Morning Fog

Obama's Birth Certificate Again

Already it begins to look as if Obama's decision to release his birth certificate has all the earmarks of the subtle political astuteness he's known for -- only a day later, the birthers are rushing to prove they're nothing more than nut cases. and a liability for the political party that embraces them.

As we all supposed, those who sought to create suspicions about Obama's birthplace haven't missed a beat.  After demanding it be released, of course they now discount its authenticity and relevance.  In doing so, however, they paint themselves into a corner - the same corner where people toss all those Christmas fruitcakes that no one wants.  Their objections are based on claims about citizenship that are just plain wrong, but as they used to say in Pogo, "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."

Let's look at a sampling of today's reactions:

Joseph Farah, editor of something called the WorldNet Daily, contends that it doesn't matter where Obama was born; his father was African so he may not be a citizen.  WRONG.  U.S. citizenship law is simple: Born in the USA? You're a citizen.  Ask Bruce Springsteen. 

Another birther, Sharon Guthrie, from her exalted position as a gopher for a Texas state assemblyman, sniffs that what has been released is only a "certificate of live birth," not a "birth certificate."  WRONG.  That's standard terminology for the official document issued in most U.S. states when someone is born.  My own birth certificate, the only document obtainable from my state to prove I exist, is also called a "certificate of live birth."  Possibly in Texas they call it something else? ( leave to readers to imagine what they might call it in Texas.)

Guthrie also says that it's easy to falsify a certificate.  But her boss is sponsoring a bill in Texas that would require anyone running for President in Texas to produce a birth certificate "proving" their citizenship.   Such bills (also pending elsewhere) must certainly be unconstitutional (it is not for the states to specify eligibility requirements for U.S. Presidential candidates), but they do illustrate the final twist in the contorted mental processes of the birther group:  If a certificate can be so easily falsified, what can possibly be accomplished by a bill requiring candidates to produce one?  It could lead only to endless arguments over the authenticity of certificates. 

All told, the objections of the birthers are nothing more than paranoid conspiracy theories.  They're a matter of faith, and they don't die.  Fringe concepts like this used to make the rounds in fringe media; now the Washington Post reports on them as if they were worthy of serious note.         

Obama's Birth Certificate

President Obama has released the "full" version of his birth certificate, showing that he was in fact born in Hawaii in 1961.   This is supposedly the document that questioners have been demanding.  Certainly, it looks much more like the birth certificate that I've been using all my life to prove when I first popped onto the planet, and it looks like what most of us expect to see when we say "birth certificate."   Hawaii, for some obscure reason, does not "routinely make [this form of the certificate] available," so the President's lawyers had to go to court to obtain it.  I wonder if there are other states like Hawaii, that don't provide the official state certificate (and why on earth not?).

Will the public display of the certificate end the "birther" controversy?  I'm certain it won't.

After all, the previous certificate showed the same thing, yet the innuendo persisted.  "Birthers" will undoubtedly find something fishy about this certificate, too.  Maybe they'll claim to see evidence of changes having been made; maybe they'll read mysterious Runic inscriptions from another planet in the security squiggles in the paper.  But there will be something. 

Already, we're hearing more innuendo about Obama's eligiblity for university - did he fudge grades somehow to get in?  Such pointless questions can go on and on.  It's the latest version of the swift-boat lies. 

So "let's be clear":  there is no underestimating the ignorance of doctrinaire politicians.  I refer here to the definition of ignorance suggested in my post of  April 15:  that the ignorant person knows certain facts, but chooses to overlook them.  There's no question in my mind that Donald Trump fits that definition. 

Trump may find his star fading a bit now that his big issue has been wiped off the slate.  Maybe he'll be wiped off the slate with it.  Politically, I have to wonder if the President might have reaped greater benefits by letting the fringe right continue to rant; the whole affair was doing the Republican Party no good at all.   But no, it was probably time to (try to) tamp down this controversy; it should probably have been done much sooner.

Job Creation

It's said that God (our Judeo-Christian version of him, anyway) made the world in seven days.  Six, really, since he rested on the seventh.  A lot of hard work, that.  No doubt he had a mighty fine smart phone.  But it's nothing compared to the job of creating jobs, which can't be done nearly that fast. 

You can hear lots of sound bites, read lots of articles in the press, like Eugene Robinson's column today ("The Word Most Politicians Ignore").  Robinson complains that our political leaders are talking about reducing the deficit, or cutting costs of government, rather than about "jobs."

I think one reason politicians don't talk about jobs is that nobody - absolutely nobody - really knows how to "create" them.  Of course, both sides say they do.  But there is no proof.  With Republicans dedicated to the proposition that the only good government is one that costs nothing, it doesn't look as if government jobs are going to be created for the foreseeable future.  (No matter: Boehner and others have made clear they don't consider government jobs as real jobs at all.)   On the other hand, the argument that lavishing still more tax breaks and other bennies on "the rich" and on "business" not only isn't working now, it has never worked in the past.  

