California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

America Has an Employment Problem, Not an Unemployment Problem

by John Lawrence

Wherever you look from air traffic controllers to fruit pickers to caregivers to teachers to police, there are not enough workers. That is why unemployment is so low - at 3.4%. The Health Services, Professional and Business Services, Trade, and Accommodation and Food Services industries have the highest numbers of job openings. The question is why there is a shortage of workers and what to do about it.The pandemic caused a major disruption in America’s labor force—something many have referred to as The Great Resignation. In 2022, more than 50 million workers quit their jobs, many of whom were in search of an improved work-life balance and flexibility, increased compensation, and a strong company culture. But a closer look at what has happened to the labor force can be better described as ‘The Great Reshuffle’ because hiring rates have outpaced quit rates since November of 2020. So, many workers are quitting their jobs—but many are getting re-hired elsewhere. In a game of musical chairs workers are seeking and getting better jobs, leaving high stress professions like nursing and teaching and getting paid more to do other things.

So America basically has a shortage of "essential workers," workers who do necessary work for traditionally low pay. America has developed so many ways to make money doing inessential work at higher pay so why should anyone who doesn't have to work in an essential job? There are two ways. 1) Pay more for essential work and 2) increase legal immigration because increasingly immigrants are doing the work that Americans who have been Americans longer don't want to do. The worker shortage has empowered workers. They are so to speak in the catbird seat. They are demanding more pay, shorter hours, better working conditions. This is all well and good, but, as the pandemic showed, essential work is necessary for people to live while so many other forms of work, while more lucrative, could disappear tomorrow without affecting much most Americans' quality of life. For instance, Facebook had 86,482 full-time employees as of December 2022, up from just 150 people in 2006. If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, nothing essential to life would be lost in my opinion. The same is true for other social media like Tik Tok. In fact considering the effects social media has had on the population, the world might be better off if all social media disappeared tomorrow. Then those workers would be available for more essential jobs.

If the advertising industry disappeared tomorrow, the world might be better off. For instance, I can find anything I might be interested in buying on Amazon. I don't need to be pounded on by TV commercials to be told what I should want or what I should need. In particualar, Facebook makes all its considerable revenues from advertising. It does not manufacture a product essential to life or any product at all. People are getting smart that there are cushier, safer jobs with better work-life balance than essential jobs. Caregivers like Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) are low paid but essential jobs. Anyone who has had a loved one in the hospital for any length of time realizes how essential they are. They do the dirty work like changing patients diapers and cleaning up when they haven't got to the patients' bedsides in time to prevent a tragedy. Nurses and teachers are overworked considering the nurse/patient ratio and the teacher/student ratio. Much essential work is done by non college graduates and, therefore, does not merit the esteem that college graduates' jobs garner. Nevertheless, they are more important jobs in an essential sense, than many jobs that require a college education. When you need a plumber, you will not usually be hiring a college graduate.

About half of Americans who lost their job during the pandemic and are still not working say they are not willing to take jobs that do not offer the opportunity for remote work. However, many essential jobs can't be done remotely. They are "hands on." It is about time that America values its essential workers and makes a distinction between what's essential and what is inessential. It's a question, to some extent, of values, of what kinds of work are valued. This is where unions come in. America cannot function without essential workers. Yet the only way they can get the pay and benefits they deserve is to unionize and withdraw their workforce if necessary to get what they deserve. For sure, they won't get a better paying job otherwise unless they quit and go to work for Facebook.

Off the Top of My Head

The Biden Policy in Ukraine Is Unraveling

by John Lawrence

President Biden's original policy in the Ukraine war included the notion that the war would be confined to Ukraine's physical territory and not lead to a wider war. The west would supply Ukraine with weapons, and Ukraine would have a fighting chance of pushing Russia out of their territory. The whole strategy was predicated on the goal of preventing World War III. Now that policy is failing due to the fact that the west has gradually increased the firepower and sophistication of the weapons supplied to Ukraine, and also the fact that Ukraine is starting to attack inside Russia. The war is widening and intensifying. Ukraine, meanwhile, is in no mood to try and negotiate a settlement to the war, and NATO doesn't seem to be in any mood to force them to negotiate. So the war is escalating. Zelensky never misses a chance to demand more and more sophisticated weapons from the west. Biden and other western leaders continue to support his rhetoric that Ukraine can win the war. It's all about winning or losing, not about a negotiated peace.

So what went wrong, and how could this war get so out of hand? First, it is undisputed that Russia invaded Ukraine unprovokedly. However, there were negotiations and events leading up to the invasion which might have resolved issues which would have prevented the invasion in the first place. On Dec. 17 2021, Russia presented security demands including that NATO pull back troops and weapons from eastern Europe and bar Ukraine from ever joining. Russia had been upset for years due to the fact that, after the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO had marched resolutely eastward despite assurances to the contrary. I had written earlier:

"NATO expanded during the 1990s largely due to the imprecations of President Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even though President Gorbachev had been promised that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" as part of a deal to reunify Germany after the Cold War.

Politifact reported:

After explaining why the U.S. wanted the reunited Germany to stay within the framework of NATO, Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

"I put the following question to (Gorbachev)," Baker recounted in a letter to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. "‘Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift 1 inch eastward from its present position?’"

Those comments, along with similar remarks from Baker’s European allies, like Genscher and Kohl, were part of what researchers at George Washington University’s National Security Archive called a "cascade of assurances" offered to the Soviets.

But Baker and other officials involved in the events have denied that the conversation ever turned on expanding NATO to other countries. 

So basically Gorbachev was sold a bill of goods that, if he consented to the reunification of Germany and with Germany as a NATO member, that NATO would not expand eastwards. However, "given assurances" is not the same as "legal and binding". Therefore, in July 1997, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (where Albright was born) were formally invited to join NATO."

Ever since Russian Czar Peter the Great attempted to "westernize" Russia, there has been a dicey relationship between Russia and Europe, each eyeing the other warily. Culturally, in terms of literature, dance, music and athletics, Russia is a western nation. Even Putin expressed interest in being part of the west. George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join NATO?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join NATO, they apply to join NATO.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

The account chimes with what Putin told the late David Frost in a BBC interview shortly before he was first inaugurated as Russian president more than 21 years ago. Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining NATO “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

He told Frost it was hard for him to visualise NATO as an enemy. “Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world.”

However, Putin was rebuffed. He was further slighted when his demands that Ukraine not be considered for NATO membership before the war were, probably in his mind, disrespected. The whole Ukraine war could have been prevented perhaps by massaging sufficiently Putin's bruised ego - in other words intelligent diplomacy. In his mind it seems he and Russia were not properly respected nor were their interests properly taken into account. With two individuals, one of whom looks down on the other, more often than not a fight can ensue. It's the same between two nations. Mutual respect is important in any negotiation. Clearly, Putin did not feel that that was the case in negotiations before the war.

So now there is cross border fighting between Ukraine and Russia. This is clearly an escalation of the war and diminishes Biden's attempts of containing the war to Ukraine and preventing a larger conflict including perhaps World War III. The introductin of more sophisticated western weapons into Ukraine including offensive capabilities and more bellicose rhetoric on the part of Ukraine, no matter how justified, does not presage a good outcome for this complex situation. Putin and Russia could have perhaps been assuaged before the war by placing Ukraine's NATO membership on hold for a period of years, but Biden's insistence that any nation can apply and get NATO membership clearly was a non-starter for Putin. At this point the only alternative to escalation of the war and possibly a nuclear Armageddon, is a negotiated peace, something that Zelensky is disinclined to do and something that Biden is disinclined from telling him to do.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden: The Least Appreciated Great President in American History

by John Lawrence

President Biden has gotten more real work done for the American people than any President with the exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt. So why is his job approval rating so low - just 39%? Chalk it up to the fickleness of the American people. They don't know a great President when they see one. Biden has been able to do so much with much narrower margins in Congress than FDR had in all his terms as President. In fact Roosevelt had Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate from 1933 until his death in 1945, and in those days the filibuster was a speaking filibuster that delayed but didn't terminate legislation and so was of little consequence compared to the fact that today 60 Senators are required to pass any bill.

So what are some of Biden's accomplishments? The Inflation Reduction Act is a historic legislative achievement that lowers costs for families, combats the climate crisis, reduces the deficit, and finally makes the largest corporations pay their fair share. For the first time, Medicare is able to negotiate the price of certain high-cost drugs, a month’s supply of insulin for seniors is capped at $35, Medicare beneficiaries pay $0 out of pocket for recommended adult vaccines, and seniors’ out of pocket expenses at the pharmacy will be capped at $2,000 a year. Historically low unemployment at 3.5%. A manufacturing boom is occurring. Companies have announced nearly $300 billion in manufacturing investments in the United States. These investments are ensuring the technologies of the future are made in America, and bringing back supply chains from overseas. And they are creating good-paying jobs, including union jobs and jobs that don’t require a four-year degree. As part of the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, the Department of Commerce is overseeing $50 billion to revitalize the U.S. semiconductor industry, including $39 billion in semiconductor incentives. The first funding opportunity seeks applications for projects to construct, expand, or modernize commercial facilities for the production of leading-edge, current-generation, and mature-node semiconductors. This includes both front-end wafer fabrication and back-end packaging. The Department will also be releasing a funding opportunity for semiconductor materials and equipment facilities in the late spring, and one for research and development facilities in the fall.

President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan to change the course of the pandemic and jump start our economic recovery. The American Rescue Plan funded our successful vaccination campaign, safely re-opened schools for in-person learning, helped 200,000 child care providers keep their doors open, and delivered relief to American families. Biden forged a consensus and got the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed – a once-in-a-generation investment in our nation’s infrastructure. We are rebuilding our roads, bridges, ports, and airports, upgrading public transit and rail systems, replacing lead pipes to provide clean water, cleaning up pollution, providing affordable high-speed internet to every family in America, delivering cheaper and cleaner energy to households and businesses, and creating good-paying jobs – including union jobs, and jobs that don’t require a four-year degree.

President Biden signed into law the PACT Act – the most significant expansion of benefits and services for toxic exposed veterans in more than 30 years. This law also enables the Department of Veterans Affairs to move more quickly in the future to determine if illnesses are related to military service, and it offers critical support to survivors who were harmed by exposures. And, the law authorized 31 new clinical sites and provides VA several tools and resources to ensure effective implementation of the law. The Biden Administration announced debt relief of up to $20,000 for Americans earning less than $125,000 per year who had Pell Grants in college, and up to $10,000 for all other borrowers below that income threshold. More than 40 million borrowers stand to benefit from this action, and about 20 million would see their debt entirely wiped out - and nearly 90% of this relief will go to borrowers earning less than $75,000 per year. In early 2023, the Biden-Harris Administration announced a plan to provide millions of borrowers with more affordable monthly student loan payments through changes to income-driven repayment plans.

The U.S. is positioned to achieve our ambitious climate goals of cutting our emissions in half by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. The President has taken executive action and signed legislation to develop clean energy at home, accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles, and reduce pollution that endangers overburdened communities. And, the President is lowering energy costs for families, creating good paying jobs, and ensuring America leads the global clean energy economy. The President also protected more lands and waters in his first year than any President since John F. Kennedy. President Biden took action to lower the cost of health care for millions of Americans. Right now, four out of five people who sign up for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act can find health care coverage for $10 a month or less and millions of Americans on Obamacare are saving an average of $800 a year. Since he took office, there has been a combined 50 percent increase in enrollment in states that use HealthCare.gov and the nation’s uninsured rate is historically low at 8 percent. Over 16 million Americans signed up for quality, affordable health coverage, the highest number ever produced in an open enrollment period.

So what are Biden's most significant achievements? In my opinion infrastructure and climate action lead the way. These areas have been neglected too long, and the Biden initiatives will just barely make amends. In and of themselves, they are probably insufficient, but they are a good start, a start that has been delayed too long. Changing the narrative on taxation, I think, is a major accomplishment. Making it clear that a tax bill does not have to apply to everyone. By not raising taxes on anyone making less than $400,000, an oft repeated phrase, the narrative has been changed from "tax and spend" to "tax the rich and spend on helping the poor and middle class". Deficit reduction doesn't mean necessarily to stop spending on social programs as it means getting more money into government coffers by taxing the rich. Inequality is out of control; taxing the rich ameliorates this situation. What Biden did to get us through the COVID crisis is remarkable. It could have been an economic disaster for everyone; it wasn't. Student debt relief was a great achievement although it is still not clear how that will play out in the courts.

The American people by and large don't appreciate all that Biden has done compared to what any Republican administration would have done. Clearly, Democrats are on the side of rationality and helping the American people. Republicans are on the side of winning at all costs and helping the rich. They don't give a damn about helping the American people especially the middle class and the poor. The Republican mantra of reducing the deficit and the debt would have you believe that it can only be done in one way, that is by reducing spending. No, it can also be done by taxing the rich which would also reduce inequality. But this is all the Republicans have, that and the discredited policy of tax breaks for the rich that have done little to "trickle down" and have greatly contributed to the national debt. Enhancement of Obama's landmark health care legislation is another major achievement although Obama deserves much of the credit. It's a testimony of what the Democratic party is able to achieve for the country. The fact that Biden accomplished so much in a bipartisan way is something few other politicians could have hoped to accomplish especially in the political environment that exists today.

My criticism of Biden has to do with the Ukraine war. On the one hand he has prevented it from becoming a world war as of yet. However, in the negotiations preceding the war, I believe more could have been done to prevent the war in the first place. By not acknowledging or being sensitive to Russia's concerns about the encroachment of NATO on its borders which started during the Clinton administration and was hastened by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Biden and other diplomats missed an opportunity to defuse the crisis. Their policy was a de facto attempt to bully Russia into accepting the fact that Ukraine would also become part of NATO. Now the US is entrenched in a policy of Ukraine "winning" and Russia "losing" instead of a policy of a negotiated settlement to end the war, a negotiated settlement which could have been had before the war even started IMHO, for instance, by delaying Ukraine's admission to NATO for a period of time during which Russia's security concerns might have been addressed. In effect Ukraine has become a vassal state of the US instead of its historic situation of being a vassal state of Russia.

Off the Top of My Head

San Diego On the Way to Solving Homeless Problem

by John Lawrence

With a combination of safe sleeping and safe parking areas and also converting motel rooms into single occupancy units (SROs), San Diego is heading in the right direction for solving the homeless situation. This is combined with an ordinance that prohibits sleeping in public areas including sidewalks. Finally, a workable solution that gets the homeless off the streets, provides them with some amenities including sanitation facilities and makes the streets and city sidewalks safe for pedestrians again. As a tourist destination San Diego can't afford the spectacle of back to back tents crowding city sidewalks, and the provision of amenities in safe sleeping areas or city sponsored SROs makes the homeless at least somewhat better off than they are without any amenities on public sidewalks. The San Diego Union reported:

The properties being considered include three hotels and one apartment building.

One of the hotels is a 62-unit Ramada Inn on Midway Drive, which the Housing Commission agreed to pursue at its May 12 meeting when it unanimously agreed to apply for $18 million in Project Homekey funding. The estimated purchase price would be $11.6 million, equating to about $182,000 a unit, but adding kitchenettes and other upgrades would increase the overall cost to $29.5 million, or $469,000 a unit.

The city also is submitting a joint $4 million application with Wakeland Housing and Development Corp. to purchase a vacant 13-unit apartment building in Ocean Beach. Purchasing the building would cost $4.5 million, but rehabilitation expenses would increase the cost to $6.8 million, bringing the per-unit cost to $525,000.

The other two properties are a 107-unit Extended Stay America Hotel on Murphy Canyon Road for $40.7 million and a 140-unit Extended Stay America Hotel on Mission Valley Road for $52 million.

Essentially the city is taking the responsibility for providing public housing, something that was abandoned during the Reagan administration. The most dramatic cut in domestic spending during the Reagan years was for low-income housing subsidies. Reagan appointed a housing task force dominated by politically connected developers, landlords and bankers. In 1982 the task force released a report that called for “free and deregulated” markets as an alternative to government assistance – advice Reagan followed. In his first year in office Reagan halved the budget for public housing and Section 8 to about $17.5 billion. And for the next few years he sought to eliminate federal housing assistance to the poor altogether.

Public housing was stigmatized due to failed projects like Cabrini-Green. Cabrini–Green was home to 15,000 people, mostly living in mid- and high-rise apartment buildings. Crime and neglect created hostile living conditions for many residents, and "Cabrini–Green" became a metonym for problems associated with public housing in the United States. Now cities like San Diego are forced to take up the fallen banner for public housing under the metonym of  "housing the homeless". The state of California, however, is providing most of the funding.

Other cities have had no problem in providing low cost rental housing. Take Vienna for example, a city which has largely solved the worldwide crisis of soaring rents:

Experts refer to Vienna’s Gemeindebauten as “social housing,” a phrase that captures how the city’s public housing and other limited-profit housing are a widely shared social benefit: The Gemeindebauten welcome the middle class, not just the poor. In Vienna, a whopping 80 percent of residents qualify for public housing, and once you have a contract, it never expires, even if you get richer. Housing experts believe that this approach leads to greater economic diversity within public housing — and better outcomes for the people living in it.

People living in Vienna's social housing pay as little as 3% of their monthly salaries on rent. To boot the availability of low cost public housing keeps costs in the private housing market down.

In 2015, before they bought an apartment on the private market, the Schachingers were making about 80,000 euros ($87,000) a year, roughly the income of the average U.S. household in 2021. Eva and Klaus-Peter paid 26 percent and 29 percent in income tax, respectively, but just 4 percent of their pretax income was going toward rent, which is about what the average American household spends on meals eaten out and half a percentage point less than what the average American spends on “entertainment.” Even if the Schachingers got a new contract today on their unit, their monthly payments would be an estimated 542 euros, or only 8 percent of their income. Vienna’s generous supply of social housing helps keep costs down for everyone: In 2021, Viennese living in private housing spent 26 percent of their post-tax income on rent and energy costs, on average, which is only slightly more than the figure for social-housing residents overall (22 percent). Meanwhile, 49 percent of American renters — 21.6 million people — are cost-burdened, paying landlords more than 30 percent of their pretax income, and the percentage can be even higher in expensive cities. In New York City, the median renter household spends a staggering 36 percent of its pretax income on rent.

The article goes on:

Real estate is a place where money literally grows on tree beams. In the last decade, the typical owner of a single-family home acquired nearly $200,000 in appreciation. “Another word for asset appreciation is inflation,” the academics Lisa Adkins, Melinda Cooper and Martijn Konings write in “The Asset Economy,” “an increase in monetary value without any corresponding change in the nature of the good itself or the conditions of its production that would make it scarcer or justify an increased demand for it.” That inflation is creating a treacherous gulch between the housing haves and have-nots. Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies found that, in 2019, the median net worth of U.S. renters was just 2.5 percent of the median net worth of homeowners: $6,270 versus $254,900. Last year, as higher interest rates slowed home sales and caused prices to plateau (and even soften in some overheated cities), the asking price of the median U.S. rental reached $2,000 a month, a record high, according to Redfin. Inflated rent prices line the pockets of landlords while preventing renters from saving for a down payment and ever getting off the treadmill.

Inflation in asset prices, particularly real estate, is causing more people, especially senior citizens, to fall into homelessness. The recent rise in interest rates which supposedly are aimed at curbing inflation have done nothing to bring the cost of housing down. In San Diego county, real estate is still appreciating in value despite the Fed having raised interest rates to highs not seen in recent years. It has done nothing to stop investors and hedge funds that pay cash. I reported previously:

In a deal with the Conrad Prebys Foundation, Blackstone Group, CEO'd by Steven Schwarzman, is buying 5800 rental units in San Diego. According to the San Diego Union, "The deal makes Blackstone one of the biggest real estate holders in San Diego County. It already owns $4.5 billion in assets here — including Legoland and the Hotel del Coronado. The transaction, which also includes Los Angeles-based investment firm TruAmerica as a partner, is expected to close in the next few weeks. The sale of the apartments was praised by Dan Yates, the president of the Conrad Prebys Foundation, who said the portfolio was assembled by Conrad Prebys — a San Diego developer — himself. Yates said the money from the deal will be used for grants primarily in San Diego."

Investors pay cash t buy up cheap rentals, and, therefore, the rise in interest rates doesn't affect them. They don't pay interest. They then give the tenants a 30 or 60 day notice depending on how long they've lived there. Then they refurbish the apartments and rent them out for twice the previous rent. This is the so-called "gentrification" of San Diego neighborhoods. This is why low cost rental units are disappearing just as all the SROs have disappeared. The policies now taking place by the city and county of San Diego to provide converted hotel housing and safe sleeping and parking areas will counteract this trend of higher and higher rents producing more and more homelessness. It's a policy that needs to be continued and increased. It cannot just be a one-off. Eventually, it will put a damper on the private rental market just as it did in Vienna.

Off the Top of My Head

Government Deficit Spending Is Not the Problem: Lack of Labor and Physical Resources Is

by John Lawrence

Since the US dollar is a sovereign fiat currency, the US can never run out of dollars. The debt ceiling is a totally artificial limit which results in the US hoisting itself on its own pitard. According to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) as espoused in The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton, the only limit on government spending is inflation, and inflation is concerned with the amount and nature of resources available to soak up the money injected into the economic system by the government. According to this theory it makes sense that a lack of labor resources could lead to inflation. Consider that right now there is a shortage of air traffic controllers, and this is leading to a cancellation of flights. If there were more air traffic controllers available, the number of flights could be increased, and more economic activity would ensue. The constraint on flights available because of the lack of air traffic controllers leads to inflation because the money charged for each available flight can be increased. Essentially there is a bidding war for the available flights. If any resource including natural resources like steel and cement is not sufficient for the demand for those resources, then the price of those resources will increase leading to inflation. Right now in the US labor is becoming a scarce resource especially labor of the type necessary in the essential economy, that is the economy of goods and services necessary for the continuation and enhancement of everyday life. As more labor is developed for essentially useless services like the entertainment and social media industries, plumbers, electricians and carpenters are not available for useful services, and, therefore, the cost of those services increases.

