May 23, 2013

One does not simply lose 129,000 millionaires…

The first thing that came to mind when I saw the headline was: “What? Where did we put them? Are they under the couch cushions?”

It’s no joke, though. Because of losses on the stock market, America is down 129,000 millionaires, while the rest of the world added 175,000 millionaires. Growth is happening, evidently, in the “emerging markets” of the world.  Just not here at home.

The population of U.S. millionaire households (households with investible assets of $1 million or more) fell to 5,134,000 from 5,263,000 in 2011, according to The Boston Consulting Group’s Global Wealth study.

Total private wealth in North America fell by 0.9 percent, to $38 trillion.

The ultra-rich were the largest losers in dollar terms. Households in North America with investible assets of more than $100 million saw their wealth decline 2.4 percent. Their population declined slightly to 2,928 from 2,989.

The main reason for all this wealth loss? Stocks.

Also, in case you were wondering, the highest population density of millionaires is in Singapore. Who knew?

[CNBC]

Exaggerated Claims: Swallow at Supreme Court to “ensure” unconstitutionality of Obamacare?

If you’re on the Swallow for AG campaign email list (and I suspect that I will shortly be purged from that list), you just got an email making some exaggerated claims about John Swallow‘s role in the Supreme Court’s review of the Affordable Care Act.

In short, the email walks through a loose timeline for the Affordable Care Act (also known as “Obamacare” more colloquially), putting Swallow at each crossroad of the legal battle. But for him, and Utah, Obamacare might not have made it before the Supreme Court.

Except that isn’t quite how it happened. We’ve already learned that Idaho had passed a law that gave standing to challenge Obamacare, and that Utah jumped on board. Sincerely, of course, but not necessarily crucial to the fight against the Affordable Care Act. It was important politically, but not really legally.

Now, Swallow’s campaign is claiming that he was at the Supreme Court to “ensure” the law was found unconstitutional. It’s a claim that stretches the truth.

Here’s a picture of the claim from Swallow’s campaign:

There is some question about the accuracy of the campaign's claim.

Swallow was in the observation section–the chamber–of the Court during the arguments, but he wasn’t really there “representing” Utah to the Supreme Court and he didn’t have any role to “ensure” that Obamacare be overturned during that trip. In fact, there wasn’t a ton for him to do to “ensure” that Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional. Mostly, his role involved “sitting” and “observing.” Also, later that week, while still there on taxpayer dollars, it involved “campaigning.”

I wanted to be sure, though, that in all of the news I had listened to, read, and watched that week during the historic oral arguments (see posts on it here and here), that I hadn’t missed something.  Maybe Swallow really was doing something to “ensure” it was overturned during that March 26, 2012 date the campaign cites?

No, not really.

The closest article I could find was on March 27, 2012 in the Salt Lake Tribune that indicated Swallow was there…along with four hundred others, including attorneys from twenty-six states who were also on the lawsuit and observing the oral arguments that day.  Other than that, I could not find anything to indicate a more active role in the case. Other lawyers argued, other lawyers filed the briefs, and other lawyers responded to the judges questions.

Other than that, the most prominent mention that Swallow received was for a campaign call he made to 55,000 Utahns during his taxpayer funded trip to D.C. And Swallow did not appear happy about that mention.

“I have a right when I’m not working to do whatever I want to do,” Swallow said. “I have a right to campaign. I have a right to decide if I want to make something an official call or something to promote my candidacy.”  Truly the words of someone intensely focused on fighting Obamacare.

So: was Swallow in D.C. to “ensure” the Affordable Care Act was ruled unconstitutional? Or was he there to promote his candidacy?  Because while I am sure that it was thrilling to be there for the arguments, I’m not convinced that his presence was necessary in the chamber to “represent Utah” or strike fear into Justice Kennedy‘s wavering heart and “ensure” anything other than a call to voters to say “hey! Look! I’m in D.C at the same time as Obamacare is being argued, so, you know–vote for me because there must be an association between being here and my role in the case.”

That’s my theory. It’s a campaign gimmick. If only he hadn’t made that call to exploit his taxpayer-funded trip to D.C.

Other attorneys in the Attorney General’s office, and who were closely connected to the lawsuit against Obamacare, have called Swallow’s role in the case into question, too:

[...]Utah’s former solicitor general, Annina Mitchell, who was the designated point person for the state [on the Obamacare challenge] up until her retirement last year, said Swallow’s claim is exaggerated.

