realm of our own experience.

This election year, American voters are faced with candidates who look for solutions through very different prisms. John McCain served in the military. He’s the son and grandson of admirals. His public persona is very much tied to his military service. And commentators have often noted his opinions about the end of the Vietnam war—that it should never have ended the way it did. That we should have kept fighting until we won.

Barack Obama is a lawyer and taught constitutional law. His mother was an anthropologist, interested in cultures different from her own. He might reasonably be expected to look for solutions by writing new laws, and by understanding other cultures.

This is not an insignificant difference. For the last seven and a half years, the executive branch of the United States government has looked to military power as the answer to global problems. The Bush administration has promoted widening wars and publicly stated their expectation that these wars they began would last for our lifetime. They have also demonstrated an almost unprecedented level of contempt for the rule of law, holding themselves as immune from the laws that govern the rest of us.

It is, of course, up to the voters to decide whether or not they judge this perspective to have been successful. Whether or not it actually made our lives better. If it did, in fact, solve any of the very grave problems the world faces.

If the polls can be trusted, most people do not believe it did. However, only a very slim majority of voters seem to make the connection between the current warmongers and the warrior who would replace them. Again, based on candidate preference polling, McCain is seen as a more honorable man than the current promoters of war. He may be. But he still seems to see war as a solution to virtually every problem. It is perhaps natural. But it is a solution we have already tried. And very few seem happy with the outcome.

I can only hope American voters make this connection in November and decide to make us once again, a country of laws, and not a country perpetually at war.

Old white women for Obama

Once the media gets a story line, they just won't let it go. So I constantly read that older folks support Clinton. At 58, I should certainly fall in that demographic. Women, they say, overwhelmingly back Clinton. I am also a woman. Since I haven't finished college, despite several stints in higher education, and fall at the lower end of the middle class based on income, I shouldn't be an Obama supporter. But I am.

I am an Obama supporter because he is bringing young people into the political process, and I happen to believe that old saw that the young are the future of our country. And the Obama campaign is opening up the political process to everybody in some important ways. For funding, they're largely relying on a million small donors. For campaign infrastructure, they've built a truly impressive grassroots machine. Both give ordinary voters a stake in politics and in their government. Ordinary voters of all ages.

If we are ever to wrest control of our government away from monied special interests, I believe it is essential that more of us get involved in politics and in our government. So, frankly, Senator Obama could be a little green man from Mars as far as I'm concerned. As long as he's doing the essential work that paves the way for this country to again have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people--this old white woman will buck the media storyline and support him.

The GOP brings the Spanish Inquisition to the U.S.

The first recorded use of the torture technique now known as waterboarding, was during the Spanish Inquisition. With the possible exception of the Pope and Catholic College of Cardinals, few today would deny that the main purpose of the Inquisition was to torture suspected heretics. In subsequent centuries, military figures caught using the technique were tried and convicted of torture. Not "enhanced interrogation techniques"--but torture. It is illegal under international law and treaty. It is also illegal under U.S. law. A Texas sheriff was convicted of using it on prisoners when George W. Bush was governor of the state. Surely he and our former attorney general, who used to serve on the Texas Supreme Court, must have known of the case.

And yet, they approved its use. I cannot believe they did it because they did not know it was torture--and therefore illegal. They did it because they do not care. They did it because they do not believe that the law applies equally to them. They cannot conceive that it would ever be applied to them. I'm sure most Nazi strongmen thought the same.

But we have given George W. Bush cause to believe this. The Senate seems set to approve his newest nominee for attorney general--a man who will not state the long-established legal view that waterboarding is torture. Congress has rolled over and played dead for him for years, finally overturning his veto, for the first time, on a relatively insignificant water bill. And the American people voted for him in sufficient numbers that he was able to steal elections twice with vote rigging in just one large state each time.

Yes the Bush administration is guilty of torture. But, like the Germans under Hitler, we are guilty of letting him. History will judge us no less harshly.

The Bush Doctrine

Monroe had his, and Bush has his. But Monroe was a little more upfront about his. While Americans have been trying to figure out exactly what Bush's is for six years. Here's my take on it.