Which brings us to Biden's Inflation Reduction Act which allocates $370 billion to rebuild infrastructure and fight climate change. These are all necessary and vital goals, but the question should be asked are the resources for this amount of spending sufficient or will this spending be inflationary. To put it more succinctly is the blue collar labor sufficient for the job? If not, the price of labor will be bid up and the spending will be inflationary. More and more these days students are encouraged to go to college where they end up after graduation working for Wall Street or hedge funds or in the entertainment/social media industry. They are not encouraged to go to vocational technical schools to become carpenters, plumbers and electricians. So they go into industries which are not essential to the real economy. There are shortages of labor for the real economy everywhere we look. In order to overcome these shortages, it would be necessary to step up legal immigration since immigrants by and large fill the jobs Americans don't want to do, and by and large Americans don't want to perform any kind of the less glamorous and remunerative type of labor necessary for production in the real economy. Also outsourcing has made it unnecessary for Americans to perform labor in the real economy. We rely either on immigrants or foreign workers for that.

The next thing is that all this infrastructure rebuilding is going to contribute to global warming as well as reducing it. Rebuilding all the bridges of America will require large amounts of steel and cement. Steel and cement production produce large amounts of carbon dioxide which is emitted into the atmosphere. The International Energy Agency estimates that direct CO² emissions due to crude steel production is approximately 1.4 tons of CO² per ton of steel produced. The cement industry is responsible for about 8% of planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions — far more than global carbon emissions from aviation. If the cement industry were a country, it would be the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, after the U.S. and China. So rebuilding America's infrastructure will contribute to global warming while at the same time attempting to reduce global warming. The fact is that alternatives to steel and cement which do not produce greenhouse gasses are not available. Research on these topics needs to be stepped up. But more research in areas like artificial intelligence, of the kind which has no use in the amelioration of global warming, takes place while productive research into materials to replace steel and cement languishes. Also while more electric vehicles are being produced, the electric energy to power these vehicles is coming from power plants that still use fossil fuels to produce it. One form of greenhouse gas production is being traded for another. Nothing is gained unless all energy generating power plants are using renewable and non carbon dioxide producing fuels.

The problem is that limited resources both in terms of labor and physical resources will hamper efforts both in repairing American infrastructure and building infrastructure which reduces the amount of greenhouse gas production. Stephanie Kelton writes: "That's why MMT recommends a different approach to the federal budgeting process, one that integrates inflation risk into the decision making process so that lawmakers are forced to stop and think about whether they have taken the necessary steps to guard against inflation risk before approving any new spending. MMT would make us safer in this respect because it recognizes that the best defense against inflation is a good offense. We don't want to allow excessive spending to cause inflation and then fight inflation after it happens. We want agencies like the CBO helping to evaluate new legislation for potential inflation risk before Congress commits to funding new programs so that the risks can be mitigated preemptively. At its core  MMT is about replacing an artificial (revenue) constraint with a real (inflation) restraint." The artificial revenue constraint is the debt ceiling!

In the above passage the words "inflation risk" could also be replaced with "greenhouse gas emission risk." The CBO should evaluate both kinds of risks. So as the economy becomes more electrified in terms of electric cars and buildings, we need to think about the fact that the electricity generated by these increased demands needs to come from non carbon dioxide emitting sources. Also substitutes must be found quickly - in other words research needs to be stepped up - to find substitutes for steel and cement. To boot, non polluting energy sources must be found for ships and planes. Both human and physical natural resources must be taken into account. Have all these things been thought through?

Off the Top of My Head

Biden's Changing The Asylum Law Without Congress' Help

by John Lawrence

The asylum law in effect says that any alien who enters the US legally or illegally may apply for asylum. This incentivizes aliens to enter illegally, and, if caught, to simply request asylum. Since they would have to go before a court to determine if they should get asylum and the court is backed up for years, entering illegally and requesting asylum is a guarantee of at least currently five years in the US during which time they could attempt to remain hidden and not show up at court. The reality is that only about 40% of asylum seekers that show up for their court date actually get asylum. The rest are deported. According to U.S. and international law, a claim of persecution must be made based on one of five “protected grounds”: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Poverty, scarce economic opportunities, displacement caused by natural disasters or a desire to reunite with family are not grounds for asylum under U.S. law. Here's the actual law:

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

In order to dissuade asylum seekers from just showing up in a disorderly fashion en masse at the southern border, the Biden administration has been setting up a system to encourage people to apply for asylum in an orderly manner. This includes applying at a port of entry or applying from a country in south or central America. Also,they are disincentivized from coming across the border illegally because, if they do, they are ineligible for asylum for 5 years. Here's the new rule:

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are issuing a final rule in anticipation of a potential surge of migration at the southwest border (“SWB”) of the United States following the termination of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (“CDC”) public health Order. The rule encourages migrants to avail themselves of lawful, safe, and orderly pathways into the United States, or otherwise to seek asylum or other protection in another country through which they travel, thereby reducing reliance on human smuggling networks that exploit migrants for financial gain. The rule does so by introducing a rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility for certain noncitizens who neither avail themselves of a lawful, safe, and orderly pathway to the United States nor seek asylum or other protection in a country through which they travel. In the absence of such a measure, which would apply only to those who enter at the southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders during a limited, specified date range, the number of migrants expected to travel without authorization to the United States would be expected to increase significantly, to a level that risks undermining the Departments’ continued ability to safely, effectively, and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law, including the asylum system, in the face of exceptionally challenging circumstances. Coupled with an expansion of lawful, safe, and orderly pathways into the United States, the Departments expect the rule to lead to a reduction in the number of migrants who seek to cross the SWB without authorization to enter, thereby reducing the reliance by migrants on dangerous human smuggling networks, protecting against extreme overcrowding in border facilities, and helping to ensure that the processing of migrants seeking protection in the United States is done in an effective, humane, and efficient manner. In addition, the Departments are requesting comment on whether applicability of the rebuttable presumption should be extended to noncitizens who enter the United States without documents sufficient for lawful admission during the same temporary time period at a maritime border.

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective on May 11, 2023.

This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/16/2023 and available online at federalregister.gov/d/2023-10146, and on govinfo.gov

The Biden administration is solving the border crisis without the help of Congress in a way that's sure to be challenged in court, but in the way that Congress would actually probably solve it if they were inclined to act and reform immigration laws. Biden should get a lot of credit for going ahead without Congress which is a sewer of conflict, stagnation and malfunction. An orderly process for applying for asylum has been created by the Biden administration which should discourage masses of people showing up at the southern border. For this they deserve much credit.

Off the Top of My Head

Republican Presidents Have Been Mainly Responsible for Increases in the National Debt

by John Lawrence

The Reagan, George W Bush and Trump tax cuts are responsible for most of the US national debt. During the Trump administration, the debt increased by roughly $7.8 trillion, and The George W. Bush administration  enacted sweeping tax cuts that will have cost more than $8 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2023. The nation’s fiscal pictured changed in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, reducing revenues by the equivalent of $19 trillion over a decade in today’s terms. Although Congress raised taxes in many of the subsequent years of the Reagan administration to claw back close to half the revenue loss, the equivalent of $10 trillion of the president’s 1981 tax cut remained. Donald Trump Built a National Debt So Big (Even Before the Pandemic) that it’ll weigh down the economy for years.

A series of massive, permanent tax cuts have created large federal budget primary shortfalls and continue to exert upward pressure on the debt ratio. In other words, the current fiscal gap—the growing debt as a percentage of the economy—stems from legislation that cut taxes, disproportionately for the very rich. While it is true that the Great Recession and legislation to fight it, along with the costs of responding to the health and economic effects of COVID-19, pushed the level of debt higher, these costs were temporary and did not change the trajectory of the debt ratio. If Congress wants to decrease deficits, it should look first toward reversing tax cuts that largely benefited the wealthy, which were responsible for the United States’ current fiscal outlook.

Therefore, taxes on the rich should increase while spending on the poor and middle class should also increase. Americans want both: social programs and reduced taxes. However, the gross inequality that exists between rich and poor begs the question: why raise taxes on everyone? Shouldn't the rich have their taxes increased while the poor and lower middle class have their taxes reduced? Of course, that 's the ideal solution. However, Republicans represent the interests of the rich so they would never agree to this proposal. They will continue to argue for increasing taxes on the poor while cutting spending that mostly benefits the poor and lower middle class. That's the American situation, writ large, folks. That's all you need to know to understand American politics. It's a struggle between rich and poor. The rich think they deserve all their money even if it runs to billions of dollars while the poor are only trying to get a foothold in the American Dream. The rich think the poor deserve their lot in life because they didn't work hard enough to overcome their poverty. The rich also believe in a meritocracy where they themselves are the winners who made all the right moves and worked the hardest. What's wrong with this picture?

Read "The Tyranny of Merit" by Michael Sandel.

Off the Top of My Head

Donald Trump: The Dominator

by John Lawrence

Just as George W Bush characterized himself as 'the Decider', Donald Bush might well characterize himself as The Dominator. He dominates the other candidates or would be candidates in the Republican party. They are all afraid to criticize him. In the 2016 debates Jeb Bush, a decent guy, was destroyed by him.

“Jeb is having some kind of a breakdown,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. ​”He’s an embarrassment to his family. He has to bring his mother out and walk his mother around at 90 years old. I think it’s a very sad situation that’s taking place.”

“Frankly, he’s a stiff,” Trump said. “He’s not a guy who can be president. He doesn’t have what it takes to be president.”

Ron DeSantis is walking on egg shells and is hesitant even to declare his candidacy. The Republican base, many of whom have a military background, want a Dominator as their candidate. That is indeed the military tradition. Recruits are dominated by their drill sergeant who gets in their face and barks orders. Ironic then that, although Trump never served in the military, he exemplifies the military mind set. Most active duty military as well as most people in the military industrial complex vote Republican because Republicans. especially Donald Trump, exemplify their values. These are the same values that are part and parcel of the animal world where the dominant male gets to mate with all the females. So Trump characterizes himself as so dominant that he can act like a dominant male and grab 'em by the pussy or shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and get away with it. Just as other species do, a certain percentage of the Republican base respects and admires a Dominator like Trump. When Trump says this kind of domination has been going on for "millions of years, unfortunately or fortunately," he is referring to the fact that this kind of behavior is the norm in the animal world, and we humans are, after all, not really all that different.

The Denominators of history are of course Fascists. In 1922 Benito Mussolini led a coalition of fascist leaders to Rome and forced the king to yield the government. Mussolini was appointed prime minister. By 1925 he had dismantled Italy's democratic government and, acting as a dictator, declared himself Il Duce ("The Leader"). Hitler dominated the tired old men of the Weimar Republic who were cajoled into appointing him Chancellor. Fascism is a top down political structure similar to the military's top down rank structure. No wonder then that Republican voters, many of whom have a military background, are quite comfortable with a top down structure of political dominance with Trump at the apex. No wonder that Trump is leading all the polls even though he is under several criminal indictments. Friedrich Nietsche was the philosopher of fascism, one who argued for a repudiation of Christian values to be replaced with the values of domination. "A good war hallowith every cause". Just as the dominant male in the animal kingdom passes on his superior DNA to his harem of females, Fascist values insist that dominant men are the ones to eugenically pass on superioor genes to their offspring, and they should be valued and looked up to. All other men should be submissive to them. There is no separation form the animal world. Homo Sapiens represents a continuation of the values that assert that the best and strongest genes of the Dominators should take priority.

Trump's followers in fact give him a pass on Christian values for the very reason that, as Nietzsche asserts, Christian values are the values of the weak. The values of the strong and vital are the values of top down authoritarianism for which the strong man or the dominator should rule the day. As Trump said, this has been going on for millions of years, fortunately or unfortunately. This gives a pass to misogyny as Nietzsche also stated, "The family is the smallest unit of domination." The father is dominant; the wife and children should be submissive. The ethos of dominance and submission should prevail. Christian morals, the morals of tolerance and equality, according to Nietsche, are the exact opposite of the morals that lead to the betterment of the species. Let the cream rise to the top, and, unfortunately or fortunately, the weak must inevitably fall by the wayside. "Devil take the hindermost" is an imprecation that everyone should look after their own interests, leaving those who cannot cope to whatever fate befalls them. The leader of the most dominant nation on the face of the earth should be the most dominant male, ^i.e. Donald Trump, the Dominator. Utter selfishness should prevail. Cooperation is a feminine value. Love is a feminine value. Getting along is a feminine value. Diplomacy is a feminine value. Male dominance is what the US populace wants in a leader.

Societal Cost of 'Forever Chemicals' Estimated at Over $17,000,000,000,000

"Why are we allowing this?" asked one group. "$17.5 TRILLION in societal cost so that industry can make billions."

In healthcare and other societal costs, the use of per- and polyfluorinated substances costs more than $17 trillion per year. (Photo: iStock via Getty Images)

Societal Cost of 'Forever Chemicals' Estimated at Over $17,000,000,000,000

May 12, 2023

 

from Common Dreams

 

An upcoming report by Sweden-based organization ChemSec will detail the costs of the continued use of so-called "forever chemicals" which go overlooked by their manufacturers—the "societal" price that individuals and governments pay as the chemicals remain in the environment long after they are used in a range of products.

Factoring in soil and water remediation, monitoring of pollution, and healthcare costs associated with a number of health problems linked to per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS), the cost to society of using the chemicals totals about $17.5 trillion every year.

ChemSec has worked with investment firms to pressure companies to eliminate the use of PFAS, which have earned the nickname "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally degrade and have been detected in breastmilk, wildlife, and drinking water samples.

Major manufacturers of PFAS include Chemours, Solvay, Daiki, Honeywell, Bayer, and 3M—the last of which announced this year it will discontinue the use of the synthetic compounds.

While manufacturers typically prioritize their profit margins and shareholder rewards over public health and safety, ChemSec found that these companies bring in relatively little money each year from using PFAS, compared to their cost to society.

The use of forever chemicals yields only about $4 billion each year, according toThe Guardian, which reported on ChemSec's findings ahead of the release of the analysis.

"If you compare the profits that they make and the cost to society—it's ridiculous," Peter Pierrou, communications director for ChemSec, told The Guardian.

When accounting for the societal cost of using PFAS to make a range of products heat-, water-, and stain-resistant, the price of the chemicals is more than $20,400 per kilogram rather than the recognized average market price of about $20.75.

"Why are we allowing this? $17.5 TRILLION [in] societal cost so that industry can make billions," said the Environmental Media Association in response to the findings, which will be released with more detail in "a couple of weeks," according to ChemSec.

Health-related social costs of PFAS include treatment for cancers, thyroid disease, kidney dysfunction, birth defects, and autoimmune diseases, all of which have been linked to low levels of exposure.

The drinking water of at least 200 million Americans is believed to be contaminated with forever chemicals, and the compounds have become ubiquitous throughout Europe as well.

ChemSec's analysis will also examine the use of PFAS in "essential" versus "non-essential cases." The European Union in February proposed a ban on the chemicals in products for which manufacturers have identified alternative, non-toxic substitutes that can also repel water, heat, and stains.

The organization has made some progress in appealing to manufacturers to end their use of PFAS by pointing to the chemicals' cost to society. Late last year it organized a letter signed by investment firms which hold $11 trillion in assets in the E.U. warning that companies risk threatening "public health, the environment, and shareholder value" if they continue to use forever chemicals.

"There is particular concern about PFAS, often found in cosmetics, furniture, carpeting, non-stick pans, and waterproof jackets, which accumulate in the environment and cause health impacts for generations," the investment firms warned. "Growing awareness of these risks has triggered a surge in lawsuits, which could cost chemicals companies as much as $30 billion."

 

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

 

Julia Conley

Julia Conley is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

Off the Top of My Head

Why the Republican Congress Will Drive the US into Default

by John Lawrence

Simply put it's in their interests to do so. They themselves will profit politically and financially. They will blame Biden for the default, and they will sell short their stock portfolios so that, when the stock market crashes, they will make money. Default doesn't mean that the US will not pay its debts. It means that going forward seniors on social security will not get their monthly checks. Neither will Federal workers or active duty military. However, since the US Treasury still has some money and money coming in from taxes, it will prioritize paying interest on Treasury bonds. So rich people that hold financial obligations of the US government will be paid while everyday average slobs will be left to suffer. This is exactly the type of solution Republicans have always sought. It fits in nicely with their modus operandi: cater to the rich and starve the poor and working class. Millionaires and billionaores will not suffer. Smart people who sell stocks short will not suffer. They will prosper. Financial wizards and private equity corporations will snap up distressed properties like a shark snapping up a school of fish.

The financial obligations of the US, money that has supposedly already been spent, is a misnomer. They represent money that has already been allocated by the previous Democratic controlled Congress. If Republicans had controlled the previous Congress instead, the money would never have been allocated. So it's not money that's already been spent, it's money that's already been allocated. The spending is in the future. The allocation was in the past. If Democrats controlled the present Congress, there would be no problem. Since it's up to the Congress both to allocate spending and to raise the debt limit, there is a whiplash if one party allocates the money and the other party is supposed to preside over the spending of the money. In a sense the Republican Congress is rebelling over the fact that, although they didn't allocate the money, they are supposed to preside over the spending of it.

Now Joe Biden could preempt the Congressional decision not to raise the debt limit by using unconventional but completely legal means, something that has never been done before. The Federal Reserve Act gives the power to print money to the Fed, However, the Coinage Act grants the Secretary of the Treasury rather broad coin seigniorage authority. The debt ceiling could be side stepped by ordering the West Point Mint to coin a 1 oz. $ 1 trillion coin. Treasury can then present the jumbo coin at the NY Fed to buy back $1 trillion in Fed-held debt (the Fed has to accept it, a creditor can’t refuse legal tender paid in to settle a debt). Or I see no reason why the Treasury couldn't simply deposit it in its account at the Fed thereby giving the US government the wherewithal to pay its bills. Esteemed economist Paul Krugman is all for the minting of the trillion dollar coin: "So go ahead, Democrats, and do whatever it takes to get through this. Gimmickry in the defense of sanity — and, in an important sense, democracy — is no vice."

Republicans would have you believe that spending is out of control. No, undertaxation is out of control especially undertaxing the rich. Economic inequality has soared reaching unprecedented new heights not seen even in the Gilded Age. As Joe Biden has proposed, the budget could easily be balanced and the debt paid down by taxing the rich. Republicans would have you believe that raising taxes is a policy that would have to be enforced on everyone including the poor and the middle class, but that, unfortunately for them, is not the case. It is not written in stone that raising taxes would have to apply to everyone. As Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC and others have pointed out, raising taxes on the rich could not only balance the budget, but could solve the problem of social security shortfalls. Republicans are in the unenviable position of wanting to screw the working class while catering to the rich while holding on to their MAGA supporters, a large portion of whom are the working class.

So given the fact that Republicans don't care about social security or Medicare recipients, there is a good chance that they will not vote to raise the archaic debt ceiling and force the US into default not on its debt but on its ongoing payments to Federal workers, who they hate anyway, social security recipients, who they will cheerfully throw under the bus and active duty military who as MAGA supporters will cheer them on at their own expense. Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans, private equity corporations and billionaires will short the market and salivate over the cheap assets they will be able to snap up. In other words they will profit from a default.

Off the Top of My Head

San Diego Finally Gets It Right for the Homeless Situation

by John Lawrence

San Diego identifies two areas which can be devoted to safe sleeping places for the homeless. They will provide 500 spots for homeless to have tents. Also rest rooms, meals, security and other services will be provided. At the same time the City will pass an ordinance which prevents people from sleeping on the public streets. I have been advocating for this for some time here, here and here. In an article in the San Diego Union Tribune we find this: San Diego to open homeless camp sites at two parking lots near Balboa Park. In addition to these newly identified areas, the City is also buying motels to provide single room shelters. These along with the existing shelter beds should go a long way to providing accommodations for the approximately 2000 homeless people on the streets of San Diego. It will also be a huge sigh of relief for pedestrians and business owners who would like the streets to be clean and safe for customers and dog walkers. According to the article:

Hundreds of homeless people in San Diego will have a legal place to live outdoors in tents on city-owned parking lots adjacent to Balboa Park later this year, Mayor Todd Gloria announced Monday.

One site will be in Parking Lot O near the Naval Medical Center and just east of Nursery Road, which could accommodate up to 400 tents.

The second site could accommodate 136 tents and is in the parking lot of a city maintenance yard at 20th and B streets. That site was temporarily used as a campground with individual tents in 2017 as the city tried to quickly get homeless people off the street during a hepatitis A outbreak.

The safe sleeping sites, as they are known, will be the first of their kind in the county and have individual tents provided by the city. Homeless people often decline offers to move into congregate shelters, and safe sleeping sites are seen as alternatives that people may be more willing to accept.

Monday’s announcement came at a time when the number of homeless people in downtown San Diego has reached a record high.

The mayor also said the new safe sleeping site is in tandem with an ordinance that would prohibit camping on sidewalks when shelter beds are available, which is expected to go before the City Council early next month.

“When the taxpayers of this city are spending tens of millions of dollars on homelessness services to get people off the street and into care, we should expect those on the street to avail themselves of those opportunities,” he said.

Councilmember Stephen Whitburn proposed the ordinance and also has been pushing for the creation of a safe sleeping site for months. Whitburn’s district includes downtown San Diego, where the number of homeless people living in sidewalk encampments has surged in recent months.

Speaking at Monday’s announcement, Whitburn said the new safe sleeping sites will benefit homeless people, who will be offered a place to camp that will include security, toilets, meals and access to services, while also benefiting downtown residents and businesses.

