Right-wing “values”

The only interest the right-wing “values” people have is sex. This should be emphasized loudly. Then when everyone talks about the “religious people’s” obsession with sex they will be so uncomfortable that they will go away. Embarrass them. That will push them out. To see that they only care about sex, not even children, see comment
below.
It is essential to give them lots of publicity.

Iraq myths

To decide what to do about Iraq we must first get rid of myths. And we must realize that all options are bad. All the terrible things that people are concerned about may well happen. George Bush got us into a situation in which can neither stay in or get out. We can only choose the least bad course. This follows the discussion given below.

Victory is essential!
Who are we trying to defeat, the Sunnis or the Shiites? How about the terrorists? But what does it mean to defeat them? We can kill many, but then more come along. This can just go on forever. Being in Iraq makes us targets so stimulates many people there to commit terror. Of course many will carry out horrible acts no matter what we do, but out presence does not prevent that, it stimulates it. In that situation victory has no meaning. Not only is victory unattainable, it is undefinable.  We must not surrender! To whom?

The region is unstable.  We must stay until the Iraqi army is strong enough to protect the country. But that will never happen. If say Iran decides to invade (which is not likely) the Iraqi army will never be strong enough to defend the country. At best it will be strong enough not to fall apart. And that is highly questionable. Besides it is impossible to have an army to defend the country if there is no country to defend, and there isn’t any. An army must be part of a government. But there is none, and there won’t be.

It is essential, before we get out, to arm and train the army. Then when we get out the civil war would be bloodier than if we had done nothing.

If we leave Saudi Arabia might take over the Sunni areas and Iran the Shiite ones. That does not mean that they will fight each other. Perhaps Saudi Arabia should mover into the Sunni areas. They may be able to keep the peace among their co-religionists. Will Iran really go to war to stop them from aiding the Sunnis, with no threat to the Shiites?  Let us look at this realistically. Of course Iran’s influence will increase. That is the price we will have to pay because of George Bush’s blundering. But this will happen no matter how long we remain there.

We should start to withdraw to emphasize to the Iraqis that we will not be there forever so they must compromise and set up a workable government. Of course they will not.  Their mutual hatred, distrust, contempt are too great to allow compromise. It has been clear for a long time that we would leave and there has been no movement at all. That has nothing to do with what we do. Withdrawing some troops will not change their behavior, except make it worse.

There is a belief that we cannot withdraw all our forces, we must keep some to maintain stability, to fight the terrorists.  But we cannot do this now. Having fewer troops will make it more difficult. It only makes sense to withdraw all (except for small contingents to defend the embassy, the Green Zone, and perhaps a few other places like the airport).  There is nothing else they can possibly do.

It is essential that we must not let the terrorists win. They have won, Bush gave them a victory. Remaining there will not help, but just gives them a means of drawing others into terrorism. We can hope that they will defeat themselves as they have been doing to some extent.  But we can’t no matter how long we stay because they are a symptom of a deeply sick country, which we do not have the power to heal.

We should keep enough troops to train the Iraqis. This is dangerous because it may make a civil war bloodier. But if we think we should do that let us train them in Jordan or Saudi Arabia where our troops would be safer and our presence less provocative.

All reasons for staying are based only on myths. All our actions have been based on myths and the only reasonable action is to get rid of the myths.

Children’s health insurance

George Bush is strongly opposed to extension of children’s health insurance.  It is clear why. That would hurt the profits of the insurance industry. After all what kind of warped set of values would regard children’s lives as more important than industry profits?

It is interesting that the Republicans are strongly opposed to extension of children’s health insurance. They are also opposed to gun control and abortion. Republicans insist that children must be born so that they can die of curable diseases or be shot to death. That is what they mean by pro-life. Abortion has sexual connotations so Republicans and religious people are obsessed with it. But after children are born they no longer have sexual connotations so their health and lives have no value. Why should religious people be concerned by children with no sexual connotation? Children who are already born can die. Religious people, Republicans, don’t care. Why should they? There is no sex involved. Thus it is expected that George Bush doesn’t care about children either. Let them die. Insurance industry profits are clearly far more important.