Recently The New Yorker published an article by Seymour Hirsch called "The Administration's plan for Iran."

And, here, in the very last line of the article, we see the administration's plan for the whole Middle East:

    Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack "by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also     in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for             twenty years."

It has several "advantages" for Republicans and big Republican donors:
1. By creating wars in other oil-rich nations, it artificially boosts the price of Saudi, British, and U.S. oil. Oil companies like this because they make more money. If, by some chance, we win any of these wars, they'll still make money by being able to drill whatever countries we manage to conquer.

2. By creating never-ending wars in the Middle East, we create the need for an arms race in the region. Since weapons are virtually the only thing the U.S. still exports, we can sell arms to countries in this region. Defense contractors also make money by replacing all the equipment we're destroying in these endless wars, and by providing contractors at hugely inflated rates compared to what we pay regular service personnel.

3. By spending vast amounts of money on these wars and cutting taxes on the rich, we bleed the federal government of funds that could otherwise be spent on healthcare, education, social security, welfare, consumer protection, disaster preparedness and recovery, and other programs the GOP doesn't like. These services can then be provided by corporations, which the GOP does like, with little regulation because they've gutted the regulatory agencies.

4. Because the country is now on a permanent wartime footing, the administration and the conservative judges they've appointed for life, now have an excuse to ignore the Constitution and abrogate our civil rights. We now do the things we accuse North Korea and the Junta in Burma of doing (except for the killing monks and dumping their bodies in the jungle--we hire Blackwater to do that in Iraq and South America). And they've managed to frighten Congress and the media into backing this and covering it up because they'd be disloyal and soft on terror if they don't.

And, this, my friends, is the real administration plan. Not just for Iran, but for all of us. If you're not happy about it, you need to speak out--loudly and often. Never think it does no good. As the monks in Burma know, if enough of us do it for long enough, we finally get heard. It isn't easy, but then democracy isn't. After all, it can't be a government of the people if the people give up on it. 

Gonzales is gone, but the problems remain

I've received no fewer than six self-congratulatory emails today--most with subject lines like "We did it! Gonzales is gone." As much as I dislike what he did, I fail to see cause for all this jubilation.

Our attorney general was a toady. And the people who played the tune he danced to are still in office. The problems they created still exist. The civil rights and liberties we've lost are still gone. Investigations into what they did and how have just scratched the surface. And while Gonzales was a transparent--and so largely ineffective--liar when he was in office, his political masters no doubt hope distance from D.C. will make him a tougher, or at least less attractive target. It worked with Harriet the thinking goes. Maybe we can do the same with Karl and Alberto. Just get them out of town and the furor dies down.

Unfortunately, they may be right. I hope not. If so, it sends a horrible message that our government officials can ignore their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and do so with impunity. If true, never doubt that public officials will duly note and take advantage of that for years to come. If we do not stand for the rule of law now, and apply those laws equally, we may find ourselves unable to do it later.

A bridge too far

An unknown number of people died when a bridge over the Mississippi River collapsed this week. While the loss of life was tragic, what made it even worse is that it was all about money. Republican politicians would have you believe that they can just keep cutting taxes with no consequences. But the people in Minneapolis now know better. It was, however, an expensive lesson in many ways.

The New York Times put it this way, "A steam pipe explodes near Grand Central Terminal, a levee fails and floods New Orleans, a bridge collapses in Minneapolis.

These disasters are an indication that this country is not investing enough in keeping its vital infrastructure in good repair, engineering experts warn.

'Governments do not want to pay for maintenance because it is not sexy,' said John Ochsendorf, a structural engineer and an associate professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He said the bulk of the nation’s highway system was built in the 1950s and 1960s and is ageing. Referring to the collapse in Minneapolis, he said 'This type of event could become more common.'"

The highway system was built in the 50s and 60s because governments then recognized the value of public infrastructure. They realized that a robust economy depends on a modern transit and communications infrastructure, and they were willing to raise and spend taxes to build them. They were willing to invest in the country's future.

