Jimmy Smith's Blog

Obama: Time to Get Tough with Israel

Lazarus — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:30:32 EST

The U.S. government gives about $5 billion dollars per year in military aid to Israel. We shouldn't give any of it. There are many compelling reasons:

1) Israel's War on Gaza has killed hundreds of civilians
2) This makes them, and by extension us, look extremely bad
3) This image problem is one of the main reasons why we are vulnerable to terrorism.

So Obama, if you really want to make a change, you need to send a message to Israel: disproportionate violence is not acceptable. Break the cycle of violence, or loose your military aid.

Financial Aid for Students, not for War

Lazarus — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:43:00 EST

The USA gives about $5 billion per year in military grants to Israel. Right now that aid is being put to work slaughtering Palestinians, largely civilian men, women, and children.

This must stop. It's not only wrong, but it's a waste of tax money and makes us vulnerable to terrorism.

If you want to give out financial aid, give it to struggling students, not the Israeli war machine.

Israel/Palestine: More Gas on the Fire

Lazarus — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:42:34 EST

I haven't been able to get to this site for a while now . . . great to be back!

Look, this Israeli operation in Gaza has to stop. It's just killing a bunch of civilians. The USA is giving around $5 billion in military grants to Israel every year. That should stop too.

The Gaza rockets are deplorable but we all (should) know this conflict has been going on a long time.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Send Gaza food and medicine, not bombs. Revenge leads to more revenge, it's like pouring gasoline on a fire . . .

A Better Way of Thinking About Politics

Lazarus — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:04:07 EST

We have an unfortunate habit of viewing political positions in a one-dimensional way. You know, the old "left wing", "right wing", dichotomy, with "centrists". These terms don't make one gram of sense in reality since politics isn't one-dimensional, it is multi-dimensional.

What I mean is, there are dozens of issues you must have positions on, many possible positions for each issue, and thousands of possible combinations of positions, but there are only three ways of describing them in the bad model: "left", "right", and "center".

I bring this up because I have been described as "far-left" by some, and I don't feel like that at all. You see, I come from an environment, college, where ideas are judged based on reason. Either a political idea makes logical sense given your values or it doesn't.

When I say end the war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan now, cut our bloated/wasteful military budget, pass a carbon tax to stop climate change, pass Medicare for all, save up for the next recession, give full civil rights to gays, and convert to the metric system I'm not describing an "extreme left" set of positions. I'm describing a set of positions that flows logically from my values, which it turns out, are commonly held values for many in America. Sometimes when you take your values to their logical conclusions, you get to really innovative ideas.

To conclude, stop labeling people as an excuse to pre-judge them. Engage with their ideas, not with a label that can never capture a gram of their full complexity.

Gay Marriage

Lazarus — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:48:18 EST

One tactic that gay marriage foes use is to argue that if gay marriage were protected we would have to protect child marriage, polygamy, and human-animal marriage.

That's bad reasoning because . . .

Why Squirrels are Smarter than Us

Lazarus — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:49:42 EST

Certain squirrels have evolved a very useful habit. Every year, during the warm months, they eat up, and save nuts for the winter. Then, during the winter, they hang out in their shelters and eat the nuts they saved up, thus avoiding starvation.

We, on the other hand, run into good economic times and spend money like there's no tomorrow. We don't save anything, even though we know the recession is coming. They always come. Every eight years or so. It's been like that for literally hundreds of years.

Both as individuals and as a government, we need to save up for the winter. Recessions don't have to mean cuts in government services, which just make the economy worse. But we have to save up money in advance. We need to THINK AHEAD. We need to be thinking about the NEXT recession NOW.

Otherwise we slowly hang ourselves with our national debt.

Big Oil Funding Big Media

Lazarus — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:08:37 EST

I was watching CNN online recently and I noticed that Chevron was running ads on stories that had to do with energy. Oil companies like Exxon, Chevron, and British Petroleum (BP) are in the midst of a greenwashing frenzy, trying to convince the public that they are not horrible for the environment (of course, they really are horrible for the environment).

