DoctorD's Observations

My political philosophy

I changed my "profile" a bit to indicate that I am a "pragmatic liberal."  (I often make changes in its wording).

But what is that?

A "pragmatist" is interested in what works.  A liberal, the way we tend to use the term nowadays, is someone who is supportive of governmental action affecting the economy or society.  So, a "pragmatic liberal" is someone who supports governmental actions when they are effective and relatively efficient, when they can accomplish their objectives, when they "work."

There are at used to be "liberals" who supported governmental actions sort of on principle, whether they "worked" or not.  I don't know if we want to consider the Soviet Communists as a far extreme of "liberalism," but anyhow, they believed that people and crops could be improved greatly by changing societal circumstances, and that the improvements in acquired characteristics could be passed on genetically to offspring.  That belief formed the basis for official Soviet agricultural policy.  

This isn't true, of course, and it helped to ruin Soviet agriculture.  If I teach my son how to shoot a basketball, that doesn't mean that his children will be born with an "innate" ability to play basketball well.  But believing this falsity to be true was comforting to those who subscribed to Communist ideology.  There must be lots of other examples, but in my mind this is at least one of a strongly-held quasi-liberal belief that didn't work and resulted in great harm.

Or, consider the current US debate over health care cost containment.  An ideological liberal might believe that the federal government should attempt in some way to control costs, even if it could be shown that the methods suggested would very likely be failures.  But a pragmatic liberal (like I am) wouldn't.  Workability is the higher standard.

What about conservatives?  In times past, a conservative was considered to be someone who didn't want to change things much, wished to stick to the old fashioned tried and true, and in particular was opposed in principle to governmental intervention and involvement.  It is possible that there used to be "pragmatic conservatives."  For example, General and then President Dwight D. Eisenhower probably would be labeled a conservative, certainly compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt, but he advocated the development of an interstate highway system because he considered it necessary to move the troops around the country in support of national defense.  That was a huge and very costly public works project.  Thomas Jefferson similarly was a "conservative" by the standards of his day, but that didn't stop him from undertaking a different huge project, the Louisiana Purchase, which lacked a clear Constitutional foundation, because he considered it necessary for America's future development.

How about now?  I don't think there are any pragmatic conservatives anymore.  Rather, the term "conservative" has come to be adopted by people who oppose governmental activity of almost every kind, whether or not it is necessary, and whether or not it "works."  While they like to believe that nearly all governmental efforts are wasteful failures, really in their view successful governmental programs are as bad or worse.  That's because a successful program gets people to more willing to accept the involvement of government in their lives, while the conservative goal is to minimize that.

It must be that this is a significant over-simplification.  (Among other things, it ignores foreign and military policy completely)  But it is what is going through my mind at the moment.

I would also add that I am much more a "pragmatist" than a "liberal."  Compared to lots of people I know, or have known, I'm not really much of a liberal.  How about you?

I asked my wife how she would place herself--I would say that she is quite liberal, more so than I am--but she said that she doesn't like to use such labels.  The only labels she really considers are the ones on foods at the grocery store that tell how much sodium an item contains, and also how many calories.  

Food labeling

Wall Drug sign

Wall Drug ice water sign

The distance from where I am now to Wall Drug (SD) is about 900 miles.  Interstate 90 will of course get you there, but I prefer US 14, through Brookings.  US 14 was originally called the "black and yellow trail," connecting the Black Hills and Yellowstone with the middle west.  Locally, it is known as "Northwest Highway."

Crazy Heart

We went to see this movie tonight, and then had supper at Ted's Montana Grill, just to stay in the mood of being out west and on the road.  If you like country and western music, scenes of the Southwest, great acting, have an interest in alcoholism or the possibility and difficulties of human improvement, I would recommend it for you.  And it has gotten three Academy Award nominations.

If you like fight scenes, bank robberies, car chases, laser blasters, and spaceship battles, then you might skip it.  But my wife and I both enjoyed it very much.

Oh, also old guys.  This is another good movie for old guys.  The lead character was (I believe) 57, or was that 67?

