Problems with Permanence

The President looked confident and energetic in his State of the Union address last night. Clearly he's enjoying the job now and ready to make his mark on history. Bully for him.

The highlight of the speech for me, as I'm sure for many people, was the hug that Iraqi Safia Taleb al-Suhail gave to Janet Norwood. It eclipsed everything else that had come before it, making all the pomp and circumstance and partisan theatrics look silly. Regardless of how one feels about the war in Iraq, this gesture put a human face on the conflict and, for me at least, confirmed what I've always known about our having more in common with the people of the Middle East than reasons to hate each other. I hope the entire world was watching.

There were plenty of moments when I was cursing during the President's speech, though, none the least of which being when he once again went way out of his way to disrespect the most important relationship in my life (and just to be clear, I sincerely despise him for that). But two things he said led me to believe he's so drunk with his own power at this point that the man is actually beginning to think the laws of time and space needn't apply to his vision. At the very least he has serious problems with the notion of "permanence." Let me explain.

Twice in discussing reforms to Social Security, the President suggested it's time to fix it "permanently":

Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. [...] We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day.

This could be excused as optimistic hyperbole if he hadn't built his case for reform in the first place on the notion that "Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen." So the founders of Social Security couldn't foresee the future, but George W. Bush can?

Then there was the issue of bringing our troops home from Iraq.

We will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq

Who's asking for an "artificial" timetable. We want a real one.

But that's just the snarky bit. In this instance, Bush displays an ambivalence toward the real meaning of "permanence" in the other direction:

We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned.

It's that third item in his list ("at peace with its neighbors") that indicates our troops will most likely not return home with the honor they have earned in our lifetime. The peoples of the Middle East have been in continual conflict with each other for thousands of years. Even if Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran do start down the path toward truly democratic societies, ancient resentments will still play themselves out (e.g., the Kurds will still be antagonizing the Turks and working toward independence). So what does "at peace with its neighbors" mean here? It's easy to assert that it means we are in Iraq more or less permanently. The 14 bases we've spent untold millions to build there suggest that's the case, so why is the President even dangling a carrot of returning home with the honor they've earned before our armed forces? He has no intention of withdrawing the troops. If he did he wouldn't have set such a historically ludicrous benchmark.

Comments

[Gary Farber]

I'm afraid I didn't watch the President's speech; I watched the new Smallville instead. Just a matter of mood.

However, a single point: "The peoples of the Middle East have been in continual conflict with each other for thousands of years."

And this can equally be said of the peoples of Europe, can it not? Yet the past sixty years have gone relatively well, have they not? Is it so impossible that the Middle East could also eventually go so well in another forty or fifty years?

Since we're decrying the silliness of the word "permanence" in political affairs -- and rightfully so -- surely we can also agree that conflict need not be "permanent," either?

[Edward]

And this can equally be said of the peoples of Europe, can it not?

Last I checked, though, we still have bases in Germany, England, etc., etc., no? Using Europe as an example supports the notion that we will be permanently in Iraq.

[NeoDude]

I finally "get" right-wing spirituality!

Who needs rational analysis when you speak from the heart.

[Gary Farber]

The current trend is towards withdrawal from those bases, however, Edward. (As a side issue, although there are always people who will have problems with such bases nearby, or existing at all, for various reasons, some good, some bad, those bases are there pretty much because the governments in power in those lands find it advantageous; we have withdrawn many times from bases when the basing country's government made it clear they didn't want us any more, such as in the Phillipines; how inherently "bad" or not it is for us to have such basis is rather dependent upon one's approach as to how isolationist/interventionist we should militarily be around the world, and reasonable people can, will, and do disagree about that.)

Generally speaking, for whatever it's worth -- it doesn't speak at all to the isolationist/interventionist debate -- our long term military strategy is heading largely, and perhaps ultimately entirely, towards sea-basing only, combined with integrating space-basing.

I'm quite bemused, however, to read this: "Using Europe as an example supports the notion that we will be permanently in Iraq," as a follow-up to a post decrying the dumbness of using the word "permanent" in political affairs as "hyperbole." I think you were right the first time, so I don't understand why you suddenly find it useful and acceptable to make such a reference yourself. I'm really quite skeptical that the United States of America will still have military bases in Iraq in the year 5,000,000,000 A.D. I'm sure you agree that saying we will would be hyperbole.

[regina]

Turns out that Iraqi woman was a plant. Hadn't lived in Iraq since '68. Shades of Chalabi. Sorry.

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/2/3/61911/26777

Here's something she wrote before the initiation of the war:
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/usr_doc/Ongoing_War.pdf
and her sister either intended to or actuaully sued the US as an accomplice to her father's murder:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1379

These bozos cannot do anything right

[Jesurgislac]

And this can equally be said of the peoples of Europe, can it not? Yet the past sixty years have gone relatively well, have they not? Is it so impossible that the Middle East could also eventually go so well in another forty or fifty years?

The circumstances, however, are enormously different, are they not?

