Resurgent religion

I was listening to the news yesterday and it seems that Pope Benedict got an enormous, screaming, fainting reception in Mexico.  Mexico is an interesting nation-state.  When they won their independence from Spain, the new government was so adamant about establishing their sole rule and monopoly on power that they basically kicked the Roman Catholic Church to the curb.  Mexico remains a deeply Catholic nation, yet you can’t get married in a church in Mexico.  You have to go to the town hall, to be married by a secular government official.

So after almost 200 years of the Mexican government waging war on the Church, what’s up with people lining the Pope’s route to town, ten deep, for 21 miles?  We could look to the collapse of the Soviet Union for a similar phenomenon: when the secular, anti-religious government collapsed after 70 years of repressing every vestige of religion, the Church sprang from the ground like the spring lilies.  And this brings to mind the resurgence of religion in America (and elsewhere, the MidEast being a blinking, honking, flashing example).

Disclaimer: I am not religious.  I am a confirmed Deist.  I believe absolutely in the existence of the Creator, but I’m not a member of any religious denomination.  I do appreciate religion as a tremendously valuable social structure.

Here’s what I think about the resurgence of religion.  The secular power of the nation-state is failing, very visibly.  There are a handful of nation-states that aren’t train-wrecks: Switzerland, Singapore, hmmmmmm, that’s about it.  As people in Mexico come to realize that their government is incapable of solving the problems of that long suffering nation, and as Benedict speaks out about narco-violence, the people are turning back to the Church for comfort, if not solutions.

The people of Russia did the same thing, as are the people of the MidEast, and of America.  And Europe won’t be far behind, I’ll bet a nickel on that.  As the Europeans come to realize that, except for a few nations (all of which still have church taxes), they’re all going to be in for hard times, the trend toward secularism will wane as the power and influence of the Church waxes.  Their secular governments will be powerless to restore shattered dreams, but the Church will be there … as it’s always been there … to offer equality and comfort and community to all.  While the super-rich run things to their own benefit, the rest of us take comfort knowing that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter Heaven.

I don’t assign any value judgment to this turn of events.  I simply note that it’s occurring, and why.  I trust that intelligent, well-informed citizens will come to the right conclusions.  Meanwhile, I’m gonna’ head out back, stare at the sky, admire the Master Watchmaker’s handiwork, and relish the entire situation.

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America.

Trayvon Martin & stereotyping

By now, I’m sure that everyone has head the story of Trayvon Martin: an innocent 17 year old African-American kid who was shot and killed by an armed, somewhat off-kilter “Community Watch” self-styled ‘captain’.  From the information in the public domain right now, today, it appears that a crime took place and and that Zimmerman made the right decision in hiring a lawyer.  Regardless of what happened or how, I can barely imagine the tragedy it is for parents to lose their son, especially to what seems senseless violence.  No legal argument can make that pain go away.

My only current opinion on this is that it’s important to let the justice system do its job.  We’ve had too many cases of crimes being “tried in the press”.  A rush to judgment isn’t going to do anyone any good.  Steady, forceful pressure for a thorough investigation is what this situation calls for.  Once we know what happened, there will be a time for either satisfaction or outrage.

That’s all I can say directly about the Trayvon Martin tragedy.  I happen to think there’s more to this story.  A well known commentator offered the opinion that the way Trayvon was dressed (hoodie) contributed to his demise.  That opinion met with general outrage, and a well heeled protest by the Miami Heat basketball team.  Perhaps that outrage was justified, perhaps not.  But even that isn’t the real point.

The real point is understanding and accepting who we are as human beings.  We stereotype, we all stereotype all the time.  Stereotyping is one of the most powerful survival tools that humans have.  This is how evolution works: traits that are selective for survival become predominant in the population.  Traits that aren’t selective for survival fade and perish from the population.

Adept stereotyping is selective for survival.  No stereotyping, or inept stereotyping, is not selective for survival.  That is why we nearly all do it, and the overwhelming majority of us don’t even realize what we’re doing.  Evolution is an ongoing process, it’s happening to us, all around us.  And being “human” doesn’t give us a free pass on evolution.  We are what we are because of evolution and we’ll become what we’ll become by the same mechanism: evolution.