These slick oil tycoons are running greenwash ads with one hand and funding climate change deniers with the other. Investing in token green energy projects with one hand (often to buy up clean energy patents to keep them off the market) and conducting the overwhelming majority of their business in dirty, unsustainable energy with the other.

It's not just CNN taking money from these clowns, all sorts of mainstream media are doing it. So why should you trust their reporting on the environment? They won't bite the hand that feeds.

The Thrown Shoes

Lazarus — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:25:19 EST

I have to laugh when I read coverage of the recent incident where an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at George W. Bush at a press conference. They almost always say something like "in Arab culture throwing shoes at someone is considered an insult".

I'm pretty sure it's considered an insult in American culture too. Maybe a little rare, but solidly in the insult category.

The question is: how long does Obama want to be in Bush's position? Sustaining an occupation that the Iraqis don't want is beyond foolish, it's shoe-throw-worthy.

Bail Out the People: Pass Medicare for All (H.R. 676)

Lazarus — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:33:41 EST

American health care is broken. We spend TWICE as much per person on health care as the next highest country to get LOWER health outcomes (like life expectancy) and about 45 million Americans can't even afford any insurance at all.

There is a bill in Congress now, H.R. 676, sponsored by John Conyers (D-MI) with about 90 co-sponsors. The plan? Extend medicare to all Americans. Cut out the middle man and pay for one health care system that covers everybody at a lower total cost, through taxation. I repeat, you will end up paying LESS for health care (in a system that actually covers everyone), if you do it through your taxes instead of an insurance bill.

This so-called single-payer system is the choice made by most other rich (and capitalist) countries in the world: Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, etc. These countries pay less for better health care because they do it collectively: one bureaucracy, not dozens of insurance company bureaucracies (just think of how much that saves).

Private doctors and hospitals would still deliver care, but the federal government would be the insurer. Don't be fooled by insurance industry scare tactics. A single-payer system is what's best for this country.

So, Congress, and Obama, if you really care about health care reform, and bailing out the people, you need to support H.R. 676: medicare for all.

Follow this link to read the text of H.R. 676: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h676_ih.xml

Finding Agreement On Abortion

Lazarus — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:06:13 EST

Abortion is one of those issues where Americans are highly polarized. But we can move beyond the "baby killer" versus "control over my own body" debate. I would argue that almost nobody likes abortion, but most people also want it to be an option, so we can focus on a strategy to reduce the number of abortions without making them illegal or unavailable.

Why is it that we have birth control pills which are extremely good at preventing pregnancy, yet there are still unwanted pregnancies? First of all, all men and women should be educated about birth control (don't skip that pill!!) and have access to it regardless of ability to pay. Any American woman (or teenage girl) should be able to walk into a hospital or clinic anywhere in the country and have birth control pills prescribed at taxpayer expense. If we really care about reducing the number of abortions we have to do this.

Secondly, we have to change the way we have sex. Instead of diving right into it, we should take our time, talk it out, and make sure we're taking effective measures to head off unwanted pregnancies (even if it's a bit of a mood killer).

Do these things and you'll find a lot of people were just voting Republican over this issue and are ready and willing to support progressive ideas as long as they see some concession on abortion.

Obama: Spend On Public Transit, Not New Roads And More Sprawl

Lazarus — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:14:24 EST

We shouldn't rush this infrastructure spending. If all emphasis is put on haste and no emphasis is put on quality, we'll have a bunch of bad projects across this country that we will regret for decades, long after this recession is over.

The Interstate Highway Act of 1956, perhaps more than any other factor, is responsible for suburban sprawl and the auto- and oil- dependent country we live in today. This has had disastrous consequences for our environment and our health (since we not only breathe the exhaust fumes but we hardly walk for transportation anymore, making us the most overweight country on Earth).

