The Economics Test From Hell

Quantitative Easing (QE) is a monetary policy used by central banks to increase money supply by increasing the excess reserves of the banking system.   This policy is usually invoked when normal methods to control the money supply have failed; i.e. the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

The nightmare scenario of the U.S. having to print money because it can no longer borrow enough to fund its government operations has already happened. That the Fed is now doing more QE (QE2) indicates a self perpetuating inflationary cycle is already underway.

A QE-Made-Simple definition goes something like this: The Fed, when it can no longer reduce interest rates or borrow enough money, prints money ex nihilo (out of nothing) that it uses to buy back government bonds from banks thereby increasing the amount of money available in the system.  This has the immediate effect of reducing the value of all existing dollars and US debt.  You can easily see this in foreign currency exchange rates with countries whose currency is not pegged to the dollar.  In other words, more money is available but we get inflation at home, and if we elect to travel outside our country we will find our money worth even less than the last time we traveled.  Other countries are not getting richer; we are getting poorer.

The upside to QE is that anything we export to countries whose currency is not pegged to ours becomes cheaper, and the downside is that everything we import from countries whose currency is not pegged to ours becomes more expensive.

The Chinese Juan is currently pegged to the US Dollar, but if the Chinese let the Juan float, almost everything sold by Wal-Mart will become more expensive as a direct result of QE.

QE will also encourage foreign holders of US debt to sell that debt and not buy any more of our government bonds, except for TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities).  Even TIPS will ultimately be shunned because they are based on the understated US government inflation rate.

A scarcity of foreign capital means the US government cannot currently fully fund its budget or its trade deficit; that scarcity could send our economy into a severe contraction and/or depression. Therefore the Fed’s only option is to print more money.  But, when the Fed does print more money we become at risk for hyperinflation.

QE is a tool of last resort, therefore, let’s hope the folks at the Fed are wise enough to manage the problem and the tool; that all the new folk we just elected are smart enough to take their attention off guns, abortions, gay bashing and inter-party name calling long enough to grasp and understand this problem.  This isn’t about which party is in charge; it’s about all parties recognizing the direness of the situation and working together diligently to solve it.  Full stop.

Politicians, Big Business, and Medical Records

Lately I’ve been hearing a lot about storing our medical records in some electronic cloud, to be accessed by anyone who needs them, whenever they need to.  I’ve also heard a great hue and cry that it can’t be done or it can’t be done economically.  Personally, I think it’s eminently doable and doable at a reasonable cost.


Think Facebook.

What Facebook allows you and me to do is set up a personalized website that contains all manner of data, pictures, stories, links, etc, that we can access from virtually anywhere.  It also allows us to dictate who can see all that stuff.  And it does it for free.  So far.

Now, if I were to upload x-ray images, EKG readouts, CT scan data, doctor’s reports, test results, etc, etc, instead of just pictures and stories, I could have my entire medical history available from anyplace I can logon to a computer.  And with a few minor tweaks Facebook could be trained to accept a pin number or retinal scan, allowing me to authorize access to that data by any new ‘Friend’, i.e. my doctor or hospital or EMS team.  Think about it.

For example: I could go into my doctor’s office, have my insurance card scanned, enter my PIN, and voila, the doc could have permanent or temporary access to my entire medical history, or only to specific portions of it.  (Your dentist may not need access to your OBGYN data.)  When my visit is over, I could disallow or allow continued access to my data until access is no longer required, just like logging off a Facebook session.  Simple, what?

Technologically, Facebook does a masterful job collecting, organizing, and storing all the data we can throw at it.  From millions of folks around the world.  So why not a similar system for medical data.  Of course it would have to run on a VPN (Virtual Private Network) instead of the hackable Internet, but that’s no biggie, brokerage houses and banks do that all the time.

Why aren’t we doing it, you ask?

I think the real pushback is from people and organizations who want the data organized their way and who may also want unobstructed access so they can refuse to hire you, raise your insurance premiums, or own your data.  Therefore, our politicians would have to buy into the notion and then actually go to bat for us, to protect our privacy.  That’s the part I don’t see happening.  Too many politicians are just shills for big business; we must first learn how to elect politicians that represent us.  Full stop.

So, how would it work?

Your doctor, for example, would only need a workstation and a subscription to the VPN.  No fancy software, no tons of storage, and probably no training.  (Who trained you to use Facebook?)  A scanner could be used initially to capture existing paper documents and, as networkable devices become available, things like EKG units could be logically connected to the workstation so your doc could view the data and/or include it in your file.  A file that would reside on some secure server farm.  This approach actually fits, to a Tee, the KISS requirement for good technology solutions.  (KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid.)  And Mr. Zuckerberg could probably set up a demo over a weekend.

If ads germane to your doctor or hospital appeared at the edge of your ‘Page’, the system might actually pay for itself.  But, I would draw the line at the system parsing your data and recommending new ‘Friends’ (Specialists, undertakers, etc.).  That would be too creepy and an invasion of privacy.  It would also make the system ripe for take over by drug companies.

How do we start?  By electing ethical, non business-shill representatives.  If any exist.

Communism vs Capitalism

Remember when the world was divided among communistic and capitalistic countries?  When the Chinese were communists?  Well, the Chinese still call themselves communists, but today they are also capitalists.  In fact, if you visit China today you will find the most dynamic capitalistic nation in the world.

Beyond that, China also wants to be a power to be reckoned with and the Chinese have made that goal a national priority.

However, it wasn’t too many years ago when the West was having its way with China.

Consider the two periods in Chinese history now referred to as the Opium Wars.  The first was between 1839 and 1842, and the second was between 1856 and 1860.

Opium was smuggled by merchants from British India into China, in defiance of Chinese laws, resulting in open warfare between Britain and China in 1839, and further disputes over the treatment of British merchants in Chinese ports resulted in the Second Opium War.

China was defeated in both these wars, requiring it to tolerate the opium trade.

Britain then forced the Chinese government into signing the Treaty of Nanking and the Treaty of Tianjin, known as the Unequal Treaties.  These treaties included provisions for opening additional ports to unrestricted foreign trade; for fixed tariffs; for the recognition of both countries as equal in correspondence; and for the cession of Hong Kong to Britain.

Several countries followed Britain’s lead seeking similar agreements with China, and many Chinese found these agreements humiliating which lead to the Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864), the Boxer Rebellion (1899–1901), and the downfall of the Qing Dynasty in 1912 which put an end to dynastic China.