The sad truth is that we don't know how to create jobs.  Not directly, anyway.  Is it just semantics?  I don't think so. Slowness in the job market is not itself a disease, but a symptom, like high blood pressure.  Jobs will come when the economy recovers, so let's get the economy booming again, and the rest will follow.  To me, it's entirely legitimate for politicians to talk about the budget; it may not grab the popular imagination, but it's where the emphasis should be (among other foci).  We have structural problems that must be addressed before we can really expect recovery (as the downgrading of the U.S. credit rating demonstrates).

The frustration, for the unemployed and underemployed, is that the discussion that's going on is still dogmatic and partisan.  We desperately need to move beyond that to a greater common understanding of our problems and their solutions. 

Planning For The End

A friend pointed out to me a recent CNN piece which is truly an excellent reminder for all of us - old and young alike - about the value of planning ahead for a loved one's death, or even your own. 

In today's busy world, many of us have trouble thinking ahead even about positive things, like what sort of life we'll want in retirement, let alone the more unpleasant topics like DYING.  It seems there's a tendency to think that "it can't happen to us," although the odds are heavily against that.

The article highlights a serious political point, too.   The author, Kristi Guillory, notes how the Obama administration's seemingly worthy efforts to focus attention on such planning have now been abandoned.  The whole issue of end-of-life planning became a political football when a certain former Alaska Governor decided that discussing such matters with your doctor equated to "death panels."  This foolish nonsense was picked up and echoed by other Republicans, who -- lacking rational arguments for opposing universal access to health care -- were desperate for any pretext to fan the flames of irrationality to kill the health care legislation. 

On this issue, at least, that tactic succeeded.  End-of-life planning became pure political poison, and will remain in legislative limbo for the foreseeable future.  The fact that it won't be provided for in any version of health care, of course, is not a reason to overlook doing such planning.  (You may want to hurry, before the GOP starts legislating against any sort of EOL planning, even on the state or private level.)

Meanwhile, the whole episode should be a reminder, as we have just emerged from a minor skirmish over budget issues and face more serious ones in the near future, what serious consequences the willful misrepresentations of a relative handful of extremist politicians can have. 

"Ignorance" is an interesting word, used contemporarily almost as a synonym for "uneducated."  But its root of course is "ignore," suggesting that the ignorant person knows certain facts, but chooses to overlook them.  In that sense, some of today's politicians are truly ignorant.  They should truly be ignored. 

Down With Down Payments?

Suddenly there's a flurry of articles like this one by Dina ElBoghdadhy and Zachary Goldfarb for the Washington Post, ringing alarm bells about the Administration's proposal to require that homebuyers make at least a 20% down payment in order to obtain the best interest rates and credit terms.

From the media chorus on the subject, you'd think homebuyers were going to have to give up their first-born child to buy a house.  Plaintive predictions that fewer people will be able to afford to own a house, that the real estate market will crash, that the world as we know it is coming to an end....these are all part of the current story line.    All wrong.

Actually the rule makes a lot of sense.  Let's first be honest with ourselves:  The housing bubble that popped in the past couple of years was due to several unsound practices in the real estate market, but the increasing approval of loans involving low, or even no, down payment was one of the major ones.  

A down payment of a significant amount gives the homeowner a stake in the property, and it gives him/her a cushion against ending up "under water" when the market drops.  Even the linked article above demonstrates this truth, reporting that: 

According to government data on loans made from 1997-2009, borrowers who met strong underwriting standards but made small down payments defaulted at a rate of 2.3 percent, about twice the rate of borrowers who met the same standards but put down 20 percent.

The article goes on to note that the default rate of those who had bad credit ratings was even worse (duh!) but besides being self-evident, that point is argued only by those who don't like the new 20% standard.  In fact the question of creditworthiness is another argument in favor of the 20%, which might be stated this way:  Loaning money is a risk; the risk is greater when the credit rating is worse or when you haven't saved enough for a down payment; and the way that risk is balanced is to charge a higher interest rate.  If that greater risk is not balanced in some way, the system gets destabilized very fast.   It's simple finance.

I also suggest another point not mentioned in the Cassandra-like predictions of the press:  The more buyers who can get a loan with a minimal down payment, the higher and faster prices rise.  If the threshold to get into the market is low, more people will be willing to take risks to get in, and they will be less careful about evaluating prices.  Buying a house for $500,000 (if you can find one at that price!) and having to put in 100,000 of your own money makes you a lot more judicious about the price you pay than if your stake is only $20,000.  So here too, the 20% idea might go a long way toward slowing the upward race of home prices that will eventually lead to the next bubble.