We shouldn't be building a bunch of new freeways and turnpikes, we should be building up public transportation and engaging in denser "smart growth" urban planning. Otherwise, we will buy stimulus at the price of more sprawl, auto dependency, and environmental devastation.

Is The Economy Really That Bad?

Lazarus — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:35:49 EST

The unemployment rate in the U.S., currently at 6.7%, is serious, but it is lower than the peak unemployment rates for the last three major recessions. In the recession of the early 1990s the unemployment rate exceeded 7.5%. In the recession of the early 1980s the rate reached above 10%. Finally, in the recession of the mid 1970s the rate got above 8.5% (Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).

I'm not saying we should be happy about 6.7% unemployment, nor am I saying that the number is moving in the right direction. What I am saying is that this is NOT the worst recession since the Great Depression.

The government is throwing money around faster than the 15-year-old child of a billionaire, and perhaps more foolishly. In just a few months we have seen almost $1 trillion appropriated for bailouts mostly to the banks that got us into this mess. All of this goes on the national debt. That's roughly $50 billion extra PER YEAR just to pay the interest on that additional debt. That means higher taxes or lower spending later when we grow up and balance our budgets, and that's going to hurt.

Macroeconomics is really streaky. When we think things are getting worse, we tend to act in a panicked way that makes the situation even tougher than it has to be. Don't be fooled.

Why The Big 3 Shouldn't Get Your Tax Money

Lazarus — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:47:26 EST

I'm against bailouts on principle for a lot of reasons in general: companies should pay the price of their own mistakes, we have limited resources that could be better spent directly paying down the national debt, putting people to work, etc.

But in the case of the Big 3 I've got another reason: they symbolize the utter contempt the auto industry has for the environment. It's not just the H2 limo I have in the picture. GM, Ford, and especially Chrysler are all low performers on fuel economy compared to their chief rivals: Toyota and Honda. It didn't have to be this way. In the late '90s American companies were making pure electric cars thanks to CA's zero emission vehicle mandate, but that got shelved.

Let's compare the most fuel efficient model each company has. That really says it all:

Toyota - Prius - 48/45 MPG
Honda - Civic Hybrid - 40/45 MPG
Ford - Escape Hybrid - 34/30
GM - Cobalt XFE - 25/36
Chrysler - Sebring - 21/30

We're getting our butts kicked and it shows in each company's profitability. Bailing out these clowns only rewards their mediocre product lineups.

Minimum Wage Job Corps

Lazarus — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:04:24 EST

The federal government can end unemployment for 1,000,000 workers by paying them to do anything at a minimum wage ($6.55/hr.) at a cost of about $15 billion per year. Why don't we just do that? Anybody who is unemployed gets a job if they apply for it and they show up to work. The unemployment rate is less than 7% now. That means we could cut it in half for $105 billion per year (this assumes 200 million in the U.S. workforce, hence 3.5% of that would be 7,000,000 workers).

In minimum wage a lot? No. But it beats going hungry.

$105 billion per year for a year or two while the economy gets back on its feet sure beats a $700 billion bailout. As an added plus, lots of people will gain compassion for those who work for minimum wage.

Why Suburbia Is Destroying The Environment . . . And What You Can Do About It

Lazarus — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:04:36 EST

Suburbia is a mainly residential area that has a low density of land use (i.e. few homes per acre).

Suburbia is destroying the environment because it is so low density. Low density means it's hard to walk to things because they are so spread out. Low density means bus and other transit operators can't do convenient service because there are too few people in any given area to run transit vehicles frequently.

If you can't walk and you can't take public transit you're probably going to take a car. Problem is, cars are destroying our environment. They cause smog and release the greenhouse gas CO2 (carbon dioxide) which contributes to the climate crisis (global warming) which threatens to melt the polar ice caps and flood the world's coastal cities within decades.

So what can you do? First, advocate for "smart growth". Smart growth is a style of urban design that is more dense, puts jobs and stores closer to houses and works well with public transit and bikes. Write to your local officials and demand some action! Secondly, consider moving. Insist on living somewhere where you can walk to the grocery store and to good public transportation. Live as close to your job as you can afford to.