For several hundred years, France and England were at loggerheads. Sometimes at open war, sometimes not, but there was a consistent assumption that they would not be allies - that the enemy of one would be the friend of the other. The same could be said about England and Scotland, even though the two nations have been part of a united kingdom now for over four centuries.

Nevertheless, for nearly a century, Britain and France have been allies, and the ties forged in the sixty years of European union have made war between the nations of the EU literally unthinkable - which was always the long-term intent.

It's possible that in a century's time the Arab states will have forged a union like the EU. (I think this would likely be a good thing: I'm all in favor of international cooperation rather than conflict. But if it happens, it will happen despite all the US can do to prevent it.) But I sincerely hope they don't achieve this union in the same way as the European countries achieved it: via two monstrous world wars, and millions dead.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"But I sincerely hope they don't achieve this union in the same way as the European countries achieved it: via two monstrous world wars, and millions dead."

Better than the most likely alternative in human history--monstrous wars, vast numbers of dead and still no peace.

[Jesurgislac]

Better than the most likely alternative in human history--monstrous wars, vast numbers of dead and still no peace.

Jeez, Sebastian, I thought I'd written the most depressing comment on this thread. You just out-depressed me.

[NeoDude]

Democratic governments would charge, way more, for oil.

This is why the United States and many other power players, would never allow democracy in the Middle East.

[Edward]

I'm quite bemused, however, to read this: "Using Europe as an example supports the notion that we will be permanently in Iraq," as a follow-up to a post decrying the dumbness of using the word "permanent" in political affairs as "hyperbole." I think you were right the first time, so I don't understand why you suddenly find it useful and acceptable to make such a reference yourself.

fine...I'll play along, for a moment (and then I might just have to stop encouraging you)...

Call it short hand, or a different context, or even relying on a specific precedent if you wish, but I had already qualified "permanently in Iraq" in the post:

So what does "at peace with its neighbors" mean here? It's easy to assert that it means we are in Iraq more or less permanently.

The president offered no such qualification, therefore our usages are not parallel.

[John Thullen]

Edward, I have no comment on the issue of "permanence" with regard to the Middle East, but your point is a good one.

Social Security is another matter. The Administration and some others in the Republican Party, plus one Democrat at last count, use the term "permanent" with the same Orwellian sincerity with which they use the terms "death tax" or "private accounts" or "personal accounts" or "personalized accounts" or "WMD" or .... fill in your own.

I see the Republican Governor of a midwestern state has taken to calling his Medicaid Program "welfare heathcare" as a prelude to cutting the program.

Or, take "permanent capital gains cut", for example. Lowering capital gains to the 15% level is sold to us through the usual supply-side mouthpieces like Kudlow or the Wall Street Journal editorial page with pipe dreams of increased federal revenues. But the "permanent" goal is to cut the capital gains tax rate to zero and to receive zero federal revenue from capital gains taxes. Then you will have permanence and you will see what these folks really mean.

Just so with Social Security.Today's proposals for a permanent fix are merely a downpayment for the real permanent fix, which is permanent privatization of the entire program, the eventual permanent destruction of the New Deal, and the relegation of today's Democratic Party into "permanent" minority status. Snark away, usual suspects.

There will be no negotiation. Bush has taken increasing the payroll tax in various ways off the table. As with Iraq, we had better not only worship the loss of human life on the way to elections, but we'd better like prisoners smeared with mentrual fluid, as well. Objecting to any of it is the new "political correctness". Or is it "political incorrectness"? I'll await word from the Adminstration on which terminology is permitted.

So, no, Bush does not mean "permanent". He means "permanent".

Now, look, for the benefit of civil discussion, Von and Sebastian do not want old ladies rummaging through dumpsters, just as I don't want the payroll tax to rise to 100 percent of income so that the same old ladies must rummage through the same dumpsters.

But I'm not going to ignore 15 or 20 years (I minimize for the benefit of civil discussion) of fully voiced contempt for the New Deal expressed by the radical and ascendant elements of the Republican Party, nor will I ignore fully articulated political strategy by the same.

[Anarch]

I'm really quite skeptical that the United States of America will still have military bases in Iraq in the year 5,000,000,000 A.D. I'm sure you agree that saying we will would be hyperbole.

While I respect your attempt there, Gary, "permanent" usually means something quite different in the political sphere than it does elsewhere. [See, e.g., Kowloon/Hong Kong or the Panama Canal.] It's like "infinite" to a mathematician such as myself; most of the goombahs who use it -- and I mean that with nothing but the greatest love -- have no idea what it really means, and a certain casual abuse is, alas, inevitable and unstoppable.

[Edward]

Nice rant John.

Did anyone else cringe when Bush said "Here's why personal accounts are a "Better Deal" in his speech last night?

I swear, it makes me lose my faith in God, that he's not struck my lightening at moments like that.

[smlook]

Jes,

"But if it happens, it will happen despite all the US can do to prevent it.)"

