GM's Woes

The AP has finally reported that GM might be going bankrupt: AP Story on GM

The press, as usual, is slow to catch on. I predicted GM's bankruptcy last year, in a letter to The Metro: [Metro Letter]

[A]lmost no one in the private sector receives pensions or lifetime medical benefits, and all the private companies who used to offer such benefits, such as General Motors and Ford, are changing their policies and are slowly going bankrupt.

I hope Lee Iacocca was wrong when he (reportedly) said, "As goes General Motors, so goes the nation." But Mr. Iacocca seems to be blessed with accurate foresight--see Where Have All the Leaders Gone?, published May 2007:

Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course." Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

It's just a little bit of history repeating...

Reason #3947 to Be Libertarian

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance--not just against foreign influence, but also against our own government agents. Our government has spent our money going after a man, Sayed Mousavi, who wanted to promote cell phones in Iran. He also did not report a portion of his taxable income (for which he should be punished financially). The government used a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to convict him. Yet, no one believes this man is a terrorist except perhaps the American government and their lawyers. The most distressing detail is that our government removed Seyed Mahmood Mousavi's American citizenship by claiming he lied on his citizenship application. They apparently used mis-translated documents as evidence. 

To those would say America is a place where all citizens can breathe free post-Obama, the government's prosecution of Mr. Mousavi is a harsh lesson that vigilance must remain high. Even if Obama issues executive orders nullifying enforcement of the Patriot Act, such as canceling Executive Order 13224, more laws exist to harass citizens and non-citizens in America. 

Laura Donohue, a Stanford fellow, once said that counterterrorism activity increases "executive power both in absolute and real terms. This changes the balance of power at a federal level between the branches of government. It changes the relationship between the citizens and the state." Executive Order 13224, mentioned earlier, gave the White House and the Treasury the power to freeze assets of those they suspect of being terrorists and those they suspect have associations with terrorists. In other words, citizens "can have their assets frozen without being found guilty in any court of law for actually having any association with terrorism itself." "Between October 2001 and April 2005, 743 people and 947 organizations had their assets frozen underneath this order. 98% of the people, and 96% of the organizations, appeared to be Arab or Muslim." (Laura Donohue, Commonwealth Club speech, 9/11/08, page 20-21 of the November 2008 The Commonwealth magazine). 

Unfortunately, Obama is not proof that this country has progressed past its religious intolerance. Obama is Christian. Bobby Jindal, another political up-and-comer, converted to Catholicism. If you are not some form of Christian in America, and you have innocuous ties to Middle Eastern countries, the government is apparently willing to charge you with a crime. I realize Mr. Mousavi may have violated a trade embargo, and if he knowingly violated the law, jail-time is warranted. What terrifies me is our government, rather than prosecute him specifically for his violation of the trade embargo, actively expanded its prosecution to remove his citizenship--despite no evidence that he was a terrorist or danger to his community. 

Also, I've never heard of International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). It seems that so many laws have been passed, the government can classify any transaction with a Middle Eastern country or charity as illegal. Overly broad laws effectively intrude on personal associations and the right of peaceful assembly guaranteed under the First Amendment. For example, if I believe that my association with others can be used against me in the future, I may alter my behavior and self-banish myself from others who share minority religious or political views. Thus, the Patriot Act and other laws similar to it--which apparently do not require any malicious intent or actual damages--have the effect of violating the First Amendment by their mere existence. 

If you are interested in more information on domestic surveillance laws and activity, get the November 2008 edition of The Commonwealth magazine. One section of Donahue's speech is titled, "Better than the Stasi," referring to domestic law enforcement activities.

Norwegian Poetry

Props to the Norway for having such an eloquent king. From King Olav V of Norway:

When I look back
I see the landscape
That I have walked through
But it is different
All the great trees are gone
It seems there are
Remnants of them
But it is the afterglow
Inside of you
Of all those you met
Who meant something in your life

King Olav V
August 1977

Cars and People

Reason #1044 I hate cars and the driving culture:

Cars and Cities

She makes great points about cities being more hospitable when they are not built around an automobile culture.

Tech Geeks

Since Warren Buffett mentioned geeks earlier, I've been meaning to post something for my tech geeks--here are some links you might find useful:

http://kadster.blogspot.com/2008/08/destinations-for-open-web-knowledge.html

Just leave your financial formulas at home, and no one gets hurt.

