Political Bankruptcy and Other Thoughts

So our great US Debt Crisis has come and gone with a last-minute “deal” that averted catastrophe.  The biggest outcome of this was that I think it showed everyone that our political system is as bankrupt as the government supposedly is, but I want to spend a few minutes on how we got here and some of the major flaws underlying this entire mess.

Let’s start with the current debt run up over the past decade.  Yes, we had someone attack us and in times of war, we always increase debt as we have to pay for that war, but since no effort was made to get the US populace involved in paying for that war as has been done in the past, we pretty much only funded the war through debt.  So if you’re going to go off and do something, you had better has some sort of revenue stream in place or had best plan on dealing with that debt later.  Was there any planning for this sort of thing at all?   Nope, none.  In every other war I’m pretty sure there was some, but in this one, none.  Really this was the first sign that our political system was a mess when everything was done in knee-jerk fashion. So we financed the entire thing through debt, and those recessions with debt as well.  But it was said that the debt was funded through China buying all of our issued debt.  Wait…isn’t that a good thing?   We’ve been effectively shipping jobs overseas to China, and our money as we buy all those Chinese goods, so maybe it is a good thing that they just took that money and loaned it right back to us.  But then they get it back with interest.  Oh crap.  Again, no thought from those in charge on short-term or long-term consequences of their actions or the promotion of “free trade” which is really only free for those on the other end since our country seems to be the only one who abides by the rules.

So now we have this mountain of debt but still no desire to really tackle the problem other than one side saying no to any new debt, and, all future budgets must be balanced.  Nice thoughts – but ignorantly inflexible.  So exactly how will you pay off the old debt if you’re not going to raise revenue?   I get the logic completely that if you raise taxes congress will just misappropriate the money with their current record, but do you really trust them to do a balanced budget correctly?   So raise taxes to solely pay off debt.  Put into law that the new money coming in can ONLY be used to pay off debt and nothing else.   But returning to the balanced budget – how will you balance the budget when future wars and events come along where you DO need to increase debt?   Will you temporarily raise taxes in these events and lower them again later?   Goes back to the same logic that if you don’t trust congress to spend the money right in the first place how do you trust them to do right year after year?   Why should we just trust the one “conservative” faction to do the right thing when some members of that faction ran up the debt in the past decade?   You can’t trust them any more than you can trust any other faction and that’s the real problem here – trust in government to do the will of the people is completely gone.  Both political parties have their narrow national agendas – they do not represent their districts – they represent the party platform.  We now have a system of minority rule, no majority rights.  The minority or particular interest can effectively hold up the whole system until it gets what it wants and so effectively each narrow interest gets what it wants at the expense of the greater whole until the whole is bankrupt because those narrow factions have it all.  And once they have that power they put more laws into effect to consolidate their power and to solely destroy the other party.  I honestly can’t remember the last time there was a law passed that generally legislated something on behalf of the US people besides the national “Do Not Call Registry” and it wouldn’t surprise me if that has been neutered as well in recent years.

It’s time for a revolution in political process and how our government works. Every single person in office today needs to be thrown out and forbidden from ever entering political service ever again.  We need to start over, free of the interests and vocal minorities and see what happens.  If we return to the current mess we’re in now, well, then that really is what our society is doomed to be – dysfunctional, infighting, and a place ruled by the vocal minorities.  But, if we start over and start electing people with no political history, with true leadership vision and capabilities, and some brains in their heads to think about he consequences of the laws they enact, maybe, just maybe, we can work our way out of debt and remake our country great in moral and financial wealth.  Maybe the government needs to be shrunk and more money needs to be in the hands of those who earned it, but some sort of new covenant between people and government is needed in this modern era where citizens are protected from enemies foreign (terrorism) and domestic (financial predators).  Until then, we’re rapidly approaching banana republic status and we WILL be a joke for the world to snicker at.  The Sick Old Man of North America is our coming destiny with our current political system.

