Facebook Shareholder Meeting (2019): Begging for Regulation

Facebook held its annual meeting today in trendy Menlo Park-based Hotel Nia. 

Hotel Nia is behind the angry emoji balloon

Shareholders were treated to Clover yoghurt, pastries (mostly croissants), tea, coffee, and a granola mix.

Zuckerberg entered with the board of directors, smiling. An employee introduced the shareholder proposals and their advocates. After one advocate spoke about a shooting at her religious institution, which she believes was fueled by Facebook's failure to adequately police "hate speech," the emcee immediately acknowledged the horrific event and "evil" acts of extremism. He vowed Facebook would not allow people to attack others based on religious, ethnic, racial, or other legally-protected classes. 

No photos allowed.
I don't know exactly how this photo was taken.

Zuckerberg's speech was the highlight. He said 2019 was a busier year than usual, with the company (unwantedly) being at the center of social issues. Though he didn't mention that Facebook removed 2.2 billion (fake) accounts this year, the company's worldwide reach is still potent: 2.7 billion people use Facebook once a month, and over 1 billion people use it daily. 

Zuckerberg said the company was focusing on four areas: 

1. Progress on social issues. (e.g., content and safety, election interference, privacy controls, data portability)

2. Qualitative new experiences. (e.g., new platforms, new ways of communicating) 

3. Serving small businesses around the world. (90 million small businesses worldwide now use Facebook's marketing tools for free.) 

If Facebook deserves kudos in any area, it's this one. I've seen numerous small businesses, especially restaurants and cafes, advertising to English-speaking tourists with both the Twitter and Facebook logos, no small feat given the translation and mapping issues inherent in international advertising. 

4. Be more transparent. (Give people a voice but keep people safe.) 

Executive bonuses will be tied to performance in the above four areas, but it's common for compensation committees everywhere to create key performance indicators (KPIs). 

Zuckerberg's most poignant comment related to the current state of social media: 

If the rules for the internet were getting re-written from scratch today, I don’t think that most people would want private companies to be making so many decisions by themselves about what constitutes acceptable speech.

Following this welcome admission, Zuckerberg practically begged governments worldwide to create regulatory frameworks, later mentioning he'd discussed these issues in Paris with France's Emmanuel Macron. 

Moving forward, Facebook's vision is to build a privacy-focused social platform over the next five to ten years, adding the digital equivalent of a "living room." Whereas Facebook and Instagram have been akin to a "town square" (at one point Zuckerberg misspoke, using "Times Square," an interesting slip given the massive advertising in that particular NYC area), the goal is to provide users with a more private setting should they want one. 

While earnest, Zuckerberg has not proposed a dramatic change. Years ago, users could create private groups within Facebook and restrict posts based on self-made filters, but it was time-consuming and non-intuitive. Furthermore, creating a separate, more private space with "different controls" within Facebook and Instagram seems contrary to Facebook's stated aim of gathering all posted data to assist it in selling ads and exposure. Even so, Zuckerberg consistently promoted the creation of "private platforms as developed and rich as public ones today," giving users the "ability to interact with people privately." 

Interestingly, in a speech transmitted from Russia into Canada today, Edward Snowden had this to say: "Everyone thinks Facebook is spying on them... they're absolutely right, but so is Amazon [and everyone else online]. But now we are aware of the problem." 

Snowden didn't stop there: "Facebook is in flagrant violation of [the EU's privacy law of] GDPR, [they] haven't made their site compliant because they know they [their lawyers] can drag it out for 10 years, after which the laws will have changed." 

The Q&A session was limited, and Facebook cut off about six people who wanted to speak. Troublingly, the rules only allowed each shareholder one minute to ask one question, far below the usual two to three minutes given to shareholders, as well as a more liberal stance on follow-up questions. 

Sheryl Sandberg, one of the most insipid executives in American history, commenced her usual strategy of avoiding questions and giving as bland or broad a response as possible. In response to one shareholder, she said, we "don't allow hate in any form," not bothering to address how Facebook would avoid being arbitrary or overbroad in the application of such a general policy. 

In contrast, Zuckerberg was measured and nuanced, openly asking, "What is the right framework..." "that will enable us to solve this issue?" He seemed to answer his own question when he mentioned an independent tribunal that would issue binding decisions (without appeal), taking the matter out of Facebook's purview. 

A shareholder asked about voice-based applications, prompting Zuckerberg to say voice will be more important over the years, but he had "nothing specific today" [to showcase].  

I pointed out that Facebook's Board of Directors had no one with experience in journalism, ethics, or books--all dying fields, in no small part because of Facebook. 

Out of the seven directors not named Sandberg or Zuckerberg, three (Marc Andreessen, Kenneth Chenault, and Peggy Alford) had finance or VC backgrounds, while the others worked in philanthropy (Susan Desmond-Hellmann), surveillance (Peter Thiel, Palantir), and politics (Jeffrey Zients). I said it wasn't Zuckerberg's fault that Facebook--despite its funding by In-Q-Tel to advance facial recognition technology--had reduced privacy. Issues had begun with the Church Committee investigations in the 1970s, but it was indeed his fault that Facebook had destroyed journalism, and I asked what he planned on doing about it. After a second, Zuckerberg threw up his hands, a signal for Sandberg to get involved, and she delivered an asinine answer about the "internet" making journalism's business model more difficult. (Sandberg might want to talk to Marc Andreessen, who nurtured internet consumer use, about journalism from 1995-2010, when the internet brought readers new websites like Salon.com.) 

I had slipped in a question about spinning off WhatsApp into a separate, independent company, and Sandberg brushed off this question, too, referring me to Facebook's previous statements on the matter.

Overall, it was an interesting shareholder meeting, though too short, and not as nuanced as it should have been. Given its selection of directors, it seems likely Facebook will be moving aggressively into digital payments and financial platforms, leaving ethics and journalism behind. If I'm right, expect more of the same in 2020 as in 2016. In the meantime, I'll be over on Twitter, where CEO Jack Dorsey has more effectively upheld user privacy while railing against government surveillance. 

Disclosures: I own an insignificant number of Twitter (TWTR) and Facebook (FB) shares. Nothing herein constitutes investment advice. As of the date of publication (May 30, 2019), I was not paid for this post by anyone, nor did I receive or anticipate receiving advertising dollars for it. 

© Matthew Rafat (2019) 

Bonus: "What Facebook has become is the press's assignment editor, its distribution network, its great antagonist, devourer of its ad revenue, and, through corporate secrecy, a massive block to journalism's core mission of democratic accountability." -- Jacob Silverman (2020)

Bonus, from New York Times' 2018 annual report, pp. 26. 

Summary: House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Hate Crimes (2019)

At the House Judiciary Committee's hearing yesterday to examine and discuss white nationalism and hate crimes, Google admitted to manipulating search results based on subjective factors if content was controversial, i.e., "on the border." Only Rep. Tom McClintock of California pushed back hard, saying the power to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not can be dangerous. 

I've personally had an innocuous comment I tried posting on Instagram blocked before I was able to post it, showing the reach of AI. The reason given in the pop-up box was that I was "bullying" an Iowa wrestling coach and former Olympic contender, but no reasonable human being would classify my criticism as bullying. As Rep. McClintock pointed out, "bullying" can be pretext to censor legitimate criticism, and in doing so, prevent progress and transparency. On a more basic level, allowing corporations power over acceptable speech could also become a way to extract an "advertising tax" on individuals and businesses to resolve an image issue if they are caught in an algorithm's web. Such a dynamic feeds monopolies (and more difficult anti-trust enforcement) by favoring large over small businesses. 

People in positions of power ought to be scrutinized fairly and on all the facts. An unaccountable entity--whether corporate or government--picking and choosing which facts to include or exclude enables poor leadership. Worse, it prevents local leaders and voters from properly utilizing their powers, causing a loss of credibility on all sides and potential backlash (e.g., President Trump). By the way, that Iowa wrestling coach I tried posting a comment about? Almost no one knows he was accused of sexual assault, leading to an interesting (and public) court battle (Brands v. Sheldon Community School, 671 F. Supp. 627 (N.D. Iowa 1987)). 

My Twitter recap of the hearing is below: 

Two other issues arose: 1) many states lack appropriate hate crime laws, so the federal government should consider establishing a better minimum baseline; and 2) both state and federal laws do little to nothing to address widespread "doxxing" problems, i.e., revelation of private contact information specifically for purposes of harassment. 

Uncomfortable Questions about Germany for Americans

I am not a history expert, but I proffer several questions historians ought to ask about Nazi Germany: 

1.  When Adolf Hitler was appointed or elected, who were the alternatives? Were they more distasteful than Hitler in some way? 

