The strong and the weak cannot keep company

The tale of the Two Pots by Aesop has been much in my mind of late. As fate would have it, the fable was part of the training process for learning Microsoft's Speech Recognition to mitigate some of my disabilities.

Often proponents of the post Reagan economic system in the United States make the claim that there is no significant cost to huge income disparities. But, of course there are costs.

When the disparity between the middle class family and the family member on disability is of such a magnitude as it is in the United States, the realities of this disparity often make the maintenance of familiar ties all but impossible.

But of course it is not only families that are torn apart by these pressures. Friendships seldom survive a divergence of economic fortunes. Economic issues are also the prime cause of divorce.

When I was a child there as a recession that coincided with the completion of construction of a local nuclear plant. Suddenly the part time jobs of held by the wives of these displaced workers was the primary source of income. Social chaos ensued. Marriages dissolved, children were abused, and there was a infamous spree killing.

While the well off certainly fair better than the poor. Those with more money are as isolated or more so than those with none. A society if fewer social connections almost by necessity performs less well.

I am not calling for absolute wage parity or anything of the sort. I am only saying that there are costs of wealth disparity and these costs are not only social but financial and economic as well.

We are paying a price for the level of wealth disparity in our culture. And, until we are honest about that price, no genuine discussion of the merits of the current system can be had.

Here is the fable:

The Two Pots

Two Pots had been left on the bank of a river, one of brass,
and one of earthenware. When the tide rose they both floated off
down the stream. Now the earthenware pot tried its best to keep
aloof from the brass one, which cried out: "Fear nothing, friend,
I will not strike you."

"But I may come in contact with you," said the other, "if I
come too close; and whether I hit you, or you hit me, I shall
suffer for it."

The strong and the weak cannot keep company.

Heartless

Imagine if humanity developed a group of robots that resembled humans in every way except the ability to act selflessly. In other words the robots would be unable to act against their own interest. These robots wouldn't necessarily be evil, but they could not be good in the sense we generally describe goodness.

The reality is that such machines already exist. Corporations are in fact such machines. They are a human construct for the purpose of making profit. In many respects a corporation appears to be a person. In fact when we interact with businesses we may rarely know whether a business is a true mom and pop type sole proprietorship, a partnership or a corporation.

But there is an important difference that separates corporations from business owned by a sole person. A person may do as the please. They can invest all the companies money in strengthening the business or give all the profits to the poor.

A corporation is something different altogether. The decisions of the corporation are made by people but people who are not free to act as they desire. The officers of the corporation have a fiduciary duty to the investors. They required to in all matters act in a manner that increases the profits for the shareholders.

The people who run a corporation can not be generous. Even if one of the corporation's officers owns the vast majority of the stock, he can not make decisions that limit the profitability of the company to enrich himself or be generous. Certainly a company can perform costly acts of magnanimity such as making large donations to charities. But these actions can not be selfless. They must be part of an overall plan to grow the brand and increase profitability. For this reason a large anonymous donation by a corporation to a charity that in no way benefits the corporation would almost certainly be illegal and the officers of the corporation responsible for such a decision could Slikely spend decades in prison.

Similarly a serious argument has been made against Costco that its generous employment compensation is in fact illegal because it does not produce positive benefits for its share holders. This restriction on corporate decision making has profound implications.

Absent intervention by the government for example a corporation whose profits were not susceptible to public opinion would not be free to provide equal pay to women and men if the government didn't require it and women could be employed willing to work for less than minimum wage. Similarly such a corporation could not install costly safety measures to protect workers if such measures where not mandated by the government.

This reality has become more and more important as the nation has experienced a generation of deregulation and the Supreme Court seems poised to give free speech rights to corporations. Corporations say that left to their own devices they will do the right thing. But this is simply a lie. In fact, left to their own devices, it is illegal for a corporation to do the right, but in long run unprofitable thing.

Corporations may act like people but they are not people. They are by definition at best amoral actors. For this reason their speech is by almost any definition of lesser value than speech by encumbered persons. Granting the same speech rights to corporations will therefor almost surely degrade the quality of our national conversation.