Is this just a wild assertion you are making or do you have evidence that this is official U.S. policy?

Because, I wasn't aware that it was U.S. policy to oppose Arab states from forming a union similar to the EU. I guess after we crushed OPEC and the Arab League... what else was their left to do?

I don't think you could be referring to our efforts to bring democracy to Iraq, pushing the EU to accept Turkey as a member, calling for reforms in Saudia Arabia, opposing the oppressive mullahs in Iran.

So please give me a cite where we have stated that we will make every effort to assure ourselves that the Arab states won't form some kind of union.

[Jesurgislac]

that he's not struck my lightening

You have lightning, Edward? Share! (Edward Underscore, Thunder God!)

[Edward]

oops...my lousy typing skills have revealed my Thor-like powers...

Believe me Jes, if I had lightning, Bush would have scorched eyebrows this morning... :-)

[kenB]

No, he has "lightening" -- must be referring to his talent for posting humorous items to lighten the mood around here.

[Jesurgislac]

Smlook: Is this just a wild assertion you are making or do you have evidence that this is official U.S. policy?

Of course I have no evidence that the US would oppose a union of Arab states. Just a wild guess (based on US hostility towards the power of the EU, and, for that matter, the UN) that the US would strongly oppose it if (for example) Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Oman, Afghanistan, Armenia, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan, decided to ally together economically, culturally, and militarily, in order to create a superstate, with the collective power to be able to defy the US.

[Gary Farber]

"Democratic governments would charge, way more, for oil.

This is why the United States and many other power players, would never allow democracy in the Middle East."

No matter who is in charge, economics remains economics. Any regime with oil wants to sell it, and everyone else wants to buy it; politics doesn't change this. Democracies are neither inherently greedier, nor less desirous of making the best possible profit, than any other sort of regime. This is why we buy oil from regimes as politically different as Canada, Libya, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Britian, and so forth. All are subject to the same economic contingencies, and all behave more or less the same. Being a democracy or not is pretty much irrelevant. And we seem to, somehow, allow democracy in Canada, Britain, and even more or less in Mexico now, along with importing vast amounts of oil from Venuezuela, despite no lack of love between our two governments.

[NeoDude]

As long as states in the region are being run by authoritarians (secular or monarch) it is easier to manipulate and play little geo-strategic games.

We saw what democratically elected Turkey can do...The Saudis, Egyptians, and Pakistanis get to house and support terrorist that attacked Americans, while Syria, Iran and Iraq get blamed for it.

The Saudi's play ball the way certain power players in the US like, thus the love. If Hussein never stoped warring with Iran, we would be hearing loving platitudes about Hussein's march to freedom, if it wasn't for those evil Mullahs.

If democracy came to Saudi Arabia, they'd pimp us for all we are worth.

[Gary Farber]

"While I respect your attempt there, Gary, 'permanent' usually means something quite different in the political sphere than it does elsewhere."

I readily confess that I have a considerable tendency to be rather literal-minded in many ways, because I'm rather simple-minded in some.

Just don't get me started on the way so many people nowadays misuse "literally." "His head literally exploded." Really? I wish I could have seen.

"Did anyone else cringe when Bush said 'Here's why personal accounts are a 'Better Deal'' in his speech last night?"

It tested better in the focus groups than "here's why personal accounts are a 'Raw Deal.'"

Although the attempt to reach out to vegans was a new move for the Republicans.

[NeoDude]

I'm sure there are many folks who would find it easier if there were more "agreeable" authoritarians sitting on oil-wells.

[carpeicthus]

Edward, you need to learn how to read the president better. There are ways to permanently "fix" Social Security: tear it to tiny bits. Once nothing is standing, that fix is pretty permanent.

Come to your own exegesis about Iraq.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Once nothing is standing, that fix is pretty permanent."

I know that is a joke, but more seriously that isn't true. If you fix Social Security by making it fairer the fix might be permanent. If you 'fix' it by destroying it, it will come back because people really don't like seeing old ladies living on the street.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: If you 'fix' it by destroying it, it will come back because people really don't like seeing old ladies living on the street.

True. But I don't think George W. Bush is as perceptive about that issue as you. I think he thinks that if he can destroy it, as he evidently wants to, it will go away forever...

[Edward]

If you fix Social Security by making it fairer

Serious quesiton (I'm sort of dense about this issue). How is it unfair? In a way that privatization addresses?

[Gary Farber]

"...it will come back because people really don't like seeing old ladies living on the street."

There are old ladies living on the street. Thousands, at the very least. The typical solution is to make some aspect of their behavior illegal so they'll got to another county or state, or even to put them on a bus; building quality shelters and offering help is generally not so much on offer, and there's considerable discouragement from many to doing so, because "it will just attract more homeless people."

The "out of sight, out of mind" solution works all too well in our society, particularly given the normal American tendency to assume that things are pretty much okay for most people and since we're a kindly society, really, there can't be notable numbers of people really living in poverty, sickness, and despair. That's all just an exaggeration.

