Matthew Comments

GM recently announced the closing of several auto plants in North America, primarily those that make large, gas inefficient vehicles. The news anchor began the segment with "Due to high gas prices..." Since everyone's blaming high gas prices for our woes these days, it begs the question "Whose fault are high gas prices?" Your driveway is the first place to look for answers. If your car gets bad mileage, that's probably your fault. Some luck, huh? After that, I blame "the invisible hand." This is the idea that when everyone follows their own self-interest in a free market, everyone ends up better off. Everyone is motivated to work hard and be efficient and produce goods that others want to trade for. Free markets do a fine job of producing wealth and prosperity, but they've really botched the energy situation. For all it's glory, the invisible hand has little strategic foresight. In the 1970s, we learned that America was vulnerable to high e

I was struck by today's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Not literally, but in the Crossroads section, on opposite sides of the spread, were two articles that reflect our nation's "welfare for the rich." On 2J, a local economics instructor's article "Tax for Miller Park didn't help economy." He criticized a previous article which had suggested the opposite. The previous article was based almost entirely on reports by Major League Baseball, which clearly has a huge bias. This week's article takes an objective look, and summarizes that taxpayer's don't get much in return, but the fat cat players and executives of MLB walk away with huge paychecks. The drive to fund new ballparks almost never starts with taxpayers--it starts with the deep pockets of baseball executives, PR campaigns and connections with political power. On 3J, George Will was taking on the Fed ("What the Fed should never do"), rightly criticizing it for bailing out Bear

I once worked at a public university that had a huge 'deferred maintenance' problem. Their major equipment was often 35 years old with an expected lifetime of 30 years. As a result, they were constantly doing repairs and paying overtime, but had little time to do preventive maintenance and little money to make pro-active investments in new equipment. In one dorm, water from bad showers on the upper floors started leaking into the main lobby, and the 'fix' was to drag out garbage cans to catch the water. I was told that repairing the plumbing itself was expensive so it was being figured into the "five-year budget plan." The garbage can fix went on for at least a year. A two-page spread in The Atlantic Monthly (March 2008, p 38-39) calls out our nation's growing infrastructure problem. This is a real 'tragedy of the commons' situation: individuals are not willing to give up more tax money if they don't see a real-time, personal benefit. At the sa

John Torinus is a local Milwaukee CEO who writes pro-business articles in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. I tend to appreciate them, and he's pretty reasonable. His latest article "Obama speech was full of anti-business rhetoric," intersects with my recent thoughts: will the Democratic nominee be reasonably pro-middle class, or wildly anti-business? Here's the editorial: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=730879 And here's my breakdown of Torinus, right and wrong: Torinus is right that Obama's rhetoric lacks pragmatism on economic issues. He should learn from Hillary, who learned from Bill's partnership with business. Obama is busy riding his populist wave, but will find it difficult to govern effectively if he alienates the business community. Plus, there's reality: we can't run from free trade now, and our economy is largely based on "nothing more than a profit." Torinus is wrong to imply that political and religious leaders ar

Putting aside feelings about how we got to this point, I don't believe that quick withdrawals from Iraq, or promises of quick withdrawals from Iraq, are pragmatic or strategically wise. Senator Obama is the lone candidate who is solidly pro-withdrawal. It makes him politically exciting, but could become an albatross in a long campaign for the Presidency or in his administration if he wins. Here is a link to a counterinsurgency expert who talks about this issue. He sidesteps a question that asked him to judge current candidates, which I think adds to his credibility. (NPR.org, Nagl: Beating Insurgents Takes Unconventional War) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18921312

Robert Reich, former Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton and former Chairman of Goldman-Sachs, has put a nice editorial in the NY Times. I hope this means he is eager to serve in a new administration, at least as an advisor. ( NY Times, Totally Spent , 2/13/08). Find it at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html?em&ex=1203138000&en=28af38a856305f61&ei=5087%0A

In a letter to the editor of the Atlantic Monthly, William Bendix comments: "Probably the best explanation for the growing divide in American politics comes from Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, who argue that growing economic disparities and rising immigration rates are strongly correlated with political polarization. In their book, Polarized America (2006), they show that ideological divisions decreased between 1913 and 1957, when income disparities and immigration rates fell, and that the divisions have increased sharply since the 1970s, as income disparities and immigration rates suddenly grew. Interesting and well put. I'd be interested to see the more specific influences of income disparities and immigration rates independent of each other, and how the authors factor in the influence of social/religious issues such as abortion and gay marraige.