Marty Peretz, a racist, accuses Van Jones of telling the truth while black.

The concept of political correctness is that political realities prevent one from telling the truth. But in our culture the response to perceived political correctness is to encourage white people to tell truths that minorities don't want to hear. The argument is that a society must not be so sensitive of others feelings that the truth is suppressed. Thus people who say negative things to or about minorities even to the exclusion of positive things are supposed to be protected from accusations of racism if what they say is or could be the truth. But what if this freedom is not reciprocated. What if the minorities themselves are not allowed to confront the majority with disturbing truths? Seldom is there such a concrete example of such hypocritical racism as this article, "Cool... But, Yes, Communist", by Marty Peretz.

He starts off in classic anti-PC mode by commenting that he agreed with the first thing he learned from Glenn Beck who is despised by liberals. He then went out his way to speak of Van jones in the most disrespectful and demeaning terms I remember Peretz using for some time. So he is saying is ok to use the insulting and demeaning language referencing a black man because it is all true

For those who are looking for a defense of Van Jones you must look elsewhere. I know nothing Van Jones. My accusations against are solely based upon a textual interpretation of the words in his attack on Van Jones. My case against Peretz indeed wold be greatly aided if all his accusations where true. If they are indeed all true than is repeated use of racism to defame Van Jones would be all the more inexplicable.

The column itself is written much below Peretz usual level. Perhaps his conscience negatively affected his writing. Regardless the quality of Peretz's own writing is so poor as to evade any true critique. Therefore I will focus on the three quotes by which Peretz invited his readers to judge whether Van Jones views were so extreme that it would be "unethical" for him to hold elective office. Is he expecting that we judge these quotes by the same ant-political correctness standard by which he demands we judge his own? Or does he expect us to judge Van Jones's quotes by a different standard. And if he invites to use a different standard is that standard different because of the race of Van Jones.

Exhibit A: Van Jones argues that “the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don't have a racial justice frame."

Firstly is this quote true. The quote as read is probably truer than what Van Jones may have meant. Are their white polluters and and white environmentalist who steer poison releasing facilities to people-of-color communities for racial reasons? Without a doubt there are.

Do all polluters and environmentalist act with racial motivation, no.

The quote as quoted is certainly true. And if it makes people uncomfortable than that shouldn't be a problem because the truth is more important than political correctness.

Is Van Jones making such an unfair implication that it should disqualify him from public office. There is a high correlation between toxic sites and minority committees. Companies operating purely from a profit motive do have an incentive to put toxic sites in communities where many of the residents are renters as opposed to owners because renters are less likely to advocate against development that is perceived to reduce property values and are less likely to have influence with local zoning and regulating bodies. Minority communities certainly fit this profile. If these companies are guided as the law unequivocally dictates acts with the shareholders interest as the paramount consideration it is logical to assume absent some valuation of minority status that more poison emitting facilities will be placed in minority communities.

The quote is not dated and there has been significant evolution amongst environmental groups. In the past environmental groups were largely white and middle class, and made no bones about focusing on their own communities. The argument was rarely don't produce products that require this facility but don't do it here.

Over time more and more minorities have become involved in the environmental movement and many but certainly not all environmental groups have tried to focus on reducing pollution where ever it may be released.

So a fair assessment of Van Jones's quote would be that it is certainly literally true. It is largely true in the first part, and in the past was more true in the second part than it is now.

Exhibit B: A CD entitled “Wartimes: Reports from the Opposition,” produced by the Ella Baker Center. Mumia Abu-Jamal delivers the introduction and Van Jones begins speaking around 3:50 of this amalgam of excerpts from the CD.

Jones calls for: “The end of the occupation. The right of return of the Palestinian people. These are critical dividing lines in human rights. We have to be here. No American would put up with an Israeli-style occupation of their hometown for 53 days let alone 54 years. US tax dollars are funding violence against people of color inside the US borders and outside the US borders.”