The Israel-Palestine problem

The fight between Israelis and the Palestinians is settled — except that too many are unwilling to accept the settlement. To them their own interests are more important than the welfare and lives of their compatriots. And this is all too true of too many outsiders whose self-images are their dominant concern; the lives of others who they make a public show of supporting are irrelevant.

What is the solution that everyone knows? There will be two states (preferably not three). The border will be about the Green line. There will have to be some adjustments with exchanges of territories. The refugees will not return but will have to be resettled. They will be compensated, or to restate this there has to be infusion of a great amount aid to build Palestine into a functioning, prosperous society. That is crucial else it will be unstable and dangerous.

Why can’t the refugees return? It is often stated that their return will destroy the Jewish character of Israel. That is true but incomplete. The number of refugees is uncertain but compared with the Israeli population it is roughly equivalent to 50 million people compared to the US population. Would anyone suggest that the US take in 50 million people? Moreover these would be very poor and would require support for years, if not decades. Also they would hate the US and be potential recruits as terrorists. Yet asking Israel to take back the refugees is equivalent to that for the US. (Actually if we were willing to do that we can take in all the Iraqis, settling the Sunni and Shiites in different parts of the country, allowing us to immediately withdraw.)

There are details to be worked out but with the basic points settled that should not be very difficult. But the outside world has to understand it must provide help, and a lot. Otherwise the problem will never go away.

If this is all so clear why are there problems? This of course would be good for the Palestinian people who would finally gain, after a time, a free and prosperous life. But it would not be good for their leaders who are interested in power, not in their people — who have lived in misery for almost 60 years. It is their “friends” and leaders who have consigned them to such awful existence. It is these, not their enemy, which cares not in the least for them.  Israel, which has done many awful things, would be willing to live in peace with them, to help them. If the partition plan had been accepted, as it was by Israel, and they worked with Israel, Palestine would be free and prosperous, as prosperous as Europe is now.  Their leaders refused and now after so many years of suffering all they can hope for is a weaker, smaller state critically dependent on others.

For a human, hatred of others is more important than life itself, as we see again and again every day. For the Palestinians hatred of Israel is worth decades of misery, loss of territory, hopelessness. It is worth trading the freedom and prosperity they could have had for the all-too-human joy of hating. They hated for decades, as they and especially their leaders wanted. They should consider whether it was worth it and whether they wish to continue.

What of their “friends”?  The outside world should have pushed them to accept and work with Israel. Perhaps with enough pressure they would have been forced to rebuild their lives and live in a free, independent, prosperous state. Yet the world was determined to show how sympathetic they were, for example treating Arafat as the head of a country. If he could travel the world in such style why should he care about his own people? He consigned his people to misery. That is why they supported him so strongly. And now again the strongest Palestinian group, Hamas, is determined to punish its own people. Their misery, subjugation, poverty is well worth it for the pleasure of providing slight annoyances to Israel.

The leaders and “friends” of the Palestinians have done little harm to Israel. It has survived and prospered. But look what they have done to the Palestinians!

And this is true also for the Palestinians “friends” abroad. Having done great harm for decades to the people whose interests they so loudly proclaim they are now trying to make peace even more difficult. There is for example a movement in the UK to cut off academic contacts with Israel unless it leaves the West Bank.  (Why, they want another civil war?) Of course it is a fundamental principle (which is actually usually observed) that scholarship is independent of politics and the search for truth (which obviously is not important in academic life) must include everyone (who is deemed to be important enough, whether they have knowledge of truth or not), with their political views, nationality, race, religion, sex and so on irrelevant. It is a fundamental principle, not only of morality, that the search for truth must not be compromised by such considerations, and that people not be discriminated against because of them. But flaunting their hatred (in this case for Israel) is more important than scholarship, morality or truth. It is an all-too-human action.

Such movements, as those to make-believe they are hurting Israel, cannot accomplish their proclaimed goals but rather encourage those who reject settlement and peace. They encourage those who inflict such pain on the Palestinians, greatly prolonging it. These people care not in the least for the Palestinian people but simply regard them as objects, whose welfare is totally irrelevant, whose only value is to satisfy the emotional needs of their “friends”. It shows deep cynicism, and in so many ways. These “friends” want to feel that they are superior people fighting for justice and righteousness. What they are really fighting for are their own self-images. It is nice to feel that you are good and decent, in favor of all that is ethical, when it is other people who have to suffer and die for your self-image.