[blogbudsman]

I took the 'permanance' of the SS fix as a message to Congress that we need to embark on a comprehensive resolution as opposed to pecking away at it piece meal as legislatures are inclined to do. And setting a military timetable other than sometime after our objectives are secure is ludicrous. And I wouldn't at all be surprised if Iraq invited us to establish a military base there. What an enterprise that would be for them. If you don't think so, ask those communities at home and abroad that are threatened with a loss of one. Any military economists out there? What's a full fledged military worth to the surrounding economy these days. How about a baseball stadium? Soccer (yeah, real football) is probably the game of choice.

[Edward]

Gee Blogbudsman, you make occupation sound so cheerful...maybe we should try it here in the US...China's probably our best bet...you want to invite them?

And setting a military timetable other than sometime after our objectives are secure is ludicrous.

Yeah, but if our objectives are ludicrous we're left with an ouroboros argument there, aren't we?

And I wouldn't at all be surprised if Iraq invited us to establish a military base there.

Depending on how much be have available to bribe the officials with, I'd say you're right. Given that the majority of Iraqis don't want US soldiers on their soil though, I'd say your wrong.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Serious quesiton (I'm sort of dense about this issue). How is it unfair? In a way that privatization addresses?"

I've already noted that I'm not a big fan of privatization. And it is unfair in lots of ways. It isn't fair to tax people for money which goes to a 'safety net' which pays out to rich people. It isn't fair that the majority of black males will pay into the retirement portion of it all their lives and never see the retirement portion. It isn't fair that a non-pension plan pays out more to rich people than poor. It isn't fair that a safety net pays out to rich people at all. Oops, I repeated that one because I really feel it.

Gary, I can't speak for the whole country, but in San Diego there is no reason which I find morally persuasive for anyone in the county to go to bed hungry or on the street. The reason people do is that they are on drugs or crazy and in both cases they tend to be paranoid about getting help. Being merely poor will never put you on the street in this county if you are willing to receive the help that is available. My understanding, which may be wrong though I doubt it, is that it is the same throughout most of the country.

Edward, "ouroboros" is one of my favorite words. It always reminds me of "Millenium"--much better than "X-Files" in my book, but if I represented mainstream US taste, "The Tick" would still be on.

[John Thullen]

I'm not sure that's quite right, Sebastian.

If you (Sebastian) and I fix Social Security by making it fairer (we would place all elements of what's fair or not on the table), the fix might be permanent. The Bush Adminstration's fix is not intended to be permanent.

Also, it's true that people don't like "seeing" old ladies living on the street. But I think they could get used to it, if they concluded that the old ladies hadn't worked hard enough or saved enough or had enough luck to avoid their just desserts.

More likely, people, generally speaking, would behave as those who move into gentrified inner city neighborhoods generally do. Because they don't like "seeing" old ladies and men living on the streets or lining up in front of the neighborhood homeless shelter, they will embark on a campaign with the city fathers, in the name of property values and perceptions of crime, to close the homeless shelter and either move it to another rundown neighborhood or close it and sweep the area of homeless old ladies and men. As more folks are evicted from their now-too-expensive digs in the newly-gentrified neighborhood, they are left on the sidewalk by the local constabulary in most cities with their meager possessions, and then once "seen", are also swept from the area, "seeing" being the problem, not eviction or poverty or hopelessness, but the "seeing" of it.

[John Thullen]

Gary Farber got there first, so ignore me.

[Edward]

if I represented mainstream US taste, "The Tick" would still be on.

Discovering "The Tick" was like the first time I heard "Smells Like Teen Spirit," totally rejuvinating. I miss it too.

None of which means I think personal opinions about fairness should override the success of a safety net programs that works better than what came before it and what's being offered in lieu of it...;-)

[John Thullen]

"What's a full-fledged military worth to the surrounding economy these days?"

I'm not sure, but military economists stationed at Subic Bay or Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines, as of 1979, estimated that underaged prostitutes could supplement local family income by substantial amounts, depending on the trick.

[Gary Farber]

"...but if I represented mainstream US taste, 'The Tick' would still be on."

Animated or live?

You can also collect the comics, which have been around since the Eighties.

[Jesurgislac]

John: I'm not sure, but military economists stationed at Subic Bay or Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines, as of 1979, estimated that underaged prostitutes could supplement local family income by substantial amounts, depending on the trick.

Did they include the social cost of girls forced into prostitution? or of increased STDs?

[Edward]

speaking of people forced into prostitution, have you been following that Germany story?

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year. Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

That's just plain crazy.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Animated or live?"

I preferred animated, but the live one was amusing too.

[JerryN]

Sebastian, it's a minor nit, but:

It isn't fair that the majority of black males will pay into the retirement portion of it all their lives and never see the retirement portion.

is a canard. Life expectancy as of 2000 for black males at age 20 was 69.9 (cite) and by age 35 was 71.6. By age 50, it's up to 74.2. So, those folks paying in at a significant level are very likely to see some payout regardless of their race or sex. Please stop using this one as an example of unfairness.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Life expectancy as of 2000 for black males at age 20 was 69.9 (cite) and by age 35 was 71.6. By age 50, it's up to 74.2. So, those folks paying in at a significant level are very likely to see some payout regardless of their race or sex. Please stop using this one as an example of unfairness."