Next came the Cultural Revolution: A violent mass movement in the People’s Republic of China that started in 1966 and officially ended with Mao Zedong's death in 1976.  It resulted in social, political, and economic upheaval; widespread persecution; and the destruction of antiques, historical sites, and culture.

It was launched by Chairman Mao on May 16, 1966 when he alleged that liberal bourgeois elements were permeating the Party and society-at-large and that they wanted to restore capitalism.  Mao insisted, in accordance with his Theory of Permanent Revolution, that these elements be removed by a violent revolutionary class struggle manifested by mobilizing China's youth to form Red Guard groups throughout the country.

Chairman Mao did change China, but his Theory of Permanent Revolution died with him and capitalism has since re-entered the Communist Party and Chinese society.

Today, Chinese cities are booming and more building cranes are being used in them than in the entire United States.  China’s super-highways are filled with modern cars. Its deep-water ports and airports are world class.  Its research and development centers are state of the art.  And, at its current rate of growth China will soon be the largest economy in the world.  And a power to be reckoned with.

As a side note, China’s navy is already larger than that of the US.

Recently, Robert Reich wrote:

“China’s innovators, investors, and captains of industry are being richly rewarded. They live in luxury housing developments whose streets are lined with McMansions.  They feed in fancy restaurants, and relax in five-star hotels and resorts.  [China’s poor live in an entirely different world, but a tax-free world due to China’s tax structure and implementation of capitalism.]

China shows that when it comes to economics, the dividing line among the world’s nations is no longer between communism and capitalism.  Capitalism has won hands down.  The real dividing line is no longer economic.  It’s political.  And that divide is between democracy and authoritarianism.  China is a capitalist economy with an authoritarian government.

For years, we’ve assumed that capitalism and democracy fit hand in glove. We took it as an article of faith that you can’t have one without the other.  That’s why a key element of American policy toward China has been to encourage free trade, direct investment, and open markets.  As China becomes more prosperous and integrated into the global market -- so American policy makers have thought -- China will also become more democratic.

Well, maybe we’ve been a bit naive.  It’s true that democracy needs capitalism.  Try to come up with the name of a single democracy in the world that doesn’t have a capitalist economy.  For democracy to function there must be centers of power outside of government.  Capitalism decentralizes economic power, and thereby provides the private ground in which democracy can take root.

But China shows that the reverse may not be true, that capitalism doesn’t need democracy.  Capitalism’s wide diffusion of economic power offers enough incentive for investors to take risks with their money.  But, as China shows, capitalism doesn’t necessarily provide enough protection for individuals to take risks with their opinions.”

Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley.

The Rise of the Giant Panda may in fact teach us new rules for economic engagement as well as new rules for governance.  Rules we may never agree with, but rules we must compete with if we don’t want to be relegated to history’s dustbin full of  “The Rise and Fall of xxx “ countries.

Giant Panda Rising

I have just returned from an eye-opening trip to China.

China, today, is a modern, vibrant country that is bound and determined to be the number one economy on the planet.  To that end they are purposefully building a middle class that will propel them to their goal by 2015, leaving the US vying with Japan and/or India for the number two or number three spot.

For our part, we are fighting back by tackling such heady issues as Gay bashing, becoming a Theocracy, defending our right to carry concealed weapons in Starbucks, and not offending any Mama-Grizzlies.

Current estimates of the size of the middle class in China range from 100 million to 247 million, depending on how much income it takes to make one “middle class.”  Assuming an income of about $9000 is necessary, China could have over 600 million middle class citizens by 2015; in other words they will have twice as many people in their middle class as we have in our entire country.

Also, roughly half of China's projected urban population will be middle class by 2025. And, unlike the US where income levels typically peak between the ages of 45 and 54, it is projected that the wealthiest consumers in China will be between 25 and 44 years old; a result of their younger generation being more highly educated than ours.

The Chinese government is promoting and subsidizing education as a major component of its economic war.  We, however, are experiencing the highest High School drop out rates since the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

So, who cares, you ask?

Well, consider this: if China’s middle class becomes large enough to consume all the output from its manufacturing facilities we could be forced to bid up the prices of their goods just to incentivize them to ship some our way.  And, if the US is successful in getting China to allow the value of its Yuan to float, the cost of cheap Chinese goods could skyrocket.

But, I’m betting that the next election in the US will be about other, far more pressing issues.

The meteoric rise in China’s middle class is tied to dramatic increases in its per capita income:

• The first industrial revolution created a 250% increase in per capita income over a 100-year period.

• The second industrial revolution triggered a 350% per capita income growth over a 60-year period.

By comparison, China is on track to create a 700% growth in per capita income in just 20 years.

The Chinese are also quite aware of how challenging meshing Communism and Capitalism can be: Russia failed miserably and even Japan, a democracy, overheated its economy in its bid to be top dog.

The primary difference in China’s tactic is what I call “Pay to Play”.  If you are Chinese and want to become rich you agree to pay high taxes, period.  If you are Chinese and poor you benefit by paying no taxes, period.  In other words the rich are required to lift the entire country up by its bootstraps, not just whine and whinge about having to pay taxes while figuring out how to move their money off-shore.  Pay to Play makes it desirable for the rich to move as many people as possible into the middle class as fast as possible.  What we deride as spreading the wealth is viewed in China as growing the country.  A very sound business strategy anywhere.  Well, almost anywhere.

Consider too that the Chinese are perfectly happy to let us send our youth to fight other's wars, but if we become too trigger happy, economically or militarily, they could easily apply sanctions forcing us to take our finger off the button and de-nuke ourselves, or else.  But, for the US, Gay bashing is much more important, especially if you can brandish a weapon while doing it.  All in the name of God of course.

So, in closing, think before you vote, demand politicians who understand the bigger picture.  Our country literally depends on it.

Whittling and Whistling on My Day Off

A re-post of a non-political musing.

It’s a hot and humid night and I’m sitting behind my desk, bored, reading the words on the door.  The door is open to let in air, and the lights are off to conserve cash.  A deck of Luckies is on the desk next to my feet and a lit fag is hanging from my lips.

I’m leaning back with my hands clasped behind my head thinking about closing up when the light from the bare bulb in the hallway gets real dim.  She’s a tall drink of water and the bulb’s light glowing through her hair makes her look like an angel with a halo.  She’s standing there staring at me, her head cocked to one side, her hip up against the jamb; she doesn’t look like she belongs in this part of town.