The Earth, and your pocketbook will thank you for it :)

Cycles of Violence

Lazarus — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:39:09 EST

In the wake of the Mumbai terrorist attacks, pressure is mounting in India to respond in a "tough" way, similar to that of the United States. Accusations are flying, and many are being directed towards Pakistan, India's twin state with which it has been fighting on and off since the states became independent of British imperialism after WW2.

It's too bad that we have set a precedent that will result in an escalation in the cycle of violence that will only make things worse. India, like us, has two choices: respond to the attacks by fighting a war and creating plenty of fresh victims. Or, pursuing the better path, to treat terrorism like the crime that it is. Of course that means that state terrorists should be treated as such and prosecuted (e.g. George Bush).

Treating terrorism like a crime instead of like a war is better because it implies a narrow, appropriate scale of force that will create a minimum of innocent victims, and hence a minimum of new terrorism as a result.

World Hunger

Lazarus — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:02:27 EST

The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) in 2006 had a budget of about $3 billion which it used to serve about 90 million of the world's undernourished people (there are roughly 900 million of them). All of the money comes from donations (you can make a tax deductible donation online at www.wfp.org).

That means that with $30 billion per year, the WFP might very well be able to serve all of the world's hungry. With $100 billion per year, perhaps it could wipe out world hunger.

Why is it that instead of being a humanitarian superpower, which we are clearly capable of, we choose to be a military superpower, spending more than $600 billion per year for that purpose? If we reduced our military budget by 1/6 (which would still put us far far above any other country), we could end malnutrition in the world. That would make us more safe, because it would make us more loved.

Every bomb is a theft from a starving child.

What the National Debt Costs Us Every Year

Lazarus — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:50:22 EST

I decided to estimate the interest payments on our $10 trillion national debt. Let's say our creditors are charging us 5% (which is a pretty good rate). That means that every year our national debt grows by . . .

$500 billion! Just from interest!
That's $1,667 for every man woman and child in America per year (all 300 million of us)!

The recent bank bailout will add $35 billion per year to our interest payments! ($117 per person per year).

So, whoever says the national debt doesn't affect us should think twice. In 2009 about $535 billion of our hard-earned tax dollars will go towards paying down the interest on the debt (we aren't even touching the principal) instead of buying us health care, education, and green technology. All to pay for war, and corporate welfare, on the installment plan . . .

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Cut Up Your Credit Cards

Lazarus — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:55:02 EST

As the holiday season approaches, many people get in trouble spending more than they have. The credit card industry thrives on human misery. They screw us with exorbitant interest rates and late fees. They harvest our money by exploiting us with minimum payments. If you have more than one credit card, pick the one with the lowest interest rate and cut up the rest.

Please, please pay your balances off in full every month. If you can't, pay as much as you can to minimize the interest they suck out of you.

The holidays aren't about presents. They are about being with our loved ones and showing compassion to the poor.

Progressive Taxation for Capital Gains

Lazarus — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:17:19 EST

The very richest people are experts at dodging taxation. This is because they make most of their money not from salaries (wages) but from capital gains (money you make because you own something like stock or real estate).

Wages are taxed progressively: (fake numbers) the first $20,000 you make isn't taxed, the next 20,000 is taxed at a low rate, the next 20,000 is taxed at a higher rate and so on, so the more money you make the more you help the country out.

We need real progressive taxation for capital gains. I say the first $10,000 should be taxed at 20% and everything above that should be taxed at 40%. This is a solid increase over what the rates are now. It protects middle-class small investors by taxing the first bit at a low rate and finally forces the mega-rich to pay up at a rate similar to what they would have to if they made their money by actually working.

Our government would have more money for programs to balance our budget, clean up our environment, make health care a human right, and create guaranteed employment for the poor. There is a trade off though: rich people won't be able to buy as many yachts :) These are the minimum conditions under which capitalism might be acceptable.