Crazy Heart

The Trojan teapot

28richimg-NYT-trojan teapot

The invaders are coming!  The invaders are coming!  Lock your doors, shutter your windows, and hide your daughters.

This cartoon is from the New York Times, and I liked it.  It shows the teapot being taken into the capitol, but I'm not sure:  it may well turn out that it is the Republican party that is taken over and marginalized to its destruction.  Or not. Anyhow, we are living in interesting (and very dangerous!) times.

What's the law on "republishing" art work, other than photos you took your very own self?  I have done it a number of times now.  In academia, things get credited and footnoted.  Is that supposed to be done on blogs?  How!

Mother Nature strikes back?

Is there any connection between severe weather (in its many forms) and earthquakes?  We have had a lot of both lately, it seems.  It is hard for me imagine how they are tied together--but at the same time, the coincidence seems very great.  (And I am not a superstitious person, nor a believer that the calamities described in the Bible are likely to return as punishment for our "sins," significant though they may be.)

So, is there a link?  Okay--looking at the internet, our wonderful new research tool, I found this article saying "yes" from New Scientist, my single favorite publication (and I subscribe to lots).  It appears that rock is very sensitive to changes in the air, ice, and water over them.  Other articles suggest the same conclusion.

Okay, so now we have something new for the "climate change deniers" to deny.  The earth, the ocean, and the atmosphere are totally separate and distinct--just like (for example) man and beast.  Never the twain shall meet!

My hope, though, is that all of the states that have officials who are denying climate change will also be denied emergency funding to deal with the effect of huge snow storms, hurricanes, forest fires, floods, mud slides, volcanos, and all the other events that have been troubling significant sections of the planet.  Let's take their money, which they don't want anyhow because they don't believe in all that Al-Gore wonky weirdo stuff, and spend it to on health insurance, perhaps especially for those injured.

That unaccustomed noise

Did you have your TV on yesterday, and hear a strange sound?  Those were the wheels of democracy turning.  The best thing that has happened since the November 2008 elections.  

Talk about bringing about "change!"  To the best of my knowledge, the meeting that Barack Obama convened yesterday to discuss health insurance reform and health care cost containment is unprecedented in American history.  I can't think of a similar example of a president ever being so "open" to divergent views.  They talked together for nearly 8 hours.  Really!

Even Republicans tried to put their best foot forward.  True, they are both right feet, but still, compared to the recent CPAC and tea-party meetings, they were trying.

Can you imagine George W. Bush sitting down with political leaders of both parties to openly discuss their ideas and differences.  Can you imagine Sarah Palin?    Actually, neither one can carry on a coherent conversation about any governmental subject.  Ronald Reagan would have fallen asleep after 20 minutes or so.

Democracy

Get our your flags, fellow patriots.  It was a great day in America!

Long may they wave!

It is pretty funny!

I'm watching and trying to record the "Health Care Summit" being held at Blair House today.  And the opening speaker for the Republicans is Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, a former governor with whom I worked some when I was in Washington myself in the 1970s and 1980s.  And I respected him.  I liked him.

Lamar Alexander

Among other things, he isn't a dummy.  For a time he had a faculty appointment at Harvard.  He isn't the match of Obama in the intellectual department of course, but he is respectable.  He's no Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh.  He is a governing official, of significant experience, and the ability certainly to be thoughtful if he choses.

But of course the atmosphere is different now.  Way back then, in the meetings I participated in, there were Democrats and Republicans present from all levels of government.  There were no TV cameras, and representatives spoke frankly.  And there was an effort at finding "consensus" positions, and quite a lot of success too.

When that ended was after Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency.  The bi-partisan spirit came to an end.  Reagan, and especially the hard-core ideologues all around him, who were the real "power structure" for which Reagan was only a front man, had no interest at all in hearing what any Democrats had to say or thought or knew, no matter what their office or expertise.  Bi-partisan advisory organizations (that is to say, like the one that is meeting at President Obama's behest today)  were abolished, and replaced by Republicans-only membership ones.  Lines hardened; progress ended.