Now this quote is indeed true. And perhaps the most telling example of racism on the part of Peretz. Americans have proven time and time that they would not tolerate occupation. And, indeed when the traitorous Southern states were occupied at the end of the civil war they turned immediately to a coordinated campaign of terrorism that continued well into the middle of the last century and involved the highest members the state governments of these states. Further the terrorism continued for generations after the occupation ended.

Not only would Americans not submit to occupation. The continued defense of the confederate flag by leading politicians to this day is a refusal to condemn the leaders of the Confederacy and Southern states for their campaign of terrorism. It is a refusal to count the decades of terrorism as a factor that would deny legitimacy to the celebration of those leaders who were not only traitors to their country but also ruthless terrorists as well.

While this quote is not pretty. It does point to a central truth that Americans oppose occupation more than they do terrorism or torture. If they were in the place of the Palestinians the treatment of African Americans suggest that it is very likely that Americans would turn as many Southerners did at the end formal hostilities, to terrorism immediately and without compunction.

This is not a justification of terrorism or in any way a justification of any actions by the Palestinians. But rather it shows a very real discrepancy between what Americans say about the legitimacy of terrorism, and what historically they themselves have done and still largely refuse to completely condemn.

This quote may be ugly but it is of great importance to the understanding of America's possible future actions in the Middle East. While for a generation shared interest and strong emotional ties to Israel have supported on American narrative regarding the justification of terrorism in response to occupation. There is another narrative that is just as intrinsic to American history.

When Israeli partisans speak of another 40 years of occupation and of taking unilateral actions such as an attack on Iran that could have devastating consequences to US interest in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and could lead to massive casualties amongst the thousands of American troops in the region. Israeli partisans are foolish to ignore this alternate American position on the use of terrorism to resist occupation.

If Israels actions endanger the United States' interest in the Middle East, lead to large American causalities, or angers the American public the Palestinians could quickly become heroic freedom fighters and Israel could become the corrupt, evil occupier.

Exhibit C: Van Jones delivers the keynote address at Powershift ‘09

Jones: "What about our immigrant sisters and brothers? What about people who've come here from all around the world who we're willing to have out in the field with poison being sprayed on them because we have the wrong agricultural system, and then we're willing to poison them and poison the earth to put food on our table but we don't want to give them rights and we don't want to give them dignity and we don't want to give them respect. We need to get down on our knees and thank these Native American communities but also the Latino community, Asian community and every other community that's willing to come here and help is out because we obviously need some help. We need some wisdom from some place else because what we've come up with where don't make no sense at all. ...

"This movement is deeper than a solar panel! Deeper than a solar panel! Don't stop there! Don't stop there! We're gonna change the whole system! We're gonna change the whole thing! [...] And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot and windy. Well, guess what? Renewable energy? Guess what, solar industry? Guess what wind industry? They now own and control 80 percent of the renewable energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! Give them the dignity. Give them the respect that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt.”

Now no part of this quote is untrue in the slightest. The agricultural system in the United States is perhaps the least free market in the United States. The government has for decades favored large industrial farming even though it is often less efficient and productive than small labour intensive farming. Large scale industrial farming is not only funded by government subsidies, but also has highly favorable labour and environmental standards unavailable to any other industry. And, yes agricultural labourers sprayed with poisons that would not be permitted in any other industry.

And yes we did steal the land from the Native Americans. We actively obliterated their culture. And did force them on unproductive agricultural land. Every word of this quote is literally true and an accurate portrayal of historic events as they indeed happened.

In the end two of the quotes were completely true, even if they were ugly and outside the main stream of American discourse. One of the statements was literally true, though somewhat inaccurate in its portrayal of white environmentalist.

It is telling that Peretz could have mentioned Van Jones association with the clearly false idea of a 9-11 conspiracy. Yet he did not do so. The result is that this article can be read in no other way but as supporting a racist discrimination against minority Americans. If minority Americans say true things that are uncomfortable to white people it is not only ok to treat them in the most disrespectful manner, but it would be unethical for them to serve in government.

