Resolutions, predictions, and premonitions

First, here are my guaranteed true predictions:

I won't break any of my New Year’s resolutions.
The stock market will go up and the stock market will go down.
The nation-wide turnout for the November elections will definitely be less than 70% and maybe even 60%.
There will be no new major national political party.  I really hope I am wrong on this.
There will be updates for major fixes in almost all major computer software.

The first prediction is easy.  I won’t break any New Year’s resolutions because I don’t make them.  I do make plans and to-do lists, some of which I accomplish or do, but too often the items get pushed down and forgotten.

I have made a major commitment to be on a plant-based diet, aka vegan diet.  In one of those little bits of randomness, when I saw the animation in the DVD “Forks over Knives” of plaque going off an artery, I was hooked on trying it.  Essentially it’s avoiding meat, eggs, and dairy.  There went yogurt on my oatmeal and my once a week omelet.

For the most part I’ve stuck to it.  Within a week of starting, a friend sent us some Alaskan salmon.  It is a standing joke with my wife and I that I get the bones and she doesn’t.  Would you believe that almost every piece I ate had a bone and one had three!

The Freethinkers had their December monthly social at Gannucchi’s.  Just my luck that every item on the menu had cheese and/or meat.  So I went with a turkey sandwich, figuring that was the leanest meat that I could get.  The organizers of the monthly social plan to go back in January.  I think I better call ahead to Gannucchi’s.

We have our three-year-old grandson from Japan with us.  At one visit to the grocery store, he chose a sushi tray.  Four of the pieces had salmon.  But then he didn’t want those.  He wanted only the rice under the salmon.  So, Grandpa “had to eat” one of those pieces of salmon.

I hope I don’t get stuck in any of these situations again before my next cardiologist visit.  I would like to see an improvement in my flow rate.

The prediction on turnout is easy, because we have so many people who don’t bother to show up, even when they have registered to vote.  I don’t know if they are just plain lazy or don’t like any of the candidates.  They don’t seem to realize that by not voting, they increase the odds of seeing the candidate they favor least elected.

There will be no new major party unless some national leaders create it.  The Green Party has been around for years, but it has not become a major force in politics.  The Independent Party of Minnesota has been around since Jesse Ventura won as a Reform Party candidate.  There will be a “Forum for Building Progressive Political Power” on January 11 at “Copper Top”.  But will the usual “liberal” suspects be able to engage more than each other?  The only real hope is that a large number of “moderates” at the national level say enough is enough.  It happened in 1854 with only thirty people meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin.  The result was the Republican Party had a winning presidential candidate in 1860.  Aren’t we past due for a re-alignment?  Wouldn’t those who met in Ripon because they didn’t want to compromise on slavery be surprised to learn that their party has morphed into a party that doesn’t want to compromise on corporate interests?

What else can I predict than the no-brainers above?

No major advances will be made on abating global warming, at least at the government level.  Many people will do their part on using less energy, but these people will only make a small dent in the emissions.  Some municipalities or counties will plant more trees to absorb some of the carbon dioxide.

The sleeper may be China.  As the complaints increase about the air pollution in many Chinese cities, the authorities may make a major push for alternative energy sources.  This might include major grants to universities and companies to produce more efficient and cheaper energy sources.  If they do so, the United States will be a major loser on the manufacturing side.  Something the U.S. should have taken seriously, would you believe, in Jimmy Carter’s presidency!

There probably won’t be any major wars, but there will be plenty of local wars and terrorist attacks.  Let’s hope Russia can take sufficient steps to thwart any who want to upset the Winter Games at Sochi.

I seriously doubt that there will be any major propaganda push to negate the appeal of hardline Islamists.  The Qu’ran, like the Bible, certainly has many passages that call for peace and warn against violence.

My premonition is that China and the U.S. will continue their power play to assert their authority wherever they think their “vital interests” are at stake.  Even though it is much more in either’s interests to avoid conflict, hardliners in either capitol could escalate the situation to the point of open war.  Think Sarajevo and World War I.

I doubt if any leaders are going to step forward and say “enough”.  “We really need to cut down on military expenses.  We all could make better use of our resources.”