More Reasons You Should Vote Libertarian

This article should make every American mad as hell:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_re_us/halberstam_fbi_file

Basically, the FBI spent taxpayer monies to spy on one of our best American writers. Many people associate David Halberstam with military or political history, but I found him through his sports-writing. I highly recommend Everything They Had: Sports Writing from David Halberstam.

Don't you just love the FBI's response when they were asked why they were spying on Mr. Halberstam? "[The file] speaks for itself." &!%$##^

Dick Armey's Conservatism

In today's WSJ (11/7/08, A17), Richard "Dick" Armey correctly pinpoints the problem with McCain's campaign--a failure to communicate convincing pride in individualism and small government:

The modern Republican Party has risen above its insecurities to achieve political success [in the past]. [We] understood that big government was cruel and uncaring of individual aspirations. Small government conservatism was, by definition, compassionate--offering every American a way up to self-determination and economic prosperity. Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 because voters no longer saw Republicans as the party of limited government. They have since rejected virtually every opportunity to recapture this identity...The evidence suggests we are still a nation of pocketbook conservatives most happy when government has enough respect to leave us alone and to mind its own business.

The last line is pure poetry. Unfortunately, Dick Armey has the fatal flaw of many Republicans--cultural myopia, which has led him to make insensitive statements against minorities. Cultural insularity was a major problem in McCain's campaign and especially in its VP choice, because unless Republicans convince Americans they stand for more than just quota-type diversity, their ranks will not grow. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Arizona audience for McCain's concession speech, and compare its diversity with the people in Grant Park and worldwide who supported Obama. The United States has changed demographically, but the Republicans seem oblivious.

Cultural insularity is the main reason Sarah Palin was such a controversial choice. Picking her meant the Republican Party consciously closed itself to independents who didn't favor a robust Christianity or who valued intellectualism. Palin famously refused to specify what she read (see Couric interview) and admitted she hadn't traveled much outside of North America before her VP nomination (see Gibson Interview, 9/13/08). But Palin aside, the Republicans desperately need a plan that will make them more attractive to people in larger cities, who tend to be less religious and more diverse. The solution is simple: if Republicans want to beat the Democrats, they must agree to advocate smaller government, lower taxes, and more legal immigration.

The failure to have a coherent immigration policy doomed the Republicans and will continue to doom them as long as they are viewed as a white, Christian party. This is because the electoral college system favors states that attract the most immigrants (or whose residents have the most children). For instance, despite winning only 53% of the popular vote, Obama won around 70% of the vote that matters, the electoral college vote. He won by focusing on diverse, larger cities, and he prevailed even though he received only 30% of working-class white votes. In short, Obama won because he understood that a vote in California is worth more than a vote in Alabama.

Assuming the electoral college system continues, sensitivity to legalized immigration and ethnic and religious diversity will be necessary to win the White House. Every single state with more than 19 electoral votes has either a large immigrant population or is not majority white. Meanwhile, many Republican strongholds, like Alabama and Kentucky, are experiencing depopulation or are sustaining population levels mainly because of foreign immigration. In fact, without immigrants and their children, America would have a negative population growth rate. Assuming naturalized citizens favor legal immigration and do not agree that Christianity is the only path to morality, any continued attempt to support Sarah Palin or persons like her as representative of the Republican Party will exclude immigrants and residents in mega-cities.

Still Pro-Palin? Look at a sample of mega-cities, like Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, San Jose, San Francisco, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia--in all those cities, the white, presumably Christian population is a plurality, not a majority. Outside of Texas, guess how many cities with over a million residents are majority white? Only one--Phoenix, Arizona--and the Republicans already tried winning with that hometown hero.

If you continue to disagree that a pro-immigration, non-religious platform is necessary for the Republicans to recapture the White House, you should study Santa Clara County and North Carolina. Both are microcosms of America in terms of changing demographics.

In Santa Clara County, more than 40% of the residents were born outside the country. An astounding 69% voted for Obama, and only 28% voted for McCain. Those numbers demonstrate how out of touch the Republican Party has become with non-Caucasians and non-Christians. Republicans should be more popular in California--after all, Californians recently elected a Republican governor, and the Republican Party's platform of less spending and lower taxation should appeal to high-earners and people concerned with the state's budget crisis. Yet, Republicans cannot gain a reliable foothold in any county where immigration has exploded. This failure to do better in diverse counties, even in states that badly need fiscal discipline, shows that the Republicans' strategy of focusing on whites, Christians, and senior citizens at the expense of other groups is not viable. This is not to say that Republicans should exclude their core groups of support and suddenly focus on minorities. That strategy shift won't work, either. For example, despite having consistent support from Florida's Cuban population, Republicans lost Florida. In addition, foreign-born Americans are only 12% of the national population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2004 survey.