That has of course been the direction ever since.  Whether they hold power (as Reagan did) or are out of it (like now) Republicans generally talk only to themselves, listen only to their own talking points.  And they are tightly disciplined to do so--quite unlike the Democrats, who are often unable to agree among themselves on anything.

Still, I am comforted by seeing Senator Alexander make the first presentation.  He offered no ideas, really, except scrapping the work that both chambers of Congress have done already.  But I am hoping that part of his mind remembers what life was like, some three decades ago, when public officials treated either other with respect, regardless of party, and were willing at least at many important times to work together on the public's business, just as they are sworn to do.

If the Republicans are trying to re-create themselves as something other than an assembly of clowns and buffoons, having Sen. Alexander speak on their behalf is a fine choice.  He is no clown, and he is no buffoon.

My hero (or one of them)

At the moment I am using a painting of Johnny Appleseed as my Vox "profile photo."  He is one of my heroes.

Why?  Because he traveled the country, as I like to do.  Because he did a good thing, planting those Apple trees, as I wish to do.  They offer fruit, shade, and beauty.  Because he did it not for some immediate gain, and none at all for himself, but for the sake of future generations.  And he did it without a lot of blather and showmanship; his was a quiet, personal, and often lonely task.

Good for him.  Johnny Appleseed, or at least the version of him that is passed down in myth, was a great American.  I would like to be more like him, and I would like it if many others would try, too.

Johnny Appleseed

If the tea-baggers would do something useful, like JA, then we would have a "social movement" worth noticing, protecting, and preserving.  But there are always people who want to rip the good stuff down, instead of building the good stuff up.  Hasn't it always been so?

Budget reconciliation is the way to go

The Republicans, always eager to discover some totally un-American, un-Constitutional plot have decided (unanimously, of course) that the use of the federal budget reconciliation process to pass health insurance reform would be a grave threat, a step along the path toward socialism or worse.  It is an easier way to pass legislation, since it employees the principle of "majority rule."  51% support can do it, rather than 60 votes.

What they conveniently forget, however, is that budget reconciliation is how Ronald Reagan passed many aspects of his own economic recovery and political "reform" proposals shortly after taking office.  The key statute was OBRA 81, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, a far-reaching piece of legislation indeed.

Nobody thought, as best as I can remember, that this was in any way shocking.  It is just how the Senate works, following the Senate's rules.

I'll need to go up to the attic and dust off some history books to get all the specific details.  But anyhow, there is nothing inappropriate or unusual about budget reconciliation, particularly in times of difficult economic straits, which both Reagan faced when he took office after the 1980 election (not at bad then, though) and as Obama faces now (much worse).

I realize that this kind of an appeal to facts, reason, and history would go right over the heads of 99.9% of the American public, and probably 98% of the journalists who make a living covering the White House and Congress.  And it doesn't make good tv:  complaining about the threat of the "nuclear option" (sic), as Republicans have been taught to term it, attracts a lot more attention.

But it is all made up--kind of like Alice in Wonderland, and there is nothing in it to get excited about.  Hardly anyone thinks that "majority rule" is a bad system; it is how most official decisions are made in this nation.  Perhaps it is time to put what we preach back into practice.  Just like Ronald Reagan did.

Or, alternately, as the Mock Turtle said, we can get along with "Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with, and then the different branches of arithmetic -- Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision."  

That's the GOP's "new math."

Dishwasher disaster again

The dishwasher ran water all over our brand new kitchen's hardwood floor for the third time in the nine months we have lived here.  We got no satisfaction or help from four plumbers and installers, but somehow got out of a $149 service charge.

The dishwasher is made by GE, and it was sold by a local store, Abt.  I am plenty steamed up!  And it is clear why the Chinese are going to clean our clock in manufacturing.  Of course, something similar has already happened with electronics; none are made here any more.

Apple does do good designs, though.  I am hoping that the iPad will be announced for sale later on today.  Even if we can't make good stuff (other than movies and aircraft) at least we can figure out how someone else should do it.  

It is just a matter of time, though, until we lose our edge in everything.  Except financial scams.  We seem to do that quite well.