D. Sallee--Private Detective, the words say.  Yeah, that’s a big jump from last year when I was doing a nickel up the river, my name was a number and I certainly wasn’t no Private Dick.  I was sent up for busting that old man’s kneecaps because he wouldn’t pay the vig on the money he owed Blackie.  But that’s all behind me; I’m legit now.  I’m even allowed to pack heat.

I’m curious about what the looker wants, so I say: “What can I do for you babe?”  “I want to hire you” she says,  “I’m in trouble and need help”.  “C’mon in, sit down and take a load off” I tell her. After she sits down I pass her the deck of Luckies and ask her name.  “Joey Schwarz” she says with an accent that screams Bed-Stuy and tenements even though she’s dressed to the nines.  Then it hits me, like a ton of bricks: Schwarz is kraut for Black.  She’s Blackie’s moll.  Blackie sent her to see if I’m gonna turn fink for him lettin’ me take the rap.  Wouldn’t put it past him.  Wouldn’t put it past the rat bastard. Va fungoul Blackie, I say to my self, va fungoul!

She taps a fag from the deck, sticks it between her lips and leans toward me.  It takes a sec, but I get it, I strike a match and hold it out.  She takes a deep drag and holds it a while before blowing the smoke across my desk.  Classy broad, I think, real classy broad.  Her knees are peeking out from under the hem of her skirt; she crosses her legs, gives me a crooked smile, and starts telling her story.

I’m half listening, half giving her the once over and half thinking---Why does Blackie want to worry about me?  I ain’t a made man but I ain’t a fink either.  Blackie knows that.

She’s wearing high heels, the kind they call Stilettos.  Her skirt is some shiny material, dark green, and her blouse is white and tight.  She’s wearing a jacket that matches her skirt, her hair is dark auburn, and mascara is running down her cheeks, like she’s been crying.  She’s definitely no kraut from the looks of her.  She reeks of old Palermo and I’m glad we are on the third floor and I’m facing the door.  My gat’s in my pocket just in case I need it.

Then, something she says grabs my attention.  “Repeat that” I say tapping the ashes from my fag onto the floor.  “C’mon Dave” she whines “I just need a ride home, it’s late, I’m tired, and my car’s broke down.”  “Okay, okay” I say “it‘s past eleven, I’ve been here since seven and I’m tired too”.  I flip the sign from Open to Closed, turn the key, and walk my sister to the car.

Socialism, Is It Good or Bad?

Oy vey, so why do Conservatives want to demonize the term ‘Socialism’ anyway?

We all know that pure anything isn’t necessarily good (unless it’s Maple Syrup), so why pure Capitalism? Let’s face it, unfettered Capitalism is just a legalized pyramid scheme that makes it possible, nay, even desirable, for one person to end up with all the marbles. Socialism on the other hand simply means that everyone gets a chance to share in the wealth based on merit or the amount of labor he or she contributes to society. Similar to Communism, to be sure, but with a democratic form of governance that is not classless. In the best of all possible worlds a democratic society will end up being a mix of fettered Capitalism and beneficial Socialism. Some of us just need to accept that fact and move on.

You could deduce from their actions and words that today’s Conservatives aren’t democratic at all but are actually leaning toward Totalitarianism. At the risk of using the ‘R’ word when ideologues get too hell bent and scripted when promoting their political stance it starts to sound a lot like a religion, not a form of governance, and definitely not the ‘We the People…” kind of governance.

Does Socialism exist in our country? You bet it does, and you can also bet that most folks don’t really want it to go away. Here are a few examples of social programs instituted by our democratic form of governance:

Bike Paths                                    Electric Coops
Fire Departments                          Food stamps
HOA’s                                          Interstate Highways

Mandated Automobile Insurance     Medicaid
Medicare                                      NASA
Port Authorities                            Police Departments

Public Libraries                             Public Parks
Public Transit                               Seat Belt Laws
Social Security                             The Armed Forces

The National Guard                      The Peace Corps
Welfare

(If the military is twice or three times larger than needed, those jobs are not real jobs, but government funded make work projects, and furthermore, the healthcare system enjoyed by all members of the military is a single payer plan run by the government---i.e. socialized medicine.)

Even unnecessary wars are socialistic because they create government funded jobs in both the public and private sectors that are not needed during peacetime.

So, some socialism is good, some is bad. Which would you eliminate? Whose grandmother would you deny Social Security or Medicare, whose town would you deny fire protection, which National Park would you give over to big business, whose children would you deny an education because their parents couldn’t afford private schools? Think about it.

Sure we like the idea of the rugged American individualist, but for much of our history people had to come together forming co-ops to get things done: Raising barns, buying farm equipment, affording a town doctor, a teacher or a sheriff, water and sewage treatment systems. And, we've conveniently forgotten that McCarthy terrorized the country with Communism so much so that every government idea that's not ruggedly individualistic is met with suspicion and fear. We’ve also forgotten that mortality rates from starvation, accidents and childbirth were astronomically high before social plans were put in place. In a pure Capitalistic society you would still be on your own, even when it doesn’t make sense.

So, the next time you hear a Conservative denigrating the ‘S’ word, think twice before you agree. You may be hurting yourself, your country, and your children, and you may be contributing to the dumbing down of a Conservative.

Dinner Party Politics

Most folks believe that discussing sex, money, religion, and politics outside the bedroom should be verboten; it just shouldn’t be done in polite society.  And, for the most part I agree, except when it comes to politics.  Discussing sex can be titillating, discussing money can be profitable, and discussing religion might be enlightening, but discussing politics will probably end up costing you a friend.  Should it be that way?  Probably not.

Our democracy benefits when people engage in open-minded discourse, sharing opinions and beliefs as long as the conversations are intellectual, not emotional. And I’m not using the Conservative’s Elitist definition of intellectual here; I’m using intellectual in the sense of intelligence and critical or analytical thinking.  But, all parties do have to check their Glocks with the sheriff before entering the debate.

Unfortunately though, some politically inclined folk prefer to get their daily dose of politics from like-minded people or paid-for-performance pundits.  Pundits whose next raise or promotion or book deal depends on getting you all wound up and wobbly.  In a sense, politics has become a business in its own right.  A non-secular business at that.  Pay-per-view in the truest sense.

The airwaves, blogosphere and print media are full of self serving, ranting and raving ideologues whose primary purpose is to foment anger and outrage in whatever segment of the electorate they are currently working.  And each segment, for its part, seldom investigates the ideologue’s motives (usually money and fame) or the so-called facts supporting his or her claims.