We take such great pride of species in being humans … “we are all unique!”.  It seems that for some, it’s stereotyping when applied humans in general, or a specific identity group in particular, that’s the real outrage.  As I said, there is adept stereotyping and then there’s inept stereotyping.  Condemning stereotyping in general is a mistake in terms of the science of evolution and anthropology.  If anything, we should be condemning inept stereotyping (typical ignorant human who reflexively dislikes any individual of a given identity group).

I can’t emulate the behaviors of wealthy, fat cat, corrupt bankers without expecting to be stereotyped as a wealthy, fat cat, corrupt banker.  That exact thing happens to me all … the … time online, despite being neither a fat cat banker nor aspiring to be one.  People are going to make perfectly justified judgments to protect themselves from having their savings ripped off.  Adept stereotyping doesn’t stop there.  Protecting one’s personal safety might be the first imperative to adept stereotyping.  Here are some reasonable assumptions that approach the status of facts:  a) young men commit most violent crime, b) violent perpetrators often attempt to conceal their identity, c) more violent crime occurs in the dark away from others than does in the daylight around others.

When confronted by a young man, semi/concealing his identity, especially at night and/or away from other people, it is not automatically wrong to assume a defensive mindset.  What do I personally do in a case like this?  I try to look the young man in the eye.  If he meets my eye, I give him a nod.  If he nods back, I know there’s no threat.  I’ve done this scores of times on waterfronts all over the world, and it’s never failed (I’m here to write about it).

What if I can’t make eye contact, or my nod goes unanswered?  At that point I make sure to know what’s all around me and move so I’m a half step further away.  Maybe this person is perfectly innocent and gentle, but if I’m wrong then it’s only me who would pay the price.  So I exercise my option of heightened alertness and a bit of space for maneuver and evasion.

A young man presenting in a way associated with violent crime (and I have no idea whether Trayvon Martin did anything of the kind) does not deserve to be shot dead.  But such a young man can certainly expect to be treated with additional caution, if not outright suspicion.  This is simply a piece of cultural wisdom that we seem to have lost.

For goodness sakes, folks, how can we have come so far off the tracks as to think that adept stereotyping is wrong?  Finally, for the Miami Heat: you guys are a very privileged group of folks, physically and financially.  You are exempt from the rules that we average Americans have to play by.  Did you really think about what you were doing with the whole hoodie solidarity photo thing, or was it just reflex (he’s like us, we’re like him)?

Finally, one commentator said that he’d had “the talk” with his son.  I’m sure that for an African-American father that talk is different from “the talk” is for Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, or European fathers.  All responsible fathers have “the talk” with their sons, the content only varies by culture.  I can’t believe that for all ethnicities, part of that talk wouldn’t include a warning about not provoking people and an explanation of the consequences.  I wish that celebrities would give that a thought before they jump into any topic or issue.  There are many examples of thoughtless celebrity intervention, the Heat photo is only the most recent.

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America.

3/19/2012 update, or “Still stuck on the wrong side of this rally”

Important Disclaimer: This information is provided for entertainment purposes only. No sane person would use this information for anything other than a small chuckle or a big laugh. Your investment decisions are your responsibility. But if you want a laugh, keep reading.

So here I sit, still stuck on the wrong side of this stock market rally.  With a position that’s almost 100% defensive (TSP L Income fund), the crumbs of gains are nice, but the banquet of profits I’m leaving on the table are making my days a little sadder than they might otherwise be.  What’s really funny about this is that for the first couple months of the year, I was far more aggressive than the advisory services I subscribe to.  Then, when they got aggressive, I went defensive, so now I’m all crosswise.

Apple is giving me some concern.  I think they’re OK for 1-2 years, after that I expect them to run into trouble.  As heavily as Apple weighs on several of the indexes, that could be a problem for investors like me who are often heavily invested in an S&P 500 index fund.  Maybe Apple will lead the increasingly anticipated correction?  Goodness, I’m really grasping at straws there.

What I’m idling my time doing is waiting for a chance to go to:

L 2020: 80%
C Fund: 10%
S Fund 10%

That would position me to implement my New and Improved Long Term Strategy: 80% L2020 + 20% traded/speculated on what I think is hot.  If I had the courage of my convictions, I’d just do that tomorrow, but I’m a little scaredy cat when it comes to investing real money.  I’ll try to post before making a move, thanks for reading.

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America!