“That’s so disappointing. It’s not true,” Mitchell told The Tribune Friday. “I’m disappointed, as someone who worked with him, that John feels it necessary to mislead Utahns about his role.”

Mitchell, who served at the Attorney General’s office for twenty years (which also means she has more than twice as many years actually practicing law as John Swallow,  where ”practicing” means more than just having a law degree), was solicitor general for the state for nine years. No small fry in the legal community. When she speaks, other lawyers pay attention. With her litigation experience, she was assigned to the case for her litigation background, not her political connection.  She knew who was lifting the load.

“I don’t remember John Swallow ever making a substantive comment in those conference calls,” Mitchell said. “We read and evaluated the materials, but we’re not talking about a huge investment of time or litigation skill.”

Back to the beginning: Swallows campaign has exaggerated his role in the fight against the Affordable Care Act. And if they’re willing to exaggerate that, what else are they willing to exaggerate about Swallow?

(I’m not even clear that John Swallow always understood the legal path the case would need to take to get to the US Supreme Court. At one point in 2011, he tweeted that the Florida Supreme Court was about to rule on the case, instead of the District Court of Florida. [blackbirdpie url="https://twitter.com/JohneSwallow/status/32122629380898816"] Any first year law student could tell you that a challenge to a federal law like Obamacare would need to come through federal court, not state court. Further, anyone who was as closely connected to the case–let alone leading it, would know which court was about to rule on it. It may be a minor mix up, but for a lawyer who is claiming leadership on the case, it’s an embarrassing faux pas that could have been resolved even by just looking at the newspaper that day).

Words to avoid? Not just the four letter type.

There are certain words I avoid saying. For example, I don’t say “stupid” around my daughters, if I can help it, because A) I’ve told them not to say it and B) the four-year old will come back at me with “Dad! That’s a bad word!!!”

No one likes to be chastised by their offspring.

There are other words I avoid, too, including several four-letter words better known as “swear words.” I also avoid words I find vulgar or offensive, words that sound angry or mean (generally, but I’m not perfect), and words that are racist or demeaning.

At the end of the day, though, I get to choose what words to avoid. No one is leaning over my shoulder checking to censure my speech. Well, not unless you count the four-year old above.

And, apparently, not unless you count the federal government. While I’ve long since decided that our society is becoming much more like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World than George Orwell’s 1984, there is something Orwellian about recent news that the watchful eye of the American security and intelligence community is surveying our electronic communications (read: the internet) of Americans for certain words and phrases.  In an effort to avoid terrorist attacks (I assume), the smart guys at the Department of Homeland Security have come up with a list of words and phrases that they scan the internet to alert them to potential events that may threaten the US.

Ostensibly, the list is to monitor for security threats, not dissent. According to the Daily Mail Online, the Department of Homeland Security “insisted the practice was aimed not at policing the internet for disparaging remarks about the government and signs of general dissent, but to provide awareness of any potential threats.”  You can find the full list in the Analyst’s Desktop Binder.

But do they have any business doing it? Last I checked, and perhaps I don’t check often enough, it’s none of the government’s business what I say or write. It’s not against the law for me to speak, but it is  against the core principles of liberal democracy for government to spy on the people with out cause. It’s also against the law…right?

Usually. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which has compiled a list of all applicable electronic surveillance laws on both state and federal levels, spying on what Americans do online, under federal law, “typically requires a court order issued by a judge who must decide that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed.”

That’s your Fourth Amendment rights at work. The Fourth Amendment protects Americans against unwarranted “search and seizure.”   The government–be it police, military, or tax collector–cannot search or take what is yours without first obtaining a warrant from a judge stating that there is “probable cause” that you have committed–or about to commit–a crime.

In recent years, though, this limit on “search and seizures” has been shifting as the definition of what is a search, and what is unreasonable and requiring of a warrant, has been shifting under the auspices of the “war on terror.” While it requires that the search not be “unreasonable” and that a judge issue a warrant, judges rarely deny the government’s request.  ”Wiretaps can also be ordered in suspected cases of terrorist bombings, hijackings and other violent activities are crimes. The government can wiretap in advance of a crime being perpetrated. Judges seldom deny government requests for wiretap orders.” Further, under the 1978  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”, 50 U.S.C 1801 et seq), ”there must also be probable cause to believe that the person is engaged in activities that “may” involve a criminal violation.”  In 2001, the PATRIOT Act expanded surveillance to include internet communications, as long as they exclude “content.”