You are seriously misusing life expectancy statistics. Do you understand why the life expectancy is going up as the age goes up? It is because a lot of people are dying.

[ken]

I really don't see how anyone can think that Bush's proposal is really fair. Consider it's impact on my twelve year old son who obviously has not yet even entered the work force.

Firstly he proposes reducing his retirement income right off the bat by about 40%.

Secondly he proposed to increase his generations debt burden by more than 2 trillion dollars.

Thirdly he expects my son will gamble some of his money in the stock market to make up for his cut retirement income all the while he is paying higher taxes to cover the extra debt Bush lays on him.

So Bush's proposal is that my son starts out life in a finacial hole. How is that fair? How is that moral?

[Larv]

It isn't fair that the majority of black males will pay into the retirement portion of it all their lives and never see the retirement portion.

To the extent that there is unfairness here, it seems to be more that black male life expectancy is lower than average, rather than any resultant SS benefit discrepancies. If one feels that blacks are not benefiting equally from SS, I would think that the way to remedy this would be to try and do something about the underlying causes of their lower life expectancy, rather than treating it like it's an unalterable fact of biology. That said, I think JerryN is right that this is for the most part a red herring, intended more to rally african-american support for the president's proposal than to actually do anything about the "unfairness".

[Jesurgislac]

You are seriously misusing life expectancy statistics.

So are you.

From the tables JerryN linked to, 20% of white males can expect to live to the age of 60. 17.5% of black males can expect to live to the age of 60. That's a marked difference, and one that would merit looking at the different conditions that white men and black men are subject to in the US to see if this difference could be changed... but I don't think it's enough to merit saying that Social Security is grossly unfair to black men. (Especially as that difference of 2.5% goes down as you go up the table in age: 10.1% of white men can expect to live to be 75, and likewise for 9.4% of black men.)

[John Thullen]

Jes: "Did they include the social cost of girls forced into prostitution? or of increased STDs?

No, these particular military economists were on a more single-minded hunt in their, umm, field work. But the money flowing into the local economy from say, Subic, was there for all to see as the sailors promenaded up and down the main drag (that too) leading from the main gate of the base. Not that the majority of sailors partook of the local exotica.

No doubt a cursory look at condom sales and penicillin
use at Subic's medical dispensary would have confirmed the economic boon.

As to the German waitress, Edward, I look forward to Rush Limbaugh lambasting the waitress for her lack of entrepreneurial spirit in the "industry". Further, when liberals object to the waitress being forced to consider a job in the sex trade in order to collect "welfare", I fully expect Limbaugh to sputter, well, I thought you liberals out there saw nothing wrong with regulated prostitution.

They think they've got us coming and going, and that's not a pun.

[JerryN]

Sebastian - I beg to differ. I do not believe that I am misusing the statistics at all. Of course, I understand what the numbers mean.

I maintain that they are relevant to the Social Security discussion. In order to receive retirement benefits, you have to pay into the system. If you don't live to see 21, you've paid little or nothing in. So, at the very least, life expectancy at age 21 is a better gauge than LE at birth. Similarly, the amount you pay in early in your work life is relatively small given that your wages are low compared to your average wage over a 40+ year work life, which is why I looked at age 35.

In addition, black males, on average, earn less than their white counterparts. Given that the payout / contribution ratio is progressive, black males are disproportionately advantaged in this regard.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"From the tables JerryN linked to, 20% of white males can expect to live to the age of 60. 17.5% of black males can expect to live to the age of 60."

Which table are you looking at? I think the white male rate is more like 78%.

[votermom]

Did they include the social cost of girls forced into prostitution? or of increased STDs?

That's one of the reasons Filipinos pushed their govt into not letting the US extend the bases treaty. Very immoral environment. Cardinal Sin didn't like it all.

The other major reason was the nationalist movement; the sense that having bases made the Philippines a US pawn, not a sovereign nation.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Given that the payout / contribution ratio is progressive, black males are disproportionately advantaged in this regard."

Now I know for sure you are misusing this statistic. The payout/contribution ratio for SS including disability (which is not being changed) is not the same as payout/contribution ratio for the retirement portion--which is what we are discussing changes for.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: Which table are you looking at? I think the white male rate is more like 78%.

Knew I should have printed that page out! Sorry. Ignore my previous comment, which was based on squinting at very small figures on the screen while trying to fix a problem on our webpage at work. Will get back to you with a more accurate comment when I finish up.