Money is Meaningless

With findings like this ($16T in loans?!?!?!) I am even more convinced that money is a meaningless thing.  It is a subjective value item, but is infinite in supply and cannot be destroyed.  The flow of money is more important than its actual hard value, and as long as someone values it, you can make as much as you want with no consequences.  Gold specie?   Feh – who needs to back up your currency when you can just loan out this much money and NO ONE CARES.

I am becoming more and more convinced that economics as we know it is about to fundamentally change its rules.  Deficits, actual exchange rates, and monetary supply don’t matter as long as everyone has faith in it.  The minute that faith goes away, so does the value.  It’s all subjective and not based on any reality at all.  As long as enough people believe, everything is fine.

Money as our new god indeed.  In the dollar we trust, may it not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.  In the dollar’s name we pray, amen.

Is there a doctor in the house?

Doctoral eduction isn’t what it used to be, but all things change and evolve, and perhaps it is time for another major shift in what it means to be a doctor of philosophy.  We have here an editorial on the state of doctoral eduction which has been focused on producing nothing but academics, and for the most part I agree, but there is more to it than what is listed in this editorial.  It’s more than just job training at issue here, it’s what does a doctorate really mean?

Some disciplines focus education directly on being able to practice that trade/profession right from the start.  We have some obvious examples of this with the classic trades of plumbing, electrician, welding, and being a mechanic (and several more far to many to mention), but surprisingly, a bachelor’s degree in Engineering is all you need to ply your trade as an Engineer.  Not so with Chemistry.  A B.S. degree in chemistry makes you a technician.  Not until you get the master’s degree can you really apply chemistry as a trade all on your own, and you need the doctorate (or used to) to start designing experiments from scratch and direct new research directions.  With the liberal arts I think you can ply your trade right from the start, but a BA in History isn’t job training – it’s an education.  Same with a BA in Art, or English, although maybe a BA in econ allows you to go into business, but given the sorry state of affairs that is macro-scale business I would say that this isn’t really the case either.  You either have a good nose for business and administration or you don’t.  It can be learned, but rarely taught.  And this goes back to the doctorate, often considered the pinnacle of education and training, but what is it really?   For me, it was the awakening of my mind to learn how to learn – to synthesize many different scientific disciplines into new directions for problem solving and discovery of new things.  But how I was trained was, in hindsight, lacking for getting a job.  I was trained to be another academic.  To write papers, do narrowly focused research, and learn how to profess and teach this to others.  I had to learn other lessons and suddenly see that other basics of knowledge (Psychology 101, public speaking, science basics) were necessary to hold onto a job and thrive.  So is the doctorate just for creating other professors, or is it something so much more?   I would propose it can be so much more, but it requires not just reform on the part of the schools creating doctorate, but also a reform on the covenant between doctoral student and adviser.

For the longest time, having a doctorate had some significant gravitas to it.  It was hard to earn and with good reason.  You really had to be good to go through the rigorous examinations and to really unlock your mind to be able to teach this complicated art to others, as well as have the massive brain power to solve complicated problems that society had difficulty with.  So when one introduced themselves as a doctor it had weight with the general public and with other doctors.  Now…well let’s just say I’ve met many a doctor that have no business holding that title, and I’ve met many that I’m humbled to be in the presence of.  So it’s not what it used to be.  A doctor now is indeed much like the article I linked to – it’s more of a system to enable research and justify indentured servitude for Universities to crank out research results at the hands of a few gifted directors in either very broad, or very narrow disciplines.  And those who go through the system are trained and educated to perpetuate the system.  They are not trained to get a job unless their adviser teaches them what they need to do to solve problems in industry or outside academia.  And sometimes worse…they are not trained at all to teach or profess what they have learned.  They’re non-functional in this area and while they have a brain crammed full of useful information in a narrowly focused discipline, they cannot pull from other areas and truly advance knowledge in a multi-disciplinary way.  Indeed, I think there are way too many doctorates being produced for the problems that need to be solved because they are not being solved at any faster a pace than they were before.  But this observation does not mean eliminating the doctorate programs is the solution to get back to where we need to be.  Instead, we need to be more selective about who we bring into these programs and, we (I’m speaking to all current doctoral degree holders) need to teach our students how to think, how to truly research new things, and if they are not cut out for this, redirect them to where they need to be.  Promising a doctoral degree for 4-7 years hard labor when it does not allow them to be a functional member of society is not a fair bargain for their hard work.  We do need doctorates to solve the hard problems, but not everyone needs to be a doctorate to solve those problems.  Some people are good at narrow fields of mastery….and guess what – that’s what a MASTERS degree is for. You’ve mastered an important and narrow field and good for you – go forth and let all marvel at your skill!   But a doctorate must be a doctorate and not a prize for sticking it out.  It must mean more and it must be both a path to training future good professors who perpetuate knowledge, but also a source of true learners and synthesists who can solve the hard problems by drawing from multiple disciplines.  The world does not need more doctorates in narrow disciplines, it needs the doctors of old which were generalists – Jack of all trades and masters of all.