These “friends” of the Palestinians in reality have deep contempt for them, and for the basic principles of honor and justice.  They do not care about others but are deeply selfish caring only for their own emotions.

What should be done? What should not be done is to negotiate a final settlement. That will not promise a better life but emphasize the painful compromises that have to be made. It will provide targets for those who are not interested in peace.

What should be done is simply to provide a better life. Israel, with much help from the international community, particularly the US, should emphasize that it, as the neighbor, find it painful to see the Palestinians suffer, and especially being forced to add to that suffering. It should offer, working with the Palestinian government, to develop huge economic development programs. Of course it cannot do so if it is attacked. It will work with those parts of the country that are peaceful, leaving the rest. This will demonstrate to them that Israel is really their friend and that they will gain much from working with it. Fighting it will just lead to further suffering. But this requires actual large-scale projects. And Israel, while attending to its security, must be very conscious of the Palestinians. The need to make friends with them must have an extremely high priority.

And what of Hamas? The present policy is not to talk to them and hope they will go away. They will not. Not talking is a stupid policy throwing away fundamental tools. Unfortunately this stupidity governs much of US policy. We say Hamas as if it is a monolithic entity. Yet there are many people with different interests and different pressures. Instead of pushing our enemies together, making them monolithic, we, and Israel, should be trying to pry them apart. Let us talk to them, learn their different thoughts and pressures, and exploit even the slightest differences among the various parts.  Are there any? We don’t know without talking to them, even over a period of years. Skilled US diplomacy (an oxymoron in the present administration) applied carefully over time can have important, useful effects. That should always be a fundamental procedure.

Hamas has offered a ten-year truce. Of course they are insincere and plan to use that to build up.  But they really can’t. Large scale fighting with Israel will mean destruction, not matter how much they build up. Such a truce will give Israel a chance to convince the Palestinians that Israel is their friend, and partner, not enemy. It should be accepted subject to a couple of conditions. Hamas is the governing authority in Gaza and a truce means that it keeps the peace. It cannot say that we are not shelling Israel, Islamic Jihad is. A truce means that Hamas sees that there is no violence — by anyone. And it cannot use the time to import arms. What it must do during the truce is build up its territory, and the only way it can do that is with is neighbor, Israel. If it really means that for ten years there will be no violence but that it will work with Israel to develop a prosperous, functioning state, then Israel should happily accept and immediately start to work on a real final peace.

Now that is something the world, especially the “friends” of the Palestinians, should press for. They won’t of course. That will do nothing for their self-images. These depend on hating others. Bringing peace and prosperity is not much fun. But hating others, in order to feel superior to them, no matter how much it hurts people, is so intensely seductive it becomes an addiction.  This we see daily.

Why do we pay taxes to increase our chances of being destroyed by a nuclear war?

The US and Russia have about 7000 nuclear warheads most ready to be launched at a moment’s notice in order to start an accidental nuclear war (Ivan Oelrich, Missions for Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War; the Federation of American Scientists; November 2004), and similarly for Russia. Why? Why are we so determined to annihilate ourselves?

One reason is that the Russians also have so many ready-to-launch weapons and we do not want to be in a position where they can strike us. And theirs have the advantage of being under much looser control so more likely to be launched accidentally. Suppose the leaders of our two countries were not mentally ill, what would they do? Obviously first make it impossible for them to be launched quickly, with mutual inspection to make sure we both do that. Then vastly reduce the number of nuclear weapons.  However it is clear that sanity is a disqualification for leadership of a major power.

A major attraction is shock and awe, as in Iraq. And that worked. We were so shocked by our weapons that we made major blunder after major blunder.  And we were so awed by them that we did realize they were irrelevant to the real problems — which are political and cannot be solved by bombs or missiles.