Ideologues, especially the paid-for-performance ideologues, seldom employ intellectual reasoning, preferring instead to appeal to the emotions of their audience; using the very same tactics employed by every despicable despotic leader since the beginning of time.  Which means, of course, that it works.  Which means, of course, we haven’t yet evolved enough to question obviously half-baked ‘truths’, truths that could easily be debunked by the average non-partisan 2nd grader with access to the Internet.  Shame on us.

Consider too, that we actually encourage those ideologues when we tacitly agree only to listen and never question what we’ve heard.

You’ve surely heard of signing loyalty oaths as a precondition to entry at a rally or organization.  Those oaths are almost like the oath demanded by a pedophile of his prey: “Don’t tell your mommy or daddy or Uncle Joe, because they won’t understand, they’re not like us”.  And yes, I am likening certain pundits to disgusting pedophiles with the minor difference being that their mass audience approach raises them to the level of Glorified Cluster Groper where all the gropees are required to chant in unison: “Wow, that felt good-----didn’t it-----?”

So, why don’t we engage in polite political discourse: sharing ideas, opinions, and beliefs?  Is it really improper?  Do we fear losing friends?  Do we fear new ideas?  Do we fear having our minds changed?  Are we afraid that we don’t have all the facts and might seem ill informed?  Are we afraid to learn by making mistakes?  Or is it just easier to let someone else do the thinking, leaving to us the heady tasks of twirling batons, waving pom-poms and reloading our Glocks?  How can we, without perturbation, select leaders who will certainly shape our mores if we can’t or won’t discuss the options in polite conversation?  Have we abdicated our responsibility, or are we just lazy and afraid?  Do we not know how to be polite and still make a point?  Has civility left the room?

Personally, I think discussing politics can be titillating and profitable and enlightening as well as educational, and if that costs me a friend, well maybe he or she wasn’t really a friend to begin with.

Where is America Heading?

I’m not the sharpest pencil in the box, of that I am sure, but that on-line IQ test I just took said my IQ is 152!  I am a bit skeptical, though, because the last question only asked for my bank routing number.

"The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.  He offered that observation in 1837 but, unfortunately, his words are even more fitting today.  We live in an America that seems to be in a race with itself to the bottom.  To aim higher only results in being called an “Elitist”.

As evidence of that, there has been a lot of stuff in the blogosphere and print media lately speaking directly to the dumbing down of America.  Here are a few items that jumped right out at me:

• The United States ranks 49th in the world in literacy (The New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).
• The United States ranks 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
• Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the Earth.  Seventeen percent believe the Earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).
• The International Adult Literacy Survey found that Americans with less than nine years of education 'score worse than virtually all of the other countries’. (Jeremy Rifkin's book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78).

I also found these gems in two polls (Research 2000 & “Public Policy Polling”).

In the Research 2000 poll:

• 93 percent of Democrats say Obama was born in the country
• 83 percent of Independents say Obama was born in the country
• 42 percent for Republicans say Obama was born in the country
• A majority of Republicans either believe he was born abroad (28 percent) or don’t know (30 percent)
• A majority of Southerners either believe that Obama was not born in the United States (23 percent) or are not sure (30 percent). Only 47 percent of Southern respondents believe Obama was born in the USA.
• By contrast, 93 percent of Northeasterns said he was born here, as did 90 percent of Midwesterners, and 87 percent of Westerners.

In the Public Policy Polling:

• 62% of Americans think Obama was born here, while 24% think he was not and 14% are unsure
• 10% of the country thinks that he was born in Indonesia, 7% think he was born in Kenya, and 1% think he was born in the Philippines.
• That leaves 20%, which includes at least some people who correctly believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, but who don’t consider Hawaii to be part of the United States. You read that right- 6% of poll respondents think that Hawaii is not part of the country and 4% are unsure.

So, who are these Birthers?

• 62% are Republicans, 20% are Democrats, and 18% are independents 
• 57% are conservatives, 33% are moderates, and 9% are progressives 
• 56% are men, 44% are women 
• 86% are white, 7% are Hispanic, 4% are black, and 3% are other races

I find that last statistic strangely intriguing.

Robert Applebaum writes in his blog:

 “Those who simply parrot Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh don’t stop for even a moment to consider the veracity of the statements or the context in which they’re made.  Rather, what Beck and Limbaugh, among many others in the right wing echo chamber, have to say on any issue is accepted as absolute, indisputable fact and then simply repeated in the course of a debate on that topic.  Just as Beck and Limbaugh do with such expertise, the rank and file of the religious and regressive right seem to believe that repeating something over and over, regardless of truth, somehow lends credence to the assertion being made.  In any other context, it would be absurd – I could claim the sky is green ad naseum, it would never make it true.  Nevertheless, repeating the verifiably false assertions over and over that President Obama wasn’t born in America or that he is a secret Muslim, to name but two examples, to the regressives, somehow makes those assertions true.”

Susan Jacoby, in her piece “Bristol and Levi: Poster children for the dumbing down of America”, wrote:

“Whenever I hear liberal-to-centrist pundits saying that even if Sarah gets the Republican nomination, she will only ensure Obama's re-election, I shudder. That this representative of pure ignorance, retrograde religion, and class envy is being taken seriously at all speaks volumes about the dumbing down of America.”

And, in another piece, "The Dumbing Of America", she wrote:

“Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media, as well as older electronic ones); a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism."

So then, it seems perfectly alright to this dull pencil that as long as we will be happy being a Third World country we should just continue along our current trajectory, mindlessly following the nuggets of wisdom we receive daily from those whose only true desire is to regain power.  It’s okay to ignore the fact that the previous administration brought us to the brink of depression, then simply restore them to office, as long as no one tells us we shouldn’t consume too many Big Macs or that we need to finish high school.  We are in control of our lives, aren’t we? We can think for ourselves can’t we?  I mean, Rush said so didn’t he?

America, intolerant?

Racial and religious intolerance has a long and storied history in America.  Our Founding Fathers’ idea of a New World free from religious persecution and intolerance was a noble idea that we Americans seem to want to test every chance we get.

John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, was a source of inspiration for U.S. presidents from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan though he did not believe in democracy or religious tolerance.  The Massachusetts Bay Colony did not hesitate to execute people like the Quakers and even engaged in the trial and execution of witches.

But, early America probably came by it naturally: During the Crusades the Roman Catholic Church taught that going to war against the infidels was an act of Christian penance. If a believer was killed during a crusade, he would bypass purgatory, and go directly to heaven.  Each warrior received a cross from the hands of the Pope or his legates making him a soldier of the Church.

