Zoomin' up to 50,000 feet but still on the topic of "problems in the world," I revisit one of my regular reads which I'm trying to popularize: John Robb's "Global Guerillas". He's got the best take I've seen on the news that John Negroponte -- our man in Iraq -- is considering pulling from his School of the Americas Playbook and revving up the old paramilitary death-squad system.

The problems with this decentralization strategy are legion. A major one is that the target minority (religion and ethnicity) isn't an isolated powerless subset, rather it is part of a larger majority in the Middle East and an ascendent revisionist movement. The second major problem is that the US will puncture any remaining claim to moral superiority (see the brief on Boyd for more).

I appreciate the kind of analysis Robb provides on the news of the day. It embraces and explores the moral dimensions of our current wars, but doesn't get carried away. Seems like analysis I can use. For contrast, the Kossack commentary is a somewhat less helpful "How evil do you have to be to even consider this option?" I can appreciate the sentiment, but I believe I'm past the usefulness of a sympathy circle.

Anway, following my Sunday whimsy, I clicked the Boyd link and then trackback, and ended up on another good bit of writing from during the election cycle, but still prescient: Are We All Fundamentalists Now? by Jason Lefkowitz --

Strategist John Boyd defined an approach to war in which you attempt to isolate your opponent along three axes: the physical, the mental, and the moral. We are currently suffering from a Boydian moral isolation, brought on in large part because the world doesn't believe that our fight in Iraq is a fight of fundamentalism against rationalism. Instead, they see it almost as two different fundamentalist sects taking each other on -- which leaves rational third parties with no place to put their allegiance, except in their own self-interest.

Never looked at it this way in terms of allied reactions, but it makes a certain kind of sense. It also gives a good pseudopsychological rationale for some people's virtolic reaction to the ambivalence of our traditional allies in this conflict. Very little pisses people off more than telling them you think their god is bullshit.

This also sparks some thoughts on the nature of political fundimentalism vis-a-vis the commentary on the Kos thread, but that's a whole other blog entry, and one I'd have to think through somewhat further.

The point is that the ability to loose perspective by assuming the mantle of moral superiority is universal. It's a colliary no doubt to the corrupting nature of power. Those who place themselves within the sphere of moral conflict without the ability to question their own perspective -- checks and balances, if you will -- are at a serious long-run strategic disadvantage. The absolute power represented by moral certainty will take you places fast, but it'll catch up with you. Jessie Taylor of Pandagon brings it all back home, with his commentary on torture apoligists:

The torture brigade isn't really concerned about winning the war. They're playing a videogame in which they don't realize that they may never run out of bullets, but as long as they keep doing what they're doing, they're never going to run out of enemies. The strategy, however, will never change, as they can point to their score and the corpses on the ground and declare that victory is almost around the corner.

Sooner or later though, the dollar cost and body count will get high enough that we'll disengage. At some point you get tired of trying to "beat the game," (which would mean what? genocide?) and quit shoveling quarters in. In the meantime, you haven't done your homework, and you're broke, out of shape, and have no friends. Payback's a bitch.

I had some hopes that after these proposed end-of-month elections, Bush might take the advantage and bail. It's looking less likely judging by the political winds, which is really too bad. Without a major change in focus soon, we're going to reap the whirlwind of our declining social capital and our junk-bonded diplomatic/moral status. It would appear that Bush is back to writing his legacy. Stupid, Broke, Fat and Alone: The 21st Century Decline Of The United States.

Daily Kos :: Social Security: There is NO crisis

The counter-revolution to preserve social security is starting, and as usual the netroots are forrunning the scene. If you have a Kos account, please recommend the above diary and post some links.

The legendary Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps is at it again, with a press release celebrating the Tsunami because, they alledge, it killed some 2,000 Sweeds. Who they assume were gay. And this is somehow a good thing. That guy is totally crazy.

And homo-fascist? To be honest, I find the sign amusing. Maybe someone turned Phelps on to Turbonegro and he took it a little too seriously...

Social Security: A Little History

What is Social Security?