However, if minorities are offended by true statements by white authors than it is vile political correctness. Van Johnson may have deserved to lose his job. But to say that the justification of his losing his job was being a black man telling the truth is one of the vilest promotion of racism that I have recently read.

Why this time no really means no

Micah Zenko argues in his 30 August 2009 editorial in the Los Angeles Times editorial "Israel has Iran in its sights" that if talks with Iran concerning their nuclear program that Israel will act unilaterally and that such unilateral action will not negatively affect the relationship between Israel and the United States.

One can see why Zenko would have written such an argument. Negotiations with Iran do not seem to be going well. Israel certainly does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. The argument for such talk generally follows the good cop bad cop script. Zenko tries to assert that if Iran does not reach a deal Israel will strike and there is nothing that the United States can do about it.

However, in the case of an Israeli attack on Iran, Obama would almost certainly not learn of the attack "from CNN." Israel would almost certainly have to travel through Iraqi airspace to launch an attack on Iran. If Israel can traverse Iraqi airspace without our knowledge, we have been wasting untold billions on defense spending.

The Good cop Bad cop routine has been run so long by America and Israel it is a farce that is no longer funny. If we allow Israel to use Iraqi airspace to attack Iran, our relationship with Iraq will be disastrously ruptured. This will have real consequences in the form of the lives of American servicemen stationed in Iraq as well is in gas prices.

More importantly, Israel and the United States do not have similar interest regarding Iran. Israel desperately does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapons, not because it fears an almost inconceivable first strike situation, but because it fears that a nuclear deterrent to an Israeli attack would encourage Iran to be more supportive of Hezbollah and other organizations threatening Israel. The security of the United States would be very little altered by the Iran's obtaining a small nuclear arsenal. Iran's regime has proven itself obsessed with its own security. Which makes it very easy for the United States to depend on deterrence.

The problem with deterrence is it depends on the deterred party not being attacked. After the deterred party is attacked there is no reason not to counter attack. In this case America's security issue with Iran is much more closely related to its troops in bordering Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the stability of nuclear armed Pakistan.

If an attack by Israel destabilizes Iran. Militants from Iran will almost certainly flow into both Iraq and Afghanistan resulting in substantial deterioration of America's strategic position. This is a case where the interests of Israel and the United States really do differ. Israel should not ignore the interest of the United States in this matter. If it does, the relationship will truly never be the same.

John Steele Gordon Is a Big DooDoo Head

Sometimes it seems almost impossible to respond to a person on their level. I tried to think of a more infantile comeback but is as far as I can go.

The concept that attempts to shape the language used to ones advantage as being a peculiar invention or tool of the left is asinine enough. If the left differs from the right in this arena it is in their ineptness not in their over use of this method. One example alone the re-branding of the estate tax alone as the "death tax" alone is enough to show the right uses such language play both self consciously and to great effect. But in reality such language play goes back to time immemorial.

However Mr. Gordon's article on the use of diacritical marks goes well beyond this sophistry into a land of rhetoric that makes "I am rubber and you are glue what you call me bounces and sticks on you." Look positively brilliant by comparison.

Firstly the absence of use of diacritical marks is largely due to two temporary circumstances. Firstly Diacritical marks used to be difficult to produce in many documents. Often times they would be hand written above typed words and then the work printed from a photographic plate of the result. Secondly the large expansion of higher education associated with the Baby Boomer generation produced college students that had less strenuous backgrounds, especially in language.

An example of the type of students who attended college previously were some of my classmates who had attended a prominent Catholic school in New Orleans. They were quite proficient at both Latin and Greek. I received a collection of college books from my Lutheran minster and many of them where in Latin and German. An African American Professor who taught me in the 1990's said that if I were serious about academia as a profession I would learn German.

Until the sixties it was quite common for text books written in English to just go off for pages in untranslated this or that. I can't say the number of times that I have read the sentences along the lines of -- And the most important thing to remember is followed by up to several pages of untranslated text in a foreign language, most often German.