To end on a brighter note, may you have a happy and prosperous new year!

This was published in the 2014-01-02 edition of the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/01/02/2696_resolutions_predictions_and_premonitions.

Quote of the day: Negotiating

"You cannot negotiate with people who say what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." - John F. Kennedy

I cannot verify this with an original source.  The only find I made in the John F. Kennedy Library is in 1960 press releases.  However, it is very difficult to read.  I couldn't find the quote but the title is "The fight on crime".  See http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKCAMP1960-1036-012.aspx#

Whoever wrote it came up with a good observation.  My variant is:

A: "You owe me a hundred dollars."
B: "I owe you nothing."
A: "OK, let's compromise.  You owe me fifty dollars."

What if Senate demands compromise on PATRIOT Act?

What if the U.S. Senate demands that the House of Representatives compromises on the spending bill by removing certain aspects of the PATRIOT Act?

Let's compromise!

I'll compromise with the House Republicans.  They increase my Social Security by 50% and cut their salaries by 50%.

Quote of the day.- Compromise

"Compromise, if you must, on the policy--but never on the truth."
Paul Krugman, End This Depression Now!

Quote of the day - Diplomatic Imperialism

Remember when George W. Bush said that you're with us or against us?

Fareed Zakaria wrote "Washington ... has not yet figured out that diplomatic imperialism is a luxury that the United States can no longer afford."
- The Post-American World, Release 2.0, pp. 258-259

He concludes his book with the idea that we are an open, welcoming country but that our foreign policy is narrow-minded and paranoid.

Many are calling for Congress to compromise on many issues.  Maybe we should be asking Congress and the Administration to compromise with the rest of the world.

"The Post-American World" is a very good read.  Zakaria lays out all the pitfalls of assuming that economic and military might can mislead a country into thinking its "On top of the world and outside history".  On the other hand, Zakaria thinks that as the first "universal nation" (people of many origins and faiths) has a lot of strengths that can be harnessed to bring about a more prosperous, peaceful, multi-polar world.

Can Gov. Chris Christie change the Republican Party?

I had my Jon Stewart dose of the day.  In http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-6-2012/exclusive---chris-christie-extended-interview-pt--2, Stewart tries to pin down Christie on why Republicans thinks it's alright for the Federal Government to pay for the aftermath of natural disasters but its wrong for any government to pay for health insurance.  For example, Stewart asks if having cancer and no health insurance is a natural disaster.

Christie spoke about how he tries to work with those with different philosophical ideas to come to some agreement.  I understood his meaning to be that one cannot take a rigid stand.

Will other Republicans follow his lead or will they consider him a RINO (Republican in Name Only)?

Some thoughts on compromise

To some, compromise means come promise to believe as I do.

Compromise between blue states and red states yields a purple nation; purple is the color of bruises.

Compromise conversation

A:  You owe me $100!
B:  I owe you nothing!
A:  Let's compromise; you owe me $50.

See also:
Not always two sides to every issue
More on two sides to every issue
π is an Obama liberal plot to socialize America
Compromise reached with flat earthers

Compromise as a distraction from the truth

Again speaking of the Duluth News Tribune, I attended an editorial board meeting several weeks ago. The publisher repeated over and over again about "both sides" of issues and the need to come together.

Well, I have a compromise for him. He wants to charge $1.00 for the daily paper. I and many others want it for free. So, let's compromise and he'll charge and we'll pay 50 cents for the daily paper.

A word to the wise on compromise

In today's my way or the highway politics, more politicians (and political junkies) should take to heart the following: Compromise on public issues is the price of civilization, not an abrogration of principle.

This was written by Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and is quoted by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera in "All the devils are here".  Alan Greenspan wrote it about being asked by President Ford to become Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.

Greenspan was also a member of Ayn  Rand's inner circle.

Are buzz words fuzz words?

Buzz words!  Sometimes they can capture a powerful thought in a phrase.  Too many other times, they complicate a simple thought or they obscure a complex thought.

An example of complication is using an "-ize" verb when simpler more direct forms are more appropriate.  Prioritize and conceptualize are a couple of these.