“I have spoken with a number of people who are tired of living in squalor on the sidewalk and want to be in a better place but do not want to go into an enclosed shelter,” he said. “They have told me they would happily move to a safe sleeping site with bathrooms, with security, with meals and services.”

The homeless crowding the downtown city streets put somewhat of a damper on the extensive tourist and conference business that is a big part of the city's economy. Besides in such a beautiful city, homelessness creates a huge eyesore right in its midst. The safe camping sites represent at least a partial solution to the homeless problem and will alleviate the complaints I receive about the city as an Uber driver. Tourists and conference goers notice the homeless problem and it doesn't sit well with them, let alone the residents of expensive high rise condos who, when they descend to street level have to wade through filth in order to get where they're going.

From the point of view of the homeless they will at least have some services plus sanitation plus meals plus social worker access to help them get back on their feet if they should choose to do so. Let's not underestimate security as well. They had none of this on the public streets. Since a lot of them don't want to go to shelters for various reasons, such as they can't take their pets with them, they should be relieved at this solution. It should not be a problem for them to access other services since they will be centrally located. Many have bikes and there are bus stops near by. Now what the City needs to do is to identify other safe sleeping areas that the City could make available for future use. Hopefully they won't be needed, but it would be good to have them available if they are.

Congratulations to San Diego's mayor and city council for finally coming up with a promising solution which by the way will cost the city hardly anything compared to the recent motel purchases. See the article: San Diego to pursue buying three hotels to house homeless people — at a cost of $383,000 per room.Total: $150 million. Compare this with the $5 million the City is spending on the safe sleeping campsites. Such a deal!

Off the Top of My Head

The Solution to the Debt Crisis: Tax the Rich

by John Lawrence

Republicans want Biden to cut back spending. Democrats should want to increase taxation on the rich. The debt can be ameliorated either by reducing spending or increasing taxation. The debt is a result both of overspending and undertaxing. For all those who care about the size of the debt, they should be as concerned about undertaxing to the same extent they are concerned about overspending. Since the three wealthiest people in the United States — Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett —now own more wealth than the entire bottom half of the American population combined, a total of 160 million people or 63 million households, the obvious culprit here is not overspending, it's under taxation of the rich. In addition to taxing the incomes of the rich, there needs to be instituted a wealth tax. Whoa, you say, this would discourage entrepreneurs who are responsible for inventing the next big thing which is what contributes the most to the American economy. We don't need another gadget; we need all hands on deck to fight global warming. This is being done by Joe Biden's infrastructure bill which is a government, not a private, solution. Private entrepreneurship is less important in a period of global warming than large scale government solutions. Therefore, discouraging entrepreneurship, except that which supports a solution to global warming, is actually a positive development.

America’s top 25 billionaires — a group the size of a major league baseball team’s active roster —together hold $1 trillion in wealth. These 25 have as much wealth as 56 percent of the population, a total 178 million people or 70 million households. The solution to government debt is to go where the money is and tap that. When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton simply replied, “Because that's where the money is.” By the same token, the solution to the national debt is for the government to go where the money is: billionaires and Forbes 400 corporations. Americans don't need any new gadgets to spend their money on. In the World War II era consumption was both voluntarily and manditorily reduced in order to put more resources into the war effort. The war on global warming is even more important than World War II because, if we lose this war, the survival of the whole human species is at risk. Put simply we need to reduce consumption of the gadgets and entertainment provided by the private sector and increase expenditures on large scale projects which can ameliorate global warming. Of necessity those projects and that spending has to be initiated by government in cooperation with the private sector, but government has to lead the way and provide the money.

Income inequality is a major problem of American society. This problem can be resolved and the resources to prevent global warming provided for by taxing the rich. The problem is to reduce American consumption which is 70% of the US economy and increase government spending as long as that increased spending is spent on the solutions to global warming. At the same time the national debt can be reduced. The national debt in and of itself is not a problem, but interest on the national debt is. There are other solutions to decreasing the interest such as having the Fed create the money by quantitative easing. Instead of the Fed's depositing this money in the accounts of the big banks, it would deposit the money in the Treasury's account. "The whole idea of Modern Monetary Theory is that since a sovereign entity can borrow in its own currency, it can print more money when it needs to pay off all its debt. The central bank just needs to keep interest rates low," says Robert R. Johnson, professor of finance at the Heider College of Business at Creighton University. But there's the rub. As the Fed raises interest rates to control inflation, interest on the national debt also increases. That's why a mechanism needs to be found by which the Fed creates the money to run the government instead of the Treasury borrowing the money.

So in the meantime taxing the rich seems to be the best policy in order to bring the national debt down, to reduce economic inequality and to provide the money for government programs to combat global warming.

Off the Top of My Head

The Homeless Landlord's Van Life

by John Lawrence

Van life is somewhere between homelessness and apartment living. Rather than pay exorbitant rents, some people are living in their vans and working remotely. It makes sense to live cheaply, not be tied down and save your money. There are websites such as Bearfoot Theory which provide a how to guide for living in a van. This particular guide recommend solutions which cost a pretty penny especially for the van itself. On the other hand I was homeless for two separate one year periods in 1993 and 2005. At the same time I had my home rented out so I had a steady stream of rental money coming in. So I was a homeless landlord! Bearfoot endeavors to make life on the road glamorous which it can probably be, but she's touting a more luxurious van lifestyle than the one that suited me. However, although I took some extensive vacations in my van, primarily I was a worker with my own window cleaning and painting business. With a cell phone and voicemail I didn't miss any job requests. I had what I called a WSUV - a Work Sleep Utility Vehicle which was a Ford E-150 cargo super van, actually two different vans in each of the two periods I participated in "van life." I did some conversion work, the main thing of which was to put a 4 inch foam pad on the floor covered by indoor outdoor carpet. A double sleeping bag made for comfortable sleeping atop the foam. I couldn't stand up so the foam made it comfortable on my knees. I had built in shelves for both work materials and my personal effects including food and clothes. For the second van I had a solar panel on the roof, a microwave and a bar refrigerator. My refrigeration and microwave capabilities though were marginal. Of course I had my two ladders on the roof which were very necessary for the kind of work I did.

I had a storage room for my other stuff. It was critical to drop off my paint buckets after a job because I didn't want to have those fumes in my van while sleeping. I also didn't spend that much time in my van except for driving to and from jobs and sleeping. In the morning I did my ablutions, swam and showered at the YMCA. In the evenings I worked on my laptop or read while listening to CDs with headphones at local college and university libraries until they closed. I used their WiFi. Then I chose a parking spot on a public street and went to sleep around 10 PM. I arose at 6 AM so as to pull out of the parking spot before I attracted attention, hopefully. I had pre-scouted out parking spots. They had to be acceptable according to certain self imposed criteria. #1 They had to be level. #2 They couldn't be directly in font of someone's house. #3 I had to be able to blend in with other vehicles parked along the street. #4 I couldn't stick out like a sore thumb. #5 It had to be close to a YMCA. There were very few times in those two one year periods when I was called out by the police or Neighborhood Watch, and those times were when I got too careless about where I parked. My work van blended in more seamlessly with other vehicles than would a Mercedes 4x4 which the lady in Bearfoot Theory uses.

A couple other notes about my van: I had a simple shower curtain extension pole across the front behind the front seats with two pieces of fabric hanging down which I could open during the day and close at night for privacy. I opened the two front door windows a crack at night for ventilation and I had a rear camper type window which opened a crack also. I had a layer of dark plastic film on both the rear and side windows so nobody could see in. So I was pretty secure in my privacy while sleeping, and sleeping in a double sleeping bag with my pillows on 4 inches of foam was very comfortable. In the morning I would "deep six" my pillows in the sleeping bags and scoot them out of the way so I could access my work materials or other items more readily. I had a couple of pee bottles in case I had to go at night or couldn't make it to the YMCA in time to use the bathroom there. During the day I usually used my customers' rest rooms. In the morning after swimming and showering at the Y, I went to Starbucks for my venti mocha and drank a Kern's juice which I stored in the van.

I took a few 3 week vacations during the time I lived in my van using the same techniques - showering and swimming at a local YMCA, scouting acceptable parking spots for sleeping whether I was on the road or just staying in one place for awhile, and spending evenings at a local university library till it closed. During all these road trips I was booking jobs via my cell phone and voicemail for the week I would get back to home base. Since I was self employed in the "gig economy", I wasn't tied down in terms of my work. I could book jobs or not book jobs at my convenience. I also traveled a lot including visiting family on the east coast. During both these one year periods, I received a monthly rental check from my tenants. It was a good way to save money. In this day and age of exorbitant rents, I would recommend van living and working as an alternative. I have fond memories of my WSUV

Off the Top of My Head

The Dystopian American Democracy

by John Lawrence

As set up by the Founding Fathers, the mechanics of the American electoral system inevitably lead to a two party system. This is as opposed to a parliamentary democracy as exists in most other democratic nations. Third parties never make it in American democracy precisely because they take votes away from the party whose views they most closely resemble. Example: the Presidential election of 2000. Since with the American voting system, a voter can vote for one and only one candidate, voters waste their votes voting for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning. Ralph Nader ran as the Green party candidate and won almost 3 million votes, votes which most assuredly would have been cast for Gore if Nader weren't running. As it was, Gore won more popular votes than George W Bush who eked out a victory because of the antiquated electoral college system. If Gore had also won the 3 million votes that Nader received, he may have had enough electoral votes to tip the balance. These voting mechanics have enshrined what is called plurality voting or the first past the post system into law. If the approval voting system had been in effect in 2000, Gore would have won. Approval voting is a system in which a voter can cast votes for all candidates he or she approves of. That means that all those who voted for Nader would also probably have voted for Gore giving Gore 3 million more votes.

Why the two party system, which is the inevitable result of plurality voting, is so toxic is that it leads to a government like we have today in which the two parties are diametrically opposed to each other. Instead of working in the best interests of the American people, the two parties end up fighting each other for power. This produces gridlock and a seesawing back and forth regarding policy depending on which party controls which branch of government. The dystopia that results from this winner take all system is that compromise becomes impossible. All the energy goes into winning and making the other party lose. It is all about the competition between the two parties and not about finding solutions to societal problems that benefit the American people. Another factor is that the plurality system of voting at best leads to majority rule. That means that at best each party represents a majority of the American people and not minorities at all. Certainly neither party needs to seek the votes of the poorest Americans who usually don't vote anyway, and, if they did, their interests need not be served by the winning party.

The American system has become a dystopia precisely because one party is only interested in winning, and, if the other party is in power, in making that party lose the next election. They do this by denying insofar as possible that party from making any constructive changes which might benefit the American people. As the American people get disenchanted with the ruling party because it can't bring about constructive change, they inevitably vote for the other party hoping that they can do what the ruling party wasn't able to based on their campaign promises. In a multi party system such as a parliamentary democracy, a party whose only purpose is to deny the ruling party the ability to bring about constructive change and thereby gain power for itself is less likely to be able to pull this off. A center party is more likely to win. The two party system is more likely to breed two extreme parties diametrically opposed to each other with each party vying for power.

Fortunately, because of his skill and dexterous maneuvering, Joe Biden has been able to bridge a lot of gaps in getting things done for the American people. However, it wasn't without the other party's determinattion to make him fail. Republican leader Mitch McConnell said this about President Obama: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." How they endeavored to do this was to make Obama fail at everything he promised in his campaign to do for the American people. If Obama wasn't able to accomplish his campaign goals, the American people would become disenchanted with him and put Republicans back in power. This is why Republicans never compromise with Democrats in the best interests of getting good things done for the American people. They only see these things as "wins" for the Democrats and hence "losses" for themselves. On the other hand, Democrats are somewhat more magnanimous in that they will vote with Republicans some times when they are in power. Example: Democrats voted 3 times to raise the debt ceiling when Trump was in power even though they objected to the $7 trillion that Trump added to the national debt by giving tax breaks to the rich. The only reason Biden was able to accomplish anything or any American President is able to accomplish anything is when their party controls all 3 branches of government. Even then the other party can filibuster making a mockery of the idea of democratic government.

Off the Top of My Head

San Diego Throwing Money at Homelessness With Meager Results

by John Lawrence

An article in the San Diego Union titled, "San Diego to pursue buying three hotels to house homeless people" — at a cost of $383,000 per room" appeared on April 25, 2023. Although I think buying old motels to house the homeless is a pretty good idea, when you consider the price tag, there are probably better ideas out there. Katheryn Rhodes and I did some research in 2016 which was reported in the San Diego Free Press. According to Katheryn, the City of San Diego has all sorts of real estate that it has no use for so it usually just sells it on the free market. Although the series of 3 articles was slanted towards affordable housing, these available parcels could as well be utilized as safe campgrounds and safe parking areas. In addition Katheryn did an exhaustive analysis of the pots of money the City has that are just accumulating with no specific purpose in mind. Has the City done an analysis of all the real estate the City owns that has no designated purpose that could be turned into safe parking areas and safe campgrounds? Why not?

The article reported:

It doesn’t have to be this way. The City has squirreled away millions of dollars in off-budget funds which could be used for affordable housing and housing for the homeless. Besides that the City of San Diego owns numerous parcels of land on which affordable housing including housing for the homeless could be built. Since they’re not recognizing the emergency situation that lack of housing represents, they are actually in violation of a state mandate,Senate Bill 2 from 2007, authored by Senator Cedillo which stated the following:

This bill would add emergency shelters to these provisions, as specified, and would add provisions to the housing element that would require a local government to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. … By increasing the duties of local public officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Safe camping areas would provide portable toilets, portable showers, security, social services and other amenities at a fraction of the cost of the nearly $400,000 per room which is the cost of each motel room the City is investing in. The article went on:

Civil engineer Katheryn Rhodes has identified several funds where the City, the County, the San Diego Housing Commission and Civic San Diego are hoarding cash that could be used for emergency shelters and/or affordable housing or even pay for Emergency Shelter Tents and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Housing Vouchers. There’s $28.7 million in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (LMIHAF). There’s also $259 million in long-term assets that can be leveraged by using it as collateral and issuing bonds for much more.

One could note that most homeless could provide their own shelter in terms of tents which they are providing for themselves now. They just need a place to put them off the public sidewalks where they could have proper sanitation which they don't have now. The brutal fact that I have witnessed myself is that homeless people urinate and defecate on the public sidewalks. To be graphic, it's sad to see a woman with her pants down stooping over with the poop coming out of her ass in full view of other people and motorists on a public sidewalk in downtown San Diego. It used to be that you had to dodge dog shit on city sidewalks. Now you have to dodge human shit if you even have the courage to walk down some public sidewalks in the City of San Diego. Tents line both sides of Commercial Avenue with barely an inch between them. The homeless rule the streets in that area. I could hardly drive my car down that street without being run over by the San Diego Trolley which honked and honked at me till I was able to pull over without hitting some homeless person.

Seriously, people, check out the series of articles Katheryn and I wrote in 2016. The problem has only gotten worse since then.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Didn't Democrats Raise the Debt Ceiling When They Controlled Both Houses of Congress?

by John Lawrence

What is clear is that Democrats can only get new legislation passed when they control all three branches of government. This legislation usually increases spending on social programs. Likewise, Republicans can only get their legislation composed - usually of tax cuts - when they control all three branches of government. Both cases usually require the government to deficit spend, the former because of increased government spending, the latter because of decreased government revenues from taxes. So whichever party controls Congress and the Presidency and passes a budget requiring increassed deficit spending should also at the same time raise the debt limit. Make sense? So now we're in this dystopian dilemma that, after Democrats passed Biden's budget requiring a huge amount of government spending, Republicans, who now control the House, effectively want to repeal Biden's budget or else they won't agree to raise the debt ceiling. What a conundrum! These problems would never come up if the party that deficit spent also raised the debt ceiling to accommodate the deficit spending.

Congress has raised the debt ceiling twice under Biden, by about $3 trillion. Republicans voted three times to raise the debt ceiling under President Donald Trump, who added nearly $8 trillion to the national debt. "Republicans in Congress raised the debt three times when Donald Trump was president and each time with Democrat support, but now they won’t raise it, even though they're responsible for more than $8 trillion in bills incurred in four years under the previous administration," Biden said. The 115th Congress (2017–2019) featured unified Republican control of the government with GOP majorities in the House and Senate, and Republican President Donald J. Trump in the White House. So Republicans had no problem with raising the debt ceiling during the Trump administration which added $7 trillion to the national debt. Please note that Democrats could have filibustered the debt ceiling increases during the Trump administration because Republicans did not have a filibuster proof Senate, but they didn't

Raising the debt limit is not about new spending; it is about paying for previous choices policymakers legislated. However, if the previous choice were made by a government controlled by the Democratic party in a two party system, there is every reason to get those choices reversed when the Republican party comes into power and vice versa although Democrats have never tried to bring the country to the brink of default, a game of chicken which Republicans have been all to eager to engage in. They were successful in doing this when Obama was President. Having seen that chaos and mess as vice Preesident, Biden is not willing to engage in negotiations this time around hoping that more sensible heads will prevail. It didn't used to be this way. Sometimes called the Gephardt Rule in honor of Representative Dick Gephardt who introduced its first version, the rule used to provide that when the House agrees to a budget resolution, the Clerk shall prepare a joint resolution suspending the debt limit for the fiscal year covered by the budget resolution. In other words the debt ceiling was automatically effectively raised to accommodate the budget. This all changed when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. When Newt Gingrich took over the House in 1995, he nullified the ingenious “Gephardt rule” that deemed the debt limit to be increased whenever a budget passed. This eventually led to the 1995 and 1996 government shutdowns, when Republicans refused to increase the limit because the president was a Democrat. In 2011, a showdown over the debt ceiling during Barack Obama’s presidency led to the Budget Control Act and ten subsequent years of austerity budgets.

So the simple answer to the question posed by the title of this piece is that, although Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress during the first two years of the Biden administration, they did not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Therefore, they could get a budget passed under the budget reconciliation rule which prevents a filibuster, but they could not raise the debt ceiling because that is subject to the filibuster. Oh what tangled webs these politicians weave! Nothing makes clearer the need to end the filibuster than another round of hostage-taking of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Add this to the mounting problems of American democracy. Congress has created an arcane jumble of chaotic rules which threatens government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Go figure.

Off the Top of My Head

The Sword of Damocles Which is the Debt Ceiling

by John Lawrence

The Federal Reserve can just create the money like they did with quantitative easing. They created the money and gave it to the banks. Now their balance sheet is $8.5 trillion. This is not a debt, but it is similar to the national debt which is $31 trillion. You could say that this $31 trillion is on the US' balance sheet or, similarly, the Federal Reserve has an $8.5 trillion debt. See if the Fed creates money, it's not a debt, but if the US Treasury needs money, it has to borrow it. What if no one wants to buy Treasury bonds? Well then, the Fed would buy them itself and just create the money to buy them and add it to its balance sheet. The debt ceiling is such a useless and bogus aspect of American democracy and has the potential of causing the US to default on its debts with disastrous consequences. The Fed never has to pay down its balance sheet nor does the US ever have to have its taxpayers pay off the national debt. The national debt is just an accounting mechanism as is the number on the Fed's balance sheet. As a sovereign fiat currency, the US can just create money. That's not to say that it should do this hap hazardly or willy nilly. But there was a lot of willy nillyness in the years after the Great Recession in 2008 when the Fed kept on quantitatively easing and creating money and giving it to the banks. However, the Fed is prohibited by law from creating money and giving it to poor people. Of course.

So why is the national debt so high? The simple answer is tax cuts for the rich. Americanprogress.org reported:

Tax cuts initially enacted during Republican trifectas in the past 25 years slashed taxes disproportionately for the wealthy and profitable corporations, severely reducing federal revenues. In fact, relative to earlier projections, spending is down, not up. But revenues are down significantly more. If not for the Bush tax cuts and their extensions—as well as the Trump tax cuts—revenues would be on track to keep pace with spending indefinitely, and the debt ratio (debt as a percentage of the economy) would be declining. Instead, these tax cuts have added $10 trillion to the debt since their enactment and are responsible for 57 percent of the increase in the debt ratio since 2001, and more than 90 percent of the increase in the debt ratio if the one-time costs of bills responding to COVID-19 and the Great Recession are excluded. Eventually, the tax cuts are projected to grow to more than 100 percent of the increase.

So why not tax the hell out of the rich, flood the coffers of the Treasury with cash and pay down the national debt? Or at least tax the rich as Biden has proposed doing? Biden famously changed the narrative from "tax and spend" to "no one making less than $400,000 will get a tax increase." So Republicans always want to reduce taxes on the rich and reduce or eliminate social programs which benefit mostly the poor and middle class. The alternative, which Democrats should loudly state, is to raise taxes on the rich and enact programs which benefit the poor and middle class. Voila, the budget is balanced. Raise taxes a little more on the rich and the national debt is paid down. Actually it doesn't matter what the figure of the national debt is. Foreign holders of US Treasury debt could be paid off tomorrow by virtue of the fact that the Fed could just with a few keystrokes on a computer create the money and take it on their balance sheet. This money would then be added, again with a few keystrokes on a computer, to China's or Japan's account at the Fed thus zeroing out the debt. Instead the US government goes on paying interest on its debt which could turn into a problem as it crowds out other budgetary items. Clearly, this is no way for the US government to conduct its business.

Off the Top of My Head

The World Needs the Cooperation of Russia to Forestall Global Warming

by John Lawrence

Ultimately, geography will determine which countries win and which countries lose as global warming and sea level rise progress. Landlocked countries with little or no exposure to the oceans will win as countries with large shoreline exposures and major coastal cities go underwater. Russia has no major cities that are exposed to sea level rise. Its only ocean exposure is in the far north to the Arctic ocean and a little bit to the northern Pacific ocean. In addition Russia has an abundance of fossil fuels which it is eager to sell to the rest of the world. It has an incentive to increase global warming rather than to mitigate it.