So – any real doctors in the house?   Speak up as I’d love to hear your views on education reform here.  We’re doing a major disservice to students under the current system and it’s time for something to change.

Conservativism and Liberalism: Both Good Words

I live with a crappy two party system that is ruled by its extremes, that is either supposedly “Conservative” or “Liberal” and is not allowed to be anything in between.  Further, this same two party system has its own definitions for the words Conservative and Liberal set by those extremes, and yet neither extreme definition is correct.  Or at least, the current extreme definitions are those set up for failure.  The current definition of conservative is to never ever change – ever – and eliminate all choices via financial tools such that you’re stuck staying exactly the way things are; with everyone in their current strata of power/wealth locked in forever.  The current definition of liberal is to push so much change so fast such that all free will is removed and everything is in a constant state of experiment such that everyone is set to the same level.  Those ahead are pulled back; those back are pulled ahead, and those in the middle are stuck where they are.  I reject both of these extremes as both words are good and have been hijacked by the tyrants at the edges, both of which seek to eliminate our ability to choose and grow.  So here’s what’s good about conservative and liberal we SHOULD embrace.

Conservative:  Pausing to think before acting.  Considering the wisdom of the ancients rather than just trying out any new social experiment that comes along.  Conserving resources rather than acting wastefully.  Holding oneself (and others) responsible for their actions so there are consequences for putting society at risk.  Planning for a rainy day.  Slow and steady wins the race; patience!.  Acting as a counterweight (but not an anchor) to new ideas created by Liberalism.

Liberal:  Creating freedom and liberty to pursue new ideas.  Striving for a better way of doing things rather than settling for the way things are.  Taking risk because life IS risk.  Racing ahead to win for a worthy goal.  Discounting old prejudices and eliminating injustice.  Letting the heart rule the head to create happiness.  Constantly pushing and pulling conservatism to move so that progress for society occurs.

Without conservatism we try any fool thing and have no order upon which to have peace in our lives or to grow upon a steady base.  Without Liberalism there is no growth and there is no liberty.  The root of the word Liberalism is  freedom so how can it be bad?  How can we pursue life, liberty, and happiness without Liberalism?   But without Conservatism, Liberalism runs amok and the road to hell is paved with good intentions to move society forward too fast.  Liberalism created freedom of speech and religion, and led to new thoughts which created new technology and new economic opportunities.  It also led to loose regulations in the past which led to environmental and economic disasters because we did not hold things back.  Conservatism created the tenets of personal responsibility that allows us to have trust among fellow citizens, and set forth the principles of honor and conservation so we are not wasteful in money, thought, or behavior so society does not corrode.  It also led to repression of people on the basis of skin color, held back technological innovation, and created inflexibility when we needed to bend and not break.  Despite this, how can Conservative be a bad word?   Why is saving things for others to use later, and to be efficient and thoughtful before acting a bad thing?