Politics is where buzz words obscure more complex and nuanced thought - fair share, live within means, compromise, job creation, exporting jobs, business-friendly government.  Let's examine some of these.

Fair share - this seems to be a mantra of Democrats meaning the wealthy should pay more taxes.  End of discussion.  But what is fair share?  Is it the total amount of taxes they should pay, is it a greater percentage than they pay now?  I have yet to see a clear definition or justification.

Whatever the definition, some of us cannot pay a "fair share" for the public goods we use.  That is one of the reasons for public education.  Consider that where parents must pay for their children's education, literacy is far less than where there is free public education.  And a whole host of private and public problems accompany illiteracy.

On the other hand, the higher the level of education for everybody, the more wealth is generated.  The CEO of an innovative corporation cannot become wealthy without a large pool of creative people.  What is a "fair share" of taxes for this CEO who benefits so much from the public good of free public education and subsidized state universities?

Compromise - this used to mean negotiation to reach an agreement that would be acceptable to most of those involved.  Now it means taking a very rigid position and expecting the opposition to give up anything that does not conform to that position.

Job creation - almost no public policy can be proposed unless it is going to create jobs.  Sometimes it seems the proponents are willing to spend one million dollars for each job that will supposedly pay $50,000 for ten years.  Conversely, others are willing to forgo one million dollars in taxes to create one job that will pay $30,000 for eight years.

Exporting jobs - this has been going on for a very long time.  English textile mills "took" jobs from Indian weavers.  Cheap power in New England (and stolen plans) took jobs from English textile workers.  Cheaper power from TVA (and cheaper labor) took jobs from New England textile workers.

Sometimes the criticism of exporting jobs is way off the mark.  For some corporations, it is ridiculous to use only U. S. labor around the world.  Wal-Mart is not going to move U. S. citizens to China to staff its stores.  Fed-Ex is not going to move U. S. drivers to India to deliver packages.  Yet, some critics look at the world-wide employment of large corporations, look at the proportion of U. S. workers, and assume that each of those jobs was "exported".

I would say that anyone who uses simple terms to describe complex situations is incapable of dealing with those complex situations.

Ideology, compromise, and the big picture

Today was another publication day for me.  My letter to the editor of the Star Tribune was published as "Political Discourse: You want compromise?  Are you sure about that?"

Ross Douthat also wrote a blog about politicians jockeying for position rather than trying to solve problems: "The Roots of Overheated Rhetoric".

He does take a good look at bigger issues than just who believes what on some "little" issue.  However, I take issue with one of his statements: "a protective government ready to save us from our foolishness when the economy goes bad".

Who is this "we" in "our foolishness"?  Granted, many of "us" overextended ourselves with inducements from many sellers of this and that; a little reflection could have kept our credit card bills small.  On the other hand, credit was extended by "trusted advisors" who few had any reason not to trust.  When the mortgage officer at "Neighborhood Bank and Trust" tells us we can afford the mortgage, few of us have the expertise to ask the right questions.  And when "Oversize Bank and Trust" of Wall Street tells Neighborhood Bank and Trust that it will buy Neighborhood's mortgages, Neighborhood feels it can and should sell as many mortgages as it possible.  The whole problem was out of "our" hands.

Well, maybe not completely.  Enough of us believed the rhetoric about "getting the government out of the way", not realizing less government oversight meant less corporate oversight of the long-term effects of its short-term thinking.

More on the compromise with Flat Earthers

When I wrote my out-of-Focus coffee friend about the compromise with Flat Earthers, he responded that Mt. Everest was one of the corners of the cube.

Compromise reached with flat earthers

The International Mediation Council today announced that a compromise had been reached between the Flat Earth Society and the Global Society of Astronomers. Both sides agreed that the world is a cube.

The Duluth Troubled Views wrote today that a crook and a victim quickly reached a compromise. Crook: "You owe me $100!" Victim: "I owe you nothing!" Crook: "OK, we'll compromise; you owe me $50."

These were inspired by the headline in today's Star Tribune: "[Sen.] Klobuchar: Aiming for the Middle Ground". Sometimes, there is no reasonable middle ground between those who want to do absolutely nothing and those who want to do everything at once, or between those who are completely wrong and those who have incomplete data on something.