[Blogbudsman]

Gee Edward, who said anything about occupying - where do we do that now? Are our tens of thousands of troops abroad really occupying much of anything. Your argument is a throw away. And having a time table can be ludicrous strategy regardless of your personal opinion of the initial action. And as far as what Iraqis may or may not want based on year old polling data from the Tallahassee Democrat hasn't exactly taken my breath away. I suspect you might be one of those Dem-No-Crats. And another thing, and I know this cycles over generations, it's the Republican Party that should be considered liberal these days and the Democrats that have turned a tad conservative. Yepper, I declare that I'm a bona fide Red State Liberal, and a moderate one at that. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

[GT]

Sebastian,

Blacks take from SS as much or even more than whites do. It's not just retirement after all. It is not SS's fault that blacks have lower life expectancies but survivor and disability benefits help lessen the economic impact.

[felixrayman]

Now I know for sure you are misusing this statistic. The payout/contribution ratio for SS including disability (which is not being changed) is not the same as payout/contribution ratio for the retirement portion--which is what we are discussing changes for.

I think you failed to comprehend his point. As Krugman explains it:

Second, the formula determining Social Security benefits is progressive: it provides more benefits, as a percentage of earnings, to low-income workers than to high-income workers. Since African-Americans are paid much less, on average, than whites, this works to their advantage.

This is not to concede any point about disability not being affected, the proposed changes will affect all parts of SS, including disability.

[JerryN]

Sebastian - even for retirement, the benefit level is progressive. For example, someone aged 21 today who earns $41,700 per year has an expected benefit at age 67 of $1474 per month (in todays dollars) according the calculator at www.ssa.gov. Increase lifetime earnings by 20% to $50,000 per year and the benefit only increases by 10.5% to $1630. Increase earnings by another 20% to $60,000 and the benefit only increases by 8% to $1756.

[Edward]

Blog,

For me, the second half of your comment is virtually incomprehensible, although I'll bet it just bowls them over on more red-meat conservative sites. If Rush ever retires, you be sure and apply for his job, you hear?

Regarding the first part of you comment though:

who said anything about occupying - where do we do that now?

Iraq, Blogbudsman. We're discussing Iraq. We currently occupy Iraq. You know...it's sandwiched between Iran and Afghanistan, lots of sand, hot in the summer, Tigris runs through it...Iraq. We have ~150,000 troops there currently. Iraq? Or, if you've only ever heard the President say it, "Eye-Rack."

And having a time table can be ludicrous strategy regardless of your personal opinion of the initial action.

It can be, sure. In the case of Iraq, though, it's not. As explained quite convincingly by a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration,

Washington and Baghdad would actually improve their prospects for defeating the insurgency and stabilizing the country by publicly announcing a plan for gradual but substantial coalition troop withdrawal.

That argument may be debatable, but it's certainly not ludicrous.

And as far as what Iraqis may or may not want based on year old polling data from the Tallahassee Democrat hasn't exactly taken my breath away.

Ahh, the old "dismiss the source" tactic when the facts don't match your prefered reality. Try this one from the Washington Post just 5 days ago then:

Polls indicate that 80 percent of Iraqis want foreign forces to leave

I suspect you might be one of those Reality-allergic Republicans, Blog.

[smlook]

Edward,

I can't believe you actually parsed the statement that way...

What it actually says:

"Polls indicate that 80 percent of Iraqis want foreign forces to leave, but withdrawal depends mainly on replacing U.S. soldiers with Iraqi security forces."

Well I think 100% of Americans want that, too.

So tell me what was the actual question used to conduct the poll?

Example:

Do you want U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq?
Do you want U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq immediately?
Do you want U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq after Iraqi security forces are in place?

[Edward]

smlook,

you're changing the subject. The question was not whether Iraqis want us to stay until they're safe...the question was whether they'd invite us, actively invite us, to stay permanently, even after their forces were up to speed. Do read the whole thread if you're gonna criticize one's parsing.

[blogbudsman]

How about this poll question?

Given an American military base will employ hundreds of citizens of your town with good paying jobs and feed your local economy millions of dollars, would you object to having one near your town? And did we mention the prostitutes?

[NeoDude]

This homeless guy asked me for money the other day.
I was about to give it to him and then I thought he was going to use it on drugs or alcohol.
And then I thought, that’s what I’m going to use it on.
Why am I judging this poor bastard.
People love to judge homeless guys. Like if you give them money they’re just going to waste it.
Well, he lives in a box, what do you want him to do? Save it up and buy a wall unit?
Take a little run to the store for a throw rug and a CD rack? He’s homeless.
I walked behind this guy the other day.
A homeless guy asked him for money.
He looks right at the homeless guy and says why don’t you go get a job you bum.
People always say that to homeless guys like it is so easy.
This homeless guy was wearing his underwear outside his pants.
Outside his pants. I’m guessing his resume isn’t all up to date.
I’m predicting some problems during the interview process.
I’m pretty sure even McDonalds has a “underwear goes inside the pants” policy.
Not that they enforce it really strictly, but technically I’m sure it is on the books.