2. It seems clear the first way to isolate a minority is through laws. (Violence is too obvious and its showcasing results in weakening the image of law and order.) 

What were the first laws that targeted minorities? What did the enforcement of those laws look like? How did the national government incentivize local police to turn against their own residents or at least to look the other way? 

3. What were immigration patterns from 1919 to 1937? Which types of persons moved away Which types of persons stayed? (Government employees? Recent immigrants? Affluent and/or educated residents?)

4.  Obviously, propaganda existed, but how was it made pervasive? For example, did the government arrest certain people and highlight their situations extensively? Did they use coercion to silence or blacklist persons who questioned the status quo? What specific methods did they use to dissuade behavior they deemed unacceptable? 

5.  What were marriage, divorce, and childbirth rates in Germany from 1900 to 1945? Can we break down statistics by each year to see useful patterns?

6.  What were immigration patterns--both legal and unauthorized--into Germany from 1900 to 1945? (Germany had to have been at least moderately diverse to generate backlash against "outsiders.") 

As an American citizen but a minority, I've left the United States. Whether my absence is temporary remains to be seen. Obviously, I have to return before April of each year to pay taxes, but the more I travel, the more I see other areas of the world that feel like America, pre-9/11. Part of the reason I've left is because I see history repeating itself. 

America elected someone who wasn't presidential but who was still better than the alternative. Vested interests within the opposition/losing political party elevated someone they favored rather than someone more electable, angering their base. 

Economic gains were not distributed to all corners of society, rendering some people vulnerable to propaganda, especially against minorities, tearing apart any common social fabric. Inflation in essential items increased, but without wage increases.

Being part of a group, in and of itself, became worthy of respect and heroism. For instance, merely being part of the military or police entitled someone to automatic respect--regardless of the presence or absence of specific actions. 

This patina of heroism translated into less accountability for certain groups, leading to a "uniform culture" that allowed consolidation of power--and government funding--for special interests, especially the military. 

Economic gains continued not to be diversified, with old and now new special interests caring less and less about results and accountability. All sides in power begin realizing problems involve fundamental issues that cannot be solved unilaterally or that require sacrifices they were elected to avoid implementing. Rhetoric such as "Drain the swamp" becomes muted as the new political establishment resorts to extreme signaling or headlines to avoid losing power or legitimacy. 

Political discourse becomes progressively more toxic, throwing people into two or three camps: 1) yelling to become heard, i.e., the rise of the outrageous as the new normal; 2) taking no substantive positions but remaining agreeable, losing the support of anyone with principles (Note: appeasement comes in many forms, including economic appeasement); or 3) advocating solutions that cannot be implemented without massive changes (i.e., politically impossible solutions that require a dictatorial approach advocates would say they despise). 

In many cases, outliers are highlighted by both sides to justify their political positions or at least to blunt criticism of the status quo. As outliers become used more commonly, the media loses its ability to rally the public to act as a check and balance against government overreach or against the government's honest mistakes. 

Such political toxicity permeates the culture, causing children to grow up in a desensitized as well as unstable environment. For children growing up during a toxic time, the abnormal becomes normal. The children, unlike adults, don't have an earlier time to which they can compare their current lives. The shift from normal to abnormal occurs without any obvious outward signal because the new generation is mimicking the only behavior they know.

Reasonable, empathetic adults see what is going on and leave or self-segregate. They reject such an environment in which to raise or have children or self-segregrate in ways that may require ever-escalating costs to maintain their positions. Many people within this camp will be among the most successful members of society or its most principled--exactly the kind of people who would otherwise stand up effectively for minority rights. Without them present or fully integrated in their communities, little resistance exists against actors wanting to remake society in their own image. 

The lowered number of sensitive, empathetic, principled, or quietly diligent people--whose absence occurs gradually and is therefore difficult to register in any official capacity--causes a collective shift to a new, desensitized normal. At some point, even the less sensitive and empathetic residents realize something is wrong and they, too, leave, self-segregate, or disconnect psychologically from broader society. Yet another barrier of resistance to conformity is removed, leaving strongmen, radicals, and fools to dominate the culture. 

The children in this society grow up to become the new SS. Threats not otherwise perceived by any reasonable person in the previous generation are suddenly seen where few to no new substantive threats actually exist. (e.g., the North Korean nuclear threat is not new; however, NK's increased ability to survive without any need to be connected to countries other than China renders conventional solutions more impotent with each passing year.) This distortion leaves less time--and taxpayer funding--to deal with real problems, the causes of which become less obvious as more time passes. 

Society decays inexorably as more people hold onto power by any means necessary, whether through propaganda (fake news), new laws (CBAs, etc.), or brute force. The inability to resolve fundamental problems means fewer resources to be divided, leaving charity--both psychological and financial--less viable ("compassion fatigue").  Segregation becomes the new normal as fewer people care about others, especially persons who do not look or act like them. 

Segregation is crucial to understanding how a society changes its character because as more and more groups segregate themselves from each other, the information they receive is different. For example, despite living just 15 to 100+ miles away from each other, Community 1 may believe in a totally different reality than Community 2. In addition to making communication and therefore collaboration more difficult, segregation also allows Community 1 to hide its activities from outsiders. To take an extreme example, Community 1 may be brutalizing a minority group, but Community 2 has no realistic way of discovering such activity if the media no longer captivates the general public's attention or continues to lose readers/viewers and therefore status, revenue, income, access, and jobs. In the alternative, a "Neil Postman scenario" may result where excessive information functions the same as deliberate misinformation, leaving too few persons able to ascertain reliable facts, making broad or nationwide cooperation extremely difficult. 

In this future, everyone wonders how such normal, nice people changed in just a few decades. Most people are convinced by academics and media that some unique phenomenon occurred in the past. Some historians highlight positive outliers to provide people with hope when they ought to be warning that atrophy has occurred in every society and could occur again, right here. Otherwise reasonable people have left or spend their time battling misinformation, leaving them exhausted or with less time to contemplate solutions to fundamental problems--the same ones that continue unabated as distractions and noise increase. 

More people leave or self-segregate through laws, legal agreements, harsher police enforcement, and/or physical barriers. Society's only hope is to allow more immigrants who still believe in the country's advertised principles, which are no longer actually true. Whether the government and existing residents allow new immigrants or some other source of fresh idealism to save their country dictates the direction of the society's future. Many countries, after a certain point in this cycle, choose war. 

From Bremmer's Superpower

The key is the youth. Do they choose the old ways, or do they forge a new path? 

Wash, rinse, repeat. 

Bonus: when my family came to America, I remember being assisted by multiple native-born Americans who took pride in assisting my conservative and socially awkward father. (Like father, like son.) I remember this kindness vividly, even though I did not communicate verbally with any of the persons I saw. I was too young and, as noted, socially awkward. 

Yet, I still remember minute details: the family from Davenport who took the time to guide my family around unfamiliar territory, but who became separated at a highway offramp, leaving us to attempt to re-connect unsuccessfully in an era without cell phones or GPS. Being separated from this family distressed me greatly, even though I was not close with them. Why? I knew these people had made sacrifices to assist us, even if just losing time, and their sacrifice meant something. It meant I felt I was welcome in their community, and if I followed the rules, one day, it could be my community. Do recent immigrants to America have similar assistance and feelings that come with such generous assistance?  If not, how do they forge a bond, if any, with their communities?

Bonus II: my comment above regarding segregation is a precursor and base requirement to Kwame Anthony Appiah's worldview, in which he believes change and tolerance come from getting used to each other, not logic or arguments:

"I am urging that we should learn about people in other places, take an interest in their civilizations, their arguments, their errors, their achievements, not because that will bring us to agreement but because it will help us get used to one another--something we have a powerful need to do in this globalized era. If that is the aim, then the fact that we have all these opportunities for disagreement about values need not put us off. Understanding one another may be hard; it can certainly be interesting. But it doesn't require that we come to agreement." 

Playing the Fiddle, Empire Burning Down Edition

When empires fall, the signs are there, but everyone ignores them. Consider this Facebook conversation with a highly educated woman (from one of the best liberal arts colleges on the West Coast) in her mid-20's: 

Teacher: [posts article titled, "Global finance ignores world's poor."] 

Me: this isn't anything new--the world has always had extremely poor people, and now it's getting worse. People who favor increasing the minimum wage or increasing salaries for lower level jobs in the U.S. make it harder for us to accept poorer immigrants. For many poor immigrants. their only hope is coming to America (and working in jobs most native-born citizens don't want). The best way to assist poorer people is to lower inflation and provide better social services such as cost-effective access to healthcare and top-level education. 