Now both trends have changed. Computers have made it much easier to add diacritical marks. And University admissions have gotten much more competitive again. Foreign language is taken much more seriously.

Diacritical marks aren't just some decoration. They convey meaning, often meaning as important as the letters. While it is perfectly possible to read English without the vowels, it is almost impossible especially for a foreigner to read pinyin without the diacritical marks that are essential to meaning. Pinyin itself is a version of Chinese writing using Latin letters. The diacritical marks represent tones. Different tones make different words. The wrong tone can transfer an innocuous term into a grave insult.

Why would you want less information. And writing in Commentary's Contention blog Mr. Gordon should certainly value the desire of people to learn the language of their ancestors. Using the correct words helps English language learners of foreign languages of all stripes.

The idea that this is some one way street is also ridiculous. Reading almost any foreign paper you can find no end of English words. China now produces many books in Pinyin primarily for foreign readers. And the use of native words can convey real meaning. Even in the Pentateuch even where the words are exactly the same the old testament and the Torah represent very different works whose separate religious and historical traditions have attributed very different meanings to the same passages. To refer to the Old Testament when one means the Torah is an error not a convenience.

I don't know what Gordon is trying to convey. Does he not want to provide the reader with important information about the meaning of what he is writing. Does he only read English and no other language? Has he not read anything printed before 1950? Or, is he just a big DooDoo head?

Tort Reform Fools' Gold

"Whats in it for me?" seems the rallying cry of the stakeholders involved in the discussion over universal health care in the United States. The American Medical Association has made it clear that its price for universal health care in the United States is tort reform. And, if major health care reform should pass it is very likely that some sort of tort reform will pass. But, while this is a long sought after dream of physicians, one would be mistaken to believe that it will be a gold mine of health care spending savings.

Tort expenses represent a small percentage health care costs. Physician groups claim that the amount in claims is actually a small part of the problem. They claim that fear of litigation require them to preform unnecessary procedures and tests to reduce liability.

Physician's fear of being sued is obviously quite real. The human body is almost infinitely complex. Random things often happen. Further the health care system itself is incredibly complex and has many qualities which introduce systemic risk to the patient which are largely beyond the physicians control. Further the nature of the insurance market distributes the cost of litigation mostly on the risk associated with a procedure rather than on the quality of work by the physician. Just as you will be charged more for health insurance if, through no fault of your own you happen to be a female of child bearing age a physician is charged more if they perform procedures with a higher risk of catastrophic failure. Thus a obstetrician is charged more from her insurance company because the cost of a botched delivery can be catastrophic not because she is a bad physician. The physician therefor charges more to the insurance company for deliveries and the insurance company charges more to the lady buying health insurance on the possibility that she might get pregnant.

It is a frustrating system which provides very little incentive for good care. But remember the obstetrician pays more primarily because of the way that insurance companies and physicians decide to charge for risk throughout the health care system. Physicians could agree to share the risks equally and then vary insurance rates on the physician's performance rather than the risk inherent in their specialty.

However physicians chose to use a system which does not give strong incentives to good performance. Almost universally a bad physician in a low risk specialty pays far less than excellent Physician in a high risk specialty. By seeking to cap large awards Physicians may reduce insurance premiums for high risk specialties but may not reduce premiums at all in low risk specialties. Further, it will do nothing to place more incentives on quality care.

Thus physicians will have very little reason to change their "defensive medicine" habits -- if a large amount of health care spending is related to "defensive medicine." In fact there is very little reason to believe that expenses attributed to "defensive medicine" would disappear absent the threat of tortuous action.

Physicians may be bad patients. But they are even worse clients to their lawyers. We all have to take measures to reduce our liability at work. We may curse the frustration of it, but physicians often seem to believe that they are immune from the responsibilities associated with almost any business. They believe that it is somehow an intrusion for lawyers to intrude into their business and resent their advice. But, is a Physician's judgment actually superior to their attorney's.

The answer seems to be no. Certainly no for limiting the physician's liability. But also no for patient care. The last thing a lawyer would advise is to through every test and treatment under the sun at a problem. After all every test and treatment extends the physician's liability as well as possibly reducing it.