Lenders and brokers are arguing for flexibility or for a lower requirement (maybe 10%, they say).  But greed makes their memories short.  We are where we are today because they were given flexibility, and their efforts to keep profits rising meant that they had to dip lower into the credit pool, relax credit standards, and create no-down-payment loans.  They were only too happy to do so because the less a buyer put down at the start, the more interest he would pay over the life of the loan.  (That's still the case, too.) 

The same old story:  Left to regulate itself, an entire industry deceived itself and its customers, producing a mess the country had to pay for.  Now, before we've even got the water pumped out of our lungs, they're eager to throw us back in the pool and return to business as usual, having learned nothing from the past decade.  

I'm all for required down payments.  If lenders won't demand them (as they used to), government should.

Running The Subway To The Airport - Doing It Right

Some time ago the local authorities made a decision to extend Washington DC's very successful subway system (called the Metro, as in Paris, but without the accent) out toward Tysons Corner (one of the region's busiest and most traffic-congested areas) and from there on to Dulles International Airport.

Construction of this new line has been under way for about a year, bollixing up traffic even more than usual.  Recently, in a decision that was for some reason left open until now, the Metro board decided by a strong majority to build the airport station underground, near the terminal.  The alternative was to build it above ground about 300 yards (three football fields) away, near a parking garage.  Generally, subway riders applauded the decision in favor of the underground station, even recognizing that it costs more.

The Washington Post yesterday editorialized that the decision was all wrong, arguing that the underground location can't be afforded right now and that Metro riders can use the same connections that users of the parking garage use.  This criticism, I think, overlooks two overarching principles that should (and apparently did) guide the Metro board's decision:

For public transportation, convenience is key, to maximize ridership.  Low ridership costs more in the long run.   It's nice to say that X-thousand people already come to the parking garage, but they arrive IN THEIR CARS and haven't already had to schlepp their bags from home to a metro station (maybe changing on the way), and spend 30-60 minutes or far more on the train, only to get off and have to board yet another conveyance, debark again, and finally, negotiate 300 more yards, with baggage, from where the train lets them off.  Besides, for Metro riders, the proper comparison would be arriving by cab, right at the departures terminal.
 
Second, of course cost is a factor in any decision, but major public works projects shouldn't be subject to the monthly ups and downs of the economy. If they are, we end up with the inconvenience for generations to come.  It's a bit like building one of those "closed-environment" buildings, where the windows are permanently sealed, and not adding air conditioning because of the extra cost.  

We have enough shortsightedness these days.  It's surprising that the Post succumbed, but let's ignore them and instead applaud those who are taking the long view by putting the terminal where it belongs.

The South

Ah, the mysterious, brooding, American South, source of so much pain and sorrow, not to mention some of our country's best writers.

Walking not far from my house in Arlington, Virginia recently, I espied the interesting plaque pictured below.  It stands on the street near a largish house, behind which is a small town house or condo development in a forested area.

 
 

Most interesting, in my view, is the last line, which refers to the "War of Northern Aggression."  If you live in Minnesota you might conjecture that this is a reference to the Korean War, but this is Virginia, the state with the capital (Richmond) that still prides itself on having been the capital of the Confederate States of America.  And despite all the modernization, obviously, the South lives on (and may rise again?) here in Arlington, right across the river from Washington, D.C.

So in this case, "The War of Northern Aggression" is a reference to what we in the United States of America usually call the "Civil War."  It is also known in some of our southern states, which aren't so certain yet that they want to be "united," as the "War Between the States."

Also unclear is exactly what the sign is pointing out.  Does it designate a historical site?  Fort Ethan Allen is nearby, though not located exactly here; and if the intent is historical, usually such signs are erected by governments, which we may hope would not use the strange "WoNA" terminology.  The plaque also refers to a sanctuary for "wildlife and not so wildlife."  I suppose this is a reference to the woods and the condos, respectively.  Cute.  But not informative.  

Naturally I wondered about the presence of this strange little inscription, its oddly antihistorical terminology, who placed the sign, and who the property owners may have been.  I've searched high and low on the web for more information about this curious "Sanctuary," so far without success.  If anyone out there can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it; if you want to see it for yourself, it is located near 3830 N. Stafford St., opposite the Madison Community Center (formerly Madison School.)

P.S.  If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say one of those private conservancy outfits is involved somehow...

Incidentally, since we're talking the Civil War and historical misunderstandings related thereto, I recommend the recent piece in the Washington Post's ongoing series "Five Myths about..."  This one is about "why the South seceded."

The Blame Game, And U.S. Government Shutdown

Whatever the outcome of today's last-minute negotiations between Republicans and Democrats over budget cuts and the funding of government operations -- and the outlook at this point, only 9 hours before the deadline, is not good -- we can reach several conclusions about the process itself, and what it means.