As the Arctic region warms, Russia profits from its northernmost regions becoming more inhabitable. In addition sea routes in the Arctic become more navigable. So Russia is in a position to profit from global warming and to profit financially from hastening global warming by selling fossil fuels. Russia has no disincentive to curtail the sale of fossil fuels which are its major natural resource and source of income. It can undercut and undersell renewables if it wants to. Sanctions have had little or no effect on Russia's internal economy. The departure of Starbucks and McDonald's accomplished nothing. Russia reopened these chains under Russian control with the profits staying in Russia instead of returning to the US. Starbucks became Starubles and McDonald's became Inanov's presumably.

On the other hand consider the world's major cities that are located right on the oceans and are subject to being submerged by global warming. Such cities as New York City, Miami, London, Amsterdam, New Orleans, Venice, Savannah, GA, Tokyo, Shanghai, Mumbai, Kolkata, Osaka, Dhaka, San Francisco, Sydney, Boston, Lisbon, Vancouver, Copenhagen, Los Angeles, Dublin, Honolulu, Lagos, Charleston, Long Beach, Key West and many others in China, Africa, Vietnam, Bangladesh and east Asia. The US and its partners in Europe have major exposure to oceans for many major cities. Billions of dollars in real estate are at stake, not to mention that major trading routes will be disrupted and infrastructure destroyed. Particularly, the US east coast is exposed not only to sea level rise, but to increasingly virulent hurricanes and tornadoes.

So considering the fact that the US has relatively the most to lose from global warming and Russia has relatively the most to win, does it make any sense to make a pariah out of Russia? Regardless of the war in Ukraine, worsening relations with Russia only hasten the day when geography will determine the outcome of the war on climate change. China also has a long shoreline and plenty of major cities that are exposed to the ocean. It would be in China's interest to partner with the US to combat global warming. Yet the US is in the business of making a pariah out of Russia and starting a Cold War with China. So even if  the US wins its wars with Russia and China, it can still lose the war with respect to global warming. In the final analysis Russia and Mother Nature will win. It's all about geography.

Off the Top of My Head

Nice Economy You Have Here. It Would Be a Shame If Something Happened To It

by John Lawrence

The debt ceiling is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's an act of Congress, the Public Debt Acts of 1939 and 1941. Congress authorizes the amount of spending that can be undertaken by the US government, and also that, if there is not enough money in the Treasury for this spending, the Treasury is authorized to borrow the money by issuing Treasury bonds. However, the amount of borrowing cannot exceed the debt ceiling. If the amount of money the government has already been authorized to spend exceeds the debt ceiling, there is no other alternative except to raise the debt ceiling. Otherwise, the US government will default on its debt. The question arises why is there a debt ceiling at all? If Congress didn't authorize the spending of the money in the first place, then there would be no need to borrow at all or if Congress wanted to limit borrowing, it shouldn't authorize a budget which exceeds that amount. This is just another double bind in the law which makes the US "rule of law" dysfunctional. The 14th amendment of the Constitution says, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." So there you have it: the government by law must pay its bills and the government by law cannot exceed the debt ceiling. It's what you call a contradiction. You would think that the provisions in the Constitution would take precedence over an act of Congress.

So that gets us to the minting of the trillion dollar coin. Although it's up to Congress to raise the debt ceiling, the Treasury Secretary could order the mint to produce the trillion dollar coin which could then be deposited in the Federal Reserve and voila, the US government could pay its bills. The Federal Reserve transfers all money deposited with it for taxes and the sale of Treasury bonds to the account of the Treasury of the US. The legal basis for the concept of a trillion-dollar coin arises from the fact that the United States Mint is authorized to produce platinum coinage without any restrictions as to the number of coins produced or their face value. Alternatively, President Biden could declare that the 14th amendment authorizes him to pay the bills. This is a major dysfunction of the US government and the US version of democracy. Republicans are eager to use their power to disrupt the fact that money was authorized by the previous Democratic controlled House and now it's up to them to raise the debt limit. So you might ask why hasn't Congress gotten rid of the debt ceiling provision that it enacted in the Public Debt Acts?The reason is that even when both Houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats, as they were in the first two years of the Biden administration, Republicans in the Senate filibustered any attempt by Democrats to do that or much of anything else. The filibuster represents more dysfunction. US democracy is hamstrung because one party refuses to govern in a sensible and cooperative manner. Their interest is only in defeating Democrats not in doing what's best for the American people.

Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times:

The issue at hand is whether to raise the federal debt ceiling. This ceiling is a peculiar — and destructive — quirk of the U.S. budget process. Here’s how it works: First, Congress passes legislation that determines federal spending and tax collection. This legislation may lead to a budget deficit. Whether that’s a good idea is beside the point: Congress made its choices, and the Treasury Department must do whatever is necessary to honor duly enacted legislation, which may require borrowing to cover the deficit.

But under current law Congress must also vote a second time to authorize federal borrowing by raising the limit on the allowed amount of debt. And we’re only a few months from the point where America won’t be able to keep paying its bills — that is, spend the money Congress has already told it to spend — unless Congress votes to raise that limit.

Yet now House Republicans aren’t willing to raise the limit unless they are given policy concessions they would never be able to enact via the normal legislative process. Basically, they’re saying, “Nice economy you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.”

The US Constitution needs a complete overhaul in which stupid conflicts like these over the debt ceiling are ironed out. Besides the Federal Reserve can just create money like it did with Quantitative Easing. The US dollar is a sovereign, fiat currency. It's only dysfunctional laws that prevents it from doing so. During quantitative easing the Federal Reserve bought Treasuries and other securties and gave the cash that was generated to the big banks to keep them afloat. So it could buy Treasuries and give the money to the US Treasury. It would be using the same quantitattive easing it used to keep the banks float in order to keep the government afloat. Problem solved and it wouldn't mean taking on more debt.

Off the Top of My Head

AI vs CRISPR

by John Lawrence

On CBS' 60 Minutes, April 16, 2023, there was a discussion about the revolution that AI will bring about. Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, spoke glowingly about all the good that AI would bring about for society while speaking hesitantly about the ethics involved. What he failed to mention was that the biggest customer for AI will probably be the military. They will use AI to develop even more lethal weapons including robots that will carry out dangerous missions instead of live human soldiers. Of course there was no mention of that. Only that robots would be able to carry out more dangerous missions in mining and search and rescue. So far every technological development has had military implications, usually not mentioned by the technocrats who are just interested in making billions from the latest developments. Similar negative consequences are just now being realized for social media whose inventors had only positive things initially to say about this money maker. On the other hand a truly revolutionary invention which has implications for ridding mankind of genetic diseases is CRISPR. The work has been documented in a book about biochemist Jennifer Doudna and others with the title, "The Codebreaker" by Walter Isaacson. This truly revolutionary development has gotten little attention by the media which has always been more fascinated by the latest technological gadget. Technologists have never been known to be concerned about the ethical implications of their work. They pretty much are just concerned about the money they'll make from it. On the other hand Jennifer Doudna is very concerned about the possible negative implications of CRISPR.

CRISPR is a method for gene editing. That means that it can accurately cut out a mutated gene that causes a human disease and replace it with a corrected one. For instance in the case of sickle cell disease, there is one letter of one gene that is incorrect. This gene can be spliced and the correct letter inserted at the precise location. It is the Holy Grail of genomics and Jennifer Doudna and a female colleague, Emmanuelle Charpentier, won the Nobel prize for discovering it. The ethical and moral aspects of CRISPR have to do with eugenics, the much discredited pseudo science, that was developed in America and used by the Nazis as a way to weed out inferior human beings and develop a master race. Ethicists are concerned that CRISPR could be used to develop designer babies wherein parents could decide which traits their children should inherit. Since this would probably devolve to the betterment of mainly rich families, it could bring about even more inequality in the human race than now exists. However, the promise of CRISPR for curing human diseases, especially the genetically transmitted ones such as sickle cell anemia, is a truly revolutionary development.

The Harvard Gazette reports:

For decades, artificial intelligence, or AI, was the engine of high-level STEM research. Most consumers became aware of the technology’s power and potential through internet platforms like Google and Facebook, and retailer Amazon. Today, AI is essential across a vast array of industries, including health care, banking, retail, and manufacturing.

But its game-changing promise to do things like improve efficiency, bring down costs, and accelerate research and development has been tempered of late with worries that these complex, opaque systems may do more societal harm than economic good. With virtually no U.S. government oversight, private companies use AI software to make determinations about health and medicine, employment, creditworthiness, and even criminal justice without having to answer for how they’re ensuring that programs aren’t encoded, consciously or unconsciously, with structural biases.

Scientists generally agree that CRISPR-Cas9 should be allowed for use in the creation of human disease models, and in understanding the development and molecular mechanisms of diseases; however, it should be prohibited for the purposes of eugenics or enhancement. The paper, Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology, we find:

 

Genome editing technologies have led to fundamental changes in genetic science. Among them, CRISPR-Cas9 technology particularly stands out due to its advantages such as easy handling, high accuracy, and low cost. It has made a quick introduction in fields related to humans, animals, and the environment, while raising difficult questions, applications, concerns, and bioethical issues to be discussed. Most concerns stem from the use of CRISPR-Cas9 to genetically alter human germline cells and embryos (called germline genome editing). Germline genome editing leads to serial bioethical issues, such as the occurrence of undesirable changes in the genome, from whom and how informed consent is obtained, and the breeding of the human species (eugenics). However, the bioethical issues that CRISPR-Cas9 technology could cause in the environment, agriculture and livestock should also not be forgotten.

 

Technology is not an unmitigated good, and ethicists are relegated to a position far behind the people who are only concerned about advancing the technology and about making money. The implications for society and the human race are faced, if they are faced at all, only later. Case in point: the internet and social media. As it turns out, the algorithms used in social media are designed only to increase profits. If they were changed to be better for society, they would result in decreased profits. Who knew?

Off the Top of My Head

"Spare me the bullshit about mental illness"

by John Lawrence

In sane countries abortions are legal and assault rifles are illegal just the opposite of the US. Italian women are eligible to request an abortion for health, economic or social reasons, including the circumstances under which conception occurred. Abortions are performed free of charge in public hospitals or in private structures authorized by the regional health authorities. Assault weapons are not legal in Italy, nor are any fully automatic rifles or handguns. Noise suppressors, or silencers, are also illegal, along with any kind of military or police-grade weapons. Abortion in the United Kingdom is de facto available through the Abortion Act 1967 in Great Britain, and the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.The following are generally prohibited: Fully automatic or burst-fire weapons, which may include some air guns. Semi-automatic or pump-action rifles that fire centre-fire ammunition (e.g. Ruger Mini-14, L1A1). The Swedish Abortion Act came into force in 1974, giving women the right to decide for themselves whether they wanted to end a pregnancy in the first eighteen weeks. Since then, abortion procedures have become more effective, safe, accepted and accessible. Current Norwegian legislation and public health policy provides for abortion on request in the first 12 weeks of gestation, by application up to the 18th week, and thereafter only under special circumstances until the fetus is viable, which is usually presumed at 21 weeks and 6 days. In Norway there is a total ban on automatic firearms for civilians, unless they fall into the collector category. Modification of semi-automatic guns into fully automatic without the consent of the police is a felony crime. The EU already bans all automatic weapons, plus some semi-automatic guns widely available in the United States.

Apart from the very few European nations that retain highly restrictive laws on abortion — Andorra, Lichtenstein, Malta, Monaco and Poland — no other European country “bans” abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Instead, almost all European countries allow abortion throughout pregnancy on a range of grounds, including where there are risks to a patient’s physical or mental health, and in situations involving severe or fatal fetal impairment. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, 95% of European women of reproductive age live in a country where abortion services are available on demand.

NBC reported:

[Connecticut Senator] Murphy said the shooting deaths of 19 students and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas, on Tuesday was a uniquely American problem.

"This only happens in this country and nowhere else. Nowhere else do little kids go to school thinking that they might be shot that day. Nowhere else do parents have to talk to their kids as I have had to do about why they got locked into a bathroom and told to be quiet for five minutes just in case a bad man entered that building. Nowhere else does that happen except here in the United States of America. And it is a choice. It is our choice to let it continue," Murphy said.

In comments to reporters afterward, Murphy took aim at the Republican talking point that mass shootings are a problem of mental illness, not easy access to guns.

"Spare me the bullshit about mental illness. We don’t have any more mental illness than any other country in the world. You cannot explain this through a prism of mental illness, because we don’t — we’re not an outlier on mental illness. We’re an outlier when it comes to access to firearms and the ability of criminals and very sick people to get their hands on firearms. That’s what makes America different,” he said.

There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Mexico, Guatemala, and the United States. The US quibbles while the earth burns and floods due to global warming. Nations are immersed in conflict while they need to be cooperating if the human species, despite all its vaunted high technology, is to survive. Earth itself will survive. The survival of the human species is doubtful unless every nation goes all out to prevent global warming which is not happening. What is happening is that nations are trying to prevent the release of greenhouse gasses on the margins without interfering with economic growth. It's a recipe for disaster.

Off the Top of My Head

The US has a "Version" of Democracy

by John Lawrence

Nowhere in the world does a pure democracy exist not even in the US. Witness one judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, who was not even democratically elected to that position, is the would be dictator over one issue - abortion medicine. How can this be democracy? None of the Supreme Court Justices who will make the final decision on this matter were democratically elected. They were all appointed by Donald Trump as was Kacsmaryk. Not only that, but this or some other appointed judge could decide unilaterally to take other drugs off the market. What else could they decide? The rule of law in the US is in shambles. Mini dictators in the form of appointed judges can hold sway over a whole host of issues. In fact the US does not even make the top ten list of the most democratic countries in the world according to the Economist Intelligence Unit which compiles an annual list in its Democracy Index. Stanford University political scientist Larry Diamond has a similar list, maintaining that any democracy must include four key elements:

1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections
2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life
3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens
4. A rule of law in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens

The US ranks 36th on a list Ranking Countries by Quality of Democracy behind such countries as Costa Rica, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Uruguay, Slovakia and the Czech Republic!

One can see why when one appointed judge can dictate an issue for the whole country! The Washington Post reported:

As a lawyer for a conservative legal group, Matthew Kacsmaryk in early 2017 submitted an article to a Texas law review criticizing Obama-era protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions.

The Obama administration, the draft article argued, had discounted religious physicians who “cannot use their scalpels to make female what God created male” and “cannot use their pens to prescribe or dispense abortifacient drugs designed to kill unborn children.”

But a few months after the piece arrived, an editor at the law journal who had been working with Kacsmaryk received an unusual email: Citing “reasons I may discuss at a later date,” Kacsmaryk, who had originally been listed as the article’s sole author, said he would be removing his name and replacing it with those of two colleagues at his legal group, First Liberty Institute, according to emails and early drafts obtained by The Washington Post.

Yet to hear American politicians talk about it, you would think that the American Constitution is sacrosanct, paramount and equivalent to Moses receiving the Ten Commandments on two tablets of stone. You would think that it is so perfect that it is unthinkable that anyone would want to try to improve it in any way. People take a sacred oath to defend it. It is inconceivable to want to try and replace it like many other countries have done with their constitutions over the years. It is like the Bible, something that cannot be transcended without being accused of heresy, treason or worse.The American Constitution has not been updated in 234 years! On the other hand the current Constitution of France, for instance, was adopted on 4 October 1958. It is typically called the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, and it replaced the Constitution of the Fourth Republic of 1946 ... .

Meanwhile as Republicans exploit every conceivable loophole in the American Constitution, and the Second Amendment is literally tearing the nation apart, the US seems to be making it clear that it is a Republic rather than a Democracy. As Benjamin Franklin said when asked what the US government represented, "It's a republic, my dear, if you can keep it." He didn't even pretend that it was a democracy. While we criticize foreign dictators, we have a homegrown dictator by the name of Matthew Kacsmaryk right here.

Off the Top of My Head

While Earthlings Argue Over Abortion, Planet Earth Is in the Process of Aborting the Whole Human Race

by John Lawrence

While we spend major amounts of energy going back and forth over abortion, books in libraries and who can use which bathrooms, the planet is warming beyond what humans as a species can endure. Floridians carefully labeled the recent flood in Fort Lauderdale a "1000 year flood" instead of a "global warming flood". People talk about rebuilding instead of getting the hell out of low lying regions. Disaster areas are declared right and left with the Federal government expected to send them billions of dollars. How stupid we earthlings are or put another way what tangled webs we weave. The Arctic permafrost is melting with the result that methane, a more potent greenouse gas than carbon dioxide, is bubbling up and going into the atmosphere. As the Arctic warms, methane that has been locked in permafrost for thousands of years escapes and can explode. Released methane that finds its way to the surface contributes to the greenhouse effect of climate change with even more heat retention capacity than carbon dioxide. Even igniting it doesn’t solve the problem, since that produces carbon dioxide as a byproduct. Tulare Lake reforms in California turning what once was productive farmland into a massive lake which will only get much bigger as snow in the Sierras melts. The Washington Post reports:

California’s historic snowpack has started to melt following its warmest days of the year so far, with the communities and valleys below the mountains bracing for the impact of any flooding as all that water makes its way downhill. The severity of any floods will depend on how quickly the snow melts, but as officials share the latest outlook, it’s clear the highest risk stems from the record snowpack in the southern Sierra Nevada.

An enormous volume of water is expected to flow into rivers and streams through the spring and summer. The epicenter of flood concerns lies in the San Joaquin Valley and the Tulare Basin to the west of the southern Sierra, as well as the valleys to the east of the mountain range.

Two rivers in the Tulare Lake region — the Tule and the Kern — are forecast to exceed 400 percent of their average runoff between April and July. The majority of the watersheds are forecast to reach peak water flow in May, though they’ll reach their highest flows at different times. A few rivers, including the San Joaquin River, will see sustained high flows through at least June because of prolonged snowmelt — much later than typical peak-flow timing of April or May for southern watersheds.

So, California, get ready for historic flooding as the snowpack in the Sierras exceeds 200% above normal. Just last year it was zip. People were praying for more snowpack in the Sierras which, if melting gradually, could fill California reservoirs and provide much needed water throughout the year. However, if it melts too fast, the result will be not more water for drinking and agriculture but historic flooding, and that's the more likely result as higher than normal temperatures start the snowpack melting sooner and faster. The year 2022 was the sixth warmest year since global records began in 1880 at 0.86°C (1.55°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This value is 0.13°C (0.23°F) less than the record set in 2016 and it is only 0.02°C (0.04°F) higher than the last year's (2021) value, which now ranks as the seventh highest. The 10 warmest years in the 143-year record have all occurred since 2010, with the last nine years (2014–2022) ranking as the nine warmest years on record. Of note, the year 2005, which was the first year to set a new global temperature record in the 21st century, currently ties with 2013 as the 11th-warmest year on record. The year 2010, which had surpassed 2005 at the time, now ranks as the 10th-warmest year on record.

So while Americans turn democracy into a travesty of itself with district judges setting national policies, and billionaires pollute the atmosphere with their mega yachts and private jets, the real problems affecting planet earth and human civilization are largely ignored at least partly in the pursuit of profits and a reluctance to give up any perceived privileges that have been established. Despite the large investments in climate change that the Biden administration was lucky enough to get through - not without a lot of resistance by certain segments, I might add - it is just not enough. Airplanes both civilian and military are adding immense quantities of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, as are container ships, without a solution in sight, and, rather than working on a solution, we are pursuing a world war contained within one country at least for now. The human race can not get along even in the face of certain destruction unless an all out effort is made by all nations to get rid of those processes which are releasing gigatons of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere.

Off the Top of My Head

Another Day, Another Mass Shooting. What Else Is New?

by John Lawrence

Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” The US' inaction with respect to gun control is doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same results. We just got used to the same results, and rather than doing what needs to be done to get different results, we are content with doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results. Rather than changing anything, Americans are willing to get the same results rather than doing anything in the hopes of getting better results. I'll call this sclerotic insanity. What needs to be done for starters is very simple: get assault rifles off the streets. In the long run the US needs a new Constitution sans the Second Amendment. Other countries change or revise their constitutions when it is beneficial and/or advantageous to do so. Human lives and the quality thereof is more important than a piece of paper. But not according to gun toting Republicans. They will exploit every loophole in our vaunted "rule of law" in order to impose mass insanity on the American public. Witness the fact that one judge can withdraw an FDA approved drug from the market!

So far there have been 146 mass shootings in the US this year, more than one a day. In France there have been 8. In Germany there have been 5. In Italy there have been 2. In the Netherlands there have been 2. In the UK there has been one, injuring 6, killing none. One in Norway, One in China. One in Australia. Even in Russia there have been only 21, 7 times fewer than in the US. Only in the US is there sclerotic, resolute and unwavering insanity. And we brag to the rest of the world about what a great country we are and how they all should emulate us! Now the spectacle of mass shootings, the details of which are duly reported by the media, are an ever present form of entertainment as we are treated to mass shooting porn on a daily basis. Each instance becomes the inspiration for the next mass shooter as he (isn't it always a "he") sees how much publicity he will get after he goes out and "legally" purchases an AK-15 and opens fire. It's just a continuation of the video games he has been playing at home. It's a real life video game, and obviously we all will recover very nicely because just as soon as the next mass shooting materializes (we shouldn't have to wait more than a day), the previous one is totally forgotten. Sometimes even the spectacle of the last one is cut off prematurely as the next one takes precedence.

The International Bar Association reported:

"[New Zealand] has introduced swift and sweeping reforms of gun laws following the mass shooting in Christchurch in March [2019] – a move that highlights the continuing lack of action to tackle gun violence in the United States.