Why do we need so many weapons? Clearly because it satisfies our emotional needs.  The set of possible missions has been analyzed and the only one for which nuclear weapons is relevant is retaliating against Russia after an accidental nuclear strike. It is obviously much safer (and cheaper) to prevent a strike by mutual de-escalation.   Since it makes no objective sense it is clear that there must be strong emotional reasons for this suicidal impulse. There are people, unfortunately far too many, for whom weapons are extremely emotionally rewarding, even just thinking about them. It is like sex (in many cases as with this, pornographic). The rewards of just thinking can be intense. The sexual aspect can be seen quite clearly with the National Rifle Association, whose members need guns as a substitute for the organ they have no confidence in. Of course people cannot have Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles around the house, as much as they might like to. But knowing that they are there, ready to kill millions (including themselves), provides satisfaction so intense that they cannot give it up.

Is this really what most American want? Perhaps a nationwide poll should be taken:

“When you pay your income tax do you agree that part of the money should be used, as it is now, for no other purpose than to increase the probability of a nuclear war that will destroy this country, and kill millions, including you?” “Enthusiastically yes”, “It sounds like a good idea”, “Probably not”, “Infuriatingly no!”

Let us see if this is what the country, not merely its weapons obsessed leaders, really want.

Of course we wouldn’t want our tax money to be used only to increase the chance of a nuclear war, would we? There are so many ways it can be used to harm us.

We are the most powerful nation in the world. Some believe that it means that we can do what we want while telling everyone else they should not do what we do. But of course people do not act like that. This is obvious to everyone except the egomaniacs whose desire to show off that they are better than everyone else and give others orders (which they do not obey) overwhelms their common sense. Because we are the most powerful nation on earth people will do as we do — rather than, as we would like, regarding us as special and giving us special privileges. We set the example, and others  — like it or not (and we definitely do not) — follow.

Thus when we spend our tax money to build (of course not only) nuclear weapons, or even when we hint of doing that, we encourage rogue states and terrorist groups to do the same. Perhaps we should ask the American people if that is what they want. “Are you in favor of having your tax money used to encourage Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, and so many others, to build or grab nuclear weapons to be used against us?”  Certainly the present leadership of this country is. “Yes, I agree with our government that we should do what we can to encourage North Korea, Al Qaeda, and those many others, who have nuclear weapon desires to develop and increase their nuclear programs.  That is why I believe the US should have a strong nuclear programs whose only purpose can be to encourage others to also do so, which might lead to millions of American deaths and trillions of dollars of damage.” “No, the leaders of our country may be crazy but I am not.”

For many, especially in the leadership, the intensity of the attraction of weapons, especially the most dangerous ones, is far greater than the responsibility to protect the country.

Are there rational policies to deal with these? Yes, that is why they will never be adopted. It is necessary to do something impossible: accept that our national security is more important than our emotional needs. Also we have to accept that being the presently most powerful nation on earth does not mean that we can get away with anything, nor does it mean that we can do what others cannot or are not supposed to. Rather it means that we set the example, and others follow. We cannot avoid it. We teach by example. And if we emphasize nuclear weapons (Robert W. Nelson, Nuclear Bunker Busters, Mini-Nukes, and the US Nuclear Stockpile; Physics Today, Nov. 2003, p. 32), so will others. Their weapons, either directly or indirectly, threaten us. Our interest in nuclear, and of course other kinds of, weapons make more likely the destruction of millions of lives, many American, and trillions of dollars of property. This is what we decide — by our actions — should happen.

We need not deep strategic thinkers, but psychiatrists. What would they recommend?

Obviously get all the weapons off hair-trigger alert, immediately. One phone call can start the process, and with verification it should not take more than a week of two. Why do we not do that  — now (or better years ago)? Can anyone state a reason?  Then we should agree, and it shouldn’t take long, to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. Let us not negotiate the final number. That can be done later. Now we should decide on how rapidly to eliminate them, perhaps a couple of thousand a year, on each side. Once we get down to a few hundred we should pressure those countries with nuclear weapons to join us. If we are eliminating these weapons the pressure on others to do the same will be very great. At the point with each country having just a small number we can consider how far we want to go. But first we have to get there, not think about what to do when we are ready for the final step.

Of course there is much else that has to be included (Sidney D. Drell, The challenge of nuclear weapons: Physics Today, June 2007, p. 54).  However first the emotional problems must be dealt with.

