October 29, 2004
Faith, Trust and Human Rights
This will be my last post to WatchBlog. I’d like to thank those that set it up and run it, and all of you that have contributed. It’s an excellent way to encourage intelligent discussion between people with different views. Given the acrimony between both sides this fall, I think it’s great that this sort of interchange exists. As a goodbye I’d like to re-visit one final issue: human rights.
In previous postings, I've tried to clarify some issues that are often misunderstood. I've tried to put into simple terms Kerry's position on Iraq, and pointed out that Republicans accusations that he is inconsistent are misleading, as are Red Team interpretations of his "global test". I've pointed out that Kerry's support for a limited response to the situation in Iraq was correct, and Bush's decision for pre-emptive war was wrong---at least, according to the rationales that he put forth at the time. I've pointed out that even if you believe his decision to go to war was correct, the execution of the war was flawed, in that it allowed dangerous and potentially dangerous materials to fall into the hands of terrorists---the very thing that it was supposed to prevent. According to its stated motivations - protecting us from Iraqi WMD falling into the hands of al Qaeda - the war is a failure, anyway you look at it.
I've also pointed out many of the most persuasive arguments put forth (on either side) are based on emotion, not reality. This ties in to a recent post by AP titled Faith-Based Reality, and Bush's latest campaign push:
This campaign boils down to a matter of trust: Who has earned the trust of the American people? Who do they believe in?
And indeed - it does boil down to trust. It's not a question of what Bush has accomplished, or plans to accomplish: it's a question of whether you choose to accept his reasons for failure to accomplish. Bush's economic numbers are weak; but he asks us to trust him that they are the fault of the previous admininstration, and they would have been worse if not for his tax cuts. Bush's war is expensive, fatal to so far over 1000 servicemen, and was initiated for reasons that were false; but he asks us to trust him that it was a reasonable mistake, not panic, not deliberate manipulation. Bush failed to prevent 9/11, but asks us to trust him that he did all he could to stop terrorism, starting from the moment he assumed office.
And in a way it's not unreasonable. Nobody can always be right. But when I put your trust in someone, I do expect them to always do right - to make choices that I consider to be the right thing to do, given the information available at the time. Part of that is being smart, an insightful. Part of that is having a clear compass - having moral values that match mine.
I cannot trust Bush. If I had to pick one reason, one litmus test for his character, it would be his actions on human rights. Bush and his colleagues started down a slippery slope of weakening existing practises in early 2002, which led eventually to widespread abuse and the Abu Ghraib fiasco. But it's not over. Even after the Abu Ghraib scandal, a practise persists of having suspected terrorists "disappear". Rumours of this were finally confirmed after some leading Senators, including McCain, pursued the matter, and discovered that the CIA moved several prisoners out of Iraq in the past six months, to some undisclosed location, "without notification to the International Red Cross, congressional oversight committees, the Defense Department or CIA investigators". This not the action of a few rogue elements: we know that Rumsfeld approved one such "disappearance" - and this was widely publicized, and there was no public rebuke from above.
I find it upsetting that this sort of thing has continued, despite public scandal, and continued in secrecy, long after the administration publically stated that the "Geneva Convention applied to all prisoners held in Iraq".
I could talk about protecting American POWs in wartime, propaganda for terrorists, and so on. I could go into legal detail of whether the existing international law allows classifying prisoners as "illegal combatants" without an independent judicial mechanism. You could go on about military necessity (but if it's necessary, can't you find a judge to agree with that?) and how much worse things were under Saddam Hussein. But the bottom line is: I think it's just plain wrong.
When the US is in charge, as it is now in Iraq, there should be no cases of prisoners "disappearing", no shadowy "ghost detainees" that are hidden from the Red Cross, no covert prisons run away from prying eyes. If we're there for any legitimate reason, it's to spread democracy, and this is not what democracy is about. We cannot defend American values for terrorists by abandoning belief in the value of individual human life.
And I find it pretty hard to trust anyone that thinks otherwise.
Farewell all, Happy Halloween, and good luck on November 2. May the
best man win! --- and that's John Kerry, by the way :-)
Posted by William Cohen at October 29, 2004 03:34 PM
A Simple Lesson in Economics
This is an economics lesson for all and well worth the read.
Sometimes we hear Politicians exclaim: “It’s just a tax cut for the rich!”,
and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just
in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following
will help. Please share this with your friends as you see fit.
A Simple Lesson on Tax Cuts…
Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every
day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If
they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth would pay $59. because he is the richest.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy
with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
“Since you are all good customers”, he said, “I am going to reduce the cost
of your daily meal by $20.
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes.