"‘One of New Zealand’s darkest days,’ was how the country’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern described the mass shooting in Christchurch on 15 March. Fifty-one people were killed and 50 others wounded when a lone gunman opened fire at two mosques in the city, in the country’s worst peacetime shooting. The gunman livestreamed his actions on Facebook.

"Less than a month later, New Zealand’s Parliament voted 119-1 to introduce a nationwide ban on semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles. In addition to the sweeping reform of gun laws, a special commission is being set up to explore broader issues around accessibility of weapons and the role of social media.

"The rapid response to the Christchurch attack is in stark contrast to that of the United States. America has the highest rate of murder and manslaughter by firearms in the developed world and a high rate of mass shootings, yet even moderate reform of gun laws has been blocked for 25 years. Not even last year’s March for Our Lives (MFOL) demonstration in support of legislation to prevent gun violence – one of the largest protests in American history – could trigger political will for reform."

There are cracks in the armor of the US Constitution and rule of law that have appeared relatively recently due to the intransigency of one party in a two party system. Other countries have demonstrated that there really is a better way of doing some things. But the US stubbornly goes on its way stuck in the sludge of its own hubris.

Off the Top of My Head

The Normalization of Vulgarity and Violence in America

by John Lawrence

America has become accustomed to increasing vulgarity. It didn't just start with the Vulgarian in Chief, Donald Trump, but he contributed a lot including the complete transformation of the Republican party from a buttoned down, strait laced group of goody two shoes to a party of F bomb hurling insurrectionists. This has all happened in the last 30 years or so. Some of the other indicators are the fact that tattoos became mainstream in the 1990s. Gangsta rap became mainstream n the 1990s. Before that tattoos were only seen on Hells Angels and long shoremen. Then it became cool to emulate, if not belong, to the Hells Angels. Hip Hop and rap artists discovered that it was financially rewarding to glorify violence, but violence has been standard fare in American culture for decades. Gangsta rappers were not the first group to make money off of glorifying violence. Now drag queens are trying to normalize drag queen story hour. According to dragstoryhour.com:

"What is Drag Story Hour?

"It’s just what it sounds like! Storytellers using the art of drag to read books to kids in libraries, schools, and bookstores.

"DSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.

"In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where everyone can be their authentic selves!"

Really?! Gender fluidity of childhood? Unabashedly queer role models? Are rigid gender roles too restrictive? Everyone can be their authentic selves by defying rigid gender restrictions? This is the normalization of what until recently was a very fringe element of society. If somebody wants to be a drag queen, I say let them. I'm not going to discriminate towards them or wish them any harm. As far as I'm concerned they should have all the rights of any American citizen, but do I think my children benefit from be exposed to their "art form"? No! Tolerance of differences is one thing. The implication that their way of life is normal is quite another. Today it seems like there is an epidemic of gender dysphoria and drag queen story hour plays right into it.

So there was a reaction against Hip Hop not because it was too violent but because it was misogynistic. Queen Latifah was a rapper who objected to being called a "bitch." There was also a reaction after Topac Shekur and Biggy Smalls were killed probably as a consequence of embracing and glorifying a life of crime. On Sept. 7, 1996, Tupac, 25, was shot in a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas and died at an area hospital. Around six months later, on March 9, 1997, Christopher Wallace, known as Biggie Smalls or the Notorious B.I.G., was gunned down in his vehicle shortly after he left an industry party in Los Angeles. He was 24. The rappers had a certain "F you. I don't give a F" attitude which was also adopted by the female rappers, but the difference was that the female rappers like Queen Latifah rejected the misogyny of the male rappers. All the white kids ate up and wished they could emulate the same "F you" attitude. They bought the records making some of the rappers quite rich.

Now we get to 2016 and the political ascendancy of "grab 'em by the pussy" Donald Trump. His followers ate it up. There was a complete transformation of the Republican party from a party of tight asses to a party of profligates or as Hillary would say, "deplorables." Now Trump was a guy who could brag about shooting someone in broad daylight and getting away with it. Just a few short decades before Trump, Republicans were all concerned about whether Ronald Reagan was electable because he had been divorced over 30 years before he ran for President! Now here was a guy who had been divorced 3 times and had numerous affairs. Unfortunately for him, he thought he had to pay hush money to cover up these affairs before he ran for President. He should have known that, if he could shoot someone in broad daylight and get away with it, he could commit adultery all he wanted and get away with it. His voters, his base, they all would still love him. In fact they probably wished that they too could get away with it. They wanted to be like him, to emulate him. They couldn't get enough of his grossness and vulgarity. It made their grossness and vulgarity seem normal.

The culture wars in America are ongoing. On the one hand we honor and give awards to (mainly white) movie directors and producers who make money glorifying violence. On the other we honor and give awards to (mainly black) rappers who make money glorifying violence and use the words "bitch" and "motherfucker" freely. When all is said and done, it is like H. Rap Brown said at a press conference, "Violence is as normal as cherry pie." And so has become vulgarity.

Off the Top of My Head

Will Renewable Energy Be Sufficient to Stave Off Global Warming?

by John Lawrence

More than a third of the world's energy will come from renewables by 2025. The International Energy Agency says electricity demand is forecast to grow by 3% a year over the next three years compared to 2022. So in 10 years demand will be 30% higher than it was in 2022 Meanwhile, renewable energy generation is increasing about 10% a year. In 10 years renewables will be producing 100% of the energy demand as of today, but, since demand will be 30% higher than today, that leaves about 30% of demand still to be fulfilled by fossil fuels. But electricity generation is not the only source of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Steel and cement production also releases greenhouse gasses. Agriculture, especially cattle farming, releases large amounts of greenhouse gasses. Virtually every aspect of production and consumption releases greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. To reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses, the world's population needs to go to a plant based diet and get away from the demand for meat, especially beef. Substitutes in building materials need to be found for steel and cement. Otherwise the demand for fossil fuels will never go away. Airplanes and container ships release a lot of greenhouse gasses. Might we have nuclear powered container ships in the future? Will there be a substitute for jet fuel?

Meanwhile, the release of greenhouse gasses is increasing. NBC News reported on March 2, 2023:

"Communities around the world emitted more carbon dioxide in 2022 than in any other year on records dating to 1900, a result of air travel rebounding from the pandemic and more cities turning to coal as a low-cost source of power.

"Emissions of the climate-warming gas that were caused by energy production grew 0.9% to reach 36.8 gigatons in 2022, the International Energy Agency reported Thursday. (The mass of one gigaton is equivalent to about 10,000 fully loaded aircraft carriers, according to NASA.)"

World society needs to make an all out immediate effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something it's definitely not doing. Instead the human race is preoccupied with war and preparations for war. It is also business as usual for production and consumption especially in the western industrialized societies. There needs to be an immediate cessation of consumption at the level that western societies are used to consuming, but that would bring about an immediate recession in the US whose economy is based 70% on consumption. It seems problematic to suggest that building materials should henceforth be of the kind used in medieval Europe, namely stone which was used to build the great cathedrals. Also earth based materials like adobe would not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions at the same levels that concrete and steel buildings do, not even to mention concrete roads and freeways. It seems all modern methods of production and consumption are based either on fossil fuels or carbon dioxide emissions from steel and cement production. Plastics which are based on fossil fuels need to be immediately replaced with other materials like glass and paper products. Even the wind turbines that produce renewable energy are made almost entirely of steel which generates huge amounts of greenhouse gas. Why couldn't a wind turbine be made of stone except for the moving parts?

Suffice it to say that, when you look at the entire picture, it is not enough just to go to renewable sources for electricity production. For sure that's one component in terms of automobile travel and electricity usage for homes and businesses, but until the problems associated with airplane and ship travel are solved and the problems associated with steel and cement production are solved, we will never reduce the levels of greenhouse gasses being spewed into the atmosphere enough to prevent climate catastrophe. We are moving at a snail's pace when an all out immediate effort is needed.

Off the Top of My Head

The Failure to Pacify Korea

by John Lawrence

Compare the two situations. Vietnam is a unified country, and after a horrific war, is on good terms with the US. Korea is a divided country with the north being still at war with the United States. A peace treaty was never signed after the Korean war and the country was never pacified and unified with the result that North Korea is a major threat to the western world. To boot, there is an axis forming with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. It didn't have to be this way. One hint is that former President Trump, albeit in a publicity stunt, momentarily eased tensions by becoming friendly with Kim Jong Un. If this had been a sincere gesture and had been followed up on, North Korea could have been unified with the south and the situation there normalized much as it has been in Vietnam. CNN reported on October 24, 2019:

"Seoul, South Korea CNN  — 

"Kim Jong Un has praised his “special” relationship with US President Donald Trump, with one of North Korea’s most respected diplomats telling state media the two leaders maintain “trust in each other.”

"Kim Kye Gwan, a former nuclear negotiator who now serves as an adviser to the North Korean leader, said Kim Jong Un and Trump enjoy “close relations” – a statement that appeared to pin the future of diplomatic talks between Washington and Pyongyang on the two leaders’ unique connection.

“I sincerely hope that a motive force to overcome all the obstacles between the DPRK and the US and to advance the bilateral relations in the better direction will be provided on the basis of the close relationship,” the longtime diplomat said in a statement published in the country’s state-run news agency KCNA, using the acronym for North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea."

Then on June 12, 2020 NBC news reported:

"Never again will we provide the U.S. chief executive with another package to be used for achievements without receiving any returns," North Korea's Foreign Minister Ri Son Gwon said on state-run KCNA. Nothing is more hypocritical than an empty promise."

There was the possibility of movement toward normalization and peace in Korea, and this wasn't the first time. But does the US even know or care about achieving peace in Korea and officially ending the Korean war? I don't think so. But the Trump publicity stunt at least demonstrates that, in order to achieve peace, an effort must be made to achieve friendship between leaders of the concerned countries. In contrast current American leaders have gone out of their way to demonize and disrespect certain national leaders which makes it even less likely that peace will ever be achieved. Friendship, respect and diplomacy are the means by which to attain peace in the world. Otherwise, military standoffs and confrontation are likely to ensue, and they have. The US invests immense amounts of money in its military while investing paltry insignificant amounts in peace building efforts. The result is an alignment of western nations confronting an alignment of mostly everyone else.

Responsible Statecraft reported on February 6, 2023:

"A large majority of Americans support talks aimed at reducing tensions with North Korea and China, according to a survey released Friday by The Harris Poll. The results are at odds with the state of opinion in Washington, where policy elites continue to one-up each other over how to respond to an incident in which an apparent Chinese surveillance balloon flew over the U.S. in recent days.

"Two-thirds of respondents agreed that the U.S. should “engage in dialogue as much as possible to reduce tensions” with China, while 20 percent said Washington should “not restart official dialogue and instead spend more money on military build-up.” Support for talks focused on deescalation went up by five points since 2021, when Harris last asked the question.

"Meanwhile, 68 percent of Americans polled told Harris that President Joe Biden should offer to hold direct talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, and 58 percent said the United States should offer diplomatic or economic incentives “in exchange for steps toward denuclearization.” "

Wikipedia reported: "In 2017, a majority of the American public also had a positive view of Moon Jae-in, the South Korean President, who in 2018 supported a formal declaration to end the U.S.-North Korean war." So if leaders on both sides in Korea want the war ended and negotiations to proceed towards that end, why is the US not on board with that? Could it be that the US doesn't want to lose an "ally" in South Korea and also lose its military bases there? Does the US not want to lose influence in Asia by helping to create peace there?

Over the years there have been various attempts to bring about peace on the Korean peninsula:

"On May 24, 2015, International Women's Day for Disarmament, thirty women—including US feminist leader Gloria Steinem, two Nobel Peace laureates and retired U.S. Colonel Ann Wright—from 15 countries linked arms with 10,000 Korean women, stationing themselves on both sides of the DMZ to urge a formal end to the Korean War (1950-1953), the reunification of families divided during the war, and a peace building process with women in leadership positions to resolve decades of hostility.

"In the weeks leading up to crossing the DMZ, Steinem told the press, “It's hard to imagine any more physical symbol of the insanity of dividing human beings."

"On the day of the crossing, South Korea refused to give the women permission to walk through Panmunjom, a border town where the 1953 truce was signed, so the women had to eventually cross the border by bus. Nevertheless, Steinem labeled the crossing a success. "“We have accomplished what no one said can be done, which is to be a trip for peace, for reconciliation, for human rights and a trip to which both governments agreed.”

"U.S.–North Korea talks began in June 1993 but with lack of progress in developing and implementing an agreement, North Koreans unloaded the core of a major nuclear reactor, which could have provided enough raw material for several nuclear weapons. With tensions high, Kim Il Sung invited former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to act as an intermediary. Carter accepted the invitation, but could only act as a private citizen not a government representative. Carter managed to bring the two states to the negotiating table, with Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Robert Gallucci representing the United States and North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok-ju representing his country.

"The negotiators successfully reached the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework in October 1994:

• North Korea agreed to freeze its existing plutonium enrichment program, to be monitored by the IAEA;
• Both sides agreed to cooperate to replace North Korea's graphite-moderated reactors with light water reactor (LWR) power plants, to be financed and supplied by an international consortium (later identified as the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization or KEDO) by a target date of 2003;
• The United States and North Korea agreed to work together to store safely the spent fuel from the five-megawatt reactor and dispose of it in a safe manner that does not involve reprocessing in North Korea;
• The United States agreed to provide shipments of heavy fuel oil to provide energy in the meantime;
• The two sides agreed to move toward full normalization of political and economic relations;
• Both sides agreed to work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula; and
• Both sides agreed to work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Soon after the agreement was signed, U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement. Some Republican Senators were strongly against the agreement, regarding it as appeasement.

Looked at from an historical perspective, it's clear that, although attempts have been made to bring about peace by some well meaning Americans like Jimmy Carter, other Americans have thought it in the US' best interests to continue a state of war on the Korean peninsula. It has been a complete and catastrophic failure to create peace there. Sometimes risks have to be taken to create peace. You can't be 100% sure that the other side will adhere to an agreement. However, as they used to say, "Give peace a chance." You can go all out for peace while remaining vigilant and militarily strong at the same time.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Not Go State by State for Stricter Gun Laws?

by John Lawrence

Recently, with the overturning of Roe v Wade, red states are going one by one in enacting tougher abortion laws. Why not go the same route in blue states with regard to stricter gun laws? Forget the national Congress. They're dysfunctional and next to useless as long as Republicans control the House. But states in which Democrats control the state legislature and the Governorship should be able to implement assault weapon bans as well as many other severe gun control restrictions. States such as California and Michigan, in which this is the case, should go ahead with this legislation. Make it illegal to own an AR-15. Confiscate existing AR-15s. CNN reported: "A study published in January by a leading non-profit organization that focuses on gun violence prevention found that there is a direct correlation in states with weaker gun laws and higher rates of gun deaths, including homicides, suicides and accidental killings. The study by Everytown for Gun Safety determined that California had the strongest gun laws in the country. Hawaii topped the list with the lowest rate of gun deaths in the country while Mississippi led the country with both the weakest gun laws and highest rate of gun deaths. “What this project does, is show what we’ve been saying for years: Gun laws save lives,” said Nick Suplina, senior vice president of law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. “We think this is going to be a really important tool for lawmakers, reporters and advocates that have been looking for the kind of visual tool that can make that case clearly.”

State government trifecta is a term to describe single-party government, when one political party holds the governorship and majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. One political party holds the governorship, a majority in the state senate, and a majority in the state house in a state's government. As of March 30, 2023, there are 17 Democratic trifectas,The following states represent Democratic trifectas: California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maine. These states should get together or go singly one by one to pass stricter gun laws just as red states have passed stricter abortion laws. Then anyone who wants a gun can move to a red state and anyone who wants an abortion can move to a blue state. Ha! As ridiculous as that sounds, it's emblematic of the reality that we are not, contrary to Obama's statement, really one United States of America.

California is the state with the strictest gun laws, and it also has the seventh-lowest rate of deaths by gun violence. In addition to regulation on who can purchase a gun and what kinds of firearms may be legally obtained, California gun laws allow for funding to community programs that have reduced gun-related violence. Other states with strict gun laws include Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Hawaii, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Some of these states require background checks and a waiting period before someone is allowed to purchase a gun; some require that they undergo training first. New York recently passed more restrictive gun laws:

"Governor Kathy Hochul today signed a landmark legislative package to immediately strengthen the state's gun laws, close critical loopholes exposed by shooters in Buffalo and Uvalde and protect New Yorkers from the scourge of gun violence that continues to infect our nation and endanger our communities. Governor Hochul signed the bills at the Northeast Bronx YMCA flanked by Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Speaker Carl Heastie, partners in the legislature, Attorney General Letitia James and victims and survivors of gun violence.  

"Gun violence is an epidemic that is tearing our country apart. Thoughts and prayers won't fix this, but taking strong action will," Governor Hochul said. "In New York, we're taking bold steps to protect the people of our state. I am proud to sign a comprehensive bill package that prohibits the sale of semiautomatic weapons to people under 21, bans body armor sales outside of people in select professions, closes critical gun law loopholes and strengthens our Red Flag Law to keep guns away from dangerous people—new measures that I believe will save lives."

Time magazine reported on March 12, 2023:

"Michigan lawmakers are aiming to pass an 11-bill gun safety package across the state this week, considering provisions that would require background checks on gun purchases, create safe storage laws, and establish extreme risk protection orders—also known as red flag laws. Democrats, who have control of the state government for the first time in some 40 years, hope to deliver on the promise of advancing gun safety following a Michigan State University mass shooting last month that left three dead and five wounded."

In Colorado:

State of play: Five major gun control measures are under consideration as the Democratic-dominated Legislature hits the halfway mark this week in the 120-day session.

Details: Three measures advanced through a Senate committee Wednesday after a day-long hearing and party-line vote. The legislation would:

• Expand the state's "red flag" law to allow psychologists, teachers and others to ask a judge to temporarily seize a person's firearms if they pose a threat.
• Repeal current limits to allow civil lawsuits — including from the attorney general — seeking damages against firearm makers and sellers.
• Increase the minimum age to purchase a firearm in certain cases to age 21, up from 18.

Meanwhile, earlier this week, a House panel approved a measure to require a three-day waiting period for firearm purchases.

In Illinois:

"State lawmakers in January passed and Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law a measure that would ban assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines. Those who already own such rifles would face limitations on their sale and transfer, and would have to register them with the Illinois State Police by 2024. But that law – which came about six months after the Highland Park shooting – faced immediate lawsuits in state and federal court, arguing it violated the Illinois and US constitutions. A Macon County judge found earlier this month that exemptions to the law, including for law enforcement officers and armed guards at federally supervised nuclear sites, violated the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed to fast-track the state’s appeal, slating oral arguments for May."

So fight these bastards all the way to whatever Supreme Court has jurisdiction. Keep on fighting them. Pass very creative laws. Tie them up in court. Do whatever it takes to get AR-15s off the streets. Gun violence is ruining this country. Nowhere else in the world do people have to put up with this type of situation.

Off the Top of My Head

Is Private Equity Firm, Blackstone Group, Taking Over San Diego's Rental Market?

by John Lawrence

In a deal with the Conrad Prebys Foundation, Blackstone Group, CEO'd by Steven Schwarzman, is buying 5800 rental units in San Diego. According to the San Diego Union, "The deal makes Blackstone one of the biggest real estate holders in San Diego County. It already owns $4.5 billion in assets here — including Legoland and the Hotel del Coronado. The transaction, which also includes Los Angeles-based investment firm TruAmerica as a partner, is expected to close in the next few weeks. The sale of the apartments was praised by Dan Yates, the president of the Conrad Prebys Foundation, who said the portfolio was assembled by Conrad Prebys — a San Diego developer — himself. Yates said the money from the deal will be used for grants primarily in San Diego."

“Conrad Prebys was a sharp businessman who found true joy in the act of giving, and I believe he would be honored to see the result of his life’s work dedicated to continuing his philanthropic legacy,” Yates wrote in an email." Billionaire Conrad Prebys died in 2016 so it's very unlikely he "assembled the deal himself." But, even if he did, and the money will be used for philanthropic grants, Conrad Prebys has his name on half he buildings in San Diego already. It seems that billionaires can't get enough of charitable giving when it gets their names on buildings even though it will probably mean that relatively affordable rental units will become unaffordable after Blackstone Group "fixes them up" and raises the rent and that the true beneficiaries will be the investors in the Blackstone Group. It is to be noted that California sanctions on evictions, put in place during the pandemic, will expire this June 30.

San Diego real estate analyst Gary London said, “To my knowledge, this is the largest real estate transaction in San Diego County history.” So the process goes like this: the tenants in Blackstone's newly acquired rental units will be given 30 day notices to leave so that Blackstone can do badly needed renovations. This is all perfectly legal. There is no need to "evict" unless the tenants refuse to leave even after given proper notice. The Union article goes on,"All the apartments are market-rate but Blackstone says it plans to partner with nonprofit Pacific Housing to provide services for residents, including after-school tutoring, financial literacy classes, and health and wellness initiatives at no cost. It did not address it directly, but the move seems to counteract earlier concern with the foundation’s sale of these holdings." The key word here is "market-rate." This means that once Blackstone puts in its "improvements," they can charge whatever rent they can get even if it's 50% more than what tenants were previously paying. This is how the game is played, and this is why there are fewer and fewer affordable apartments in San Diego. Investors buy up apartments with affordable rents and convert them into apartments at "market-rate." Ironically, Blackstone intends to provide new tenants with "financial literacy classes." Presumably this would mean tutoring them to the advisability of investing in the Blackstone Group. And what were the "earlier concerns with the foundation’s sale of these holdings." Could it be that the newly converted "market-rate" apartments would reduce the stock of affordable rental units in San Diego?