Both Conservatism and Liberalism are GOOD things, and both must be embraced for our society to survive and move forward in this ever complex world.  Let us not be governed by the extreme definitions of these words and embrace both words in all we say and do.  If we do not we will soon be caught in the middle between the two extremes, and no matter which one wins, we all lose because both extremes will take away our choices and give us nothing of value in return.

Up Next – Scooby-Doo and The Hedge Fund Monsters

I don’t know – I just found this a very absurd way of commenting on the bond market, but yet, seems like ol’ man moneybags has won again.  If we ain’t laughing were crying.

Judge Scalia – Ham Fisted Time Traveler!

I think the strip says it all.

The Scientist: Big-Ass Loser or Societial Savior?

Another opinion on how the US is losing it’s edge in innovation and technology (I’d argue it has already mostly lost it) has me wanting to comment a bit on the role of the Scientist in this country vs. others.

The author of the article is partly right about the perception of scientists in the US vs. the rest of the world.  Scientists in the US are fairly well paid, but for the most part are marginalized when it comes to status and the ability to contribute to society’s decisions.  This is partly due to major backlashes against scientific mistakes against the citizens of the US and the developed world since the 1940s.  If you look at the EU and the US, science and technology is not generally trusted unless it does something fun for you (electronics) or saves your life (medicine).  Look at the rap chemistry has – chemistry and chemicals are treated as evils, sometimes necessary, but the word chemical has a bad connotation.  Anytime you have a field of work set a river on fire (Cuyahoga River in the 70s) you’re going to have this sort perception, and pretty much from that moment on you’re going to have a long road back to trustworthiness.  In the developing world – well it’s a slightly different story but I suspect it will change.  Despite Bhopal and all the current environmental damage in China, these two countries really value science, but the difference here is that the highly educated scientists in these countries go into politics.  In India and China, it’s not the liberal arts majors in charge like it is in the EU and the US, it’s the scientists and engineers.  Maybe with enough more industrial accidents and messes you’ll start to see this backlash against science in India and China, but I doubt it since the engineers and scientists are still in charge in the end.  To my point, countries like India have welcomed scientists from US companies like DuPont, but have shunned others (Dow) that have that history of making chemical messes.  Local-grown scientific talent is respected, honored, and when in politics, obeyed.  Not so in the US.

Going back to a point in the original letter, even if scientists were respected in the US, the point that we need to attract more people into this field to keep up with innovation and technological mastery is not fully correct.  We have plenty of scientists and engineers in the US.  If we didn’t, then there would be zero unemployment in these fields and I can say with certainty that we have plenty of unemployed scientists and engineers in the US.  Why are they unemployed?   Well, some of it is because some of them just are not that good at what they do and they probably need to change professions. Not everyone is an A-string player in all things.  While I may be a good fire scientist (people keep paying me, so I’m assuming I am), don’t ask me to do biochemistry – I’d be a complete loss there.

Another source of US scientist unemployment is because what scientists do is not valued by those who control the purse strings.  When there is a major emphasis on short-term success (what can you do for me now now now) vs. long-term research, development, and creation of new things that solve the REALLY hard problems, there is only patience for the short-term stuff, and most of what science does requires patience, and therefore is not paid for in the US.  Therefore, I would argue that a major change in education for both scientists and non-scientists is needed in the US.  You cannot just teach general chemistry to liberal arts major as a forced course and expect them to have that “well-rounded” education.  They know it’s a worthless course to them as taught (rote memorization) and with that initial perception the damage is forever done.  If you’re going to teach them science, make it a general literacy course and make IT RELEVANT.  Show history majors why a particular scientific change that took 10-15 years to develop affected society.  Show art majors how material changes, optics, and sonics create art and sound.  Show Econ & Business majors how technology investments lead given time to develop turn into industrial processes and profits and how new discoveries can change the entire commodity market.  Once science is valued by society as a whole you’ll find you don’t need more scientists – you’ll have plenty – and those who go into it will know they are valued and will stay in it and produce more.  Everyone is more productive when they are wanted and treated with a modicum of respect.  Until then, in the US the scientist is to be kicked, mistrusted, and used as a scapegoat for the ills of society while our Indian and Chinese competitors, who move these people into positions of power and authority, will progress in science at a much faster clip than the rest of us.