Fortunately our Founding Fathers didn’t see it that way: “I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others,” said Thomas Jefferson.

But, regardless of our Constitution, intolerance has persisted, even infecting our most noble institutions of higher learning: According to historian David Oshinsky, writing about Jonas Salk, "Most of the surrounding medical schools - Cornell, Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Yale - had rigid quotas in place. In 1935 Yale accepted 76 applicants from a pool of 501. About 200 of those applicants were Jewish but only five got in." Oshinsky notes that the dean's instructions were remarkably precise: "Never admit more than five Jews, take only two Italian Catholics, and take no blacks at all."

And the Ku Klux Klan, a.k.a. The Invisible Empire, carried it even further: The second Ku Klux Klan, as founded by William J. Simmons, added to the original anti-black ideology with a new anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, prohibitionist and anti-Semitic agenda.  Klansmen were bound to “Fight the Good Fight” to ensure that America was inhabited only by WASPs.

And more recently American evangelical Christians managed to anger all the world's major religions when Southern Baptists published a booklet encouraging prayer for the conversion of Jews.  Previously they had published a prayer guide for Muslims and one for Hindus, and not to leave anyone out they later released a prayer guide for Buddhists. (per Charles Colson)

But there has always been at least one sane person around to remind us of the true purpose of religious freedom: “A man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never tolerant. At the least, he will feel pity for the adherent of another religion but usually it does not stop there. The faithful adherent of a religion will try first to convert those that believe in another religion and usually turns to hatred if he is not successful. Hatred then leads to persecution when the might of the majority is behind it.”  Albert Einstein

There have also been people who remind us why we really shouldn’t amend our current Constitution: “Once you attempt legislation upon religious grounds, you open the way for every kind of intolerance and religious persecution.”  William Butler Yeats

And, as to that mosque in NYC, well I hope we Americans can show the world we still believe in the First Amendment to our Constitution and not succumb to fear or intolerance for if we do, perhaps the terrorists have won.  I prefer to believe we are as big as we are strong.  The rest of humanity is watching.

Political Labels and Obfuscation

Let’s face it, Americans are hung up on labels; we seem only able to define ourselves in terms of labels.  Labels such as: Blogger, Cheese Head, Conservative, Hippie, Democrat, Independent, Jock, Liberal, Nerd, Pinko, Pragmatist, Progressive, Republican, Schmuck, Socialist, Writer; the list is endless.  Without labels it almost seems we could not communicate and that is a problem because once we identify with a label we stop thinking about its real meaning.  We, in effect, join a club that has a life long irrevocable membership, placing ourselves at the mercy of those who think they own the label.  Most of the time it is completely harmless, like when your child can only wear clothes made by OshKosh B'gosh or The Gap or Nike, or when you declare yourself to be a White Wine Drinker or Night Owl or Obsessive Compulsive.  Most of the time it is harmless, but sometimes it is harmful to ourselves our friends and our country; but we do it anyway.

Political labels rank high on my list of personal pet peeves.  I think political labels are bad for two reasons: They contribute to pigeon holing your political thinking and they are misused by political parties to disparage their rivals and confuse or mislead the electorate.

For example, most folks think they know the real meaning of certain labels like:

Liberalism – A political philosophy promoting the importance of liberty and equality.  Liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state.

Conservatism -- A political philosophy that promotes maintaining the status quo. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, while others oppose modernism altogether and seek a return to the way things used to be.

Progressivism -- A political philosophy advocating changes and reforms. Progressivism is the opposite of Conservatism.

(Liberalism is not the opposite of Conservatism anymore than love is the opposite of hate.  Indifference is the opposite of both love and hate and, you can have Liberal Conservatives as well as Liberal Progressives.)

Therefore, using the definitions above it is difficult to understand why being called a Liberal is a bad thing or being called a Conservative is a good thing.  For me, progressivism seems the better choice for any society that seeks to evolve as a civilization.  The only philosophy that might be better is Liberal Progressivism.

But, the reality is that our political parties just love to obfuscate their intentions and beliefs by hiding behind misused terms or disparaging other quite desirable beliefs by misapplying labels.  Adding to the confusion is the media, a defacto co-conspirator to the electorate’s misunderstandings by not correcting or clarifying misused labels and terms.  And with the drop out rate in our high schools ever increasing, it won’t be too long before we will be sewing those labels to our underwear.  That’s the only way we will know who we are…even if we don’t know what the label means.  The Conservatives are counting on it; their favorite label for educated folk is Elitist.

The FairTax Act Redux

You’ve all read my previous article on this topic so you already know the facts.  Therefore, without further ado, let’s jump right into my personal feelings on the matter.

There are four things you can deduce without too much difficulty:

1) The poor will pay little or no tax, pretty much as it is today 

2) The rich will pay far less tax than they do today
3) Corporations will pay virtually no tax, pretty much as it is today
4) The middle class will pay higher taxes than they do today

The Poor:

With the prebate in place the poor will pay virtually no income tax to the Federal Government.  The only wrinkle here is that the prebate is based on income, meaning: A) The poor will have to prove their income to someone each year to qualify.  B) Since all services will be taxed, even the kid that mows your lawn will have to collect the tax, keep records, and send the tax to the state, perhaps qualifying him or her for the prebate.  So, you can already see that the simple, one book thick, tax code will have to be modified to deal with a lot of such problems.

The Rich:

The rich, those making more than $200,00 per annum will see a significant drop in their tax rate for the simple reason that they don’t spend all their income, opting to save or invest some of it.  That means they will only pay tax on what they spend, not what they earn.  That’s fine and dandy you say, but since the plan must be revenue-neutral it may be good for them but it won’t be good for the middle class.  Revenue-neutral simply means that the plan, any plan, must collect as many tax dollars as today’s plan.  Full stop.  So, if the rich pay less someone else has to pay more.

Corporations:

Since corporations pay virtually no income tax due to all the loopholes in our current tax code plus off-shore finagling, the only real good that will from the FairTax Act is that Republicans will have to stop harping about too-high corporate taxes.  But what will they do to entertain themselves next?