3/13/2012 update

Important Disclaimer: This information is provided for entertainment purposes only. No sane person would use this information for anything other than a small chuckle or a big laugh. Your investment decisions are your responsibility. But if you want a laugh, keep reading.

Caught on the wrong side of a rally … this is what it feels like.  As you may recall, a week or so ago I took a defensive position by going 100% L Income Fund.  The allocation of that fund is around 20% equities, the rest bonds and cash.  By pure dumb luck, I took that position just before that little 1% mini-flash-correction.  And I held, and held, and held, waiting for the real correction.  And now the market has rallied strongly and I’ve been pretty much watching the action.

So what to do when you’re on the wrong side of a rally?  I could wait for a real correction, since I honestly think this is a very healthy market.  Or I could inch back in, maybe go from 20% equities to 30% equities, and then see.  Or I could roll the dice, jump in and hope the boat isn’t just about to go over the falls.

I just don’t know, and I probably won’t know until I click the ‘submit’ button on my next interfund transfer request.  I like this “being a a capitalist thing”, I like it a lot.  Just me and the market, mano a mano.  Right now I’m leaning toward a hedged strategy: any day the market is down try to slightly increase my position in equities.  I say “try” because the TSP, very rightly, only allows two interfund transfers per month.  Where I would like to be at this moment is:  G Fund: 20%  F Fund: 20%  C Fund 30%  S Fund 20%  I Fund 10%.

I have a ways to go to get there.

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America.

3/9/2012 update

Important Disclaimer: This information is provided for entertainment purposes only. No sane person would use this information for anything other than a small chuckle or a big laugh. Your investment decisions are your responsibility. But if you want a laugh, keep reading.

I’m encouraged by the ability of the equity markets to return to an upward trend after taking losses for a few days.  Of course, in any upward trending market the question is whether we’ve gone too far.  The fundamentals seem to say we haven’t.  I was going to go 100% to the L2020 Fund if the market held up until noon Eastern time, but I’m going to wait for Monday instead.  I don’t think that the TSP executes transfer over the weekend, I would need to know that before making a move on Friday.  And regardless, a lot can happen over the weekend.

So for now, I remain L Income Fund: 100%

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America.

2/8/2012 update

Important Disclaimer: This information is provided for entertainment purposes only. No sane person would use this information for anything other than a small chuckle or a big laugh. Your investment decisions are your responsibility. But if you want a laugh, keep reading.

Outlook: I am leaning toward a move to 100% in the L2020 Fund.  As of today, the breakout of the L2020 Fund is:

G Fund: 35.8%
F Fund: 7.45%
C Fund: 30.15%
S Fund: 9.8%
I fund: 16.8%

43% Cash and Bonds, 57% Equities.  I know it’s a very stupid thing to do, but I’ll watch the market up to the “same night” deadline tomorrow.  If the market holds up, I’ll make that move around 8:45.  Yes, very stupid trying to ‘trade’ a TSP account, but they’re our investments so it’s our decision to make.

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America!

3/6/2012 update

Important Disclaimer:  This information is provided for entertainment purposes only.  No sane person would use this information for anything other than a small chuckle or a big laugh.  Your investment decisions are your responsibility.  But if you want a laugh, keep reading.

Yesterday I was in a hurry and didn’t get this post up before 9AM Pacific time (TSP “that evening” trading deadline), but here’s what I did:

TSP L Income Fund: 100%

Commentary:  If you don’t know what the L Income Fund is, read here.  This fund is a member of the TSP’s “Lifecycle Funds”.  My strategy moving forward will be to try to use intermediate (monthly) conditions to select the appropriate Lifecycle Fund.  If I expect a declining market, I’ll use the most conservative Income Fund.  If I see a market bottom and expect a market advance, my money will be in the 2030 fund.  If I’m generally optimistic, but unconvinced, then I’ll be in the 2020 Fund.  According to the fund’s mission statement, that’s the fund I  should be in a “buy and hold” posture on.

Outlook: Europe and China continue to weigh.

Leaning: Using the S&P as my overall gauge, I’ll wait for the market to move down enough to create a bargain, or up enough to create confidence.  I think the state of the economy justifies an S&P of well over 1400.

YTD:  4.2% (I’m not completely sure that I’m doing that number right.  The method I’ll use from now on is ((Today – NewYear)/NewYear).

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America!