I’m not clear what “content” means, but if the government is watching for certain words in my internet communications, it must not mean “the things that are held or included in something” when that “something” is what I type or read online.

In other words, Big Brother is watching you and when ever you use certain words, he’s watching you closer.

Without further ado, here are the words that are on the list, as well as the federal agencies which use the list as a guide for their surveillance:

A couple observations on the words:

  • They’re pretty broad. “Ice”? “Watch”? “China”? “Southwest”? “Electric”? Maybe they need to be used in conjunction with other words, and maybe the government search surveillance software has algorithms comparable to Google’s, but putting these kind of broad and general words on a watch list seems “unreasonable” and outside the bounds of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
  • Why are weather emergencies on a watch list?  Any time there is a weather emergency, the internet in the area affected, or anywhere people are following the news about the area affected, will light up with these words. Does using them put your name on a list somewhere? Will that list be shared with the TSA and get you an extra screening when you fly?

One more question: should we care? A lot of this depends on what exactly the government is doing. How closely are they looking? Who is watching them to make sure they are monitoring only for security threats and not for dissent? Is it better that to be safe than worry about being watched?

[Daily Mail Online] [NCSL] [Lifehacker]

A Long Time Ago…Star Wars at Thirty-Five.

Do you remember the first time you watched Star Wars?

Thirty-five years ago today, Star Wars debuted in theaters, quickly smashing previous box office records  and beginning one of the most iconic franchises in movie history, introducing the world to light sabers, Darth Vader, the Jedi, and the Force.

Equal parts science-fiction and fantasy, Star Wars has found a place in our imagination in the tale of Luke Skywalker‘s journey to destroy the oppressive Galactic Empire and become a Jedi. Along the way we met his mentors Obi-wan and Yoda, created friendships with the swashbuckling smuggler Han Solo and his side-kick Chewbacca, and found his lost sister, the Princess Leia (or was he the lost brother?).  And who can forget R2-D2 and C-3PO, the hapless participant droids without which Star Wars could not have been complete? The magic and the myth are as much a modern telling of Joseph Campbell’s “Hero of Thousand Faces” as any in our time, and so, perhaps, as simple as the story often appears, we should not be surprised that it has weathered the decades so well.

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that George Lucas has been an ardent force in expanding the franchise himself.

In honor the original Star Wars trilogy (A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi), and in spite of the prequels (The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith), I present a look back at the history of Star Wars and a few times that it made its way into our politics.

First, the history as presented in a chronology put together by Newsarama:

Star Wars hasn’t only been a financial success. It’s also found its way into our culture and the characters and themes are some of the most referenced in popular culture.  Even today, three and a half decades later, a Volkswagen commercial featuring a tot-size Darth Vader is as recognizable to children as it is to adults who grew up with Han, Leia, Luke, and Chewbacca in the 1980s.

Politicians get into the act, too. When, in 1983, Ronald Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as the  ”evil empire,” it wasn’t a far cry from the “Galactic Empire” that a small band of rebels fought to bring down in Episodes IV, V, and VI. Later, critics of the Reagan Administration assailed the Strategic Defense Initiative plan to use satallites to shoot balistic missiles out of the sky, calling it “Star Wars.” Naturally, like any businessman whose livelihood is dependent on trademark, George Lucas sued, and lost, to stop the use of his “Star Wars” as part of the debate. In the ruling, the court admitted that the phrase had entered the lexicon of public use, and was not proprietary.

When politicians, newspapers, and the public generally use the phrase star wars for their convenience, in parody or descriptively to further a communication of their views on SDI, plaintiff has no rights as owner of the mark to prevent this use of STAR WARS. … Since Jonathan Swift’s time, creators of fictional worlds have seen their vocabulary for fantasy appropriated to describe reality. Trademark laws regulate unfair competition, not the parallel development of new dictionary meanings in the everyday give and take of human discourse.

It’s been a long time, but Star Wars effect on our culture has continued to grow and, though the nostalgia of the original series makes it difficult for older fans to accept, has gained new fans in younger generations with the Prequels and an expansion on the history of Anakin, Obi-wan, and the fall of the Jedi.

So, do you remember where you saw it first?

Book Review: “Civilization: the West and the Rest” by Niall Ferguson

The elevator pitch for Niall Ferguson‘s “Civilization: The West and the Rest” is simple: Western civilization has risen to dominate world affairs over the last five hundred years, a record unmatched in world history and at odds with its population and geography relative to other countries and civilizations, due to six “killer apps” that have provided an advantage on the international stage. Further, it may be the West’s loss of those same “apps” that is leading to decline now.