Social Security is a government-guaranteed retirement program. It insures that when people grow old and can no longer work, they will be able to provide for themselves. It also provides assistance for children who's wage-earning parents die, and for people who have been productive members of society but who become disabled through disease or injury.

How Did It Get Started?

After the collapse of the stock market in 1929 triggered the Great Depression, a number of programs were started up to help with mass unemployment and hunger. Able-bodied people were put to work by the Public Works Administration. For people in need who were too old, too young, or physically incapable of working, Social Security was created.

Why Do People Get Benefits?

Originally it was believed that in such a great nation as the United States, no one should be left destitute. Results showed that having more citizens able to contribute to society, even if they could not work a wage-earning job, improved overall life from both a community and economic standpoint. Today it is one of the most popular government programs of all time.

Where Does The Money Come From?

All Social Security funding comes from "payroll taxes." Employee wages and salaries up to $76,000 a year are taxed at 6.2%. Additionally, employers contribute another 6.2% above the wages they pay, for a total of 12.4% of all wages going into the Social Security trust. Unlike income taxes, payroll taxes are taken directly from paychecks and are not refundable.

When Will The Money Run Out?

It won't. Based on long-term economic projections, the Social Security trust should be fine for 50 years or so. At that point, some experts project that the number of people retiring will demand more money than payroll taxes can provide. Depending on birthrates, immigration and wages, that may or may not be the case. A lot can change in 50 years.

What Happens If There Is A Problem?

Should an actual shortfall in benefits show up on the 20-year outlook, the quickest solution is to raise the cap on payroll taxes. Many Americans earn more than $76,000 a year in salaries and wages, but earnings above that amount are not considered when funding the Social Security trust. Other easy solutions include raising the retirement age a couple of years, and starting a "means testing" program designed to scale benefits down for people with other significant sources of retirement income.

What's This "Crisis" I've Been Hearing About

It's a made up problem designed to hustle public support for the privatization of social security. It's a deception. There's really no other way to put it, unless your idea of a "crisis" is something that might or might not be a problem that's not very hard to solve in any case, and is fifty years off in the future. Sounds like someone's trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Why Do People Want To Privatize Social Security?

There are two main reasons people are backing privatization:

1) Greed
Privatizing Social Security means allowing individuals to place some or all of their payroll taxes in the stock market or other investments. That would result in trillions of dollars flowing through Wall Street brokerages. Since they make their money by taking commissions on the money they broker, this is very good news for them.

2) Ideology
Many conservatives, especially the new-wave of conservatism associated with President Bush, do not trust the United States government to do anything. They want as much of life as possible privatized. This is because they believe that "market forces" are better at governing than representative government. They've already enacted legislation to begin privatizing our schools, prisons, national parks, even the military! Social security is just the next logical step.

Why Is Privatizing Social Security A Bad Idea?

Privatizing Social Security defeats the purpose of keeping it safe from the ups and downs of the market. It began almost 80 years ago as a way for Americans to protect themselves from the economic disaster triggered by a stock market crash. Now Wall Street and Conservative Ideologues want to tie it back to the stock market. Does that make any sense?

Social Security is good because it is what it says: secure. Which is more likely to be there for you in tough times: the US Government, or a winning stock portfolio? Which is a more secure place to put your trust?

Free enterprise is a brilliant thing, and it's a big part of what has made this country great. Many people get wealthy by investing in the market, by starting their own businesses, by being entrepreneurs. But free enterprise is also risky. If your nest egg is tied up in the market, and you find yourself old or disabled in a down market, you may find yourself without any nest egg.

The bottom line: Social Security should remain independent from the ups and downs of stock markets and corporate America.

What's So Good About Social Security?

There's only one way that we can actually ensure a decent retirement for every American, and that is to make our economy more efficient. Historically, this has happened through both market innovation and strong government investment in national infrastructure. For instance, government research led to the creation of the internet, an invention that has dramatically improved worker productivity.

We need to make sure that a high level of government and private investment continues to go into health care, research, basic science, energy independence, and education. By ensuring a more productive society with entrepreneurs who aren't scared to start companies for fear of their families losing health care, we will easily be able to tackle long-term problems like this one.