Feature of the Week
Here�s the blog from a year ago.
Republican Addiction to the Prescription Drug Cuttax
01.01.05 @ 08:46 PM EDT [link]

Anarcho-Capitalism and Environmental Overreach
Relevant to the issues of what happened in Easter Island and Greenland, I had a series of interactions with a radical libertarian book publisher several years ago. His point was that the system set up by the founding fathers did not provide for a strong federal government and that the growth of federal power over the last several centuries has been an abomination. In particular, the Constitution, when properly interpreted, prohibits limiting a person or a state for the benefit of another person or state. He based this on certain opinions certain founding fathers expressed in certain letters. While this sounds like a pretty extreme position, it is shared by many on the extreme right wing, including a number of Bush Administration candidates for the federal judiciary. Among legal theorists, this idea is called the “Constitution in Exile.” Their notion is that the New Deal represents a gross misreading that needs to be remedied AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!! Anyway, I had a good exchange going with the publisher, even suggesting some books that explored the implications of the political system he was suggesting. There’s actually a name for it: “anarcho-capitalism,” the belief that capitalist markets are the proper home for all the functions of society, at the expense of big government or even any government at all! My reply was that any letters the founding fathers wrote reflected the reality of the day. Settlement of North America represented a thin shell along the extreme eastern shore of a vast, empty land. Their major challenge at that point was to get started on getting the wilderness populated. From their perspective, the continent’s resources looked absolutely limitless. The key point was that one person’s consumption of these resources could easily be accomplished without a significant impact on others or on the general viability of the ecosystem That situation has clearly changed over the last two centuries. As the country has become increasingly populated, the ability of commercial enterprises to significantly impact the lives of citizens and the general livability of the country has increased exponentially. In other words, the country is encountering the limits of uncontrolled growth. It cannot be disputed that uncontrolled growth cannot be sustained forever as long as we remain constrained to a single planet with finite carrying capacity. The question is how close we are to the breaking point, not whether there is a breaking point. Maybe someday humanity will be again faced with a bounty of resources, but in the meantime we need to act responsibly. The stakes are too high to assume that every individual will voluntarily constrain their consumption of resources such that consumption by all individuals is sustainable. Thus, government power is absolutely essential if humanity is to remain within the carrying capacity of the planet. The bottom line, then, is that those who seek to hamstring the ability of government to preserve the long-run viability of society are on the wrong side of history and are indeed placing our society and the prospects of our descendants at grave risk. (BTW, in case you were wondering, the publisher stopped corresponding at that point, an illustration of the denial that is the universal response of Dittoheads to the cold realities of finiteness.
12.31.04 @ 05:00 PM EDT [link]

A New Meaning for “Snow Job”
The language of Dittohead has a rich technical usage extending far beyond the conversational forms familiar from popular outlets like The Rush Limbaugh Show. Indeed, as the Bush Administration has cemented its hold on the US federal executive, legislative, and judicial branches, Dittohead has become the lingua franca of bureaucratese. Here’s a noteworthy example: Dittohead Treasury Secretary John Snow’s recap of US finances for 2004. Considering what we already know about these finances, you just know that this was going to be good, and Snow does not disappoint! The complete doc is at linkbut most of the real laughs are in Snow’s introduction. The following excerpt is a particularly sterling example of financial Dittohead, which we will then translate into Blue State English: “In fiscal year 2004, government revenues were $1.9 trillion, an increase of more than $100 billion over fiscal year 2003 and the first increase in four years. The net cost of the government’s operations was $2.5 trillion, including all accrued costs. Total revenues less operating costs resulted in a net operating cost of slightly more than $615 billion, down from $668 billion last year.” The first step in translation is to identify the particular idiom in use. This particular passage is an excellent illustration of the Dittohead idiom known to linguists as “lipstick on the pig.” Knowing this, the translator can apply the correct English substitution among the myriad of possible Dittohead meanings. For example, the unaware reader may attempt to assign positive meanings to words like “increase” for things that sound good and “decrease” and “down” for things that sound bad. Don’t be distracted by this! Remember that English translations of Dittohead phrases related to finance cannot produce positive terms, since Dittohead usage precludes phrases that mean “good” or “correct” in English financial terminology. Thus, the proper English translation of any positive Dittohead financial terms is “oops!” Do not worry about translating Dittohead financial phrases with a negative tone, since you will never encounter one. When a Dittohead financial phrase is expressed in a neutral tone, for example “net operating cost of …$615 Billion,” the positive “oops” tone must be replaced with the “O MY GOD!” tone. In this particular example, a complete translation into Blue State English would be “O MY GOD THIS YEAR WE CHARGED OUR KIDS ANOTHER 2/3 TRILLION DOLLARS JUST FOR BEING BORN IN THE USA!”
12.30.04 @ 10:00 PM EDT [link]