The most pathetic aspect of this deal was this: "A letter was sent to the foundation in early February from San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, San Diego County Supervisors chair Nathan Fletcher and California Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins to urge them to take into account future affordability of the apartments when considering a sale." I'm sure they'll do that even if it means their investors will take a slight hit to their profuts. Get real, politicians! Your letter is a fig leaf and is worse than useless. The letter went on: “A substantial number of these units are home to working individuals and families,” they wrote, “and are some of the limited inventory in the region of non-deed restricted, naturally occurring affordable housing options for San Diegans.” And the most egregious oxymoron of the letter: "non-deed restricted, naturally occurring affordable housing options." There is no such thing as "natyrally occurring affordable housing" at least not when private equity firms like Blackstone see a profit-making opportunity. The fact that they are "non-deed restricted" means that they are fair game. In any event affordable housing is in the eye of the beholder. It means absolutely nothing unless it is deed restricted or publicly owned.

The article concludes with: "The Conrad Prebys Foundation gave more than $71 million to 112 organizations across San Diego County in March to bolster the arts, health care, medical research, animal conservation, education, and the welfare of young people. The biggest grant — $15 million — went to the San Diego Symphony." Of course! The symphony will always profit as long as billionaires want their names on more buildings and symphony programs. Meanwhile working class tenants lose.

Off the Top of My Head

The United States and the International Criminal Court

by John Lawrence

The ICC has declared that Putin is a war criminal. Russia does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC which comes as no surprise.What does come as a surprise though is that the US does not recognize its jurisdiction either. Neither Russia nor the US is a state party to the ICC. The purpose of the international criminal court, founded in 2002, is to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind—war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide," when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. China is also not a member of the ICC. As of March 2023, 123 states are members of the Court. On May 6, 2002, the United States, having previously signed the Rome Statute, which founded the ICC, formally withdrew its signature and indicated that it did not intend to ratify the agreement. That was during the George W Bush administration. So the US wants to have it both ways. It does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC if the ICC should be so bold as to declare a US President or citizen a war criminal, but it jumps on the bandwagon with the ICC if the ICC declares one of the US' enemies such as Putin a war criminal.

The abuses at Abu Ghraib during the Iraq war clearly would have qualified as war crimes according to the ICC if the US had been a member of the ICC. That's probably why George W Bush withdrew US membership. Torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques" were specifically authorized by the George W Bush administration and by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" or "enhanced interrogation" was a program of systematic torture of detainees by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and various components of the U.S. Armed Forces at remote sites around the world—including Bagram, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Bucharest—authorized by officials of the George W. Bush administration. Methods used included beating, tickle torture, binding in contorted stress positions, hooding, subjection to deafening noise, sleep disruption, sleep deprivation to the point of hallucination, deprivation of food, drink, and medical care for wounds, as well as waterboarding, walling, sexual humiliation, rape, sexual assault, subjection to extreme heat or extreme cold, and confinement in small coffin-like boxes. A Guantanamo inmate's drawings of some of these tortures, to which he himself was subjected, were published in The New York Times. Some of these techniques fall under the category known as "white torture". ... In addition to brutalizing detainees, there were threats to their families such as threats to harm children, and threats to sexually abuse or to cut the throat of detainees' mothers.

The term "torture memos" was originally used to refer to three documents prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel at the United States Department of Justice and signed in August 2002: "Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. sections 2340–2340A" and "Interrogation of al Qaeda" (both drafted by Jay Bybee), and an untitled letter from John Yoo to Alberto Gonzales. Since the initial revelation of these documents, other communications related to the use of torture to coerce or intimidate detainees during the Bush administration have been divulged. These include a December 2, 2002, internal Department of Defense memo signed by Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of Defense, authorizing 17 techniques in a "Special Interrogation Plan" to be used against the detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani; a March 13, 2003, legal opinion written by John Yoo of the Office of Legal Counsel, DoJ, and issued to the General Counsel of Defense five days before the U.S. invasion of Iraq started, concluding that federal laws related to use of torture and other abuse did not apply to agents interrogating foreigners overseas; and other DoD internal memos authorizing techniques for specific military interrogations of certain individual detainees.

In May 2002, senior Bush administration officials including CIA Director George Tenet, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John Ashcroft met to discuss which techniques the CIA could legally use against Abu Zubaydah. Condoleezza Rice recalled "being told that U.S. military personnel were subjected in training to certain physical and psychological interrogation techniques". During the discussions, John Ashcroft is reported to have said, "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

It's clear that the US with the full complicity of the George W Bush administration officials committed what are considered war crimes by the ICC during the Iraq war. War crimes include torture, mutilation, corporal punishment, hostage taking and acts of terrorism. This category also covers violations of human dignity such as rape and forced prostitution, looting and execution without trial. War crimes, unlike crimes against humanity, are always committed in times of war. In the King James version of the Bible, Matthew 7:3, it says "And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?" Hypocrisy is as old as the human race has existed on the planet. If the ICC has any legitimacy at all, it needs to condemn the war crimes of every nation that commits them.

Off the Top of My Head

US Would Like to Forget It Invaded a Sovereign Country Recently

by John Lawrence

The hypocrisy is appalling. The US invaded Iraq, a sovereign country, in 2003. Joe Biden voted for that war. Many children and civilians were killed as a result. The rationale for the invasion was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He didn't and George W Bush knew it. The invasion and consequent death and destruction in Iraq was based on a lie. The Guardian reported:

"Two decades ago, the United States invaded Iraq, sending 130,000 US troops into a sovereign country to overthrow its government. Joe Biden, then chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, voted to authorize the war, a decision he came to regret.

"Today another large, world-shaking invasion is under way. Biden, now the US president, recently traveled to Warsaw to rally international support for Ukraine’s fight to repel Russian aggression. After delivering his remarks, Biden declared: “The idea that over 100,000 forces would invade another country – since world war II, nothing like that has happened.”

"The president spoke these words on 22 February, within a month of the 20th anniversary of the US military’s opening strike on Baghdad. The White House did not attempt to correct Biden’s statement. Reporters do not appear to have asked about it. The country’s leading newspapers, the New York Times and Washington Post, ran stories that quoted Biden’s line. Neither of them questioned its veracity or noted its hypocrisy."

The Iraq war and the war in Ukraine are similar in that a sovereign country was invaded on false pretenses. The difference is that Iraq was no threat to the US. Ukraine is within what Russia would consider its "sphere of influence," much like Cuba is within the US' sphere of influence. The invasion of Cuba by the US turned out not to be too successful. However, Cuba has been punished by the US for going on 70 years because it had the impertinence to ally itself with the Soviet Union. By the same token Russia considered it a threat if Ukraine allied itself with NATO. The war could have been prevented if NATO had given any credence to Russia's concerns in pre-war negotiations.

The Guardian article continues:

"While Washington forgets, much more of the world remembers. The flagrant illegality of bypassing the United Nations: this happened. The attempt to legitimize “pre-emption” (really prevention, a warrant to invade countries that have no plans to attack anyone): this mattered, including by handing the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, a pretext he has used. Worst of all was the destruction of the Iraqi state, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and nearly 4,600 US service members, and radiating instability and terrorism across the region.

"The Iraq war wasn’t the only law- or country-breaking military intervention launched by the US and its allies in recent decades. Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya form a tragic pattern. But the Iraq war was the largest, loudest and proudest of America’s violent debacles, the most unwarranted, and the least possible to ignore. Or so it would seem. Biden’s statement is only the latest in a string of attempts by US leaders to forget the war and move on."

Today Fareed Zakaria said, "America's unipolar status has corrupted the country's foreign policy elites." American foreign policy too often consists of making demands and issuing threats and condemnations. There is very little effort to try to understand the other side, never giving any credence or credibility to it. Fareed's column in the Washington Post is "America’s foreign policy has lost all flexibility." America's foreign policy is sclerotic, the policy of an aging empire. Meanwhile the rest of the world has moved on.

Off the Top of My Head

The City Finally Gets It Regarding the Homeless Situation

by John Lawrence

San Diego has spent millions on the homeless problem and the result is that it's only getting worse. More people each month are becoming unhoused than are becoming housed. On March 16, the San Diego Union reported:

"With downtown homeless encampments in his district surging in recent months, San Diego City Councilmember Stephen Whitburn on Thursday announced he will propose an ordinance banning tents and makeshift structures on public property.

“We’ve heard too many stories of people camping on our streets who have been randomly attacked, stabbed to death or even set on fire,” Whitburn said. “These encampments are unsafe. They are also a danger to our neighborhoods.”

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria joined Whitburn in the announcement and said he supports the proposal and would urge the full City Council to approve it."

The idea is that the city would provide safe places off the city public streets and sidewalks for homeless people to stay combined with an ordinance that would not allow them to pitch their tents on public sidewalks and other public areas. I have long advocated here and here and here that the city make safe camping areas and safe parking areas available in addition to shelters so that homeless people could pitch their tents there making the public sidewalks safe for ordinary citizens and businesses. In addition these safe outdoors areas would have rest portable rest rooms and other amenities which would make the areas more palatable and hygeinic. Shelters are expensive to build. Making available city owned vacant lots are not. Most homeless these days have their own tents and most have bicycles, cell phones and a few other self provided amenities. They just need a safe place to be, and that the city can provide at very little expense. The city is finally coming around to that conclusion! It makes the lives of the homeless marginally better, and makes the streets a whole lot better for pedestrians and businesses not to mention more attractive to tourists, one of San Diego's major industries.

"[Mayor] Gloria said the new local ordinance would get tough on people who refuse to accept help or move their tents, but still would take a compassionate and progressive enforcement approach. People camping in public places, including canyons and sidewalks, would be offered a shelter bed and only cited or arrested after multiple contacts with law enforcement.

"Gloria and Whitburn also said the city is planning to open another safe parking lot in the near future and is looking for a location for its first safe campground."[!]

Finally! Here's what I wrote on November 20, 2022:

"Recently Governor Newsom held up state homeless funds because cities were not getting the job done. Here's a solution: provide campgrounds and safe parking areas in addition to shelters and affordable housing units. In other words to all of the above present so-called solutions add safe campgrounds and parking areas. The beauty of this plan is that it would add minimum cost to all the other solutions. So while they are pursuing the more costly solutions, it would at least get the homeless off the public streets where they are interfering with pedestrian thoroughfares and businesses in general, and would provide them with an an enhanced version of their present living accommodations which are mainly in tents. It would also be more safe and sanitary. They would still be mainly in tents until more robust and expensive solutions can be found but at least they could be provided with portable toilets, showers and dumpster facilities as well as security. In addition social services could be more readily provided than the present solution of finding them on the public streets to offer them. What is wrong with these politicians? They could solve the homeless "problem" tomorrow at little or no expense as far as getting the homeless off public streets which is at least half the problem. The city owns a lot of vacant lots suitable for rural campsites and safe parking areas for those with vehicles. Portable rest room facilities could make the lot of the homeless and ordinary citizens immeasurably better if they would only use them.

Here's what I wrote on August 11, 2021:

So here is my solution, and then I'll tell you why it will never be implemented. Set aside land for free campgrounds just as a city sets aside land for parks. These should be open to all people not just the "homeless" at some snapshot in time. The financial savings from not building lumber and concrete housing would be immense. These campgrounds should have basic services like rest room facilities and showers. Also trash collection and security. The homeless can provide their own tents as they already have which are strewn all over public sidewalks. This solution accomplishes two very important goals: 1) it provides a marginally better lifestyle for the homeless with much better sanitary conditions and 2) it gets the homeless off the streets and sidewalks letting the general public feel safe in using them again. The money saved in police and hospital resources would probably more than pay for the minimal services provided. In addition social worker services in terms of mental health, drug counseling and job search might be provided as they say they want to provide today.

I'm looking forward to safe and hygienic public city streets in San Diego, and as an Uber driver, not having to apologize to tourists about the homeless problem!

NEWSFLASH: from Voice of San Diego:

More on housing: Newsom also said he will provide 1,200 tiny homes to jurisdictions across the state — including 500 in Los Angeles, 150 in San Diego County, 200 in San Jose and 350 in Sacramento — to be used as a temporary housing option for people immediately leaving the streets. He has tapped the National Guard to help deliver the units.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Has Changed the Narrative on Taxes

by John Lawrence

One of the great things that Biden has done is to take the tax issue away from Republicans. Remember when George H R Bush said, "Read my lips. No new taxes." The conventional wisdom at that time was that if taxes were raised, they would be raised on everyone from Joe Six Pack to Warren Buffet. It was also conventional wisdom that tax cuts would apply to everyone from the very rich to the very poor. The American public was not sophisticated enough to know that Republican tax cuts, although they would apply to everyone, were much more favorable to the rich than they were to the poor. Now Joe Biden has completely altered that narrative. In Joe Biden's world tax increases apply only to the rich and tax cuts apply only to the poor. What a major paradigm shift! Biden has repeated his mantra so many times that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 that now that scenario is starting to take hold in the American mind.

It's about time. The American public is starting to wake up to the reality that the very rich pay taxes at a lower rate than a nurse or a teacher or a fireman. If you're a hedge fund manager, you can take advantage of the 'carried interest' loophole to pay less than your fair share. As economic inequality has soared in the era of easy money, the very rich could take advantage of all sorts of games to make themselves even richer while most working people are living paycheck to paycheck. One way to restore some measure of equality is to increase taxes on the rich while cutting them on the poor. This idea was unheard of even a few years ago. Republicans rue the day when it was heard of thanks to Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders among others. Another way to restore some semblance of equality would be to tax wealth in addition to taxing income. People with assets, say, more than $50 million should pay a tax on their wealth while middle class and poor should be given help to start creating wealth for themselves. That would probably be something to do with home ownership since this is the way most middle class people have been able to create wealth for themselves.

However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for people of modest means to create wealth through home ownership because real estate prices have gone through the roof. It has become increasingly difficult for young people to come up with a down payment for a house, much less to make their monthly mortgage payments. The net result is that more and more people are forced into the situation of never owning property and being life time renters. This is the plan as private equity and hedge fund managers have accessed easy low interest money to buy up real estate and then rent it out so that the typical middle income young family is now renting a home from a hedge fund. NBC News reports: "The lack of supply of single-family homes has pushed up housing prices in many markets across the country — but would-be homebuyers find they are being outbid not just by other home seekers, but also by hedge funds." Hedge funds like the Blackstone group come in with all cash offers which are more attractive to sellers than the terms that average Joes and Janes can come up with. The Real Deal reports:

"Blackstone Group is planning to buy about 5,800 apartment units in San Diego for more than $1 billion.

"The New York-based private equity and investment firm has agreed to purchase 66 complexes across the city from the Conrad Prebys Foundation, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. It also plans to make $100 million in improvements to the properties.

"With the deal, Blackstone will own 6,700 units in the Southern California city. It already owns $4.5 billion of assets in the city, including the Legoland theme park and the historic Hotel del Coronado.

"“We look forward to ensuring that these properties continue to provide the community with a high-quality rental option at a good value,” Blackstone Real Estate’s global co-head, Kathleen McCarthy told the Union-Tribune.""

According to the San Diego Union, "The deal makes Blackstone one of the biggest real estate holders in San Diego County." The writing on the wall is that, if you want to own a home, you have to move out of San Diego where the median home price is $855,000. For instance the median home price in Indianapolis is $229,900.

Off the Top of My Head

Should we Have a Second Pentagon ... Devoted to Peace?

by John Lawrence

So we have a Pentagon of War. We should have an equally funded Pentagon of Peace, a huge 5-sided building where all they do is plan and seek to implement various peace scenarios. Unimaginable? That's because the human race has so little imagination, and the result is ... continuous warfare since the dawn of civilization and before including the wiping out of another species, the Neanderthals, by our species, homo sapiens. The history of the human race is one of war with some technological progress in the interstices. Let's face it. Human beings especially of the masculine variety get off on war. Most warmongers are completely bored by peace. They can't wait to get back into action and cover themselves in glory on the battlefield, to prove their mettle, to prove their masculinity. Right now the US spends close to a trillion dollars a year on war, the weapons of war and planning for war. We spend a pittance on peace, the implementation of peace and planning for peace. As a result the human race has been heading for some time to Mutually Assured Destruction. We will probably get there whether or not it happens by means of a nuclear holocaust or whether it happens by neglect of the things that need to be done to forestall climate change.

The war in Ukraine and the looming Cold (and maybe even Hot) War between the two sides that are lining up represents at least a dithering while the planet heats up and eventually burns becoming a Venus like uninhabitable hellscape. So we have the US and Europe on one side and Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea on the other. Of the not quite aligned nations, most of Africa is siding with the Chinese. Why? Because the Chinese have put great energy into developing African infrastructure with their Belt and Road initiative. The US on the other hand has put great energy into building military bases all around the world. "There are roughly 750 US foreign military bases; they are spread across 80 nations! After the U.S is the UK, but they only have 145 bases. Russia has about 3 dozen bases, and China just five. This implies that the U.S has three times as many bases as all other countries combined." So this goes to show the relative priorities of the various countries. The priorities of peace vs the priorities of war. Helping improve the economies of other people directly is something that the Pentagon of Peace should be about. Sad to say China did that first, but there's always hope. As my Dad used to say, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Sure China's goal was to make friends and influence people with its Belt and Road initiative. What's the US doing in the meantime ... building military bases.

The Peace Pentagon should have a budget equal to the War Pentagon's budget - roughly a trillion dollars. I'm not saying do away with the Department of War and become defenseless. No, keep a robust defense but counterbalance it with a robust Department of Peace. So if possible peace initiatives will carry the day, but, if worse comes to worse, well there's always the fantastic array of weapons of war that the US already possesses. The war capabilities are enormous. The peace capabilities are meager. There's a difference between pursuing our interests by becoming friends with other people and pursuing our interests by guarding ourselves from other people. One of the ways to avoid war is to recognize the legitimate interests of other countries as stated by them. The war in Ukraine could have been avoided if NATO and the US had acknowledged Russia's stated security interest in Ukraine's not becoming a member of NATO. But that interest was totally discarded by the West - not even put on the table, not even some sort of compromise which would have recognized that stated interest. I'm not saying if that interest was legitimate or not - only that that was the stated interest on the Russian side that was completely ignored and never even negotiated. The result of that non-negotiation and non-compromise was the mess in Ukraine right now - a grinding war of attrition in which only Ukraine civilian lives and only Ukraine real estate are being destroyed. Ukraine would like nothing better than to have advanced weapons such as F-16 fighter jets which would allow them to spread the war into Russian territory, and then you have World War III. That seems to be where we are heading.

Off the Top of My Head

The Glory of War

by John Lawrence

Throughout history men have gone to war to cover themselves in glory and prove their masculinity. In World War I, many young British men were gung ho for going to war. They intended to cover themselves in glory and be home before Christmas. Instead many of them died face down in muddy trenches or were impaled on barbed wire. According to historycrunch.com: "...one of the main reasons for the excitement of the war was that many viewed it as an adventure. They read stories about soldiers bravely marching into battle and dying heroically on the battlefields for their countries. For many of these young soldiers, they viewed the Great War as their opportunity to play a role in the ‘glory of war’ and follow in the path of earlier soldiers in earlier European conflicts. To them, war seemed adventurous and a show of bravery that many claimed they ‘did not want to miss’." It was forever so but in general only the victors were able to cover themselves in glory.

War, I would contend, is primarily a masculine pursuit. It represents an attempt by men to prove their manhood. Even some American Indian tribes cultivated a warrior tradition. Their women would have nothing to do with men until they had proved themselves in war. According to Wikipedia: "What evolved among the Plains Native Americans from the 17th to the late 19th century was warfare as both a means of livelihood and a sport. Young men gained both prestige and plunder by fighting as warriors, and this individualistic style of warfare ensured that success in individual combat and capturing trophies of war were highly esteemed." Not for nothing were they called Braves. Martina Sprague in her book The Glory of War: The Way to Historical Immortality writes:  "What motivates men to go to war? The answer is the desire for recognition and the opportunity to gain eternal fame. War is perhaps the most common way in which a man can become a hero. We tend to romanticize war. War is portrayed as a daring adventure for a sacred cause, where the soldier will ultimately reach the highest level of self-actualization. As demonstrated by the great military figures in history, the promise of honor and heroism can help a man conquer the world."

Covering oneself in glory, proving one's masculinity, becoming a hero, these are ultimately traps which cause the perpetuation of war. Some men become addicted to war, the excitement of war. If one war ends, they will seek out the next one. Life is never so dull as life without war. It is the ultimate football game because the stakes - life or death - are so high. Witness the volunteers from other countries who are putting their lives on the line in Ukraine. The problem is that the pursuit of peace is never as exciting as the pursuit of war. Until peacemaking becomes as noble and glorious a pursuit as war, there is no hope for the human race to live peaceably and cooperatively side by side with each other. Until they give out as many medals and honors for peace heroes as they do for war heroes, the human race will go down fighting and ultimately extinguish each other.

I'm afraid that the war in Ukraine is only the latest example of people preoccupied with the excitement of war. Sure it was a clumsy and ignoble thing for Russia to do to so overtly invade Ukraine. They should have taken a page out of the CIA's book and been more subtle and covert about it. For example, the CIA undermined the democratically elected regime of Salvador Allende in Chile because he was a socialist and a Marxist ushering in the regime of Augusto Pinochet and his reign of terror. "According to the Chilean government, the number of executions and forced disappearances was at least 3,095 [under Pinochet]. Operation Condor, a U.S.-supported terror operation focusing on South America, was founded at the behest of the Pinochet regime in late November 1975, his 60th birthday." I'm afraid that Zelensky is following the same playbook of promoting the war based on 'glory for Ukraine' and his David and Goliath symbolism. His insatiable lust for American artillery shells and other advanced weaponry is duly granted by President Biden and the European allies with the goal of "winning the war." No one except the Chinese seem the least interested in creating a peaceful solution to the war. Instead the war will only be escalated when Ukraine gets F-15 fighter jets. Then they will be able to hit Russian targets in Russia escalating the war even further. Until now tragically it's only Ukrainian civilian lives and property that are being destroyed.