The uncomfortable truth about the supposed "defensive medicine" is that health care providers get paid for it. Are they doing test as a defense against being sued or are they doing tests to make more money? Unfortunately, as office staff will tell you, the greatest determiner of what tests and procedures are performed is what the insurance company will pay for.

The burden of proof is on the physicians to show that money spent on "defensive medicine" is a reasonable response to liability in the tort system. A reduction in punitive damages for example would provide no change whatsoever in the calculus of whether to perform defensive medicine in specialties in which that would provide little reduction in liability and no reduction in premiums.

Since it is far from clear that defensive medicine is the logical response to current liability, it is very difficult to see how it would be less logical after tort "reform." It is even less likely that tests and treatments will be substantially reduced.

So, see tort reform as what is, a probably necessary concession to the AMA. It is unlikely to be a source of health care savings.

What's the Mission

Commentary's current catchphrase is "It's not a just a Magazine it's a mission. But what is that mission exactly? There has been much talk lately about the "Israel lobby" and it's nefarious influence on American policies. There may or may not be an "Israel lobby" but a quick read of Commentary makes it clear that if such a thing does exist it Commentary is certainly not one of its organs.

The recent posting "Does Will Prefer a Nuclear Iran to a Neocon Washington?" by Jonathan Tobin is a case in point. The article basically makes two points. First that the neocons where right about Iraq and they are right about Iran as well.

I will deal with the two arguments in reverse order. The argument that Iran is an existential threat to the United States is patently ludicrous. Iran does not have a nuclear bomb. Iran doesn't have missiles which can reach the United States. And even if they were to take out an American city, this would not put the United States in mortal danger. Iran might in a couple of years pose an existential threat to Israel.

But even this would almost certainly not truly manifest for years probably decades. Iran has been nothing if not a logical operator. Iran's suppression of the pro-democracy demonstrators was quite restrained. The Chinese who do have nuclear weapons ready to launch capable of taking out several US cities were more violent in putting down the Muslim demonstrators in it's western provinces. But one hardly hears about China on Commentary. Iran is clearly not suicidal. The chances of a first strike on Israel, which probably has hundreds of nuclear weapons is incredibly remote.

The real fear that Israeli partisans have is that with a nuclear deterrent Iran could through the support of terrorism in Lebanon and Israel grind Israel down to the point where it would be overwhelmed with demographic disasters posed by the occupied territories, and the recent decision to throw away the forty years of remarkable loyalty of Arab Israeli citizens over a few peaceful demonstrations. The inflation of the Iranian threat seems to be a pro-Israel position. But it must be remembered that the real threat to Israel is the demographic pressures of Arabs in Israel and in the occupied territories. Iran could only facilitate the crises which is almost entirely of Israel's own making.

But the real indication that Mr. Tobin's heart is not with Israel is the first argument. One could make an argument that Iraq has been a success for the United States, though there are great difficulties. However, it is almost impossible to make the argument that the Iraq war has been a success for Israel. The destruction of the Hussein government allowed Iran to greatly expand its power in the peninsula. The ability of Iran to pose a real threat to Israel though terrorism is almost entirely the result of the Iraq war. A true Israeli partisan could not call the Iraq war a success without qualifying that statement with an acknowledgment of the war's cost to Israel's strategic decision.

What then is the mission? If Commentary is not primarily advancing America's interest and also not primarily advancing Israel's interest, whose interest is advancing? One could argue that the magazine is advancing the interest of the Republican party. It is true that the articles are almost universally critical of the Democratic party and supportive of the Republican party and Jennifer Rubin does seem to envision herself as as Jewish Sarah Palin, but even this association misses the mark.

Deep down Commentary is a neocon magazine. And neocon's are their own true north their own mission. They are no more loyal to Israel than America or the Soviet Union. They are no more Jewish than Atheist than Jewish. They are loyal to capitalism no more than socialism no more than communism. Their only faith is in the sufficiency of their own human actions.