You may also want to think about why we've had success incorporating immigrants into our society even as France has become virulently Islamophobic; Sweden has voted in a party with Nazi origins; and the 9/11 terrorists came from Hamburg, Germany. If you treat poor people as unfortunate things to be helped instead of people who deserve jobs and financial independence from the government, then their existence is dependent on the majority population's benevolence and willingness to spend tax dollars. As we've seen, in recessions, majority populations tend to get conservative very, very quickly unless their minority populations contribute economically. 

The greatest thing about being a naturalized American citizen who owns a small business is my independence. The corollary of that individual independence is that my country seeks my love based on voluntary, not coercive terms. My family came here, worked hard, paid taxes, helped raise property values for our neighbors, and succeeded based on merit. It's a shame that so many Americans support inflationary economic policies that make it harder for immigrants and poorer people to achieve independence based on merit rather than unstable, short-term charity. 

Teacher: Money is great and wonderful and helpful, but it's still just money. If you really want to help change the lives of the poor, you have to help to empower them, help them help themselves. For example, Surin Farmer Support works with farmers here in Thailand who once were victims of the government taking advantage of them. They were given free fertilizer samples and, once used, their crops became dependent on it. In the end, they were spending just as much on fertilizer as they were yielding extra crops, except with a bunch of health issues as well. With the help of the NGO, the people of Surin have been able to learn about their issues more thoroughly and take action. Their rice is now sold in markets throughout the US. 

Me: you said: "If you really want to help change the lives of the poor, you have to help to empower them, help them help themselves." I agree. A job that involves hard work and income based on merit empowers an individual and gives him/her money, which leads to independence. And thank you for the article on microfinance. (Surowiecki is one of my favorite writers, BTW.) 

The article declares that "Microloans make poor borrowers better off. But, on their own, they often don’t do much to make poor countries richer" because the amounts loaned are too small to create a large increase in the number of available jobs. In other words, your article indicates that the problem is not enough money and not enough mid-sized to larger corporations. Do you agree that stronger corporations and more money are goals that most free market, pro-business capitalists seek to attain? It is our ability to give people jobs that has made us one of the greatest nations in the world. When you give someone a private sector job, you allow them to save money, become independent, become a net financial contributor to society (unlike gov workers or welfare recipients), and provide a future for his/her children. No abstract social policy can provide the opportunities that come from a job; therefore, the greatest help you can give to a poor person (or any person) is a job and low inflation.

Most people get jobs through businesses and corporations, so if you're anti-corporation or anti-business, you're automatically anti-immigrant and anti-individual. Social policies often see human beings as things in need of charity from their superiors, not individuals yearning for independence. Making matters worse, many social policies require bigger government, which requires the gov to print more money, which risks higher inflation. Yet, the #1 enemy of a person's ability to save for the future and support his/her children is inflation. 

By supporting policies that lead to bigger government, many well-meaning people are actually hurting the people they intend to help. Unlike most social rights, economic rights and policies directly affect inflation and therefore have severe potential consequences for poor people and immigrants. For this reason, whenever anyone says economic rights are the same as social rights; that economics is just a guessing game; or that jobs are "just money," you should be very, very skeptical. Most likely, that person supports economic policies that hurt the poor despite wanting to help them. 

Teacher: I think a better way than giving an individual money is to educate them in order for a group of individuals to organize themselves. For example, the scavenging community that I've worked with. Better than giving one of them money so they can buy a motorbike and increase their scavenging revenue would be to help them realize why they're having the issues they're having and ways to fix them. Maybe then they can organize as a group and fight for their rights as scavengers. Or they could find a way to raise money as a community and start to process their own recycling center and cutting out the middle man. It's not just about the individual, it's about the greater good. And the more that people work together, the more people will see a positive result. 

Me: it sounds like you're saying unionization is the way to go. But unionization and organized group efforts are futile in an economy that does not create many jobs or that lacks larger businesses. How does unionizing six people help them unless the company is growing and has good growth prospects? Perhaps you mean co-ops, where a group of people pool together their resources to minimize costs and increase their ability to save. That makes more sense, but even co-ops can't do much unless they have jobs and some way to make money. Again, it all comes back to jobs, not the "greater good." The "greater good" is really the ability of a society to give its people jobs, low inflation, and money that doesn't lose its purchasing power. All of these, of course, are economic issues. (BTW, whenever I hear about the "greater good," I think of Chairman Mao :-) 

Also, the goal isn't "giving an individual money" but helping him/her earn it. Big difference. Someone who thinks jobs and money are things to be "given" is someone who a) will not hesitate to use the printing press, which will lead to inflation; and b) doesn't understand the difference between gov jobs and private sector jobs. In the private sector, jobs aren't given; ideally, they are created by hard working, innovative individuals who create new products and who compete with others to ensure their products are the best on the market. 

Teacher: Let me ask you this. Why is there such a big need for economic reform? And I don't mean the circumstantial things that lead to it, but the real root of it. What has caused this huge divide between the rich and poor? Why are there so many people in the world who don't have jobs? I think unless we (the world) can really understand the root of the problem, it's all just bandages. 

Me: I can't provide a short answer to your question about the reasons people are so poor all over the world at 3:30AM :-) But ask yourself these four questions: 1) why is America so much more successful than most other countries when it comes to average and median levels of affluence? 2) why aren't most immigrants clamoring to go to Europe, China, Cuba, etc.? 3) why has America been more successful at assimilating immigrants than any other country in modern history? 4) Why do countries where leaders try to create their version of the "greater good" usually experience net outflows of their own people? (see China, Iran, Cuba, etc.) 

Teacher: [ignores all of my questions] There isn't a short answer to my question. That's the point. I don't think you or I could answer it. It's an incredibly complex problem. And I think people, in general, are too quick to find an answer to things, leading to a misunderstanding of the question/problem they're trying to answer. I do it as well, which is one of the things I'm trying to work on in my current position. The point of my asking wasn't for you to give me an answer. The point is to try and sit with the question a bit. Really, really think about it, in a way that maybe you haven't before. Go outside of your gut reaction. It's a really big world out there and there are a lot of things we don't know. Also, I think there's a big difference between what a dictator sees as the "greater good" and a group of people working together in order to create harmony. I also don't think that average to median levels of affluence should be the goal. At least, it's not my goal. I personally think there's a lot that gets lost in the way of human connection when you're trying to attain affluence. 

Me: you said, "I think there's a big difference between what a dictator sees as the 'greater good' and a group of people working together in order to create harmony." You do realize all dictators and their henchmen sincerely believe they are working together to create their own version of harmony, right? Or do you think Hitler/Mao/Khomeni/Palin woke up each morning thinking, "Today, I will be the baddest, most evil person on the planet and destroy harmony"? :-) 

See, that's what I've been trying to say--one group's version of harmony is another person's nightmare. That's the reason countries need checks and balances, respect for property and jobs, and a currency that has purchasing power. Once you lose either of those three things, lots of groups of people try to create their own version of "harmony" and people are so desperate, they will vote based on rhetoric and irrelevant factors. Think about it: if you have a vision of harmony and a group of people stood between you and your vision, wouldn't you take out the group if you could? Of course you would--you might not kill them (initially), but if they're enough of a pain in the arse, and if you really believe they are harming your vision, they will become expendable once you attain power (assuming no checks and balances or a strong judiciary or some other way of legally stopping you from implementing your "harmony" plan). 

The quest for the "greater good" has caused so much evil in the world. No one starts out thinking, "I want to be evil." But evil tends to happen when a group of people believe their vision is superior to someone else's, and their vision is based on subjective values and disrespect for property rights. The same man who once wanted to carry out a "promise to fight for a better world, for a better life for all the poor and exploited" is the same man who later said, "The executions [without due process] by firing squads are not only a necessity for the people of Cuba, but also an imposition of the people." 

Teacher: I've never been a fan of Che. What working for the greater good of people means to me is understand the needs of others and not trying to impose your own agenda on them. It's not about gaining power and taking people out. It's about working with people and realizing that if we see the world as a bunch of individuals that we will treat each other as such and continue to f*ck everyone else over. I personally am doing the best in my life to stop thinking about myself, stop thinking about my family, stop thinking about my country, and see us all as people who are all equally important. You don't think your vision is superior to others? Because the feeling I've gotten through these conversations is that you believe you know what's right and that everyone else who isn't doing that is acting irrationally (and therefore in an inferior way). Does that make you evil? I work with mostly boys. But, the whole point of my job is to help them become more educated and better members of society. People who truly know themselves and are compassionate. Not people who believe that getting a job and money is the most they can get out of life. Education shouldn't just be about preparing people for the work force. It's about exploration and preparing people for life. 