From:
Underwear Goes Inside Your Pants

[NeoDude]

sorry, I was activly reading the part of thread that was discussing homelessness, and the spirit led me to cut and paste the Lazyboy song.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"it provides more benefits, as a percentage of earnings, to low-income workers than to high-income workers. Since African-Americans are paid much less, on average, than whites, this works to their advantage."

A) If they live to get them.

B) If they do, they often don't live very many years. And thus still don't get much compared to the total they put in.

B1) More benefits as a percentage of earnings doesn't speak to return rate at all if you don't look at how long you get benefits.

[felixrayman]

A) If they live to get them.

B) If they do, they often don't live very many years. And thus still don't get much compared to the total they put in.

B1) More benefits as a percentage of earnings doesn't speak to return rate at all if you don't look at how long you get benefits.

So there are various factors that affect the benefit that blacks get from SS compared to whites. According to whose calculations you use, blacks either get the same benefits from the SS program as whites or more.

If you are going to play the race card, it would help if the argument was at least factual.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Or much less if you are talking about the retirement portion of the Social Security program and the actual amount that they get out of it based on the percentage of people who actually make it to retirement age.

[smlook]

Edward,

This thread is about many things as a far as I can tell, I have seen S.S., prostitution and so on discussed.

"The question was not whether Iraqis want us to stay until they're safe...the question was whether they'd invite us, actively invite us, to stay permanently, even after their forces were up to speed."

I guess I just missed that somewhere along the way. I only saw these questions:

"So what does "at peace with its neighbors" mean here? It's easy to assert that it means we are in Iraq more or less permanently. The 14 bases we've spent untold millions to build there suggest that's the case, so why is the President even dangling a carrot of returning home with the honor they've earned before our armed forces? He has no intention of withdrawing the troops. If he did he wouldn't have set such a historically ludicrous benchmark."

I wasn't changing the subject, whatever that subject might actually be here. I was pointing out how the 80% number doesn't really mean much until we find out more about the background. I don't think that is unreasonable. I say it doesn't mean much because it has been reported on the news that Iraqis most always say they don't want US troops in Iraq. But, then they qualify that statement saying they shouldn't go yet!

Jes,

" US hostility towards the power of the EU"

I have not noticed any hostility towards the power of the EU. Honestly, I find that statement comical. There has been hostility towards Germany and France. (Is that the EU in your opinion?) But, that could easily be argued that they were hostile to us also. We have obviously embraced the UK, Poland and other countries in the EU. And in the past we have encouraged the expansion of the EU to include eastern Europe and Turkey. Based on the evidence, I would say we are working to increase the power of the EU not against it.

[Edward]

smlook,

I was responding to this statement by blogbudsman

And I wouldn't at all be surprised if Iraq invited us to establish a military base there.

Inviting us is a far cry for accepting the reality of needing us for the foreseeable future...that's my point.

[Phil]

We have obviously embraced the UK, Poland and other countries in the EU.

Oh, just wait until the Administration wants to have open military adventures in Syria or Iran, and Tony Blair decides not to go along this time. We'll be eating Freedom Muffins for breakfast and studying Freedom Literature in high school in no time flat.

And in the past we have encouraged the expansion of the EU to include eastern Europe and Turkey. Based on the evidence, I would say we are working to increase the power of the EU not against it.

I think it would be more accurate to say we're trying to realign it.

[JerryN]

"it provides more benefits, as a percentage of earnings, to low-income workers than to high-income workers. Since African-Americans are paid much less, on average, than whites, this works to their advantage."

A) If they live to get them.

B) If they do, they often don't live very many years. And thus still don't get much compared to the total they put in.

B1) More benefits as a percentage of earnings doesn't speak to return rate at all if you don't look at how long you get benefits.

OK, here we go again. From the life tables cited above, an estimated 60% of black males make it to age 67 and they have a remaining life expectancy of 13.4 years. So, your initial statement, "It isn't fair that the majority of black males will pay into the retirement portion of it all their lives and never see the retirement portion." is just flat wrong. Period. Full stop. 40%, while still too high, is not a majority - otherwise Kerry would be President. (To be complete, the numbers for white males are 76% and 15 years.)

Point A) above is just snark, so pardon me for ignoring it.

Point B) is way out of line unless that 13.4 years looks so radically different from 15 years to you. As to B1), I would submit that the progressive benefit payout mitigates a good part of the return rate difference due to the increased duration of the benefits.

Parenthetically, looking at the ratios between survival to age 21 vs. 67, 35 vs. 67, and 45 vs. 67 are interesting - the percentages for black males are 62% for 21 vs. 67, 64% for 35 vs. 67 and 74% for 45 vs. 67. The equivalent numbers for white males are 77%, 79% and 84%.

I've gone along with excluding disability benefits from this discussion, since that to me is a qualitatively different type of benefit. However, we've been artificially ignoring survivor's benefits. Artificially, since this is clearly a way for families of contributors to receive some benefit from the payments that would have, in better circumstances, gone to old-age security.