Ferguson pegs the rise of the West to dominance at about the same time as the discovery of the Americas, and so, having just finished a look at that chapter of history in “1491” and “1493“, I decided to take a closer look at Ferguson’s argument. What was the secret of the West? And could we really be headed towards decline or collapse?

Where many histories today focus on the specific “modules” of history, drilling down to look closely at specific persons or events (think Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals” on Abraham Lincoln’s political management or Horowitz’s “Midnight Rising” on the John Brown raid at Harper’s Ferry), Ferguson takes another tact by looking at the broad strokes of history to find themes, the grand “narratives” of history, as he calls them. Where other historians dig into the details, Ferguson wants to look at the big picture. As he explains in the preface:

Watching my three children grow up, I had the uneasy feeling that they were learning less history than I had learned at their age, not because they had bad teachers but because they had bad history books and even worse examinations. Watching the financial crisis [of the late 2000s] unfold, I realized that they were far from alone, for it seemed as if only a handful of people in the banks and treasuries of the Western world had more than the sketchiest information about the last Depression. For roughly thirty years, young people at Western schools and universities have been given the idea of a liberal education, without the substance of historical knowledge. They have been taught isolated ‘modules’, not narratives, much less chronologies. They have been trained in the formulaic analysis of document excerpts, not in the key skill of reading widely and fast. They have been encouraged to feel empathy with imagined Roman centurions or Holocaust victims, not to write essays about why and how their predicaments arose.

With that flippant, matter of fact, almost “devil-may-care” attitude then, Ferguson determines to take the reader through a grand narrative of the last five hundred years, identifying six “killer apps” that Western civilization adopted to rise to a dominance unmatched in breadth and duration in human history.  It is this broad overview, as told in Ferguson’s urgent and quick-witted voice, that makes the extended argument so interesting and in an age of multicultural relativism, refreshing. Welding his argument–not just about the cause of Western civilization’s success, but also that “the historian can commune with the dead by imaginatively reconstructing their experiences” to inform and predict the future–Ferguson spins together the documents, events, and personalities to form a narrative, a story, about why the West succeeded in the face of larger, richer, and, at the onset, more wealthy civilizations.

The “tools” to which he attributes the rise of the West are likened to “apps,” downloadable software that augment computers and mobile devices. By looking at the narrative, Ferguson finds the roots of the West’s success, as well as why, perhaps, the West as begun to decline while other civilizations advance.  Not specific to the West, but, like the real world apps in the metaphor, the values can be “downloaded” by any culture for similar results, and in the closing Ferguson addresses the adaptation by non-Western cultures that have done, and are doing,  just that with success.

The “apps” Ferguson finds, while not necessarily surprising, are informative: competition, science, property rights, medicine, consumption and the birth of the “consumer society” (“without which the Industrial Revolution would have been unsustainable”) and  Max Weber‘s Protestant “work ethic”. While the narrative is anything but chronological, Ferguson’s grasp of history and the sweeping strokes with which he paints the narrative provide fascinating reading. One cannot sense, however, that Ferguson, almost anything but apologetic, is on the verge of glorying in the success of the British Empire during its hey-day as a colonial power, noting with statistical explanation the improvements brought to the world through Western influence, whether it be in medicine, literacy, and education. Or blue jeans, for in the end, one side effect of rise of the West is not diversity, but conformity as cultures imitate and emulate Western styles, habits, and philosophy.

Ironically to this writer, who sees such deep and lasting value in the political institutions of the West, Ferguson notes that one area where the West has not been uniformly imitated is the political.

Only in the realm of political institutions does there remain significant global diversity, with a wide range of governments around the world resisting the idea of the rule of law, with its protection of individual rights, as the foundation for meaningful representative government.

In other words, we’ll take your blue jeans, your medicine, even your work ethic, but you can keep the Bill of Rights and representative government, they say.  Indeed, it is that  imitation of the West that has brought China from the depths of the Cultural Revolution to heights today when its economy can weather the financial crisis without more than a hiccup.

After Ferguson’s narrative through the six “apps”, then, we reach the essential question suggested by any study of the West’s rise: is the West now in decline? And if so, is it too late to reverse?