The Middle Class:

Ah, the poor middle class.  Republicans have wanted to eliminate this class of folk for a long time and the FairTax Act may actually do the trick.  Since government always expands (you have to remember that even Civil Servants and the military like a pay raise every year, and the cost of paper clips and such always goes up) the amount of revenue the Feds need always increases no matter what.  Even eliminating the IRS won’t really result in any real savings: In 2008 the IRS asked for a budget of 11 Billion dollars to do their job.  That amount is peanuts compared to the Fed’s overall budget and besides, it won’t just go away: Your state and mine will now have to collect the new sales tax and enforce the new tax code.  That won’t be cheap because instead of one HR department, at the Federal level, you will now have 50 HR departments to fund.  You see where this is going don’t you?  Each state will have to increase their sales and/or income tax rates to collect enough money to fund all the IRS employees that transition to state payrolls.  So, not only will the middle class pay more in FairTax Act taxes, they will pay more to in local and state taxes as well.  A lose-lose situation for the middle class.
 
In Conclusion:

It is my humble opinion that the FairTax Act will only serve to outsource the IRS to the states so Republicans can claim they have decreased the size of our Federal government.  The rich will love it, corporations won’t be unhappy, the poor won’t really care as long as the prebate check arrives on time, the Federal Government will still collect as much as before, and the middle class will get screwed as usual.  And they will, for some strange reason, vote Republican anyway.  Go figure.

The FairTax Act

Ahhh, another election cycle and yet another attempt to garner support for the FairTax Act.  A lot of folks, including myself, view this as just another vote producing gimmick of the GOP.  But, who knows, maybe the electorate will be smarter this time around.

Here is a Brief Description:

The FairTax Act promotes freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the federal income tax plus other taxes such as the payroll withholding tax, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax paid at the cash register.

Here is the Scariest Objection:

The FairTax Act will result in the largest double taxation in American history. Upon transition, all funds which had been previously taxed will suddenly become taxable again upon consumption because the bill contains no mechanism to alleviate that double taxation. (So, if you are living on proceeds from 401(k) plans and savings, your period of double taxation is for life.)

Here is a Brief History:

The FairTax bill currently before Congress, HR25, was introduced by John Linder on July 14, 1999.

At the end of the 106th Congress in 2000, HR25 had the following seven co-sponsors, four of whom were Republican, and three of whom were Democrat:

Rep Barcia, James A. (D) [MI-5] - 9/8/1999
Rep Bonilla, Henry (R) [TX-23] - 9/14/1999
Rep Campbell, Tom (R) [CA-15] - 9/8/1999
Rep Condit, Gary A. (D) [CA-18] - 11/10/1999
Rep Hall, Ralph M. (R) [TX-4] - 9/14/1999
Rep Lewis, Jerry (R) [CA-40] - 11/10/1999
Rep Peterson, Collin C. (D) [MN-7] - 7/14/1999

Increased support for the proposal was garnered after talk radio personality Neal Boortz and Georgia Congressman John Linder published The FairTax Book in 2005; additional visibility was gained during the 2008 presidential campaign.

At last count, the bill has approximately 114 cosponsors.

The 16th Amendment Brought Us an Income Tax:

The 16th Amendment was simply worded, the tax return consisted of only one page, and the entire tax code was only 14 pages in length.

Today the Internal Revenue Service employs more agents than the FBI and CIA combined, and with 144,000 employees it employs more people than all but the 36 largest corporations in the United States.

How Would It be Implemented:

The FairTax Act is designed to replace all federal income taxes (including the alternative minimum tax, corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), gift taxes, and estate taxes with a national retail sales tax. The FairTax Act would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (after three years) and establish an Excise Tax Bureau and a Sales Tax Bureau in the Department of the Treasury.

Individual states would have primary authority for collecting FairTax revenues and remitting them to the Treasury.

How Much Will It Cost Me, You Ask:

Americans for Fair Taxation complains that HR25 calls for a 23 percent inclusive (or 30 percent exclusive) rate.  But, the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform, as established by George W. Bush, calculated that a 34 percent rate on the price of consumer goods would be necessary to make the program revenue-neutral.

(And, using a formula that corrects for faulty assumptions about government spending, William Gale, director of the economic studies program at the Brookings Institute, calculates that a 39.3 percent exclusive rate would be necessary for revenue neutrality.)

Most states with sales taxes have roughly a 50 percent tax base. The FairTax Act’s 100 percent base would require consumers to pay taxes on a great many more things than they might anticipate. Such as:

    * Purchases of new homes
    * Rent
    * Interest on credit cards, mortgages and car loans
    * Doctor bills
    * Utilities
    * Gasoline (30 percent in addition to current taxes, which would not be repealed)
    * Legal fees
    * Services  (Plumbers, mechanics, etc)

And Who Really Pays:

Because the poor tend to spend a higher proportion of their income on basics such as food and clothing, sales taxes do, then, require them to pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes.

The FairTax Act attempts to correct for this by exempting sales taxes for everyone at or below the poverty line. Those taxpayers would receive a "prebate" of approximately $5,600 that the Treasury Department estimates would cost between $600 billion and $700 billion annually.

With the prebate program in effect, those earning under $15,000 per year would see their share of the federal tax burden drop. So, if they are paying less under the FairTax Act then someone else has to be paying more. According to the Treasury Department, that “someone else” is everyone earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year. Therefore, those in the highest and lowest income tax brackets will see their effective tax rate drop, while everyone else will see their rate rise.  Virtually all middle-class Americans would pay a higher share of the tax burden under the FairTax Act, while corporations would pay none.

Some Believe it Could Lower Consumer Prices:

Proponents of the FairTax Act point out that prices on consumer goods contain “hidden taxes.” Under current law, corporations have to pay taxes on their earnings. Moreover, businesses have to pay social security taxes for each employee.  Talk-show host Neal Boortz argued that 22 percent of the price of a consumer good is really a “hidden tax.” Get rid of corporate and social security taxes, Boortz argued, and consumer good prices would drop by 22 percent.

Some critical analysis shows that this just ain’t so. The FairTax Act is designed to be revenue-neutral; for every tax dollar collected under the current system the FairTax Act system has to collect a dollar. If the FairTax Act rate equals just those embedded taxes it can not be revenue-neutral because embedded taxes do not take into account personal income or estate taxes.

Some Fair FairTax Act Criticisms by blogger Hank Van Gieson:

Effective tax rates for most retirees will be higher under the Fairtax than under current law.

Retiree and Roth type savings will be essentially double taxed.

State and local bond issues will have to offer higher than basic interest rates in order to attract investors.

State/local taxes will increase by an estimated $300 billion annually.

Placing a tax on permits at the local level will adversely impact the construction industry.

Adding the prebate to the federal budget will result in entitlements becoming the largest share of the federal budget and will put increased pressure on discretionary spending.