It seems like revenge, hatred for Russia and glory for Ukraine are the ultimate factors at work here not a search for compromise which both sides can live with. Does Russia have any legitimate national security interests in Ukraine's not becoming a member of NATO? Did the US have any legitimate national security interests in Chile nor becoming a socialist and Marxist state? There are always many reasons for war, but few for peace. Meanwhile, a lack of cooperation among the world's nations is hastening the day in which global warming will put an end to human civilization unless we can wake up and see that peace and cooperation are more glorious than war.

Off the Top of My Head

Let's All Go Plant Some Trees

by John Lawrence

"Let's Go Fly a Kite" is a song from the1964 film, Mary Poppins, sung by George Banks when he realizes his family is more important than his job. Now the planet earth's survivability trumps even that concern so "let's go plant some trees" should be our new motto. China designated March 12 as National Tree Planting Day in 1979. The National People's Congress, China's top legislature, launched a nationwide voluntary tree-planting campaign in 1981, stipulating that every able-bodied citizen above 11 should plant three to five trees each year. Why not join China in a good natured spirit of saving earth by planting more trees? God in heaven, should this even be controversial? The narrative is that China and the US are big rivals and the best we can do is "compete" with each other. No one in a position of power is suggesting, God forbid, that we should cooperate with each other not even to save the planet from the ravages of global warming that we're already starting to experience. It just goes to show the sickness and the sorriness of the human race when peoples and countries cannot cooperate not even to prevent Mutually Assured Destruction which is the outcome for the human species and many other species if we don't get a handle on global warming. Instead we have global warmongering.

At the World Economic Forum in May 2022:

During his speech at the Forum’s 2022 Annual Meeting in Davos, Xie Zhenhua said: ‘China's forest cover and forest stock volume have been growing in the last 30 years, and China accounts for more than 25% of the world's new green areas. China responds actively to contribute to the 1t.org initiative from the World Economic Forum, and I am announcing here that China aims to plant and conserve 70 billion trees within 10 years to green our planet, combat climate change, and increase forest carbon sinks.’

 

In support of this bold contribution, Chairman Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum said:

‘We appreciate China’s effort in supporting the 1t.org initiative of the World Economic Forum and relevant UN initiatives, we highly appreciate China’s practices upholding relative international commitment such as the Paris Agreement and Biodiversity target through Nature-Based Solutions.’

If the 1.4 billion people of China each plant 3 trees a year, that's 4.2 billion tree planted per year or 42 billion trees planted per decade. If the 332 million people of the US took the same pledge to each plant 3 trees a year, that's approximately another billion trees per year or 10 billion trees per decade. Trees are a carbon sink. They extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It is the natural way to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and, consequently, the harmful effects of global warming. So why isn't there an effort in the US to emulate China in this regard? Shouldn't there be a shared interest here? What if the entire 8 billion people populating planet Earth committed to planting 3 trees a year. A single mature tree can absorb 22 lbs. of carbon a year, and makes enough clean oxygen for 4 people to breathe fresh air. A previous special report by IPCC stated that tree-planting could sequester around 1.1–1.6 GT of CO2 per year. A GT is one billion tons. Approximately 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere every year. Clearly, a lot of trees need to be planted to balance carbon dioxide emissions and sequester 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, but every tree helps. We can reduce the tonnage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere one tree at a time.

So let's join China this March 12 and declare a worldwide national tree planting day or just a global tree planting day in the spirit of cooperation among nations to create peace and save our planet from Mutually Assured Destruction which is the path we are on.

Off the Top of My Head

The Only Way to Create Affordable Housing Is For Government to Set the Price of Rent

by John Lawrence

As long as the market sets the price of rent, rents will become increasingly unaffordable especially in highly desirable areas like San Diego. Remember public housing? Some version of this is necessary or homeless will be relegated to shelters and/or time limited stays in subsidized housing for eternity. Why isn't public housing feasible? It's NIMBYism (not in my back yard) and NMTMFTism (not my tax money for this). What most people don't realize is that the Federal government can build public housing with no tax implications because unlike state governments, the Federal government has a sovereign fiat currency, the US dollar. The only non-artificial restraint on Federal expenditures is inflation so right now is probably not a good time to allocate dollars for public housing. Of course we expect that lessons have been learned so that public housing does not degenerate into the kind of situation like the notorious Cabrini-Green development.

Crime and neglect created hostile living conditions for many residents, and "Cabrini–Green" became a metonym for problems associated with public housing in the United States. In 1995, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) began tearing down dilapidated mid- and high-rise buildings, with the last demolished in 2011. Today, only the original two-story rowhouses remain. The area has seen major redevelopment due to its proximity to downtown, resulting in a combination of upscale high-rises and townhouses, with some units being CHA-owned, creating a mixed-income neighborhood. Dispersal of affordable units throughout an area is necessary in my opinion to prevent concentration of crime and gangs in certain areas. There is no need for public housing to be concentrated like the Cabrini-Green development. It can be dispersed so that an area is mixed income, and less likely to attract gang activity which seems to happen in pockets of poverty.

Of course the US Federal government, based on the two party system can hardly rationalize spending money on public housing as long as Republicans have any say about it or as long as they can filibuster it to death. Progressives have been lucky to get a modicum of progressive legislation passed during the Biden administration. Biden has had to tone down much of the progressive legislation he attempted to pass at first. Nevertheless he has accomplished much. Public housing is not even on the table as a solution to the homeless and housing affordability problem. Rents just continue to increase way beyond a family's ability to pay them. State and local governments are throwing millions of dollar at the homeless problem without even putting a dent in it. It will take some radical ideas to solve it of which disbursed public housing is one. It totally goes against prevailing notions of a capitalist based, profit oriented society, not the least of which is that an ample supply of public, affordable housing units would undermine landlord profits by keeping the cost of housing in the for profit market under control. It would put a base line under housing costs.

Off the Top of My Head

American Lifestyle: Fall in Love. Get Married. Fall Out of Love. Get Divorced. Rinse. Repeat.

by John Lawrence

Celebrities set the tone of American lifestyles, and most of them adhere to the serial marriage model. Except for those who have millions of dollars and prefer to go on fighting after the marriage is resolved like Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. It wasn't enough that Heard got a $7 million divorce settlement. She could have taken the money and gone home. I mean $7 million is a considerable chunk of change, but she chose to go on fighting even after the divorce. She wrote an article which defamed Johnny Depp. At least according to him it was defamatory. So naturally he sued her for defamation. Meanwhile, the media and the lawyers were getting rich. When there are so many more important issues that money and energy could be devoted to, much money and energy were poured into the issue of whether or not Amber Heard had defamed Johnny Depp or vice versa. So what. Who Cares. Even more entertaining than their movies. We are entertaining ourselves to death.

Then there's Taylor Swift with whom one can hardly keep up with all the songs she's written and records she's made off of her serial relationships. Not to mention all of her Swifty fans who cried crocodile tears over the fact that they couldn't get tickets to one of her concerts. Boo. Hoo. Children are starving in Africa, and people are feeling abused because they can't go to a Taylor Swift concert? What kind of values are these? People are all about emulating celebrities so when a Swifty actually gets into a relationship or a marriage, they must ask themselves, when the simplest problem comes up, "what would Taylor do". Why probably just drop the guy like a hot potato and then write a song about it. This trivializes human relationships. Of course money is not an issue regardless of what happens. Celebrities have more of that commodity than they know what to do with. At least what to do with it constructively like the man who took his fortune, went to Africa and repopulated a game reserve from scratch thereby creating jobs in tourism for the local population. He spent $100 million of his own money, but singlehandedly brought hope and prosperity to a great many people.

Mozambique's Gorongosa National Park was the envy of Africa. Wildlife drew tourists from around the world. But, beginning in the 1960's, a man made catastrophe (war) slaughtered the animals until, it was said, there was nothing left but mosquitos and landmines.Then Greg Carr decided it was his life's work to restore Gorongosa National Park to greatness and restore the local population to some semblance of a decent life. He educated the children, imported all kinds of animals that had previously made a home there, and by the miracle of sexual reproduction, the various herds of predators and prey animals returned themselves to their former glory. At least there are some millionaires and billionaires who want to do good deeds with their money. Then there are the self indulgent celebrities and all their followers who could care less about anything other than their own petty and expensive needs and habits.

Off the Top of My Head

How to Solve the Homeless Problem and Bring Rents Down at the Same Time

by John Lawrence

Open public campgrounds with amenities that anyone could access. The homeless should have to live there by local ordinance rather than public streets. Many others would choose to live there rather than pay exorbitant rents. Market forces would drive rents down. The homeless would be off the public streets. In Sweden they have Allemansrätten, the Swedish right to camp on public land.  It's guaranteed by their Constitution. Many, who are not homeless, would choose to camp on urban public land until rents came down. As apartments lay vacant, landlords would eventually be forced to reduce prices. Where is it written that everyone has to have a mortgage or pay rent? The homeless are camping now, but just in the wrong places - on public streets. They don't lack tents. They don't lack food. What they lack is sanitation. Public campgrounds on vacant land owned by cities, of which there is plenty, could provide that. Security could be provided for a lo less than public expenditures on police now occurring because many of their calls are homeless related. This solution would not solve all of society's problems, but it would be very cost effective and would clear the public streets so pedestrians could use them safely and sanitarily.

All the other solutions for which millions of dollars are being spent could still be provided. However, the millions of dollars now being spent are not getting the job done.Granted families with children need proper housing so housing solutions should focus on them not single individuals. The elderly need to be given special consideration. Parking areas for people with vehicles who wish to sleep in their vehicles on city owned vacant lots would cost the city nothing or next to nothing. Portable rest rooms and showers are already available at a meager cost.Why aren't cities using them? They could also provide factory made portable cabin sized housing modules at minimum cost. Why do they insist that everyone has to be properly housed in two by four construction which is very expensive. Shelters aren't for everyone for a number of reasons. Some people have pets that aren't allowed in shelters, and some just want their own individual space even if it's a tent on the sidewalk.

Is it that the rental industry doesn't want to see a low cost public solution to homelessness that anyone who wants to save money could avail themselves of? An Allemansrätten for America? Why does the public tolerate their sidewalks and public areas being clogged by homeless tents and paraphernalia? This is as much a solution for them, the general public, as it is for the presently homeless and the very poor because, let's face it, the very poor just can't afford current rents and there are very few single room occupancy (SRO) units available. Single tent occupancy on sanctioned public camp grounds would be something better than what exists now especially if a few inexpensive amenities were provided such as toilets and showers, and it would FREE UP PUBLIC STREETS. It would cost a pittance compared to the money that' is now being spent on homeless non-solutions.

Off the Top of My Head

Mass Murderers Get Much More Than Their 15 Minutes of Fame

by John Lawrence

The perpetrator of the recent mass murder in the Q night club wants to be addressed as "they" and "them" because he is "non-binary." How about if we address him as "you sonofabitch." Barely, have we gotten done with one mass murder in the news cycle than another one comes along to take precedence. The news these days consists mainly of covering one mass murder after another. Mass murderers are lining up. Next? Better make sure the news cycle is clear so that your atrocity takes over the headlines. Then we hear all about the perpetrator's messed up childhood, and, if there is a court trial, the news media dutifully covers it giving the murderer another 15 minutes of fame at least. Recently, families of the victims were upset when a mass murderer was given a sentence of free room and board for life with no possibility of ever having to make a living for himself rather than the death penalty. The news media and a coterie of lawyers, not to mention gun manufacturers and merchandisers are making a small fortune off of the mass murder business. Here's an idea; mass murderers caught in the act should immediately be taken out and shot thus avoiding the news cycle, numerous lawyers, pundits pontificating, authors hawking books and displays of grieving and mourning. It's all become a predictable big business. Yes, the GDP would decrease slightly, but who cares. We have become a mass culture of mass murder spectacles.

So the Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What is well-regulated, much less militia-like about individuals going out and buying an AK-47 and committing mass murder over some real or perceived grievance? By the way, the news media informs us that "the police have not yet discovered a motive." They never do. What possible motive could there be for mass murder that would justify it? The motive is the fact that the mass murderer is fucked up. Saying that he - and it always is a "he" - is mentally ill, is a means of evoking sympathy for someone who deserves none. But if individual mass murderers are fucked up, so is the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the Heller case that the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own (and use) guns. What about the "well regulated militia" bullshit? The Supreme Court basically backed the rights of mass murderers. Now according to recent reports: Six million Americans carried guns daily in 2019, twice as many as in 2015. And this: "The trend is expected to continue, after the supreme court ruling earlier this year overturning strict limits on public gun-carrying." Whose side is the Supreme Court on? 

Pogo said: "We have met the enemy and he is us." True. The enemy is not "out there." It is the very wonderful American people themselves and the very vaunted Supreme Court which is so concerned about preserving life in the womb and so unconcerned about preserving life once it's outside the womb. After spending a trillion dollars a year on our military and military-industrial complex, it seems we as a nation are powerless to stop Americans from self immolating. So Americans have to come to expect one mass killing after another in assembly line like fashion. Next? They are already getting in line. Fame and fortune and a free meal ticket for life awaits. Meanwhile, the rest of us are reminded of John Milton's poem: "we also serve who only stand and wait." The rest of us go to our boring jobs, take care of our traumatized families and hope for a better life for us and our children if the world doesn't burn up due to global warming. Please, President Biden, do something about assault rifles.

Off the Top of My Head

The Mid Terms: Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire

by John Lawrence

Voters are going to vote Republican because they don't like the economy. Really? What have the Republicans proposed to do about that? Cut social security and Medicare. Yeah, that'll fix the economy all right. Give more tax breaks to billionaires? That'll fix the economy for sure. Take away Biden's forgiveness of student loan debt? That'll really fix it. "Kitchen table" voters don't like inflation? What are Republicans proposing to do about that? The only tool in the arsenal for inflation cutting is the Fed's raising interest rates and the Fed is independent of both parties. Besides the only tool the Fed has is probably not the right tool for fixing this inflation. But it will eventually destroy what seems to be a pretty good economy despite inflation. The biggest way to fight inflation is to end the war in Ukraine which will bring gas prices down. Additionally, all the weaponry that is being "given" to Ukraine is really being bought from US weapons manufacturers and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin. This is pouring more money into the American economy at a time when money needs to be extracted from the American economy to fight inflation. The Fed's raising of interest rates is an attempt to increase unemployment which is the traditional way that the Fed fights inflation. The so-called Philips curve says that inflation is directly caused by too much employment, and, if you increase unemployment, it will bring inflation down. There is a direct correlation between unemployment and inflation. So the Fed, although no politician will say it, is trying desperately to increase unemployment. This hurts poor people the most, and, whether it will decrease inflation under the present circumstances, is debatable.

However, the war in Ukraine amounts to a protracted stalemate. As long as the west supplies Ukraine with weapons and North Korea, Iran and China supply Russia with weapons, the war will continue. No one on either side wants to talk peace. Each side wants to win at all costs. So the war will drag the world economy down into inflation and recession. Russia holds the winning cards in terms of its ability to literally destroy Ukraine from the air regardless of what is happening on the battlefield. This is not World War II where success on the battlefield was the key to winning the war. It's more like World War I where trench warfare and stalemate predominated. Territorial Russia remains virtually untouched since the rules are that the war will be entirely fought on Ukraine's territory, and the west to its credit doesn't want an expansion of the war. In the final analysis this gives Russia the advantage. Ukraine is fighting a defensive war, and Russia is fighting an offensive war. It's likely that neither party will run out of resources. That means the longer the war goes on, the more of Ukraine will be destroyed. There needs to be a peace commission and a peace process in which both sides can air their grievances and aspirations. What makes the most sense? I'm sure there is a possible way out, but neither side seems to want to compromise in the interests of ameliorating the lives of the Ukrainian people and getting back to normalcy. For each side their national pride is more important than the lives of their citizens.

Joe Biden could propose a solution to the war which would also go a long way to ameliorating inflation. Unfortunately, Biden is only interested in demonizing Putin. This is not a productive way to create peace. Biden is only fueling the war, and Putin won't back down due to pride. The more Putin is demonized, the more his hackles are raised. The west should be trying to lower Putin's hackles, not raise them. Ukrainian lives hang in the balance. Russian soldiers' lives are also in the balance although Russian civilians so far have escaped most of the suffering. Ukraine taking back real estate will not in the final analysis win the war because Russia can lob missiles into Ukraine ad infinitum. Only a peace process, compromise, consideration for civilian lives and reintegration of Russia into the world community will make it possible for people in that region of the world to again lead normal lives. Winning the war for either side is not a realistic option.

Off the Top of My Head

Problem of American Democracy: Will It Devolve to Tribalism?

by John Lawrence

The US was settled by western Europeans - white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. All the Founding Fathers and writers of the Constitution consisted of these folks. When the Europeans came here there were 100 million Native Americans. A few years later, due to war and disease, there were only 10 million. 90% of Native Americans were wiped out. African Americans were brought here as slaves and completely subjugated, first due to slavery and secondly due to Jim Crow laws up to 1965. So western Europeans predominated in the US right up to late in the 20th century. From the 1880s to the 1920s many of the immigrants were Eastern and Southern Europeans fleeing poverty. They were preceded by the Irish in the 1850s due to the potato famine. This was the era when the motto, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore" really held true. Then in 1920 or thereabouts the door to immigration was slammed shut. The western Europeans who ran America were afraid that these new immigrants would outnumber them and take over. Tribalism had reared its ugly head. About the same time eugenics was elevated to the point that the Supreme Court allowed the states to sterilize people that they considered undesirable. In Virginia Carrie Beck was sterilized.

Now that African Americans have escaped the bounds of Jim Crow and other Persons of Color have come to predominate in many positions of power, the remnants of the western Europeans who controlled the US up until the last 30 years or so are feeling like they're losing their grip on power. Democracy, as it was set up by the WASP Founding Fathers, only worked when the citizenry were also predominantly WASPs.Although its ideals were lofty, it was never meant to include African Americans, Native Americans, Latin Americans or other Persons of Color from around the world. The point could be made that democracy only works when it is enacted completely within one tribe, and, when other tribes are incorporated into the community, it doesn't work so well. What is happening today is that the WASP tribe is losing its grip on power, and so is attempting to put democracy aside and just revert to a society in which WASPs hold the reins on power. That is what the Republican party and especially the election deniers are all about.

Election deniers and conspiracy theorists are simply using a dog whistle because they just can't come out and say that what thy are really about is reverting to a tribal state in which they maintain the power that WASPs have always been accustomed to. Donald Trump is just the symbol of this.Election denying is just a euphemism for white western European power. The harsh reality is that the remnant WASPS would rather have an autocracy that they control rather than a true democracy consisting of African Americans and other Persons of Color. They don't want the true history of the US which includes other harsh realities taught in class rooms. The history they want taught is circumscribed to include only Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln and other WASPs but certainly not the realities of African and Native Americans and what happened to them at the hands of the WASPs.

So now what is at stake is the creation either of a true democracy which includes as full citizens and people allowed to enter positions of power those of African descent and other Persons of Color. What is at stake is a true Rainbow Coalition. The alternative is what the election deniers are trying to bring about which is an antidemocratic autocracy in which the descendants of WASPs prevail. That is basically what the Republican party represents - the descendants of WASPs. This is predominantly what the US has always been controlled by up till recently, and they want to continue in that mold. That's why the culture wars are heating up and what is taught in school is so important. If history is taught in such a way that it includes the realities of all Americans and not simply WASP Americans, it is taught in such a way that it does not reflect so favorably on WASP Americans. If non WASPS are given full citizenship or even if they are compensated for some of the inequities they have experienced in the past, this is threatening to the WASPs who would like to maintain the facade that they are good people and have always been good people. What is at stake is which version of reality will predominate in American society and who will be allowed into the Sanctum Sanctorum of American political power. Either the US becomes a true democracy or it reverts to a tribe controlled by the descendants of WASPs only.

Off the Top of My Head

Problems With American Constitution/Democracy: It Spells Out Rights But Not Responsibilities

by John Lawrence

Americans like to emphasize their rights, but don't talk much about their responsibilities. As far as the Constitution is concerned, there are none. As far as corporations are concerned, their only responsibility is to maximize profits by any means necessary. So the environment is not even a concern. Global warming is not even a concern. The only concern as far as business is concerned is business. "The business of America is business," so said President Calvin Coolidge in a 1925 speech. Corporations are supposed to maximize profits presumably as their responsibility to their shareholders which excludes about 50% of Americans who don't own any shares. We've already talked about a right and responsibility to work as a balance to Article 25 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Rights should be balanced by responsibilities. Unfortunately, in the American Constitution and even in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, they're not. In the very last article of the UN charter we find the only mention of "duties":

"Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

So no responsibilities are spelled out except the obvious one of not infringing on anyone else's rights. There are no explicit duties in return for all the considerable rights and freedoms spelled out in the UN Charter. There is no obligation to work or pay, if possible, to contribute to the " food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services" that one has a right to expect. It just doesn't add up.

So where does this leave the homeless in America. Unlike the UN charter, the American Constitution does not guarantee the right to housing or anything else. Either you pay for it or work to create it or else. The City of San Diego has proposed a "data analytics program" to solve the homeless problem. Now they are going to spend perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars not on anything that would directly help the homeless such as actually giving them the money for rent, but to some firm for some technology. They've been doing the same thing for years. I remember 20 years ago they paid someone $100,000 for a plan to end homelessness. What happened to that? KPBS reported: "In a statement after the vote, Fletcher said the county will continue to tackle the crisis that exists on the streets, "but we must invest in preventative actions like this one that stops people from becoming unhoused. This new technology will do it." New technology indeed.