[Anarch]

Gary: No matter who is in charge, economics remains economics. Any regime with oil wants to sell it, and everyone else wants to buy it; politics doesn't change this. Democracies are neither inherently greedier, nor less desirous of making the best possible profit, than any other sort of regime.

I agree that there need be nothing inherent in this regard, but I disagree with your implicit conclusion that, in reality, democracies are neither more nor less inclined to seek profit. Your comparison there fundamentally presumes that all the participants are rational actors seeking to maximize their economic profit when, in dictatorships, this assumption simply does not hold.

To be more precise about this: the assumption of rational actors is a decent large-scale approximation, and hence useful in a democracy where the actors are distributed through the population at quasi-random, but fails rather spectacularly on individuals. In a dictatorship, under whatever name, power is sufficiently concentrated in few enough people that the "rational actor" approximation fails: there's too much variance and too many individual neuroses that can, and frequently are, exploited... in both directions.

[Anarch]

Sebastian: but if I represented mainstream US taste, "The Tick" would still be on.

And what a wonderful world it would be!

[kenB]

Edward, re the Germany prostitution-or-no-benefits thing, see snopes (note -- link seems to be broken at the moment). The story that it actually happened to someone is false; there's apparently a theoretical possibility that it could happen based on the way the law is written, but no one who actually makes these decisions would ever do that.

[NeoDude]

Sebastian: but if I represented mainstream US taste, "The Tick" would still be on.

I like you.

[Jesurgislac]

All I can fairly say for myself about my comment at February 3, 2005 02:42 PM is that I now know it's a mistake to try and work out a comment for Obsidian Wings while trying to fix a problem in a .asp page on our website. Will not do so again.

[Slartibartfast]

Unfortunately, I gave my Tick comic book collection (and action figures!) away to a nephew. Maybe I ought to have negotiated for visitation rights.

Animated Tick was better. The selection of Patrick Warburton for the title role in the live version was admirable, though.

"Let's hang ten for justice!"

My favorite part of the comic is The Tick's job before he got the superhero gig: he was a maintenance man on this enormous intergalactic superhero, and had to use a car to get from one end of the superhero to the other. Or at least, that's what memory tells me.

Sorry for the absence, if anyone noticed, but I've been home the last couple of days with (as Edward has put it) the walking-fountain-of-mucous disease. I've pretty much spent the last couple of days dozing in my bed while attempting to make forward progress into The Confusion.

[blogbudsman]

Get well soon, the red-meat conservative flank is exposed.

[CaseyL]

Slarti, I adored The Baroque Cycle, but I wouldn't recommend reading it while sick and dosed up on cold medicine. It's 'baroque' in more than just its theme and historical setting. Keeping track of who's who is hard enough when one is totally compos mentis :)

[NeoDude]

Frank Miller (Ronin, Daredevil, Dark Knight), Alan Moore, J. M. DeMatteis & Jon J. Muth's Moonshadow, Cerebus the Aardvark all opened new possibilities for comix...to many....to many memories...must obsess about...the vast right-wing elite.

[Anarch]

Can we say... open thread?

I knew you could!

[CaseyL]

Can we say... open thread?

Yeah! I was gonna be good and not natter about books, but since Anarch has declared this an open thread (how appropriate ;) then I'll give in to temptation.

Went to Pam Houston's reading last night at Elliott Bay Books here in Seattle. She read from her latest, "Sight Hound," a memoir about an Irish Wolfhound. OMG. *So* funny, and poignant, and dead-on in so many ways. Highly recommended.

And, oh, how do I love thee, Elliott Bay Books? One of the fans who came to the reading brought an Irish wolfhound mix-breed. Beautiful dog, with exquisite manners, and nobody - not staff, not audience - pulled a "sorry, you can't bring that dog in here" snit fit. Yay!

Also: Cherryh's latest atevi novel, "Destroyer" has come out. I bought it last night while waiting for the reading to start, and am about 1/3 of the way through. This one seems to have a lighter touch than many of the previous series entries, even though dealing with more dire plot developments.

So, because I don't have Slarti's excuse to stay in bed and read all weekend, I will instead stretch out on the sofa and read all weekend :)

[Jesurgislac]

Also: Cherryh's latest atevi novel, "Destroyer" has come out.

It has? Yay! (Hardback?)

[CaseyL]

Hardbound,yes.

[Gary Farber]

I was extremely fond of Elliott Bay Books during my eight years in Seattle; at one point I worked as a freelancer for a law firm about a block away, during the year I lived in the Denny Regrade (420 Vine St., if you care, where the apartments had classic original Murphy Beds), which made walking home by way of picking up dinner makings at the Pike Place Market most simple. (Other neighborhoods I resided in for longer were Capitol Hill, before it became too expensive, and the U. District; 606 15th Ave. E., 602 12th Avenue E., and 4229 Eight Avenue NE, to be precise, from early 1978 until mid-1985.)

[Gary Farber]

Whoops. That's 4227 Eight Ave NE, actually.