Yet it is not only nuclear weapons that encourage the spread of nuclear weapons but any use of nuclear technology, such as radioisotopes and especially nuclear power. These we cannot avoid. Even if we wanted to the rest of the world, with good reason, will not. The question then is how to prevent such uses from encouraging the spread of weapons? That is an urgent problem can be seen from the fact that a new state has emerged as a nuclear weapons power about every 5 years! (W. K. H. Panofsky, Nuclear Proliferation: Capability versus Intent; Physics and Society, vol. 36, No. 1, January 2007, p. 9.) This perhaps has been slower than feared, but still too fast, in part because of the CTBT  (Jeremiah D. Sullivan, The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; Physics Today, March 1998. P. 24) and the Nonproliferation Treaty (which we are allowing to fray when we should be strengthening it).

We regard some nations as reliable, who can be trusted with nuclear technology, and others who we are willing to trust anyway, plus those who cannot be trusted (with anything). Obviously that is not the way they think of themselves. Any program to control such technology must apply equally to everyone (including the impossible, ourselves!).  As much as we wish to distinguish people (and of course everyone knows we can be trusted, don’t they?) that is not the way humans behave. As regrettable as it is others do not think we are better than they are. Thus for an effective system there must be equality, equality in inspection and equality in control. The question we face is whether we prefer to apply the standards to ourselves that we want to apply to others, or do we prefer acts of nuclear terrorism, even war, killing millions of our people? For many this is a very difficult question.

Clearly nuclear technology requires international control and inspection. Until we accept that, and accept that it applies to us as well as Iran and N. Korea we will have to accept that nuclear technology will spread and to more unstable states (if there are any), to subnational groups, to terrorists, increasing the chance of nuclear accidents and war and nuclear terrorist attacks against us.

Unfortunately designing such international control is not trivial. Too many governments are highly irresponsible (regrettably including ours). Here we need both deep strategic thinkers and psychiatrists.

The pathopsychology of John Dingell and the auto industry

One of the major causes of global warming is automobiles. It is obvious that mileage requirements should be increased, and fast. Foreign countries are producing more economical cars — and selling them. The US auto industry is being driven out of business. For its own survival the industry should be putting intense efforts into more efficient, economical cars. It should insist that Congress require higher mileage standards and fast. And it has someone in Congress who can do that: John Dingell. But he and the auto industry are fighting any attempts to, forcing the US companies out of business so destroying the jobs of his constituents. Are they nuts?

Romney for gun control

Mitt Romney is running ads saying that American’s children are surrounded by a cesspool of violence… . He should be congratulated for coming out so strongly for gun control.

Joseph Stalin as a role model for George Bush

The testimony of a former Surgeon General that he was required to mention George Bush several times in each page of his speeches sounds familiar. When he was in power books and papers always carried statements like this work was inspired and guided by the heroic leadership of the great Joseph Stalin.

It degrades the office of President for George Bush to use Joseph Stalin as a role model. We might have thought that it would be impossible for Bush to degrade the office any further.  But we didn’t count on his ability in such matters.  At least it is reassuring that our President is competent enough to do something successfully.

Global warming and automobile industry stupidity

One of the major contributors to global warming is the high inefficiency of automobiles. Why are they so inefficient, why is mileage so low, far less than possible? Because the US automobile industry is determined to drive itself out of business. It has been losing market share to foreigners who have more efficient cars for a long time. If the US companies tried to build cars that are far more efficient, which can easily be done, they would not only help fight climate change, but would be far more profitable and would end the possibility of going bankrupt. However that would be socially useful and they certainly wouldn’t want to do that.  It is far better to go bankrupt.

Did the leaders of the automobile industry go to business school? Perhaps in order to get a job in the industry they had to flunk out.

Health care: Is it rationally possible?

The US health care “system” has been carefully designed to produce the lowest possible health care at the highest possible cost, and as a sideline drive many businesses into bankruptcy while undermining our competitive position with respect to the rest of the world. It is an interesting question that should be studied by psychologists and political scientists why we insist on such a “system”. There are much better ways but these are politically impossible. Here we consider a better system. Since it is designed to deliver the highest possible care at the lowest cost there is no possibility that it can be adopted. But hopefully it will stimulate thinking.

There are two parts: how care should be paid for and how should it be delivered.