Perhaps not. Although China’s rise seems ominous, and indeed, Ferguson cites China’s relative nonchalance towards doing business with the dictators and warlords of the world business “it’s just business” as evidence that China is more concerned about rising than its popularity, China still faces problems that could arrest its progress, especially from social unrest, political pressure from its growing and unrepresented middle-class, or friction with its neighbors in Asia.

Noting that a “retreat from the mountains of the Hindu Kush” (Afghanistan) seems to proceed the fall of any empire–be it Alexander’s, British, Russian, or most recently American–Ferguson is unwilling to give up on the West, yet.  No, the things that set the West apart are no longer distinct, but nor has the entire package of “apps” been embraced.

The Chinese have got capitalism. The Iranians have got science. The Russians have got democracy. The Africans are (slowly) getting modern medicine. And the Turks have got the consumer society. But what this means is that Western modes of operation are not in decline but are flourishing nearly everywhere, with only a few remaining pockets of resistance. A growing number of Resterners [Ferguson's name for non-Westerners] are sleeping, showering, dressing, working, playing, eating, drinking and travelling like Westerners.  Moreover, as we have seen, Western civilization is more than just one thing; it is a package. It is about political pluralism (multiple states and multiple authorities) as well as capitalism; it is about the freedom of thought as well as the scientific method; it is about the rule of law and property rights as well as democracy. Even today, the West still has more of these institutional advantages than the Rest. The Chinese do not have political competition. The Iranians do not have freedom of conscience. They get to vote in Russia, but the rule of law there is a sham. In none of these countries is there a free press. These differences may explain why, for example, all three countries lag behind Western countries in qualitative indices that measure‘national innovative development’ and ‘national innovation capacity’.

True, the West is not without its faults, he says, but our downfall will come from within, not from external pressure. It’s the loss of the “killer apps” by our culture that will, in the long and short run, lead to our continued decline.  Don’t mistake the adoption, however, by others as the reason for the decline of the West. Rather, it is the West’s abandonment of the values that brought them prominence that is leading to the decline. Here, again, Ferguson picks up the theme in his preface–we must learn from history. If we are to maintain the great values that gave the West its rise, we must study and learn the great works–the documents–that teach those values.* Add up all the values, and, like any follower of Churchill, it adds up to courage and action.

Today, as then [1938 and the German Nazi threat to Western civilization], the biggest threat to Western civilization is posed not by other civilizations, but by our own pusillanimity – and by the historical ignorance that feeds it.

__________________________

If you’re interested in a brief version of Ferguson’s views on the six “apps” that he discusses in the book, check out his speech at TED.

__________________________

* Ferguson’s recommended “standard works” for Western civilization are:

  • The King James Bible
  • Isaac Newton’s Principa
  • John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government
  • Adam Smith’s Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations
  • Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France
  • Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species
  • William Shakespeare’s plays
  • Selected speeches of Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill
  • Also, if he could select only one of the above, it would be Shakespeare’s collected works.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Clearly, there’s a problem here.

  • Romney

    Romney (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

    Austerity and Hollande in Europe

  • Greece: on its way out of the Euro?
  • Obama’s declining likability
  • The Catholic lawsuit against the Obama Administration…perhaps the largest religious liberty law suit in history
  • Romney and high school.
  • Romney and Harvard.
  • Romney and Mountain Meadows.
  • Romney and…well, just add in whatever the heck the mainstream press wants to try to throw at him these days.
  • The fundraising race: Obama’s got cash on hand, but declining donations. And Romney? Just the opposite.
  • Utah Taxpayers Association conference = lots of interesting stuff and a preview of Matheson v. Love.
  • Speaking of Love, will Matheson be able to win any from the Fourth District voters?
  • How about that Salt Lake County mayor’s race? You knew there was one, right?
  • Bain: Why Obama’s making a mistake by not taking it off of the table.

And so on…

Any takers?

ICYMI: Post on KSL today–”Obama plays politics with same-sex marriage”

KSL ran my post today arguing that Obama’s announcement last week about gay marriage is more about politics of getting reelected than about courage or leadership.

From that post:

With polls showing public opinion shifting in favor of gay marriage at the same time as his opponent gains on the economy, Obama put his finger in the wind and timed his announcement on gay marriage to make maximum impact.

It’s not leadership. It’s polling. And polling says that Obama is losing on the economy but could galvanize support of the liberal base. It’s a lot easier than talking about the dismal job situations of 20.1 million people, and it keeps Romney out of headlines for another month. [cont...]

Surf on over to KSL to check it out.