But no more. Republican donors tend to live in gated communities with private services. They send their children to private schools, and can afford private health insurance. They may even have a private jet. They seem to believe they can remain in their private world forever and not have to worry about the decline in public services. They're wrong. Eventually, they too have to drive to their jet on the potholed roads, across the crumbling bridges. They rely on public services too numerous to count to run their businesses--from railroads and airports to electrical grids and telephone systems. And they need to be willing to pay for them.

Maybe the Republican governor of Minnesota will reconsider his ill-advised tax cuts before more people die. At least I hope so.

Sick solutions for our sicko healthcare system

According to the Kaiser Foundation, the average premium for individual health insurance costs about US$150 per month in the United States. A typical plan with a premium in this range often includes a deductible varying from $1,000 to $5,000. In addition, patients generally have to shell out “co-payments” varying from 10 per cent to 30 per cent of the cost of any given treatment. The average premium under an employer-based group insurance plan in the U.S. in 2005 was US$335 per month. These plans are also subject to limitations.

And that's the average cost. As you get older, your premium category rises every 5 years. Not because you're sick, or have any claims, just because you're older--trust me on this. I'm now paying a bit over $300 a month for major medical with no dental or vision. They can still decline to pay for any treatment they want to, as shown in Sicko. And they can cancel me whenever they want to--which I suspect would happen if I started to make a lot of claims.

Canada’s universal health insurance system costs the government about $183 a month per person (or US$160), and the “premiums” are collected through the tax system.

I've heard plenty of stories of rationed care in Canada and the UK, and of people having to wait for treatment considered non-essential. When I was in Scotland, my driver told me people in emergency rooms often have to wait a long time because everyone is so casual about going that they're very overcrowded. But the funny thing was that he assumed that I, as a tourist, should go see a doctor for a bad cough. It never occurred to him that I wouldn't or couldn't.

Those systems are not perfect. I read the British press online every morning, and there are plenty of problems with the National Health Service. But nobody is talking about scrapping it, just demanding it be fixed. I've also read about patients fighting to get the NHS to cover new drug treatments that are not currently on the list--sort of like fighting an HMO for treatment. They don't all win in either case.

But, in any system that is based on universal insurance coverage--rather than single-payer healthcare--the insurance companies have a profit motive to deny us care. That includes most of the proposals by Democratic presidential candidates and our own dear governor Schwarzenegger. As long as "cancer is a profit center"--as John Stewart put it, Americans will continue to suffer and die needlessly to make money for others. It should be a crime.

Friend or foe?

Reuters News Service is reporting today that U.S. troops have killed 6 Iraqi police and an Iraqi reporter for the New York Times. It is not the first time our troops have killed reporters or people who were supposedly on our side. In fact, journalists have accused U.S. troops of targeting them. The military always promises to investigate. The result is always the same: It was a tragic accident.

But the report, a portion of which appears below, raises a multitude of questions. Should we be conducting raids when we can't tell friend from foe? Can we ever tell when militia members seem to infiltrate Iraqi police, government, and military at every level? Is aerial bombardment appropriate for the middle of a densely populated city? Will it work against the type of guerilla raids we're seeing in Iraq? It never did in Vietnam. I think the answer is no to all of these questions and more. And the Iraqi people are paying the price for our refusal to admit it.

An Iraqi reporter working for the New York Times was also shot dead on his way to work in Baghdad, the newspaper said, a day after two Reuters employees were killed during an incident involving U.S. forces in the city.

Khalid Hassan, 23, was shot in the southern Saidiya district of the capital, the Times said in a statement, adding that the circumstances of the attack were unclear.

A U.S. war plane made an air strike during the raid in mainly Shi'ite east Baghdad after U.S. soldiers came under "heavy and accurate" gunfire from an Iraqi police checkpoint, rooftops and a church, the military said in a statement.

Seven suspected militants were also killed during the clash, in which U.S. soldiers detained an Iraqi police lieutenant on suspicion of planning roadside bomb and mortar attacks on U.S. forces. The military accused him of links with Iranians accused by Washington of fomenting violence in Iraq.