The real issue behind the birth control squabble

It’s ridiculous to be arguing about open access to contraception and legal abortion.  They have been the law of the land for decades.  Why would anyone even try to argue this point?  As usual, when people make ridiculous arguments, it’s likely that there’s some unstated and unexamined core issue at stake.

Nobody should ever be forced to do or use something they morally disagree with, but come on.  We live in a society where we are all responsible for pulling on the same line.  We pay income taxes to fund all sorts of things we may, in detail, disagree with.  If something is morally objectionable, it’s fair ball to campaign to change the law.  But as long as it’s legal and acceptable to the majority of folks, we don’t get to “opt out”.

Population is power.  From population come workers and warriors, scholars and voters, contributors and advocates.  The Catholic Church has understood this for 2000 years.  Their policy of conversion and reproduction has been phenomenally successful.  The Democratic Party, beginning in the 1930′s, saw the light and began assembling a coalition of the growing demographics, which has given them an almost permanent national voter registration advantage.  The same forces affect nations and cultures:
As here: http://www.globalenvision.org/library/8/1776
And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

There’s nothing either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ with any of this, it’s just the way things are.  Instead of a stupid squabble over birth control, we should be talking about a vision for the future of America in the face of profoundly changing demographics.  Yes, we’ve been through this before, with prior waves of immigrants.  The situations then were different, and you could argue more favorable for immigration, yet the nation still went through wrenching adjustments.  But instead of openly discussing the forces and issues at work, and each side’s vision for the future, they squabble about birth control.

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America.

Nuclear bombs

So one thing I hear from time to time is the challenge, “If it’s OK for Israel to have nuclear bombs, who are we to say that Iran can’t have nuclear bombs?  Why is it OK for us to have nuclear bombs, but it’s not OK for Iran to have nuclear bombs?”  Good question, this deserves an answer.

In normal times, nuclear bombs aren’t very useful.  The US has fought two regional wars (Korea, Viet Nam) where nuclear bombs conceivably might have been militarily useful, yet we never used them.  And the more time goes by, the less likely we are to use nuclear bombs.  So why have them?

There are two reasons to have nuclear bombs.  The first is deterrence, a capability in reserve as a bulwark against “the other guy” using nuclear bombs.  The other possible reason for having nuclear bombs is to use them to accomplish an objective that is beyond the means of the nation’s conventional power.

The world will accept a nuclear power who holds such weapons for purely defensive reasons.  The US has no objectives that we can’t accomplish with conventional power.  Israel and Pakistan and South Africa are in the same situation: they have no objectives that they can’t accomplish with their conventional power.  The only existing nuclear power who may be borderline on this consideration, defense vs offense, is North Korea.  But even North Korea’s stance seems to be defensive in nature, both militarily and psychologically.

Iran is an entirely different story.  There’s a lot of back and forth and clever argumentation over what Ahmadinejad “really meant” in his famous quote about wiping out Israel.  I’ll take the IRIB official translation that he said and meant “wiped off the map”, an interpretation he has never denied.  Iranian conventional power, even maximizing the capability of their terrorist proxies, is nowhere near sufficient to accomplish that goal.  This places Iranian nuclear bombs in the offensive category, and that is unacceptable.

Let me summarize.  No nation with stated goals beyond the capability of their conventional power may be allowed nuclear weapons.  Nuclear weapons are acceptable as deterrence, they are unacceptable where the simple facts indicate a possibility greater than zero that they’ll be used offensively.

And of course, the second “qualification” for nuclear powers is an effective and robust government command and control structure.  One of the worries with nuclear bombs is that the government might lose control of one or more, or that the government caretakers might make their own, unauthorized decisions about using them.   On this count, Pakistan remains a concern, as was South Africa before they voluntarily dismantled their arsenal, and most seriously in the USSR as it fell apart.  Giving Iran their due on the command and control issue, while nowhere near the level of effectiveness and robustness as France, the US, or Israel, the government of Iran is probably competent.

Bottom line: this isn’t some occult conspiracy to deny Iran their rightful nuclear bombs.  This is an issue of controlling nuclear bombs to reduce the likelihood of them ever being used.  If a candidate state has goals that are beyond the capability of their conventional power, then that disqualifies then from possession of nuclear bombs.

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America.

From Eisenhower to Obama

One of the most frequent challenges I receive, from self-identified Progressives, is along the lines of, “Well, how about the 50’s and 60’s, when the tax rate was 90% and the country was prosperous, with a strong and thriving middle class … huh?”