Greenland Paradise Lost
On Christmas Eve I wrote about the demise of the Easter Island ecosystem. By an astounding coincidence, this week’s New Yorker had a review of the book “Collapse” by Jared Diamond. The coincidence was that the review spotlighted the same collapse, echoing many of the same points. For example, the reviewer quotes Diamond: “I have often asked myself, ‘What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last palm tree say while he was doing it.’” I didn’t write based on Diamond’s book, which I discovered only yesterday. Indeed, I wrote most the text for the 12/24 entry several years ago (long story). In any case, great minds think alike. Diamond cites another example of societal self-destruction that the New Yorker devoted even more attention to than Easter Island: the demise of the Viking civilization in Greenland. The Viking settlement was doomed by their insistence on maintaining a European lifestyle in an ecosystem much smaller and more fragile than Europe’s. The key point is that simple compromises could have saved this society, but their culture did not have the flexibility to adapt. In other words, they were doomed by their attachment to unsustainable practices, even far past the point where it had to be clear that these practices could not be sustained. While some might see this in the abstract, Rush Limbaugh is a personification of the attitudes that must have preceded the demise of the Easter Island and Greenland cultures. Rush is the poster child for the attitude that “God gave us this way of life so of course we can continue it forever.” Just look at today’s Rush Insight to Ponder! Case closed.
12.29.04 @ 08:05 PM EDT [link]

The Theme for the 2nd Term: In Your Face
The “Uniter not a Divider” is embarking in a program unprecedented in American history, a program of open contempt and disrespect for the “loyal opposition,” to use the British term for the party temporary out of power. Could there be any debate about this? Consider the Administration’s recent submitting of federal judges for the Senate to “advise and consent” as called for in the Constitution. There are numerous rules that have evolved over the course of the two centuries the Senate has existed. These rules have been observed by both Republicans and Democrats for as long as those parties have existed. For example, it is a protocol that a Senator can veto a candidate from Federal district encompassing the Senator’s state. The Administration’s unprecedented move was to resubmit every one of the rejects from the last session of Congress. This is a stunning and grossly partisan act that shows blatant disrespect for the Senate’s Constitutional role. To add insult to injury, the GOP has been openly discussing the “nuclear option” of attempting to implement a rules change to enable ramming through judicial nominees with a simple majority. This shows enormous hubris and outright hypocrisy, considering that Republicans joyously employed these same rules when they were in the minority, much more than Democrats are now. Want another example of chutzpah? About the award of the Medals of Freedom to Tenet and Bremer? Could there be an act any more “in your face?” One can only assume that the Reps have made the following conclusions: 1) the great sweep of history is towards Bushism (Dubya’s unique brand of “Conservatism”), such that there is zero chance that they’ll ever be out of power again and 2) there aren’t any moderates out there that might be put off by displays of raw political power, only true believers cheering each new slight in the same way that Muslims on the Hajj cheer each new stone pitched at the Satan icon. That’s actually an apt analogy, since the Right is dominated by zealots who are utterly convinced that GOP policies provide an unassailable monopoly on sweetness, light, truth, justice, and the very American Way of Life. My personal feeling on this is that they’re being astoundingly foolish, since both of their assumptions are highly questionable. The (slight) GOP majority that presently exists will likely prove to be fragile, considering the degree of risk that GOP policies have subjected us to. Sure, maybe their numbers will all come up on the Wheel of Fortune, but it would take only one miss to push them out of power. They’re betting big that Iraq will settle down, that a new military challenge doesn’t arise to push our overtaxed military over the edge, that the treasury bills that are continually needed to refinance our debt will continually be embraced by China, Japan, and the Saudis at the low rates our budgets require, that their Social Security reform doesn’t fall as flat as Clinton’s shot at universal healthcare, that people will continue to shrug as the deficit continues to head into the stratosphere, that the anemic recovery doesn’t slide back into recession, that housing growth doesn’t turn out to be a bubble…the list goes on and on. I also believe that they’re wrong about moderates. I believe that voters are put off by one-sided partisan gloating, hubris, and overreach. This has been the Achilles heel for the right wing for as long as I’ve known them. To cite SherWright’s Dittohead Dictionary, “If they’re not overreaching they’re not really trying.”
12.28.04 @ 08:20 PM EDT [link]