One of my goals in life is to continue to always increase my compassion and understand for everyone, including those I don't agree with. I remember once watching a clip of someone from the Westboro Church talking. It's so against everything I believe in, and I can't help but see it as hate. But, at the same time, here's someone who so strongly believes what she's doing is right. That she is trying her hardest to save people she believes are going to have to infer the wrath of God. She believes these ideas in her heart just as much as I believe mine. And for that, I can understand. 

Another example stems from my reaction to the documentary Stevie. It's about a man who is arrested for child molestation. But, you see his story and begin to understand the pain this man was forced to experience while growing up. His childhood was ruined and led him exactly to the place he ended up. How much of that is his fault? I can understand. 

Me: I do believe my theory of economic rights is superior to other theories, but my theory is different from yours because it has inherent checks and balances and is based on logic and history, not subjective feelings. [Earlier, in a lengthy Facebook debate with multiple people] I demonstrated why economic rights are superior to non-economic rights, and the only objections I saw were that my questions and theories were "unfair" or presented "false choices"--objections based on subjective feelings, not logic. (I continue to be amazed that anyone would say that food and money are equal to abstract rights divorced from economic considerations.) 

Also, as stated above, my theory of economic rights contains inherent checks and balances against overreaching and evil in its respect for individual liberty, low inflation, and property rights. Your theory, based on subjective ideas such as compassion and exploration, is exactly the opposite of mine--it has no inherent check against overreaching or coercion, and it actually seems to disrespect property rights by looking down on jobs and money instead of holding these values in the highest regard. 

Any theory based on some subjective worldview and the idea that we are all equal (instead of the idea that we are unequal but should be given equal opportunities to succeed and accept the unequal results) is bound to lead to a disrespect of property rights and individual liberty. BTW, if Thailand's economy fails to grow, the English skills you are teaching your students will make them very marketable in the black market and tourism industry. You'd better hope Thailand produces enough legit jobs for your students. If Thailand fails to prioritize its economy and instead pursues compassion, exploration, or some other subjective goal, some of your boys may grow up to be intermediaries between affluent English speakers and their own people. In other words, their destiny will be linked to outsiders. And they will have you to thank. 

As I've already explained, for most poor people, economic rights take precedence over social rights. It's interesting to see relatively rich white people railing against the idea that "getting a job and money" isn't the most important thing in life and saying that "education shouldn't just be about preparing people for the work force." You almost never see any actual poor person making similar statements. Perhaps it's because poor people hate being poor and want to be (relatively) rich like us. 

Teacher: I've heard poor people make statements like that. They were people fighting to preserve the right to keep their culture that was being taken away by large scale development projects. Development projects that would offer jobs, but also take away the way of life that they hold very dear. They chose culture and have been fighting the battle for over 10 years. And, just so you know, you come off as an offensive know it all. 

Me: like most Californians, you've been fed bromides through our public school system. In order for you to grasp the concepts I'm trying to impart, you must first accept that your education was incomplete. It is very, very hard for anyone to accept that s/he has an incomplete education. It's a lot easier to think the guy who disagrees with you is just an offensive a-hole. (And that's why most idealists who lack respect for property rights and who come bearing visions of harmony wipe out dissidents when they gain power.) The problem with you and most Americans is that they have too much unjustified self-confidence and can't humble themselves long enough to learn something outside of their own field. But rather than tell themselves, "I don't understand anything about economics and should learn more," most Americans instead seek to unleash their subjective visions of harmony on the world. In doing so, they are harming the very people they seek to help. 

Teacher: You are more than welcome to believe that. I'm confident in my personal assessments of my strengths and weaknesses. Have fun fighting your fight. 

Me: if you really want to test your strengths and weaknesses, read Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. I know you read a lot, and this book will take you maybe three hours to read at most. Let me know if you ever do read the book. 

[She later deleted me as a friend on Facebook. No word on whether she read Mr. Friedman's book.]

Time Capsule: Facebook Debates

A typical debate on Facebook circa 2012:

Status Update: [Sign this petition to forgive all student loans!]

M: 1) Should someone who majored in sociology, knowing that job prospects would not be as bright as another field (e.g., engineering), receive the same treatment under any loan forgiveness law? 2) Would forgiving loans change the existing education-gov complex, which has created the tuition inflation you reference? 3) Would forgiving existing student loans help future generations of students, who would still be subject to increasing tuition? 4) Will future students be subject to higher interest rates as a result of loan forgiveness? 5) If you have private loans, are you aware that loan forgiveness means that American taxpayers will be giving more of their money to large banks? 6) Why should a taxpayer in Kansas, who had nothing to do with your decision to attend college, suffer a higher federal debt b/c of your voluntary decision? 7) Why not give all Americans with any kind of debt a one-time benefit of $25,000? (This is the most important question to consider, b/c it forces someone to remember that money comes from somewhere and is not infinite.) 8) Why should student loans be favored over other kinds of debt, esp credit card debt that may have been used to buy essentials for a family? 9) I believe you work for a non-profit (universities are usually non-profits). Are you aware of a federal program that allows student loans to be forgiven after 10 yrs if you work for a non-profit or the gov?

A: I would like to live in a society where multiple fields can be entered by people from diverse backgrounds, not a place where only those lucky enough to come from wealthy backgrounds can choose certain education paths. As to [the] question about whether a sociology major should get the same consideration as someone in another field, absolutely; there is no guarantee of a job in ANY field, and I know many people who have made their college choices based on supposed job prospects, only to discover upon graduation that the jobs have dried up or were never there in the first place. Also, student loan debt is treated differently than credit card debt. Student loans are treated very differently from other debt if you file for bankruptcy, and not in favor of the debtor. We hear constantly that a college education is a necessity. In many cases, taking on student debt is the only realistic way of financing that education. Now we're also told that taking on that debt is irresponsible. To me, this seems like the same thing as telling people that if they don't start out with money they don't deserve to earn it.

M: your comments seem to make several points: 1) an education is necessary for success; 2) everyone ought to be able to choose their field of study because no specific field guarantees a job, and we don't want to foreclose specific educational options based on someone's available income or wealth; 3) bankruptcy allows some forms of debt to be discharged, but not student loans; and 4) taking on debt is necessary to get ahead because college is a necessity. Yet, none of these comments address the issue of why these specific loans should be forgiven over others, or why relatively well-off people should be given preference in debt forgiveness (over a single mom with three kids and negative equity in her house, for example). Once again, money is finite, it does not grow on trees, and a dollar spent on forgiving student loans is a dollar that cannot be spent on universal healthcare, Headstart, etc. In essence, when someone asks for loan forgiveness, s/he is asking to put his/her issues ahead of everyone else's in America. (If you disagree, see previous question about why we don't just give everyone $25,000.) Some more comments: 1) the American taxpayer can't guarantee anyone a job, but it's clear that some degrees are worth more than others. Why should the American taxpayer be on the hook for someone who chooses to get a job in field A rather than field B? For example, I majored in English and Philosophy--I could not find a job with those two degrees. Should the government refund me $40,000? Why not? 2) If you want to smooth out differences in education results, what is the reason we don't guarantee everyone, upon graduation, the same salary and benefits? 3) If we don't believe all degrees are worth the same, and we do want to differentiate between fields of study, does it make sense to divert the poorest among us into more marketable fields? Does the prospect of non-dischargeable debt make it more or less likely that a poorer person will gravitate towards a more marketable field? (i.e., would you prefer that a poorer person gravitate towards a lower-paying or easier field?) 4) If college is necessary for success, is it doing a good job if graduates need to appeal to the government for assistance? What are the reasons colleges are able to produce so many graduates who have difficulties? Would forgiving loans improve, reform, or sustain colleges that do not educate their students properly or that do not have proper career placement offices? 5) What is the reason you are choosing to place the onus of student loan debt on taxpayers instead of the schools themselves? Why shouldn't the school be the primary focus rather than the general taxpayer that had nothing to do with the student debt incurred? Why should a married housewife in Kansas, who doesn't make as much as you, support a higher national debt for your benefit based on your voluntary choice? To the extent the federal government should act, why should it favor someone who has a job over someone who is unemployed? Once again, see earlier question--why don't we just decide to give everyone $25,000?

J: As a University Professor, and an indentured servant to my education, I think the Student Loan Forgiveness plan would be incredibly helpful in stimulating the economy.

M: you are correct that forgiving student loans would stimulate the economy. So would forgiving all credit card debt. Or giving everyone $25,000. So why don't we give everyone $25,000? Or forgive everyone's debts? As a college professor, what do you understand to be the downsides, if any, to loan forgiveness?

S: I'd like someone else to pay my mortgage, but I'm the one who purchased the house. Shelter, it's pretty darn necessary.