What's the solution? Again, it's surprisingly simple: Republicans need to focus more on fiscal responsibility, advocate more legal immigration to appear progressive, and excise the fundamentalist religious right from their ranks. To do this, Republicans must cast out Sarah Palin and expressly affirm the separation of church and state. Indeed, despite being accused of practicing fundamentalist Christianity, Sarah Palin never delivered her version of JFK's "Catholic speech" or an Obama/Jeremiah Wright rebuttal. By failing to publicly and openly address concerns that her religious beliefs would interfere with her ability to govern the nation impartially, she hurt the Republican Party in all major urban areas. She also lost an opportunity to show that she understood American values, an opportunity a previous Democratic candidate did not forsake. Historians now agree that JFK won in no small part because of his stand against the commingling of church and state:

I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end...

And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office...

I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion.

If the Grand Old Party wants true reformation, it will condemn in the strongest possible language any Republican who believes that a particular religion is required to gain God's favor. Ironically, this shift will probably cause the Christian right to create the first viable third party in America, which will gain Senate seats from the Midwest and allow them a firmer, more consistent voice in politics. Thus, my proposed solution would create a win-win-win situation.

Still unconvinced? Take a hard look at the evolution of North Carolina. Less than ten years ago, North Carolina voted for a senator, Jesse Helms, who was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and who filibustered the idea of having a national holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr. (as you can see, minorities and immigrants have legitimate reasons for not voting Republican). North Carolina voted for Jesse Helms from 1973 to 2003--twenty long years. Recently, however, North Carolina voted out Helms' successor, Elizabeth Dole, in favor of a Democrat, and previously, it elected one of the most liberal Democrats, John Edwards.

The story gets worse for the Republicans. North Carolina voted Republican in every presidential election from 1968 to 2004--until Obama. That's quite a shift from Senator Jesse "Anti-Civil-Rights-Act" Helms in the last ten to twenty years--and the children of recent immigrants, both legal and illegal, haven't even hit voting age yet. North Carolina shows that if Republicans do not disavow themselves of their Palin/Helms strain of right-wing religion and cultural insularity, they will lose America. Not just "real America," but America, period. After all, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States say nothing about Christianity, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. Also, in 1797, George Washington signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which declared that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Demographics are destiny, as the saying goes. For now and the immediate future, the demographics are decidedly in favor of a party that respects and favors legal immigration, diversity, and separation of church and state. That's good news for Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bobby Jindal, and others prescient enough to see the future of American politics.

_________

Blog Post on Immigration Policies of Obama and McCain:

http://claresays.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/mccain-obama-and-immigration/

Update on April 2, 2009: not that it's conclusive evidence of anything, but Newt Gingrich agrees with me.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/02/gingrich-warns-of-third-party-in-2012/

Update on April 2012: for better or worse, urbanization is happening world-wide, not just in the United States: "In the hundred years between 1950 and 2050, the global population is undergoing an irreversible structural transition in the way we live.  Drawn by the economic, lifestyle and social opportunities of urban dwelling, the world's population is migrating from rural areas--accounting for 70% of global population in 1950--to cities--accounting for 70% of of global population by 2050 based on United Nations projections.  In 2009, the percentage of the planet's population living in urban areas crossed the 50% threshold and by 2037 cities in developing nations will contain half the world's total population." (from Credit Suisse, April 2012)

Update on March 2017: "Hillary Clinton, more than others, has a worldview problem because the vast majority of the electorate has already told itself a story about her... I believe there isn't enough money in circulation to persuade those voters that have already made up their minds to change them." -- from Seth Godin's All Marketers are Liars (2005), pp. 81, hardcover.

Update on December 2017: the Republicans won the 2016 election through a twice-divorced candidate who married a legal immigrant, presumably employs numerous immigrants in his businesses, and who has no religious piety or knowledge. Unfortunately--or fortunately--I was wrong about Bobby Jindal's potential.