The separation of church and state will be put at risk by removing the income tax restrictions on churches.

Claims of “controlling taxes by controlling spending” are misleading. Half of the average person’s budget is services and there are no “used” services. As a practical matter, the availability of used goods is limited to automobiles, houses, boats and similar infrequent purchases.

Purchasing used goods will avoid federal taxes, but the prices paid for all used goods will include a portion of the embedded costs of the Fairtax.

While purporting to eliminate all income taxes, under the provisions of H25, foreign corporations with income from US sources must pay a 23% income tax.

Adding a 30% national sales tax to normal customs/duty charges for all foreign imports could empty retail shelves of inexpensive foreign made products and adversely impact every American’s budget.

In order to raise the revenue needed by state and local governments to pay the national sales tax, cascading taxation may become a reality. This is in direct conflict with one of the stated goals of HR25.

And Finally:

Since all services would be taxed, your paperboy and lawn mower and babysitter (for example) would have to charge the tax and then keep accurate records so he or she could report and pay those collected taxes to----oh, I don’t know---some form of the IRS (at the State level) I suppose.

Our Dysfunctional Senate

As we all know, our government is composed of three branches: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial.  If you liken our government to a modern corporation, the Executive Branch sets the goals and cajoles; the Legislative Branch creates the laws (strategies) to achieve those goals; and the Judicial Branch rules on the Constitutionality of those laws and their application.  No one branch can operate independently of the other two.

The Legislative Branch is further broken down into the House of Representatives, whose purpose our Founding Fathers decided was to represent the people, district by district, and the Senate, whose job it is to play the role of parent to those unruly high strung Representatives.  The original notion was that the Senate would be a wizened, thoughtful, body of elders who would engage in high-minded debate to ensure the sanity of any law proposed by the Representatives; in the past Senators were seldom previously members of the House.  Today that is all changed and the raucous nature of the House has invaded the Senate bringing with it ideologues and corporate shills.  Gone are the wizened elder statesmen, having been largely replaced by dysfunctional party hacks.

And like some others, I often wonder if we don’t have an non elected fourth branch of government: lobbyists.

A Center for Public Integrity analysis shows that more than 1,750 companies and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists just to influence health reform bills in 2009.  In 1968, by contrast, there were only 62 lobbyists, total.

In this week’s excellent New Yorker magazine article George Packer writes about the history and condition of the United States Senate, asking the popular question “just how broken is the Senate”?

The New York Times reported in November 2009 that statements entered in the Congressional Record or delivered to the press by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by lobbyists.

And when our Senators aren’t entertaining lobbyists, they are either out fund raising or conspiring with others of their party on voting strategies.  Seldom do they actually debate an issue; the closest they come to that is engaging in filibusters.  But only Tuesdays through Thursdays, the days the Senate is actually in session.

Blogger Greg Sargent writes this week: "It appears that Republicans have calculated that the failure of Democratic legislation, and Democratic griping about the Republican role in blocking legislation, will feed a sense that government is broken and/or has failed to deliver."  "The GOP," Sargent continues, "is betting that failure and griping will reflect badly on the ruling party."

And to paraphrase blogger Charles Lemos: Unfortunately, it is our nation that will fail, almost entirely due to our dysfunctional Senate and the largely radical and recalcitrant GOP that is willing to smash the ship of state on the rocks of an ideology better suited to a pastoral, pre-industrial nineteenth century than to the complex realities of the twenty-first.

I fear this trend in the Senate may not be reversible, no matter which party is in charge.  I also fear that we the people no longer have a say, our vote having been purchased by lobbyists.

Six-gun for hire.

Thank God for 2nd Amendment rights, but who’s gonna snuff the fires?

Neosho, Mo. --- City officials say budget problems will force them to lay off up to 22 police officers and firefighters.

East St. Louis, Ill. --- The East St. Louis City Council has voted to lay off nearly 40 workers, including 30 police officers and firefighters.

San Jose, Calif. --- City lays off 50 firefighters and the department is being forced to mothball one fire station, three engines and one truck and sack the personnel attached to each.

Cleveland, Oh. --- More than 100 Cleveland firefighters, police officers and EMS workers are on the unemployment line after layoffs took effect in August.

The list above is just a very small sampling of what is happening all across America, policemen and firemen being laid off in droves so municipalities can balance their budgets.  This while states are laying off teachers and health department workers and cutting back on things like Medicaid and family services.  All for the same reason: the revenue streams each municipality was banking on have likely fallen below expense management levels, a sorry consequence of severe recessions.
 
Within these municipalities the electorate may have voted down any and all proposed increases on income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes or fees that would have kept those people on the payroll protecting their citizens.   Sure they could issue municipal bonds, but those have to be repaid at some point which means the problem is only being kicked down the road.  And if the problem is truly a structural one, some municipalities may have difficulty selling new bonds or paying the interest on their maturing bonds.  Municipalities do go bankrupt.

But, it’s all good.  Personal safety wise that is.  There’s nothing to worry about because we can all pack heat.  We don’t need those cops anymore because we can snuff the bad guys ourselves.  But we had better bone up on fire snuffing, that isn’t something you can carry around in a holster or under a newspaper on the front seat of your car.  Unless looting is involved, a person snuffer in your nightstand won’t help when your house is on fire.

So remember, the next time you are in Wal-Mart and you see a kid with a six-gun strapped to his waist, don’t make any sudden moves, it may be the real thing.  And the next time your local government holds out its hand you may want to ask some serious questions before you vote.  We do live in interesting times.

The American Lunatic Fringe

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus

A True American sentiment.

Lately, though, I’ve been seeing more and more evidence that American attitudes are devolving into something where anything goes including out and out racism.  Here are a few of the more notable groups and their nutcase politics.

Birthers: Let’s face it, why would so many Americans believe that Barack Obama was not born in the US if there wasn’t irrefutable proof that 49 years ago his parents knew he would become president and so knowing hid the details of his birth.  And since Barack was born in the days of segregation they had to have been superior clairvoyants as well as good parents.  The only other conclusions you might draw are that latent bigotry in the US isn’t really latent at all, or racist sore losers who can't deal with having a black president childishly go about making up absurd conspiracy theories.  It saddens me to say, but I get the feeling there are a lot of racists in the US.