A: I'm sorry. I find this topic very upsetting. I believe that education should be available to everyone, and that it is actually to our benefit as a society to have an educated population. I don't think a college education should be confused with vocational training, but the system of student loans is predicated on the notion that it is. I think the system is broken. I think student loan forgiveness would be one step in reconfiguring the system. I believe that a society where people choose fields of study based solely on perceived employment opportunities would be a poor one to live in. Who would teach our children? Who would write our books, create our art? Who would pursue actual original research? I don't have answers, but I can recognize that there is a serious problem going on. The estimated cost of attendance for one year at my local community college is approximately $10,500 for a student living at home. In this state, skyrocketing tuition is mostly the result of state-funded schools partially offsetting draconian cuts in state funding with increases in tuition and fees. I'm glad some people have managed to get educated without landing deep in debt. They're clearly smarter, more responsible and harder working than I am.

M: if graduates are not able to use their skills and knowledge to pay back at least their student loans, then what does that tell you about the utility of the education they paid for? Also, if the issue is high tuition, shouldn't the focus be on the schools and teachers? Or do states set tuition prices arbitrarily, without regard to the costs being imposed upon them by school employees and school retirees? You are correct that there is a serious problem with education, but you're looking at effects, not causes, which means you are actually favoring the status quo for the next generation of students. Moreover, art and books existed before schools and tuition payments. Teaching existed before schools and tuition payments. Learning existed before schools and tuition payments. To the extent we've made schools and tuition payments mandatory for a good life, then the question is, "Why have so many schools and teachers been able to take so much money from taxpayers--tens of billions of dollars each year in some states--and churn out students who are not prepared to enter the workforce or pay back their loans?"

A: the college teachers I know aren't making heaps of money. We all gain by subsidizing education. I benefit from living in a society which is well-educated. Education isn't just a personal investment for the benefit of the individual student. That is why it is worth paying for at a broader level.

M: is education valuable to society at any cost to the taxpayer? For example, is it a good idea to spend 80% of a state's entire budget on colleges? Why not? Also, taxpayer money is finite, correct? A state receives x amount in revenue each year and must work within those boundaries. Because state taxpayer money is finite, what are the downsides, if any, to increasing college funding?

K: If an education was as cheap as some folks words, there wouldn't be much of a problem. An uneducated or undereducated nation will fail. The notion of an educated elite overseeing an uneducated mass is terrifying.

M: Does an education in and of itself--regardless of cost--necessarily lead to a strong nation? Or should we also analyze the content of the education; its utility relating to future employment prospects; its ability to foster innovation; and its ability to impart useful skills to its graduates, including critical thinking skills?

Rhetoric as a basis for policy--rather than prioritizing a balanced budget, property rights, rule of law, and an aversion to imperialism--often causes nations to fail. A college education--whether free or expensive--does not benefit society if graduates are unable to analyze complex issues with an eye towards certain values such as rule of law; an independent judiciary; separation of religion and state; checks and balances; a preference towards a balanced budget; property rights; an aversion towards imperialism, etc. Even if the values themselves cannot be agreed upon, education in general, to be useful, must impart critical thinking skills (e.g. logic) or useful skills that will lead to employment.

K: I guess it didn't work for you. That's too bad.

M: Just saw a friend write, "I loathe certain liberals because they're members of the American leftist culture where 'clever ideas,' credentials, left wing shibboleths, good intentions and personal contacts trump actually delivering value." Reminded me of a few people :-)

[Note: this posting has been backdated.]

Debate on Health and Healthcare

Status Update from Lawyer/Solo Practitioner: Eff you, Kaiser. I'm not paying $352 a month for health insurance in 2011. I don't smoke, I exercise, I'm not involved in any risky activities, and I avoid liquor. You people saw me about five times in 2010 and don't even provide me with my hearing aids or dental work. Does anyone have any advice for other health insurance options?

P.S. The biggest long-term medical expenditures will be on Medicare. Do you see what I mean when I say that current American society is financially stealing from the young to benefit the old? Do you really expect us to continue to be the world's superpower when we spend ever-increasing resources--already about 50% of federal tax revenues--on senior citizens? Money is finite. One dollar spent on senior citizens--who've had their chance to save money, have families, and buy homes--is a dollar not spent on the young, who have yet to have families, buy homes, and utilize compound interest.

Rob: Do you drive a car?

Lawyer: Yes, and I have the med pay option on my car insurance.

Older people drive, too. Why not let them pay a higher share of overall insurance costs, given that they've had an additional 30 years to save up for it and have also benefited from the real estate boom--unlike most people under 35 years old? Americans don't understand that the real threat against our way of life isn't Al Qaeda, Iran, or Iraq--it's older people and government workers voting in benefits for themselves at the expense of the young and unborn.

Trent: I have great insurance. Don't use it..have a DR/Hospital phobia. Only go if injured.

Laura: I feel ur pain. I was looking to switch from Anthem BC to Kaiser but rates at Kaiser were slightly higher..

Roger: Start smoking and drinking and engaging in risky activities.

Mary: I've got to point out that I'm certain there are plenty of elderly Republicans reaping the healthcare benefits for which you hold all Democrats responsible.

Lawyer: yes, but the GOP is trying to cut universal healthcare coverage while the Dems passed it, which has caused my premiums to increase drastically over the past three years. I will now have to get a reduced benefit health insurance plan b/c of the Dems. You want me to give them a medal for passing lame, watered-down, insurance-company-friendly legislation? I'd rather cut programs Tea-Party-style if it means I save money.

BTW, isn't it lovely being in a union, where taxpayers like me pay for fed, state, and local gov employees' benefits even as our own costs increase? Ah, those Dems--looking out for their unions. You want me to support a party that doesn't care about small businesses, young people, families, or inflation? I'll take the war-loving whack-jobs over the alternative, b/c the GOP has promised to cut spending and government programs. And Obama's pay freeze on federal gov workers doesn't go far enough--he should have cut salaries by 15% for anyone making more than 75K/year, including himself.

Mary: Oh, and we opened up 3 [police] dispatcher positions today. Check out the CalOpps link on my page, I encourage you to apply.

Lawyer: Re: dispatcher positions, so the government is expanding while the private sector and consumer spending is declining? This will totally work...as long as the laws of economics and math don't apply.

Mary: we aren't expanding. We are perpetually shortstaffed. As a matter of fact, I'm finishing up day 2 of 6, with a 68 hour workweek. For lack of a more appropriate term, I am dog arsed tired... So please, apply, and encourage others to also. I'd love to have my weekends...in all seriousness. I'm thankful for job security, but this still is no cakewalk. :-(

Lawyer: no well-paying job's a cakewalk. If we keep inflation under control, have a balanced budget, and stop relying on accounting gimmicks and constant bond issues, we can hire more gov workers. The private sector is getting more squeezed than the public sector--I've never seen so many hi-tech working so hard b/c of job cuts. Many engineers I know are working 19 hour days...with no job security, pensions, or lifetime medical benefits. The real problem is that so much of our taxes are going into the pockets of retired gov workers, which leaves your department with less money to hire workers now. Why can't more people see this simple fact? Public pensions cost current jobs and are unaffordable during a recession.

Also, if the private sector economy improves, the issue of gov benefits will not be at the forefront of budget discussions. Thus, the best thing gov workers can do is help the private sector get back on its feet.

Until just recently, the Dems controlled Congress for the last four years. All I see is my costs going up and my income getting more and more unstable. In fact, I've begun representing more gov and union employees now than ever before. It's scary to think that I am getting fewer calls from private sector workers because they just aren't enough of them working anymore, and the ones who have jobs are probably not willing to rock the boat under any circumstances. Sigh.

Mary: I credit divorce :-)

Lawyer: It's all a big mess, isn't it?

Mary: So in a way we are paying your salary too then?....

Lawyer: yes, except it's completely voluntary, and if I don't perform well or provide a service better than my competition, I don't get paid. Also, my services create no long term, unpredictable costs to taxpayers, and my fees are negotiable. Oh, and I have no job security or guaranteed income stream from taxpayers. So yes, to an uninformed person, it's exactly the same thing :-)

In the gov world, if you're incompetent or if they don't like you, they tend to reduce your duties and stick you in a corner somewhere until you retire. In the real world, if you don't perform, you get fired, and I might be able to get you a severance package, perhaps between three and twelve months. (It's usually easier to get a severance if you see a lawyer before you get fired, BTW.) Unlike the gov, the effects of a bad employee in the private sector are finite and definite.

Mary: I will absolutely agree with you in that sense. It is infuriating and a slap in the face to all of us that DO come to work and give our jobs and the public our all when we see substandard employees retained and given the same pay.