The present “system” is designed so that people can fool themselves into thinking that someone else is paying for their health care: the government, insurance, their employers, anyone but themselves. When we were little mommy and daddy paid for our food, our clothes, our health care. But we are big boys and girls now. We pay for our food, our clothes, our health care. The government collects taxes from us to pay, insurance collects premiums, our employers reduce our wages. Or they raise prices (most likely affecting the poor more than the middle class; thus this accomplishes a standard US policy aim: getting the poor to subsidize the middle class). A major problem is a disconnect between costs and benefits. Everything must be done to keep people alive, even after they die, no matter how great the suffering. Why not, it’s free. Insurance pays for it. If the great god Insurance were more generous it would provide us with even more benefits (intravenous medication to keep us alive even after burial?). Of course it is only the nasty insurance companies that keep premiums so high.

If we have a national plan should we also be putting more money into it? Of course. Let’s cut defense, foreign aid, agriculture, food stamps, …, and on and on. But this cannot easily be done. Health insurance is uniquely an individual matter. We can’t allocate to each person the costs for his, hers or its share of national defense. But we can for health care. Each person should be charged an individual health insurance premium, based on taxable income and number of dependents. The trivial, costless way would be the tax return. On the tax return the line “total tax” would be replaced by three, “total tax”, “health premium” and total. This would have zero additional enforcement costs and essentially no extra work or red tape. It is too simple to be acceptable.

How should health care be provided? One way is pay for service. How many people would be comfortable going to a surgeon who recommends surgery, knowing that he will be paid $10,000 for it? The surgeon could be paid a salary. But then there would be no economic incentive to provide proper service, especially efficiently and economically.

Competition is the way.

There should be HMOs set up, with several hundred thousand patients each (so that any procedure would be only a small fraction of the total cost of a plan). These could be commercial, non-profit, confederation of doctors and so on, whatever they wished. Large cities would have several, which would set standards. Doing this in rural communities would be harder. Each person would pick a plan. The plan would then be paid a premium for that person based on what, on average, the cost of caring for the patient is. This probably can be based on three variables, (obviously) age, sex and also place of residence (census tract). That would be a proxy for socioeconomic status. Also NY say is costly so this would be factored in. There are districts where AIDS, for example, is prevalent and this would be included. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and other agencies can estimate the number of doctors needed per thousand patients, the number of nurses, and so on, and what the costs are. Thus they can compute the average cost per average patient, then modified for such particular characteristics of each patient. Young people would cost little but they would not be more desirable since the premium for them would be correspondingly less. The Social Security Administration has the information about people so enrollment would be done by computer. A person would just fill out a card with name (and address) and SS# and a check showing the group desired and the rest would be done by computer. Groups would compete for patients. Those that were more attractive, and more efficient, would be more profitable (or doctors would have a higher income). This provides incentives. Information about each plan would be collected (including disciplinary actions) and patients’ opinions of their plan, and this would be organized and then can easily be provided so people would have the information needed to decide which plan they want.

The transition period from the present disorganization to a reasonable system would be somewhat messy, but necessary whatever is done. Companies would no longer pay for health insurance so they should be required to increase wages by an equivalent amount.

There should be some oversight and requirements, for example emphasizing preventive care. But these requirements hopefully would be minimal. If a plan does not cover some illness and a patient went to the emergency room, he, she or it would be taken care of, but the plan would be charged. It would lose control, which it would not like.

There should also be a governing board (to prevent Congress from getting too involved and bogged down). It would decide what people want and set standards. Do we want to pump blood through dead bodies? If so we will pay for it. If not we will let people die in peace. What new, and costly, surgeries and drugs do we want? By tying costs to what people pay on their tax returns we will make more rational, and more humane, decisions. The government’s involvement will be small (appealing to those who fear governmental intervention in medical care). Most of it can be computerized. Decisions will be made by the market. Competition will spur efficiencies and improvements.
With this everyone will have reasonable care, something we should want, businesses will be relieved of a potentially fatal burden, the government will largely stay out. That should appeal to conservatives. What can anyone object to (except those who profit from the fatal illnesses of the current mess)?

This is a plan everyone can rally around. It is time to start moving.