Thirteenthers: Our current 13th amendment bans slavery.  Iowan GOPers are, however, interested in reintroducing the 13th amendment originally put before the states in 1810. That one outlawed anyone accepting a “title of nobility” from a foreign state from ever holding political office.  That version of the 13th Amendment was never ratified.  So it seems that not only do the Thirteenthers want to ban Nobel prize winners (including Barack Obama) from holding office they also want to reintroduce slavery. It saddens me to say, but I get the feeling there are a lot of racists in the US.

OBTW: The Department of Justice did look into whether Obama needed Congressional approval to accept the Nobel prize under the existing emoluments clause, and based on the meaning of “foreign state” (which would not include the Nobel Prize Committee) concluded he did not.

Fourteenthers: The 14th Amendment conveys citizenship to anyone born on US soil. However, there are hints that a few top Republicans want to repeal the 14th Amendment.  Since it is incredibly difficult to repeal any Amendment to the United States Constitution, it must mean these few Republicans are at their wits end about babies born to illegal immigrants.  Especially if the illegal immigrants come from our south: there has been no mention of a problem with babies born to illegal Canadian immigrants.  So, again, it saddens me to say, but I get the feeling there are a lot of racists in the US, the vast majority of whom seem to be Republican.  If I was Michael Steele I, too, would be networking heavily.

Today one cannot simply say “proud to be American” without qualifying it.  Pity, that.

Writer's block

Oy, writer’s block and I’m not even a writer yet.  Sure my mind, such as it is, whirls with all manner of stuff but none of it will coalesce into anything that interests me, let alone you.  I’ve had a good run though, 5 articles that took a combined 16 hours to write and now it’s been longer than that and all I can think about is playing solitaire while waiting for Jon Stewart to come on.  That man has it made: he plays the court jester while delivering fake news that actually informs.  And he gets paid for it.  Then there’s Glen Beck: he too delivers fake news and gets paid for it but we’re never actually informed.  How do you choose?  Personally, I like NPR, but I don’t actually drive all that much and we don’t have a functioning radio in the house so we only get the straight skinny when we go to the doctors.  But that works because our doctors are two and a half hours away in the ‘BIG’ city and unless we are listening to our ‘Chinese for Dummies’ CD, we get informed.  We go to the doctors at least every three months: I see a Cardiologist and an Internist while she only sees an Internist.  It never takes long, a couple of hours tops, and then it’s off to McAlister's Deli for lunch followed by some lite shopping.  They make a hot pastrami on rye at McAlister's that’s to die for boobala.  Who would have thought to open a Jewish Deli in St. Louis already?  And with an Irish name?  St. Louis is predominantly French-Catholic mixed with German-Catholic with a few Protestants thrown in just to keep things interesting.  But I digress.  We were talking about writer’s block, weren’t we?  And guess what?  Still nothing, bupcus, zilch, nada, nil, zip, diddlysquat, rien, but you get the picture.  Usually I like to talk about politics: it’s my favorite topic that I actually know nothing about, but that’s never stopped me.  I also like to talk about me, but today I didn’t even see my reflection in the mirror---that was weird. Maybe that’s just part of the seven-year’s bad luck you get when you break one.  So, where were we?  Oh yeah, writer’s block.  Nope, nothing yet, maybe it’s time for Jon Stewart.  No?  Oh well.  Let me ruminate and cogitate a bit and maybe something will occur to me to write about.  If not maybe I’ll just post some cute pictures of cats doing normal things with strange unrelated captions.  Nope, I think that’s been done already.  Sheesh, oy vey, and all that too.

Maybe tomorrow.

Divided We Fall

There is a large old oak tree in our front yard.  The tree is massive, so massive in fact that I always get a little apprehensive walking or mowing under it.  Some branches do fall each spring, but so far not on me.  Maybe I worry for no good reason but it is bifurcated and it is splitting.

Not too many years ago, this tree was just bifurcated.  Today it is on the verge of falling and no matter which side fails first both trunks could topple because their roots are conjoined.

Twenty-odd years ago when we bought this place, this tree was, or should I say these trees were, huge: two fully-grown men would have had a difficult time joining hands to encircle just one of the trunks.  Today that is even truer, but mostly because real men just don’t join hands or hug trees in these parts.  Anyway, today each trunk’s girth is much larger and the split at the fork is almost big enough to walk through, so it’s no longer just bifurcated.  It’s in trouble.

I have thought about how I might help it. One idea I had is to drill holes to pass a threaded rod through both trunks; large washers and nuts would be fitted to prevent further splitting.  Another idea is to cut down one of the trunks and seal its stump, that could allow new growth to add weight to the previously shaded side of the remaining trunk, but I am not convinced that would work either.
 
I have also considered cutting down both trunks and asking our local sawyer to saw them into boards, planks that I could dry in my barn then turn into furniture. I could then use wood from the right trunk to build an Early American Teacart for example, and wood from the left trunk to build a replica of Andrew Jackson’s desk, our first populist president.  It’s a thought, and I like building things.  This year, with any luck though, I may not have to decide whether to chop down either or both, although the right trunk does continue to lean away from center more than the left.

Perhaps I just need to accept that trees, like political parties, get old; maybe it is wiser just to replace them when they’ve outlived their usefulness, before they rot and can’t be salvaged.  It’s a thought.

A Suitable Urn

In the beginning, I thought your mother was going to auctions to look for bargains. Bargains she might resell in her flea market booth, that being her hobby of late.  Then, after a series of mysterious phone calls that caused her to dash out of the house with no explanation, I became suspicious of her moral character.  Bugger all, I thought, after all these years.  But, as it turns out, I was wrong on both counts.

Another time she said she was going to a funeral parlor.  I thought a friend had passed away and was mildly curious why I had not been invited.  She wasn’t gone very long and never revealed who if anyone had died, there were some brochures, but that was all.

As it turns out, your mother has been searching for an urn.  Not just any urn.  A suitable urn.

She even brought one home once.  It was made of glass, swirling iridescent pale blue and silver glass, with a fitted lid.  Very ethereal looking.  About eighteen inches tall as I recall.  She stood it on the floor in the Family Room and would look at it several times a day.  Then one day it was gone.

Your mother has never described her notion of the perfect urn.  She only says she will know it when she sees it.  I suspect though that she does have some idea of what it should look like and how it should be constructed.  I have faith in her on this matter; she has always had a noble sense of practicality and style.  The notions of form, fit, and function just come naturally to her.

Practicality and function outweigh style, your mother told me, because following the reading of our Will, a pilot will be engaged to transport us to the site your mother and I will have chosen.  There our ashes will be scattered to the wind, but not before being stirred one last time; that seems only right.

For now though she is still searching.