FWIW, the union really doesn't do everything in the best interest of even its members. I'm fighting what seems an uphill battle on right vs wrong, negligent retention and nepotism...not to mention favoritism and inappropriate relations among ranks. The union's stance is, "well let's see how it pans out." Um, for the $1,000 I pay you each year in membership fees alone, that answer isn't gonna fly! So I applied for the job in question when it opened...my interview was yesterday.

Lawyer: Some unions do a great job protecting their workers, but some are terrible when it comes to protecting the rank and file, especially in some California county hospitals. That's why some union members come to me for advice, even though their union should be the one assisting them. (Hey union reps, you might want to return a phone call once in a while and keep your members appraised of deadlines, including the deadlines to file grievances. I'm just sayin'.)

British Citizen: I love the NHS [national healthcare system in the U.K., which is free for British citizens.]

Rick: I cannot believe I'm attempting to defend Obama, but blaming Obama and fed govt employees for the high cost of your crappy health insurance is just silly and childish. Let me get this right; G.W. Bush and the Republican policies (dragging our troops into Iraq costing us billions of dollars a year, deregulating banks and insurance companies allowing multi billion dollar profits for those companies and their CEOs at the peril of poor and middle class Americans, and more...) took this country into the worst recession in our history since the Great Depression. Now, Obama has been trying to get the country out of recession, stabilize our economy, and yet help millions of Americans who lack any type of health insurance (a very sad condition for any civilized country) and regulate those greedy bank executives. There are many wealthy corporate executives, including the ones at insurance cos, that see their corrupt money-making ways endangered, hence are raising the cost of your less than adequate health insurance to compensate for it. If there are blames to go around, it should be directed to greedy and corrupt corporate executives and their lobbyists and Republican policies, not federal govt employees and the new Health Care law.

Lawyer: it's perfectly consistent to criticize Bush II and also increased healthcare costs. My comments were directed at Congress, which has been in Democratic hands for the last four years. Bush II was a moron, but like any American president, he doesn't have much control over domestic spending. Outside of of a war situation, an American president is just the mouthpiece for his party, especially if his or her party controls Congress.

I don't think the Dems realized that insurance companies would jack up policy premiums so quickly. And I still don't see any plan on their side to deal with the increased premiums.

[Speaking of unfinished business, we also need better financial regulation--we still have not solved the "too big to fail" problem, which is actually worse than before (all the big banks got even bigger).]

With respect to health care, I remember our president saying that the expanded coverage would be paid for by cutting the fat from programs internally, especially Medicare. I supported that and continue to support anything that will cut long term, unpredictable fiscal obligations. I never heard our president say anything about me paying 10 to 15% increased premiums each year for the past three years.

I recently got a pain in a tooth. I have no dental coverage, b/c individual dental coverage plans are generally worthless. (There aren't enough individuals buying dental insurance to make the plans beneficial or worthy of consideration.) I am going to India soon. I am not sure if I should wait to go to India and get dental care there on my vacation, or just pay up here. I am going to take Advil and see what happens in the meantime. It's a bit astounding to me how our country talks so much about small businesses and entrepreneurs and yet does nothing to assist us except when it comes to retirement plans (like individual 401ks, SEPs, etc).

Rick: I completely share your sentiment re rising cost and lower quality of health and dental insurance. Our president and the Congress need to address the outrageous cost of living, including dental and health insurance costs. It's incredible that US corporations are making record breaking profits while unemployment rate and cost of living continue to rise, and the average American is hurting. And then, there are elected politicians who argue less govt and more tax breaks for the wealthy. Meanwhile our country stands in a mountain full of debt which if not properly addressed will break our back. But hey let's give the wealthy more tax breaks so they can enjoy their yachts, luxury cars, and Tiffany & Co jewels, because the rich can stimulate the economy better than average Americans. And let's deregulate big banks, insurance companies and other large corporations and let them make more profits for their executives while they treat their employees like slaves...advantages of smaller government and less regulations.

Lawyer: this post was never about "smaller government," which is a different discussion. My post was about a poorly conceived healthcare law that has caused my premiums to increase 10 to 15% annually over the last three years, when the Democrats controlled Congress. The Dems passed a healthcare law that was supposed to be paid by cutting spending, not increasing premiums. They apparently did not anticipate insurance companies increasing premiums quickly or did not pass a healthcare law properly drafted to protect the young and middle class.

Insurance companies are a necessary evil that keep healthcare costs in check. Without them, our long-term healthcare costs would be even higher. We ought to have better procedures for contesting denials of care and reimbursement, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that insurance companies prevent healthcare costs from spiraling out of control.

Democrats like to joke that Republicans want older people to die quickly, and the GOP talks about rationing and death panels, but no one is questioning the wisdom of paying billions of dollars annually to give grandma and grandpa an additional 6 months of life and all the morphine they want. How did healthcare costs increase so much in 30 years? Is it b/c we used to let older people and people with terminal illnesses die comfortably instead of doing everything we could to prolong their last six months of life? How did Americans survive 30 years ago without Xanax, Prozac, etc.? Are we a more healthy society than we were 30 years ago?

The medical doctor who helped draft the original healthcare bill knew that healthcare expenses during the last six months of a patient's life were outrageous and needed to be reduced. In other words, the Democrats did in fact try to pass a law rationing medical care, which would have been a significant achievement. But insurance and drug companies quickly realized that the original bill would cut their profits and watered down the legislation using GOP scare tactics of "death panels." Now, instead of paying for universal coverage via spending cuts, people like me, you, your children, and the middle class will be paying for it. And it's b/c Americans were too naive to understand that rationing over the last six months of a patient's life is necessary to control healthcare costs.

Rick: I agree with end result of your proposal, but the way to get there should be better articulated than to cut govt employee salaries or reduce the size of govt agencies. Now, if studies prove wasteful spending in certain areas of govt, then yes they should be cut off. Govt should be here to protect the citizens not to waste their tax money.

Where a California Teacher Gets Schooled

There's no sport in debating most K-14 California teachers because it's just too easy. Sigh.

California Teacher 1: Interesting perspective however, why is the average salary of a CA teacher below that of a secretary of a private sector company. Why do education administrators who have less than 4 years of classroom experience earn 3 times that amount and fail to make good decisions about classroom teaching and materials? 80% of a school budget does not go to teachers. Mainstreaming in education has pulled funds in so many directions. The other factor people fail to see is that somehow we began printing materials and textbooks and interpreters for students who do not speak English and creating a system that allows children starting school in kindergarten to reach 8th grade without mastering reading, writing and speaking in English even though they have been in the U.S. for 14 years or more? The printing costs alone could change the funds for education! Why do teachers have to ask parents to donate facial tissue, loose leaf paper, pencils, copy paper, markers, crayons, color pencils, funds for class set of literature, and other supplies in nearly 50% of public schools nationwide? It is not true that half of the General Fund does not make it to education and if it were true, then we are not collecting enough taxes for anything (including education K-12 and beyond). Prop 13 killed funding for education a long time ago. It has been a steady decline of funding for public education and even the Lottery monies never really get to education as they were intended to do when we sold the idea of legalizing gambling.

Teacher 2: I believe, from conversations I have had with [NAME], that she is basing her facts on both her own experience in the private sector and her experience in education.....

Lawyer: let's take what [California Teacher] said and break it down logically.

1. She said, the average salary of a CA teacher is less than [an average] private sector secretary. FALSE.

According to the teachers' own union, the average CA teacher makes over $64,000, and receives additional compensation in the form of pensions (usually after just five years) and full medical benefits.

Please cite reliable stats showing that the average secretary in the private sector makes over $64K and is eligible for a pension and full medical benefits. You won't find any such statistics because her statement is incorrect.

2. She said that canceling printing costs for ESL students would substantially increase funds for education. Really? With $40+ billion annually spent on CA K-14 education, it is highly unlikely that ESL "printing costs" are a major problem. Common sense says that textbooks and other materials are bought once and used for many years. I'd love to see total expenditures each year on ESL printing costs. My hunch is that [California Teacher] was scapegoating American citizens who speak ESL in an attempt to shift direction from the fact that 80 to 85% of CA K-14 education funding goes into the pockets of district employees.

3. She said, "Half of the General Fund does not make it to education." FALSE, unless you want to quibble over 48% vs. 50%. Total funding for K-12 education was projected to be an astounding $68.5 billion in 2008-09 (it appears that the teachers' unions were forced to make some concessions, lowering spending projections). In CA Fiscal Year 2008, about 48% of the General Fund went to California elementary, secondary, and higher education. http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?rgn=6&ind=33&cat=1

Again, people are entitled to their opinions, but not their facts. Isn't it sad how so many teachers don't know how to make a logical, fact-based argument?