If the city designated certain areas where the homeless could legally set up their tents, this in and of itself would get them off the public streets. Instead, the city criminalizes the homeless for living on the streets. But where else can they go? Legal campgrounds with basic amenities like toilets and showers would immensely improve the homeless' lot at rock bottom, minimal expense. The City owns lots of land parcels where this would be possible. Buildings are expensive. Vacant land that the City already owns is not. Most homeless people don't want to be "sheltered" except in case of very bad weather. They like the individual freedom of having their own space even if that is a tent. Some have animals which are forbidden in shelters. Some like to consume substances which are forbidden in shelters. Some don't like to be snooped on which is what happens in shelters. Why doesn't the City get this?

What the City is deathly afraid of is that, if they really made the homeless comfortable like in a campground,say, the City of San Diego would become a homeless magnet attracting homeless people and other people, who just wanted to save money and not pay exorbitant rent, from all over the country. Many people, not only the down and out, would prefer minimum amenities at a campground to paying $2000 a month in rent which is about the minimum rent in San Diego. The powers that be don't want to make camping out a permanently acceptable lifestyle. But why not? Not everyone needs a structure to live in to have a reasonably normal and happy life. With a gym or YMCA membership you have access to shower and rest room facilities. Using public transportation supplemented with a bicycle you can get to a job. A cell phone expedites communications and even banking. It's just that the City fathers and mothers find it abhorrent that people could actually prosper in an unhoused environment with minimal amenities at least for a period of time. They don't want San Diego to become the homeless capital of the US.

Off the Top of My Head

Is There an Off Ramp to Peace in Ukraine?

by John Lawrence

In a hypothetical handshake between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin, the agreement was that the war would be fought entirely within Ukraine's borders, and that the US and the west would provide no boots on the ground in Ukraine. Until recently that unacknowledged agreement has been honored by both sides. The US has sought to contain the war also by not providing Ukraine with any long range missiles with which it could attack Russian territory. The idea was that the two sides would slug it out on the conventional military battlefield although Russia clearly has the means by which it could attack anywhere in Ukraine with missiles. The recent attack on the Kerch bridge followed by missile strikes on Kyiv represents an escalation of the war. In the "conventional" war Russia has evidently been losing. From Russia's perspective they have other modes of attack than just a conventional battlefield war. In the words of one Russian general, Russia should bomb Ukraine back to the 18th century. At this point Ukraine has little or no air defense capabilities, and Russia could do just that. So will Russia violate the unwritten agreement that the war will be won or lost on the battlefield? Probably "yes" if they are losing on the battlefield. Russia has long range missiles; Ukraine doesn't. Russia has an air force; Ukraine doesn't. Ukraine has no air defense system. The US and the west will not use their air force resources within Ukraine. This, as Joe Biden rightly observes, would start World War 3.

So why is the West deluding itself by thinking Ukraine could win this war and things could peacefully continue from there? Why is Russia trying to win a conventional war that it clearly is losing. Why are there no negotiations to try and settle this conflict in order to prevent further human suffering and devastation of Ukraine? Why is there no peace process underway? The US air force is not going to come to the aid of Ukraine. The US is not going to give Ukraine long range missiles so that it could attack inside Russia's borders. As atrocious as the Russian side has been made to seem by western media, Russia has exercised at least some restraint by not wiping Kiev off the map with missile strikes. Now that dynamic seems to have changed. Russia can inflict much damage on Kyiv and western Ukraine that it has recently refrained from doing. But now the gloves may be off. So my prognosis is that the war will get even more destructive because Kyiv and western Ukraine are essentially sitting ducks for Russian missile strikes. So why should Russia continue to fight a war on the ground that it is losing? The US and the west is concerned that Russia could use a battlefield nuclear weapon. Russia does not need to do that in order to devastate Kyiv and western Ukraine.

Unless there is some attempt at a peace process or a negotiated settlement, the destruction of Ukraine and the suffering of its people will only get worse. Modern wars are not constrained to military troops on the battlefield as they were in Napoleanic times. Increasingly in modern warfare, more civilian than military lives have been lost. Demonizing Putin will not win the day for Ukraine. Ukraine has belonged to Russia more often than not for hundreds of years. It was essentially peacefully "given" to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954. Nina Khrushcheva, the political scientist and great-granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev, the then First Secretary of the Communist Party, said of Khrushchev's motivation "it was somewhat symbolic, somewhat trying to reshuffle the centralized system and also, full disclosure, Nikita Khrushchev was very fond of Ukraine, so I think to some degree it was also a personal gesture toward his favorite republic. He was ethnically Russian, but he really felt great affinity with Ukraine." Russia clearly has a historical interest in Ukraine, not to mention the fact that the Russian Black Sea fleet is based in Sevastopol which is in Crimea.

The US and the west continues to ignore Russian history at it's and Ukraine's peril. Russia will obviously not let the country that harbors its Russian military fleet become a part of NATO. That would almost be a contradiction in terms. The negotiated solution to this war, an off ramp to peace, seems unthinkable at this point, but decent human beings on both sides better start thinking about it. Unless they do, there will be even more destruction of Ukrainian civilians and of the Ukrainian civilization.

Off the Top of My Head

The Government Should Buy Out Parts of Florida Rather Than providing Money to Rebuild

by John Lawrence

Owners of real estate on Florida's barrier islands should be bought out. Climate change will continue to provide hurricanes that will wipe out homes and businesses in these vulnerable areas. It doesn't make sense to rebuild there. Rebuilding there represents throwing good money after bad. If owners' investments in real estate can be made whole, then they can rebuild or buy in some other area which isn't prone to climate change induced disasters. 7 News reported:

"SANIBEL ISLAND, Fla. (AP) — When Hurricane Ian struck Florida’s Gulf Coast, it washed out the bottom level of David Muench’s home on the barrier island of Sanibel along with several cars, a Harley-Davidson and a boat.

His parents’ house was among those destroyed by the storm that killed at least two people there, and the lone bridge to the crescent-shaped island collapsed, cutting off access by car to the mainland for its 6,300 residents.

Hurricane Ian underscores the vulnerability of the nation’s barrier islands and the increasing costs of people living on the thin strips of land that parallel the coast. As hurricanes become more destructive, experts question whether such exposed communities can keep rebuilding in the face of climate change.

“This is a Hurricane Katrina-scale event, where you’re having to rebuild everything, including the infrastructure,” said Jesse M. Keenan, a real estate professor at Tulane University’s School of Architecture. “We can’t build back everything to what it was — we can’t afford that.”"

Actually, it would be cheaper to buy out this real estate rather than to rebuild it along with all the associated infrastructure. Buying or rebuilding in safer areas where the infrastructure is already present eliminates the costs of debris removal and infrastructure rebuilding. Insurance companies will either go bankrupt or be devastated along with the other natural devastation. FEMA's budget will be used up trying to compensate for all the billion dollar weather disasters that are surely coming. These are no "500 year storms." That is pure fiction. These are once or more a year storms.Much of Florida will be underwater eventually as oceans continue to rise. The only thing that makes sense is to move away from the coasts in the most expeditious and least costly manner. Government can expedite this process so that home and business owners aren't forced back onto vulnerable properties and will have somewhere else to go to without losing their real estate investments.

Off the Top of My Head

Republicans Hate Socialism ... Except When They Need Help Themselves

by John Lawrence

When Superstorm Sandy hit, then Congressman DeSantis voted against giving help to New York state. Now after the Hurricane Ian disaster, Governor DeSantis is asking the Federal government for every dollar he can possibly get. This is typical Republican behavior. After all socialism is about helping people. Republicans want every ounce of help they can get for themselves while denying it to others. All of a sudden DeSantis is Joe Biden's best friend. Joe wants to help people, but he should think twice about helping DeSantis. First of all a hard look should be given to rebuilding on hurricane prone barrier islands. DeSantis, of course, wants the increased economic activity that rebuilding will entail for construction companies especially if the Federal government pays for it. Building Back Better in hurricane prone areas is not good economic sense. And it will cost a fortune in an inflationary era while only adding to inflation as the Federal government injects more money into the economy.

Robert Reich wrote in a recent email:

"No Republican governor has been more vocal in his opposition to what he describes as “socialism” than Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis. “I stand against socialism,” DeSantis thundered in Florida’s 2018 gubernatorial election. “Socialist policies have failed time and time again.” In June, DeSantis signed an education bill directing Florida’s Department of Education to develop a curriculum educating students on the evils of socialism (as well as communism)."

But now, when his state needs the money, DeSantis is either a full on socialist or a full on opportunist who, once he gets his, will be against anyone else getting theirs. In 2013 DeSantis said: "I sympathize with the victims of Hurricane Sandy and believe that those who purchased flood insurance should have their claims paid. At the same time, allowing the program to increase its debt by another $9.7 billion with no plan to offset the spending with cuts elsewhere is not fiscally responsible." So now after Hurricane Ian, which will run into the tens of billions, is giving the state of Florida the money DeSantis is requesting from the Federal government "fiscally responsible"? Reich poses the question: "So, would DeSantis call any form of government assistance to those in need “socialism?” Obviously, not when it's his ox that's being gored. DeSantis' hypocrisy is immense here, but it will probably work for him. He will take credit for "getting Florida and Floridians back to normal" as he enters the 2024 Presidential contest. Before Biden gives DeSantis all the money he wants, DeSantis should do a mea culpa, stating that he was wrong to vote against disaster relief for New York state after Superstorm Sandy.

DeSantis website headlines: "Governor Ron DeSantis Requests President Biden Approve Major Disaster Declaration and 100 Percent Federal Cost Share for 60 Days for Hurricane Ian" This isn't the first time that DeSantis has used Federal cash to tout his own agenda. Just prior to the fatal hurricane, DeSantis held a press conference in Jacksonville where he gave $1,000 checks to individual firefighters and law-enforcement officers that were being made available through this year’s state budget. Of course he didn't mention that this was cash the state of Florida got from the American Rescue Plan, Federal money which provided more than $8.8 billion to the state of Florida.DeSantis will likely continue to bash President Joe Biden and the Democrats for pushing policies that he says have caused inflation — which includes the massive spending included in the American Rescue Plan. I've got news for Gov. DeSantis: if he cared about inflation, he would take the money to recover from Hurricane Ian out of state taxes instead of letting the American taxpayer foot the bill while all the time giving Joe Biden no credit. He will take all that for himself.

 

Off the Top of My Head

A 500 Year Event, Gov. DeSantis, or a Once a Year Occurrence?

by John Lawrence

Gov. DeSantis has said repeatedly, "This is a 500 year event" as if once we get the damage cleaned up from Hurricane Ian, we can relax because this kind of devastation won't happen again for another 500 years. I've got news for you, Gov. Desantis. An event like Ian will probably happen again within 5 years, and it will be even worse as the Caribbean warms more making hurricanes even more ferocious. Floridians experienced the deadly, devastating consequences of back-to-back major hurricanes—Irma in 2017 and Michael in 2018—along with near-misses by Matthew in 2016 and Dorian in 2019. They don't sound like 500 year events to me. Let's be honest with each other, Gov. DeSantis. The wreckage from Ian won't even be fully cleaned up before the next major hurricane hits Florida. Thank God, DeSantis is not a climate change denier. However, he is not given high marks for taking action to mitigate the effects of climate change. “I am not in the pews of the church of the global warming leftists,” DeSantis told reporters at one 2018 campaign stop. “I am not a global warming person. I don’t want that label on me.” Forget about labels, Gov. DeSantis, you have a major problem on your hands. You better get down on your knees and start worshiping at the church of climate change.

Inside Climate News reports:

"Florida’s climate challenges are among the biggest in the country. Beyond those related to hurricanes intensified by climate change, they include sea level rise, extreme heat, drought and increasing health threats from mosquito-borne diseases. Florida is the most hurricane-prone state, and hurricanes are not only getting more powerful, they are bringing much more rainfall. 

Sunny day flooding is a regular occurrence in some communities because of sea level rise. Some face several feet of sea level rise by the end of the century. 

By its own numbers, the DeSantis administration predicts that with sea level rise, $26 billion in residential property statewide will be at risk of chronic flooding by 2045."

OK, Ian will probably result in more than $26 billion to clean up, and that's not "by 2045". That's this year - 2022. As insurance companies refuse to insure Florida residential property, Florida residents better hope that the Federal government takes up the slack. By the way that's the Federal government that this Republican state tells to stay out of its business. It's always about states' rights until there's some disaster. Then they come running to the Federal government for help. Private flood insurance will soon be a thing of the past. Nearly 80,000 Florida homeowners will have to find new insurance, after Southern Fidelity declared bankruptcy. The Tallahassee based company is the fourth insurer to declare insolvency recently.

The hardest hit by Ian, of course, were retirees and poor people living in mobile homes. Mobile homes should be outlawed in most parts of Florida. They cannot withstand the powerful hurricanes that are only going to get more powerful as climate change accelerates. Even structurally sound homes will still suffer from water damage and the loss of services like power, water, cell phone towers and more. There will be more water damage from storm surges and fresh water flooding as major storms drop 24 inches or more of water on neighborhoods. All utilities need to be undergrounded, or they will be on the ground more than they will be functional. It will be a full time job just getting water, power, sewer and communications back online, not to mention getting roads cleared of debris and rebuilding bridges and washed out roads. Massive climate disasters are only going to get worse, and we're still putting about 34 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. There's no way that we can survive without a full on effort by all countries of the world to get off fossil fuels ASAP. Yet countries of the world continue to fight, bicker and compete with each other instead of COOPERATING.

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle - Part 6 - Strengthening the Border

by John Lawrence

As much as the provision of safe zones and other aspects that have been mentioned in this series, strengthening the US southern border is equally important. The problem is that there are those who would rather take their chances illegally entering the US rather than going to a safe zone or a port of entry and asking for asylum there. Right now only about 20% of asylum seekers actually get it. What we want to encourage is legal, orderly immigration, not helter skelter, chaotic and random immigration by people illegally crossing the border and vanishing into the interior of the US. Democrats don't emphasize enough their preference for legal and not illegal immigration enough. One gets the impression that they are for immigration whether it is legal or illegal.  So Republicans are the ones who are left with the issue of strengthening the border to minimize illegal immigration. Democrats should be just as concerned about non citizens breaching the southern border illegally as Republicans are.

Since those going to the proposed safe zones may never be cleared or given asylum, desperate people will still take their chances by trying to enter the US illegally. As the law stands now, if they set foot in the US and ask for asylum, they must be given a court date (right now the waiting time to appear in court is 4 1/2 years) and allowed to stay in the US while they are waiting. They cannot access government benefits and given a green card, however, until asylum is granted. Part of disincentivizing illegal immigration is to change this law so that those entering illegally can be deported. The other part is to strengthen the southern border both physically and electronically. Satellite observation should be used. More human resources should also be put into border protection. Potential immigrants can always apply for asylum at a port of entry, but, if safe zones in Guatemala or other central American countries are realized, people would not have to make the long trek to the US to apply at a port of entry. Therefore, as much as I hate to say it, Trump was right to want to build a border wall. That in and of itself is not enough to discourage illegal immigration. Suffice it to say that more resources should be put into protecting the southern border while incentivizing potential immigrants to apply for asylum in safe zones closer to their home countries as Representative Gonzalez has proposed..

Legal and orderly immigration should be encouraged and the numbers let in should increase. There is a labor shortage in the US for the kinds of jobs that immigrants usually are qualified for. This means agricultural and construction workers among other kinds of laborers. Increasing the number of legal immigrants let into the country will not only ameliorate the labor shortage but will reduce inflation as supply chains will become more efficient. I am for humane treatment of immigrants, but incentivizing them to trek to the southern border and enter illegally is not humane. Asylum seekers, refugees and those wishing to immigrate for a better life should all be treated humanely and incentivized to apply in a legal and orderly manner.

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle - Part 4 - Congressman Vicente Gonzalez' Safe Zone Proposal

by John Lawrence

Similar to suggestions in this series, Congressman Gonzalez has proposed a safe zone in Guatemala from which asylum seekers could apply to enter the United States and take the pressure off the southern border. At the same time the law that allows admission to the US for anyone setting foot on the US would change. People doing this would be transported back to the safe zone. They could apply for asylum there. Congressman Vicente's proposal is the following:

“America is a haven for those looking to escape poverty, violence, and religious or political persecution,” stated Congressman Gonzalez. “It is time we address our flawed immigration process and ensure the safety of migrants and the security of our country. I am proud to introduce this legislation that allows individuals to apply for asylum in their home country—breaking the cycle of dependence on human traffickers and the deadly risk of trekking thousands of miles over harsh terrain. 

“The Safe Zones Act provides much needed relief to our border communities and gives a humane path to asylum seekers, removing their reliance on cartels for passage to our southern border. The Safe Zones Act allows people to apply for asylum legally and securely in a process that alleviates pressure on our Border Patrol personnel, border communities, and our immigration courts. The scenes we have witnessed from migrants dying in tractor-trailers to drowning in the Rio Grande are nothing short of horrific and heartbreaking. It is time we adequately address immigration reform with common-sense, bipartisan measures that provide actual results.  

“I urge my colleagues to join me and send this bill to President Biden’s desk. Seeking a better life in the United States should not be a death sentence for families. It is time we change the system for the better.” 

It goes on:

• Safe Zones are designated by the Secretary of State under section 207(g) to accept and process applications for refugee admissions to the United States.

• Safe Zones may include embassies, consulates, other diplomatic facilities, or other facilities as determined to be appropriate by the Secretary of State.

The only thing I would add is, considering conservative concerns, the border itself should be strengthened to discourage illegal immigration. If those attempting to cross the US border know that they will be caught and transported back to the safe zone, they will be disincentivized from doing so.

Off the Top of My Head

The Immigration Debacle - Part 3 - The Difference Among Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Illegals

by John Lawrence

A refugee is someone who wants to emigrate to another country, but applies typically from a refugee camp in a neighboring country. If granted refugee status, they can not determine exactly which country they will be granted admission to.  An asylum seeker is like a refugee in the fact that they want to leave their home country, but unlike a refugee they attempt to set foot in the country they want to go to. Some of them do this legally by approaching a port of entry and requesting asylum. They are then processed and given a court date at which time a judge will decide whether or not to give them asylum status. It all depends on whether or not they can convince the judge that they are fleeing violence in their home country. Fleeing poverty is not a good enough reason. Approximately 80% are denied asylum status and ordered to leave the US. Others enter the US illegally ^i.e. by crossing the border but not at a port of entry. If they are picked up by border patrol, they can then also request asylum. Others enter illegally and manage to evade the authorities altogether. They are the true illegals.

The problem from the asylum seeker's point of view is 1) their court date may be way off in the future and they are given no government assistance until after they are granted asylum and 2) their chances of getting asylum are very meager. So this situation incentivizes people to enter illegally and try not to get caught especially if they have family in the US who can shelter them. There are a number of ways to change the dynamics of this situation - some favored by conservatives and some favored by liberals. To really solve this problem what is needed are elements from both sides. The policy of letting anyone who sets foot in the US claim asylum should be changed. People should be incentivized to request asylum at a port of entry or better yet ask for refugee status in their home country or a neighboring one. The border wall should be strengthened to make it very unlikely that anyone can get in illegally. The fact that someone can wade across the Rio Grande, set foot in the US and request asylum is ridiculous. This is where I side with conservatives. On the other hand the process of requesting asylum at a port of entry needs to be expedited. These cases should be decided in a matter of days not months. If you have to hire more judges and build more court rooms, so be it. Furthermore, the policy for granting asylum should be liberalized to the extent that reasons other than "fleeing violence" are acceptable. Fleeing the results of climate change should be factored in as, more and more, that will be one of the main reasons for migration. So the goal should be discouragement of illegal entry by means of a strong border wall whether physical, electronic or both and encouragement of asylum seekers to do so at a port of entry.

Another component of immigration policy is that quotas should be greatly increased for refugees and immigrants in general. In fiscal year (FY) 2020, slightly more than 707,000 immigrants became lawful permanent residents (LPRs, also known as green-card holders), the lowest number since 2003 and the first time the figure dropped below 1 million since 2013, when 991,000 people obtained green cards. This number needs to be greatly increased. If more immigrants are let in legally, they will disincentivized from coming illegally. Also the US is greatly in need of workers for those jobs that immigrants typically do. The bracero program used to let Mexican farm laborers come to the US on short term labor contracts to do farm work. These kinds of workers are in short supply today and liberalizing immigration laws should help to bring much needed workers to the US legally.

Amnesty International estimates that there are 70 million refugees worldwide. Some of the largest refugee camps are in Africa. Refugees are hoping to be resettled in a country where they can experience basic human rights. Some are willing to leave these camps and risk life and limb to get to the European Union or the US. Many have drowned in the Mediterranean trying to get to Italy or Greece. Similarly, many have lost their lives trying to get to the southern border of the US. Southern border states as well as Italy and Greece are upset that they have to bear the brunt of illegal immigrant crossings.

The third thing the US could do is to ameliorate conditions in Central and South America as well as Haiti and some other Caribbean countries that are contributing to the high volume of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. This could be done by using the US military to root out the gangs which are threatening peoples' lives and doing the human trafficking as well as drug smuggling. Financial and economic help could reduce the impact and burden of poverty in those countries. The Peace Corps could help people to build their lives from the ground up rather than just giving their governments money which could be siphoned off by corrupt bureaucrats. Ameliorating poverty and the negative effects of climate change by improving infrastructure and creating a safe environment will reduce the number of those seeking admission to the US. Processing asylum seekers and refugees in countries outside the US so that immigrants don't have to trek thousand of miles or pay a coyote to traffic them would cut the pressure on the southern border.