First, of course, just as in previous such crises during the Clinton Administration, it's all about blame.  If the government closes down, and people can't obtain services they've come to rely on, which party stands to gain politically in the public eye?  In my view, both will lose in the sense that each will lose credibility in the eyes of opposition voters,  but the Republicans are likely to bear the onus for shutting things down. 

And that's justifiable  They've done it before, and lost traction because of it, and the situation isn't arguably different this time.  Also, anybody should be able to figure out that the party that generally champions a greater role for government really has no interest in shutting it down.  By contrast, Republicans may actually relish bringing about a shutdown, because they want to reduce it anyway, and because they see no value in government except possibly as a source of largesse to corporations.  Further, the GOP has continued to be the Party of No, not having moved to compromise a whit of its position, while Democrats have (cleverly, yes) increased the amount of cuts they are prepared to accept. 

A second clear conclusion:  It's a tempest in a teapot.   As already suggested, the fight isn't really over budget cuts, but even if it were, these cuts are pitiably tiny and can't be taken as serious efforts to deal with our deficit.  At best, even at the Republicans' preferred figure, cuts of this magnitude are nothing more than token efforts, especially as they ignore the gorilla of military spending.

Third:  The whole battle is symptomatic of what I call the "third-world superpower."  (That's the U.S., if you find it hard to guess.)  Real countries, developed countries, countries run by serious leaders with the nation's best interests at heart, don't purposely and needlessly drive their government into default or make it impossible for it to pay its debts.  Not over partisan political posturing.  This kind of thing, occurring every decade or so, will go a long way to destroy U.S. political and economic capital in the world, not to mention the nation's stability.  It will also likely deepen and broaden our economic slump and slow the recovery.

Finally, a few comments on some of the "issues" that have been raised:
(a) Is it "fair" that government employees be furloughed and not paid?  Yes, in the sense that lots of private sector workers also have been furloughed, or worse, through no fault of their own.  But that's a false analogy, when in fact the shutdown won't occur for economic reasons, but for completely avoidable political ones.  Those who play this game of chicken at the political level are simply taking advantage of the fact that unlike a private corporation, the government can't legally continue to operate when it may be operating "in the red."  They're also flouting the basic premise of the civil service system, that government workers performing their ordinary functions shouldn't be subject to political manipulation.
(b) Does it make sense for Democrats to fall on their swords over funding for a couple of favored causes, like NPR or Planned Parenthood?  Ultimately, no.  These programs (and many favored by Republicans as well, like farm subsidies) should stand on their own merits.  Both, I suspect, could survive having their government funding cut.  However, the real sticking point is that each party only wants to cut the programs favored by the other, and that's a road we should not go down.  

Redistricting Hopes Dashed?

I spotted a glimmer of positive spin just a week ago in reports that student groups in Virginia, as well as a special commission set up by the Governor, were going to propose sensible redistricting maps that strike a blow against gerrymandering.  Still, as I said then, the chances were slim.

If Sunday's Washington Post editorial can be believed, the die is cast.  Politicians of both parties have closed ranks and have a plan to draw whatever ridiculous electoral boundaries they have to to ensure "safe" districts.   This outcome, of course, is just what we might have expected, though not what optimists might hope for.  It's not surprising, but we should all consider it shocking.

Other sources suggest there are still die-hards in the Virginia Assembly who will push for real reform, but it's a Quixotic effort at best.

 

Our Cup of Ignorance Runneth Over

Over time, I've become convinced that religion can be responsible for as much harm as good in the world.  That is, I suspect, especially true when it's wielded as a weapon in the hands of ignoramuses. 

That's how we come to have the spectacle of Terry Jones, the pastor of a tiny church in Florida dedicated apparently mostly to the worship of himself, burning a Koran and setting off riots in Muslim countries that got people killed.  Jones's whole approach to Christianity seems at odds with the principles that Christianity espouses, yet his case is far from unique.  This happens, I think, because once you accept a few premises "on faith," without challenge, it's easy to come to see the world as a realm of absolutes, a cosmos of black-or-white.

Ignorant too, we must admit, is the reaction of devout Muslims in Afghanistan, who responded to Jones's act with demonstrations that turned to riots that turned to murder.  We cannot excuse this behavior either, though we can understand it, as the action of relatively ignorant or unsophisticated people whose religious understanding is limited and who may have been subtly incited by terrorists.  Still, the reaction is ignorant, because it fails to understand the Western concept of free speech, it reflects a mistaken understanding of Islamic religious principles (just as Jones holds mistaken views on Christian ones), and it reconfirms the negative stereotypes that uninformed fools like Jones believe.

Overall, it's not quite a "wash," though.  Jones, in my mind, bears a heavier burden of responsiblity for fostering hatred.  He's an individual actor, responsible for his own decisions about knowingly confrontational acts in a way a mob, even a purposely incited one, is not.