Bonus: more here from Bill Baker, Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon.

Bonus II: Governor Christie also shows us how it's done. More here.

Update in April 2017: to sum her up, "You're bitter but well-read... go teach college." I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Debate: What is Military Adventurism?

THE BOONDOCKS © Aaron McGruder. 

Dist. By ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION. 

Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

November 11, 2010 was Veterans' Day. Some random thoughts and opinions:

1. Calvin Coolidge, the 30th President: "A Nation that forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten."

2. I do not consider someone's unquestioning willingness to die for a cause or country to be worthy of respect in and of itself. To be worthy of praise, I need that willingness to die to be tied to self-defense. Otherwise, I'm not sure we are helping our soldiers, our safety, or our worldwide reputation.

I understand that a soldier's willingness to die is a necessary component of self-defense. However, I view such an attitude--the willingness to murder your fellow man--as a necessary evil, and I do not see much sense in praising a necessary evil. Therefore, I neither condemn nor praise necessary evils.

War is sometimes necessary. We need soldiers, and we need to make sure we give them the tools they need to succeed. Today, the U.S. does not have a mandatory draft, so everyone voluntarily chooses military service.  
 
3. If you are in charge of American military personnel, you failed us on 9/11; you failed us again after 9/11 by invading the wrong country; and you are failing us now because your agency is designed for wars against countries rather than smaller, more fluid organizations.

Onward to the Facebook debate on military adventurism and the scope of a thinking person's patriotism:

Lawyer: At work in the private sector so the military gets the taxes it needs to exist. Our modern-day military creates no net revenue and causes our country to lose billions of dollars each year. Without the private sector, there would be no military. Thank someone who owns a small business or is working in a non-government job today.

Also, if you fought in WWII or any war prior to Vietnam, thank you. Once we reach the Vietnam era, however, it's unclear whether any war has created safety for Americans on American soil.

Write your government and demand that we bring our soldiers back from Iraq as soon as possible. Why are we leaving so many young Americans in harm's way when it's unclear whether they are increasing our safety?

(I am still undecided about wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As far as I know, none of the 9/11 hijackers lived in either country or received training there that helped them attack America. The terrorists came mostly from Germany. It's also unclear why Pakistan and Afghanistan are America's problem rather than India’s and Iran’s. At the same time, whenever I see pictures of what the Taliban has done to innocent Afghani civilians, especially young girls, my trigger-finger gets itchy.)

Hilarious Buddy: Danger, Will Robinson. Danger.

Judah: Government workers pay taxes too. But since you wrote this on Veteran’s Day to be controversial, I don't suppose that will matter.

Lawyer: @Judah: if I give you 100 bucks and you give me back 30 bucks, I'm still out 70 bucks, right? You've basically taken 70 dollars from me, and all you've done is refund me back my own money. So gov workers don't really pay taxes--they refund money paid to them by the private sector. If they're not creating something, gov workers are causing financial losses and taking money out of the private sector whenever the federal gov provides loans to states and/or fails to maintain a balanced budget without increasing taxes.

And by the way, I said military personnel create no revenue. I didn't say they failed to pay taxes. In any case, whether we spend 5 trillion dollars or 1 dollar on the military, it's all irrelevant unless the military keeps us safe here at home. If our commanders fail to keep us safe at home, we are paying money for nothing while losing some of our best and brightest young people.

Judah: Government workers get paid by the government, the government gets its money from taxes on the private sector and some other sources that we can agree to leave out, those taxes come out of your pay, you are paid by your clients, your clients earn money from their businesses, and so on, and it's non-trivial to determine where the money actually comes from. But if your argument is that the military should be thankful to you because you pay taxes, then you need to admit that taxes are taken out of everyone's pay, and no one has any say about how they're spent. It may be government money to start with in some cases, but from the point of view of the person getting the paycheck, it's identical. You haven't done anything extra that a mailman, or a federal judge, or a park ranger hasn't done. From your pay, you contribute to the running of the government, which includes the military.

Lawyer: @Judah: you could not be more wrong. I created a business. In order for my business to survive, I have to create something either new or more effective than existing services or products. The same philosophy applies to almost every private company, especially here in Silicon Valley--either they innovate or die. In contrast, all the government has to do is exist.

Throw in the toxin of government unionization, and we have a financial miasma that is made worse whenever anyone praises non-creative government workers. With respect to the military, I fail to understand how any war since Vietnam has helped Americans on American soil. It seems like we've lost a lot of American lives and killed a lot of civilians for nothing. If you want to praise that as equivalent to creating new services and introducing more efficient products into the marketplace, go right ahead.

Judah: It sounds like you're suggesting that your business *must* contribute something, or it would cease to exist. Why wouldn't that be true of the military?

Lawyer: B/c government workers and entities receive much of their revenue from the act of printing money, which requires no creation or innovation. Again, it's nonsensical to compare someone in the private sector--which has to actively attract money from voluntary exchanges--with government workers, who do not have to actively attract money using intelligence or innovation. In contrast to someone like me, all a gov worker has to do to get paid is a) unionize; and/or b) vote in their preferred politician. Obviously, I can't do that, and neither can most non-banking businesses. It appears both major political parties will continue printing money to give to the military. Thus, we are left with a military that doesn't seem to keep us safe on our own soil while simultaneously costing us trillions of dollars.

The difference between the private sector and the public sector is that non-banking businesses need to create something or provide something more efficiently to get paid. From this creative destruction comes almost all progress, including Google, eBay, or any small business. In the case of gov entities, because politicians are in charge of a massive amount of money, and the fed gov can print money when it runs a deficit, the normal requirement to be useful does not apply. They just need to vote once a year to keep their jobs. And that's exactly what they have done in California.

But don't listen to me--read David Walker's book, Comeback America. He has an entire chapter on the military that is a must-read.

TX Buddy: Geez, way to ruin Veteran's Day :-P

Lawyer: @TX Buddy, hope you're doing well now that Texas has In N’ Out :-) I'm just trying to introduce a different viewpoint. I despise conformity, and holidays tend to bring out the worst cases of unthinking herd mentality on Facebook.

It's always sad to see people base their opinions on propaganda instead of logic and facts. Logically, if we're anti-war and view the military as a necessary evil (not heroic), our soldiers get to stay safer and live longer. All this changes if there is a direct threat to Americans on American soil, and almost all such threats come from domestic residents, not foreigners who are poor, who cannot speak English, or who cannot blend into American society.

Judah: I don't understand your assertion that the military has failed to keep us safe on our own soil, but I never intended to challenge your assertion that the benefit of military action in recent years is difficult to quantify at best.

Today is Veteran’s Day, and what we're honoring today isn't the military, it is the men and women who have served in it. You don't think the military has provided us much benefit in recent years, and you don't think that the individual members of the military have contributed much. They aren't attracting money, they aren't growing the economy, and whatever they're doing on a day to day basis is done in service of a mission you find questionable.

You say that it's nonsensical to compare private sector employees to government workers. In the case of the military, you're spot on. A soldier, airman, sailor, or marine may not be creating wealth, and your taxes pay at least part of their salary, but they also fight and die in their jobs, when they are ordered to.

You and I, and all the creative private sector employees you champion, we don't have to do that. And we don't get a federal holiday, but we're celebrated every day of the year. Your assertion that what matters is creating money-- growing the economy, generating the revenue that pays the salary of the military--is a celebration of the private sector.

No one should have to thank you.

Lawyer: @Judah: if keeping us safe on American soil involved only killing people and dying when ordered to do so, then your statement would be correct. But safety is multifaceted, and it usually includes a thriving economy. For example, the more men who are unemployed, esp young men, the higher the risk of domestic crime. Long story short, without a thriving private sector, we risk higher domestic crime and unrest, which sometimes leads to coups and pogroms. Thus, when someone in the private sector goes to work, s/he is helping keep us safe at home. It's unclear why we shouldn't thank people who maintain our way of life and who keep us safe here at home.

Moreover, it is unclear whether military operations abroad protect us from collapse from within. Indeed, history tells us that pro-military countries tend to collapse. If true, when we praise any part of the military that is not directly useful to domestic security, or when we view military members as always heroic (and therefore unworthy of any criticism, especially towards higher level military leaders), we plant the seeds of our own downfall.

You focus on death, and you view a soldier's willingness to die as deserving of thanks, but a country can die, too, and death can come in many different forms. For instance, one way to destroy a country is to destroy its economy by providing too much money or printing too much money to give to non-useful government workers. Another way is to implement poor fiscal policies, such as excessive or non-useful military spending. It is unclear why anyone who is part of an inefficient machinery of military adventurism deserves thanks, unless--like private sector workers--they are keeping Americans safe here at home. I do not believe our military is focused on keeping us safe here at home, because I believe that our biggest threats come from English-speakers who can blend into society, not foreigners. Richard Reid, Vincent Padilla, the NY car bomber, and almost all recent terrorism attempts against America support my belief.