So in the end, it’s not more scientists that are needed, it’s a sea change in how the US thinks about science in general which is needed, and we don’t need to put scientists on pedestals and worship them to do it.  But it will take a long time to change the opinion of science in this country, and by then maybe we can begin to catch up with China and India.

The Classics Retold

in a very bad way.  Submitted for your disapproval – modern Huck Finn.

The Unintended Evil of Censorship

Happy new year – and I’ve made a resolution after reading about imposed and self-inflicted censorship on the history of slavery in America.  Specifically, I will not cover it up and I will teach my children about its evil.  Sugar coating it is the path to the evil returning someday and sometimes it really is best to bring up the nasty past and remind people of the evil that mankind can do.

Recently “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” was released again, but now censored due to the use of historical words that are not acceptable in speech today.  I can see a potential reason for it – why even expose the child reading the book to such hateful words?   This is the “ignorance begets good behavior” idea which infers that if you never have the idea planted in your head that it is possible to dislike someone because of how they look, you’ll never head down that path yourself.  If you don’t know the dangerous idea exists you won’t ever use it or think it should be used.  And sometimes I have seen the value in this, but, if someone made that wrong connection a long time ago that slavery was a good idea, or someone is inferior based upon their genetic makeup, it’s likely someone could do it again.  Then I read this well-written editorial in the paper this morning and I can now see that such an argument for covering up such hateful words and history is very very wrong.  If you’re not careful, the sins of the past can be “re-remembered” such that you forget why those sins of the past were sins at all.  I think it is important for children to see such hateful words and then have someone (their parents at least) explain to them WHY the word was used in hatred and WHY it’s wrong so that it is not done again to any group.  The Jewish people have wisely pursued this in regards to their refrain on the Holocaust; “Never Again”.   So I think it’s time again for some of this censorship to end and let children be taught why these words are wrong.

Now I realize that sometimes the objection is that the children whose skin color would fit those words may be hurt by it.  They never did anything wrong – why would anyone hate them for no reason other than the color of their skin?   And I agree that this is a danger, but maybe by having them see it they also become vigilant against racism and keep it in mind as they go through life.  Who better than to preach about the sins of slavery and racism than those who experienced it, or whose ancestors experienced it?   Let them preach it loudly and with conviction – daring those who still believe such lies to keep spouting them.  That which does not kill us makes us stronger and we need to inoculate ourselves against such evil by teaching it to our children that such words are wrong and why they are wrong and why this sort of thing must never happen again.

Asshole Politics – The Next Generation

So it’s come to this – a tyranny of the minority before the new group of senators and representatives have been elected.  Oh joy.  So let’s see, here’s my prediction from now until 2012.

• Republicans hold up everything until Democrats cave in.
• Democrats finally cave in so some of them can save their jobs like the craven cowards they are.
• Republicans get everything they want, then blame the Democrats for not being leaders during the past congress.
• Republicans assume control of congress – enact more tax breaks, continue to suppress gays and anyone who fits into the Democratic voting block, and run up the deficit by refusing to address the revenue side of the government equation.
• Country continues it’s death spiral while China laughs at us destroying ourselves and handing them the #1 position in the world.
• Rinse, lather, repeat.

By 2012 the Democrats and Republicans will for all practical purposes be so diametrically opposed in position that the sole role of the US government is to enable election cycles and allow one group of assholes to out-asshole the other.  In the meantime we get fucked, royally.

A pox upon both their houses is not enough.  Both parties are a cancer that must be excised.  Third parties are not the answer….or maybe they are.  Maybe the new third parties will replace these two, but I think we’d still be stuck with the stupid left/right opposing forces.  Frankly I’m fucking sick to death of us fighting each other.  Sure we have different positions, but for Christ’s sake can’t we, for once, work together rather than constantly fight?

No, probably not.  Too much competition in our blood and not enough cooperation.