Let’s talk about that.  Under Eisenhower, the marginal income tax rate was 90% and applied to incomes above $400,000 (1960 dollars, around $3,000,000 in today’s dollars).  Today the top marginal rate is 35% and applies to income above about $388,000.  That’s a big difference.  Today’s top rate is much lower, but 1960’s top income bracket was much higher.  But hey, let’s look at what else has changed since Eisenhower was President.

When the top rate was 90%, there was no Medicare, Medicaid, and virtually no federal “social safety net”.  Federal spending on healthcare, education, and welfare totaled 7% of the federal budget.  Defense spending was 55% of the federal budget.  Today, healthcare plus education plus safety net is around 52% of federal spending,  while defense is 19%.

Since Eisenhower, the money taken from some to be given to others has increased from 7% to 52% of the federal budget.  While money spent on the Constitutionally mandated federal responsibility for defense has dropped from 55% to 19% of federal spending.

Should we be spending more money on defense?  Absolutely not, we already spend too much on defense.  What I am saying is that the essential character of federal spending, from Eisenhower to Obama, has changed from distinctly federal Constitutional responsibilities to social services today.  Money taken from some to be given to others.  The numbers tell me that this isn’t a modest problem, it’s past serious.  This invisible and silent transformation of federal government functionality between Eisenhower and Obama is a grave situation, because the people will never vote to cut their own benefits.  Other problems can be fixed, what we face now changes the whole situation.

Okay, so the nature of the federal government and federal spending has changed.  What else?  Under Eisenhower, and Kennedy, and Nixon (who finally ended it) there was universal conscription to military service.  Everyone registered and many were drafted.  It’s possible that the abuses of deferments and exemptions made the end of the draft inevitable.  Maybe the professional military just didn’t want to deal with obstreperous draftees.  Maybe Americans just got sick of being required to serve their country.  Maybe it was all those, and some others, but that’s irrelevant.  The end of universal conscription also changed the essential character of the Nation, between Eisenhower and Obama.

What else has changed, between Eisenhower and Obama?  In 1960, if you bought a car, it was overwhelmingly likely that the car you bought was built entirely by Americans, in America.  Same for TV sets, refrigerators, wrist watches, pots and pans and dishes, and almost everything else you could name.  Germany and Japan and a lot of the rest of the world was barely off the mat, recovering from WWII.  Americans bought products built by American labor, of American materials.  Most of that was for the practical reasons mentioned, but some of it was a lingering fondness and attachment to America that the Greatest Generation was brought up with and held to tenaciously.  So the very core of the source of prosperity, union membership, income equality, and upward mobility has fundamentally changed since Eisenhower was President.

Other things have changed as well, between Eisenhower and Obama.  The last specific I’ll mention is our energy situation.  Under Eisenhower, the US was completely energy independent.  We sold oil to other countries, yet despite that, we were building nuclear power plants.  And we built and built and built, so that 20% of our electrical power now comes from nuclear plants, all of which are over 30 years old.  And now we buy oil by the cubic shipload from countries who don’t even like us, and just might be using the dollars we send them to thwart our own interests.

A lot has changed between Eisenhower and Obama, and the Progressive political movement is one of those things.  If you listen to President Kennedy’s inaugural address, you will hear the words of the last generation of the completely and unashamedly American Progressives.  Today’s Progressives have turned their backs on the entire history of Progressivism in America, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt.  Earlier generations of Progressives genuinely liked America and things American.  Some of today’s Progressives do, as well.  But the voices in the Progressive movement that are by far the loudest, most public, and most dominant, simply don’t like America or much about America.  That has changed between Eisenhower and Obama, as well.

So to anyone who throws down the challenge, “What about those 90% tax rates of the 50’s and 60’s”, this has been my reply.  You may object that none of what I’ve said has anything to do with tax rates, but if you do your head is stuck in the sand.  Because what people are willing to “buy” largely depends on how they feel about the “salesman”.  A significant majority of Americans aren’t buying the demands of a political minority that expects a great deal from America, but has little regard for America.

I wish that the Progressive movement would rediscover its essentially American roots, because every political persuasion requires opposition.  Right now, Progressives have taken themselves out of the game, leaving opposition to Conservatism to conventional Liberals.  Every idea needs worthy opposition.

G’day all, and may God continue to bless America.