Social Security Trust Fun
I’ve been pleased to see Social Security in the spotlight, but not because I think there’s any merit in the Bush Administration’s proposals. Rather, it’s an opportunity to add some value, something this site absolutely exists to do. I can add some value because I’ve been deep into the issues of retirement planning in general and social security in particular, for example, from over a decade of heading up large-scale initiatives by very large organizations to implement a wide variety of retirement plans. One of these was the organization whose plan was the model for social security (send an email if you know who it was, and I’ll acknowledge your correct answer). So here’s some added value, relating to the so-called Social Security Trust Fund. I’ve talked before at length about why it’s a “so-called” trust fund (so much so I’ve been referring it to it by the acronym S-CSSTF). The short answer for why it’s a “so-called” trust fund is that there are no real investment holdings like there would be for any kind of a conventional retirement fund. What we want to do today is to really spell out why the S-CSSTF is so perverse, and what the GOP has had to do with it. The accounting is actually pretty simple; it’s only the implications that are subtle. The basic accounting is that the S-CSSTF currently takes in more than is necessary to pay out benefits to current retirees. This surplus is due to Ronald Regan’s increase in Social Security taxes to “save” Social Security. He didn’t, of course – if he had the current administration wouldn’t be using the threat of insolvency to justify another notch on its drive to privatize. What happens with the surplus is that it 1) pays for this year’s government expenses and 2) is considered exactly the same as normal taxes for purposes of calculating the year’s deficit. These two simple accounting rules produce the following three effects: 1) The equivalent of an extra tax imposed disproportionately on the middle and lower classes. Because SS taxes are capped, the proportion of income a middle class taxpayer pays is vastly higher than that of a millionaire. 2) It makes deficits look hundreds of billions of dollars smaller, encouraging more deficit spending than would be politically possible if the true amount of borrowing were apparent 3) (the most perverse of all) it absolutely locks future generations into paying for the retirement benefits of the current generation, without providing them a dime to actually assist with those payments. In other words, it is heavily skewed to benefit the current generation, who get government goodies from the same surplus that fiscally commits future generations to pay for their retirement of the benefit that squandered the “fund” money in the first place. Maybe an analogy would make this more clear: Say you set up a trust fund for your kids as a tax-avoidance scheme to make your income look smaller for tax purposes. You then take the money out of the fund via a loan in their name. You spend the proceeds of the loan on a hot new car. When you’re ready to retire, you tell them that they owe you the money for the loan. Crazy as it sounds, that’s exactly what’s going on. And while the Administration is talking again about “saving” Social Security, the focus is not to eliminate the immorality of the current setup, but to make the loan that future generations are stuck with even larger!
12.27.04 @ 08:04 PM EDT [link]

Red State + Green = Christmas!
The Times Week in Review section today has a great compendium of words coined during the year. Many of these (for example Flip-Flop) were picked up by Dittoheads and thus documented as part of SherWright.com’s Great Work. But is merely documenting Dittohead usage enough? Nay we say! We’re thus gingerly moving onto thin ice today by proposing entirely new words as candidates for the Times to pick up next year. This will of course require that you, the beloved loyal visitors to this site, get busy getting the word out to the world at large. We’ll make the job easier by providing alternatives around a core idea. So let’s get to it: Today’s candidates for a memorable coinage from 2005 (jumping the gun a bit) are “Red-Green State” (or maybe just “Green State,” in the spirit of less is more), and “Christmas State.” These new words come from the observation that 2004 was a bountiful year for the Red State heartland for multiple reasons. To quote the Times, “farmers…earned more money than at any time in the history of American agriculture…” Much of this was due to record harvests (i.e., the green of the chlorophyll in the plants they grew, as we learned in Biology class) but just as much green came from Washington. Here again is the Times: “Despite the fact that farm income has doubled in two years, federal farm subsidies have gone up nearly 40 percent over the same period…” In other words, the Red States are awash in both crop green and government green. The irony of it all, of course, is that The Heartland enthusiastically drank in the GOP’s railing against “federal bureaucracy” and “big government” and were also enthusiastic supporters of tax cuts in the face of a $650 Billion imbalance between government receipts and expenditures (also in today’s Times). They thus clearly believe in the power of the Christmas practice of giving gifts, in this case gifts from posterity to themselves. And of course there is the debate du jour about the “war on Christianity” that Red Staters decry so loudly. Many of this war’s skirmishes are tied to Christmas observance. Put these all together and you’ve got Red States awash in Green waging a war to observe Christmas 24/7/365 (particularly those nice presents) and particularly in those few lonely, final bastions of secularist thought, public school History and Biology class.
12.26.04 @ 11:53 AM EDT [link]