I support Hillary over Obama. Why? Both have a level of idealism, but Clinton mixes in a healthy dose of pragmatism. I watched Obama speak a couple times and was inspired. I saw him speak a couple more times and thought "enough with the pretty-talk." Although he follows Frank Luntz' rules of communication really well, the debates expose Hillary's dominance when it comes down to brass tacks in policy. I am longing for a president that educates the American people on the complexity of issues, rather than sticking to simplistic populist themes. Hillary proved, in Congress, that she could reach across party lines and work professionally even with people who had worked to demonize her. That's really what we're looking for. Obama is not the first campaigner to say "I'm a uniter, not a divider." It's easy to say, but very hard to do. Obama is putting himself farther to the left on Iraq than reality will allow if he becomes president. He's doing

Most simply, it's a statement about values and war, summed up with "Whose deaths matter and whose do not?" It points out our natural bias to value only those lives most connected to us, and implies that our (American) effectiveness at warfare may be exacerbating that bias. I agree with her that the civilian casualty issue is under-appreciated. Both the cost of war and the use of torture by American agents receive more domestic attention and debate than foreign civilian casualties caused by US actions. That moral calculus is worth some reflection. Each nation (or ethnic group, religious group, etc) mourns its own dead with special significance. That is natural. Perhaps a nation that wants to be a positive force in this world (and often purports to be doing other nations a favor by using military force) should consider the perspective of citizens of those nations. Pragmatism often must take trump in foreign affairs, but I want to work for moral sophistication, not only stra

Hey, wait a minute, someone is reading this? LOL Plus, the comments show up in a larger font then my message? What's up with that?! I'll respond with a few thoughts after the weekend, we're leaving soon to see some family. :)

(In The New Yorker, 2/4/08, p5) Jeanne Guillemin, a senior fellor in MIT's Security Studies Program, wrote an excellent letter to the editor regarding how Americans talk about casualties. I'm unable to find a link to a full-text example, but here is an excerpt: "In wars since 1945, American combat mortality figures have sharply declined, while the exclusivity of the American claim on memorialization has intensified, as if U.S. soldiers were the only casualties in Korea or Vietnam or, more recently, Iraq, and the deaths of many thousands of civilians killed in those distant conflicts merited no acknowledgment and carried no meaning. Whose deaths matter and whose do not always tells a great deal about American politics and culture."

There are poor people who take a “free ride” on the welfare system. They receive food stamps, health care, unemployment, and other benefits. I’ve been surprised at the emotion generated when these people come up in conversation: voices rise, foreheads wrinkle, and fingers wag. Why does this elicit such anger? Many psychologists think human behavior distinctly accommodates small groups. In groups, people divide tasks and share benefits. Even if you get more out of one transaction, I may get more out of the next one. A stronger group helps everyone survive—especially when threatened by other groups. Today, these “in-group” behaviors are inherent. People outside our group don’t get the benefit of the doubt. Our favor to them may never be returned. Their group is a threat to ours. We are miserly with our trust and quick to punish. It’s not just a rational decision we make. It’s a well-worn groove in our emotional path that we naturally slide down. There are many examples in life. Members o

It’s time for a statewide ban on cigarette smoking in bars and restaurants. Our American society doesn’t let restaurants sell food that causes cancer, and they shouldn’t serve air that causes cancer either. If a private business had unlimited rights, we could have strip clubs next to schools and factories in residential neighborhoods. Thank goodness most people support some rules that help make our community safe and livable. I want to support people’s right to do as they please, but there are limits. You can chew gum all you want, but when I find it on my clothes and in my hair, we have a problem. Cigarette smoke ends up on everyone in the room, in their hair and on their clothes, and imaginary lines dividing a room into sections don’t stop it. If our clothes are disgusting after leaving a smoke-filled establishment, imagine our lungs. Clothes are passive receptacles of air quality, while lungs pump air in and out continually. It bothers me that our children are exposed to that. It bo