That meant, the first four men were unaffected, they would still pay zero,
and eat for free. But what about the other six?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his
‘fair share’? The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But
if they subtracted that amount from everybody’s share, then the fifth man
and the sixth man would each end up being ‘PAID’ to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts
each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing, a 100% savings.
The sixth now paid $2. instead of $3, for a 33% savings.
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 for a savings of 28%.
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12, for a savings of 25%.
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18, for a savings of 22%.
And the tenth now paid $50 instead of $59, or a savings of 15%.
Each of the 6 were better off than before, and the first four continued to
eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man “but he got $9!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too.
It’s unfair that he got nine times more than me!”
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $ 9. back when
I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men then
surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down
and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for
even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots
of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
David R. Kamerschen, PHD
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia — Harley.
Posted by: peter leo at October 29, 2004 05:53 PMpeter leo, just goes to show how simple minded a Ph.D. can be. Now if he had thrown the national debt and deficits and 340 Billion in interest on that debt for which Americans get nothing back for from the waiter, he might have demonstrated that he learned something from his Economics dissertation. But this simple minded example the good Dr. wants to share only makes me question whether he bought the sheepskin from some diploma factory or he is a sheepskin in disguise.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 29, 2004 06:43 PMWilliam Cohen, a fine article and well spoken and reasoned. Thanks for your contributions to WatchBlog.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 29, 2004 06:45 PMEloquent article, William. Thank you.
David, you beat me to it! I was ready to apply for my PHD, because incredibly enough, I understand percentages! And I was prepared to have some fun with Peter Leo’s article, with an example of the cost of health care and the night the men suffered food poisoning… And the obvious point that in real life, not all men start from the same place (in economic terms), nor do they go to the same restaurant, nor do receive the same meal, nor do they consume equal amounts (of resources).
University of George, eh? So, can I have my PHD, and be a professor too? Come on now, I want the degree and the chair, or else- there are plenty of good schools Europe and the Caribbean, you now…
William, must you go? I’ll probably quit right after Bush’s concession speech, which will no doubt be snippy. Can’t you wait until the election, the raison d’etre of this blog, has passed?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 29, 2004 07:42 PMWell said, William. I couldn’t agree more. But couldn’t you stick around awhile longer?
Hey David,
Will Watchblog continue, or is Election Day the End?
William, I will miss your posts. They were always inciteful and intelligent. I have bookmarked your blog, however.
Posted by: Greg at October 29, 2004 08:30 PMI mean insightful, of course. I KEEP doing that.
Posted by: Greg at October 29, 2004 08:33 PMThe problem is peter leo that reality is different from your fantasy. The meal always costs $80, the poorest have to dig in the garbage for scraps, the middle class expend all their income just to eat and the wealthy buy a Rolls to get back and forth while ignoring that the poor are starving and the middle class work for him and actually are the people that earn his “extra cash” which he siphons off and blows on a whore later that night.
That’s actually the way the tax system works.
Posted by: Greg at October 29, 2004 08:41 PMBased on some of the comments here, it seems that some of you really seem to feel that anyone with a formal education is truly an idiot. That is a shame to be both so envious and judgmental at the same time. Not all PhDs are idiots; not all of those without PhDs are intelligent. By the way, Dr. David R. Kamerschen denies that he is the author of A Simple Lesson in Economics, nor does he know who wrote it.
Troy, you don’t make any sense. David doubted that a real PhD could have written that text. It looks like he was right, based on your link. So who ever suggested “that anyone with a formal education is truly an idiot”?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 29, 2004 10:03 PMWilliam,
I would also like to join my WatchBlog colleagues and commend you for your brief, but significant contribution as another articulate Blue Column contributor.
Good luck!
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at October 30, 2004 03:05 AMWill Watchblog continue after the election? I hope it does. While the election may be over on Nov. 2, public policies will continue. It would be nice to still have this forum for these discussions.
Christopher,
I went back and looked at the message to which you referred. I think you are misreading it. I was also referring to other messages, some of which are in other threads, but the “offending parties” will still see it here.
Posted by: Troy at October 30, 2004 11:05 AMTroy, I’ve only heard conservatives denigrating the academic achievements of the educated elite.
William, I’m going to miss your posts here. This is a good one. Let’s spice it up: I’m thinking of another superpower leader who doctored photos, gave police the right to secretly detain citizens, and condoned torture…
AP’s right, although Troy never actually said that it was liberals who were the perpetrators of such anti-intellectualism, unless by “here” he meant the Blue Column and not WatchBlog in general.
But yeah, I’ve read thousands of Republican critiques of “intellectual elites” and “over-educated” policymaking, but never in my life have I heard a liberal critique or distrust of someone just for being highly educated.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 30, 2004 05:44 PM