Americans ought to consider Veteran's Day as a period of sadness or stoicism rather than a time to praise or thank our soldiers for their military adventurism. When that attitude shift happens--as it has in countries such as modern-day Germany--we will have a safer country as well as safer soldiers and young men and women.

Judah: And you focus only on the economy. When I focus on fighting and dying in the context of the military, I am focusing on the job that they are asked to do. When you focus on the economy, you are focusing on a job that is someone else’s to do and decrying the military's failure to do it. If you think the military is overfunded, the blame for that lies with the organization that sets the funding. If you think the military mission diverts attention and resources from economic problems, the blame lies in the hands of the politicians that set the agenda (I will concede here that at the top levels, the military has some power in setting its agenda).

The military is not the entire government, and if the economy becomes the death of the country, there will be others far more responsible for it than veterans.

Lawyer: @Judah: you may be correct, but unlike you, I do not consider the willingness to die in an era of military adventurism as heroic or deserving of praise.

Pointing to corrupt politicians--who also deserve blame--is a diversion. Can’t one condemn corrupt politicians while refusing to plant the cultural seeds for further military adventurism? I believe that when you praise the military or any part of it during a time of wars that do not help keep Americans safe on American soil, you do not help soldiers, civilians, the economy, or the cause of peace. In fact, it is more reasonable to argue that your praise helps maintain America’s cultural ease towards war.

You end your comment with statements that are true, but hyperbolic. Of course the "military is not the entire government." However, when the military is between 20% to 30% (when including black ops, foreign military assistance, and the CIA) of our federal budget, it should not be immune from criticism or responsibility for our current economic woes. It is also not a valid argument to say that b/c "X" is not the primary factor of a problem, we must focus on other contributing factors.

At the end of the day, our country is safer now because of our private sector workers’ diligence and dedication to improving the economy, not because of our military commanders. Today, I praise all of the private sector workers who have not rioted or acted violently against others and who have diligently continued looking for work, paying their bills, and taking care of their families. Thank you. Keep your chin high. You are the people who are holding up this country, and if we lose you, we will collapse from within.

Eric: The military is expensive and, it can be argued successfully, I think, that we have too many military obligations overseas. You would be surprised how many countries we have some form of military involvement in. The other day, I heard it was over 100 different countries. Is that really necessary? Well, that's arguable. One might suggest that, if it weren't for us, the world we be a much less stable place. Much less stable for trade, so that small and large businesses in the United States and elsewhere would not be able to do business.

Certainly, the military kept us safe during the cold war. If we had been week and had no military, would not the Soviets have taken us over? Since the fall of the USSR, one can argue that it was not as necessary to keep a strong military. Or is it?

Was Iraq necessary? No. It was expensive and achieved nothing. Afghanistan? I suppose it did send potential terrorists (who do have money to commit acts of terror internationally) running for cover, so that war is arguable.

But having a military in general protects us and stabilizes us. It doesn't seem like we need the military when we sit in our safe offices and homes and grouse about taxes. Nobody is breaking down our doors with guns and tanks. But that's because the world knows that if someone did try to come at us, we would utterly destroy them. Knowing that everyone knows we would utterly destroy them if they came at us is a comforting thought, because it allows us to have our businesses and our homes and know they won't go away. We can even type on Facebook about how we dislike government and wish that taxes could be lower (which in some countries would get you thrown in a gulag). We are free and stable, because of the military. Is it expensive? Yes. Is it worth the expense? Absolutely!

Lawyer: we do not need to thank our modern military for being a deterrent, b/c it is not clear that they are in fact deterring anything right now. In fact, the military may be causing Americans on American soil to be less safe by their actions.

Also, plenty of countries don't spend trillions on war and manage to do business and not get invaded. Consider Switzerland or modern-day Germany.

Now, take a look at countries that go to war or engage in war, and there is usually one very clear commonality: inflation, high unemployment, or a lack of a strong private sector economy. Look at wars/invasions in Africa; Bosnia/Serbia; Cambodia; old Germany; Iraq; perhaps even Ecuador now, etc. All of them had a weak or nonexistent private sector economy. A strong military wouldn't have protected the average citizen from war. It would have only caused a military coup and a probable military dictatorship.

P.S. the Cold War is over. You might want to get that memo over to the Pentagon and the Dept of Defense, who are still spending our money on weapons more suited to the Cold War instead of domestic threats and smaller, fluid groups of terrorists.

Eric: I agree that war is a bad thing and that having a military can lead to a military dictatorship without a strong civilian government and a private sector. For whatever reason, our country has been spared a military dictatorship and wars on our own soil (for the last 135 years anyway). I think that our brand of military, strong, but loyal to the civilian government, is owed a lot of the credit.

I'm not saying that military incursions and having a very strong military is always a good thing everywhere. I'm just saying it worked here. I don't think you can compare the United States to Africa, the Balkans, Cambodia, etc., Iraq, and other countries you mentioned. The United States went down a different path. I don't know why. I cannot explain it. Perhaps it was the sheer vastness of the country. It's resources. None of the countries/continents you mention are stable in any sense of the word. Not militarily. Not economically. Not legally.

Besides, I'm not talking about going to war. I'm talking about having a military that is so big and so powerful that anyone would be stupid to invade us. With our Navy, we can have huge warships anywhere in the world in just a few days, etc.

Does it deter people from being stupid? I think it does. I suppose that is debatable. But I'm not willing to take the deterrent away for any period of time to test your theory.

Lawyer: in an age of nuclear weapons, it's unclear whether we need to spend trillions of dollars on military adventurism to create a deterrent. In any case, you miss my point. I am not against a well-funded or strong military. I am against praising the military or its members during times of military adventurism, which helps support a pro-war culture.

Eric: So strong military good. Military adventurism and excessive military spending bad. I'm okay with that. We could spend a little less on the military right now. Perhaps a lot less. I'm not sure I an in sync with your definition of military adventurism. I might put the Iraq war in that definition, but I'm not sure we do that a lot. Other than Iraq, what else is included in the definition of military adventurism?

Lawyer: @Erik: see Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. (Are we fighting wars in other countries?) Unless you can directly link our military’s activities in those three countries with more safety here at home, we are engaging in military adventurism.

Also, have you noticed the kind of people who have been attacking us here at home? (NY car bomb, Padilla, Reid, 9/11 terrorists, etc.) They are almost always domestic or European residents who speak English, not foreigners who live in the Middle East. It's unclear whether blowing up two foreign terrorists and three civilians (I'm estimating a high civilian death count as a result of our military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) makes us safer. A foreigner who cannot integrate at least superficially into Western culture cannot effectively deliver a bomb close to American soil. I do not believe the people we are blowing up in the Middle East can effectively deliver a bomb on American soil without being easily detected. Therefore, I call our wars there military adventurism because they do not seem to support a viable self-defense strategy.

Sean: I am all for pulling out of Germany, Japan, the Middle East etc...but at the same time I thank those who are willing to risk their lives for me. Note that I did not include those that decide what those men and women in uniform will risk their lives for, but those who actually are willing to risk their lives...I do not expect soldiers to be policy makers, I oppose the policies, including military policies, of the policy makers, while being thankful for the soldiers.

Without a strong military someone else will want to set you policies for you...

Lawyer: @Sean: thank you for your comment. You've made the only comment so far that may cause me to shift my position. At the same time, I do not believe that praising a person's willingness to die for his country is a positive action during times of military adventurism. Condemning or praising a military member is different from taking a neutral position towards him/her.

Also, I never said we shouldn't have a strong military. Being against military adventurism and excessive military spending are not inconsistent with supporting a strong military.

If we want to be the world's policeman, that's fine. I just don't know how we're going to pay for it. With the money we save on reducing military obligations, we can support a stronger dollar and our position as the world's reserve currency. I'd rather exert power through trade and tariffs than hard military power. Since we're a consumer-based economy and other countries rely on us to buy their exports, it's unclear why we can't maintain our influence by using trade incentives and disincentives.

I will let Matthew Hoh have the last word. See here.

© Matthew Rafat (2010)

[The comic strip above is from Aaron McGruder's The Boondocks (1996-2006); single strip copied under fair use doctrine for educational purposes.] 

Bonus: from Slawek: "thank god for the new wars we still got going for us, otherwise we would run out of veterans pretty soon. and how silly would we feel come veteran’s day then? pretty f*cking silly."