Hugo Chavez and Protégé: Truer Believer?

Hugo Chavez seems to have taken note of his protégé’s unexpectedly rapid progress down a parallel road and its potential for obstructing Hugo’s own aspirations.  After his public exclamation, “Barak Obama is an ignoramus!”, Chavez seems to have changed his strategy for dealing with the current devil of the Estados Unidos de Norteamerica.  He went out of his way to insert himself into photo ops with his protégé for the world media at the Organization of American States meeting.  Although Hugo is a skilled media manipulator, this behavior at an OAS meeting is out of character for him.

The idea of a serious rival from the U. S. had probably never occurred to Chavez.  He undoubtedly had given much thought to the eventual clash with the United States; but he didn’t expect this particular kind of a problem, or quite so soon.  The cushion of time that Chavez thought he had for creating and leading The Union of Socialist South American Republics seems to have evaporated.  Perhaps the sight of Obama rubbing elbows with Chavez’s fellow Latin American communist leaders has now sent a chill down Hugo’s robust spine.

Observers believe that Presidente Hugo Chavez has few problems at home that he can’t handle at present.  He has changed the term limit law, so his “Presidente for Life” campaign is all but complete.  His technique for diminishing currently elected political rivals, by changing the law to administer their cities or districts at the national level, seems to be a masterstroke (President Obama, are you watching?).  The only good news in these federal takeovers is for his rival politicians; they may at least dodge the bullet—literally.   Hugo’s remaining rivals, however, still have to keep their bullet-dodging skills honed.

In the international arena, Hugo has performed better than expected.  He has done those things within his political skill and his stature to ingratiate Venezuela to the old-line communist states.  However, with the reduced crude oil prices recently, Venezuela has considerably less quid with which to pro quo.  Until oil prices soar again, Chavez’s best international asset may be his skill in arousing the latent class warfare feelings of the masses, particularly to promote hatred of capitalism and personal freedom (and their former poster child, the United States).

Obama’s three-part initiative in his quest for “President for Life” has had a smooth start.  First, he has moved control of the 2010 census to one of his political operatives in the White House.  Second, he has his ACORN organization, with its proven record of voter registration fraud, contracted as census takers.  Third, his Congress will soon float an “immigration reform” law designed to buy 12 to 16 million new Democratic voters, at an economically attractive price of amnesty plus fast-path citizenship.

Barak Obama also has little to fear from rival politicians.  Unlike the Venezuelan environment, the U. S. has not yet jailed any of his political opponents.  In fact, so far as we know, Obama’s Head Procurer, Rahm Emanuel, has not sent a single severed horse’s head or dead fish to any prominent conservative political figure.  For now, Obama seems to have problems at home under almost as rigid control as does Chavez.

At the same time Barak Obama has proven to be as good as, or possibly even better than, Hugo Chavez at manipulating gullible or corrupt media personnel.  The best measure of Obama’s success at orchestrating the press is his personal popularity versus the popularity of his policies.  Another, somewhat less reliable, measure is the emerging clamor among the media for rapid immersion of the U. S. into full-fledged, European-style socialism.   Because most journalists have already admitted their liberal outlook this particular benchmark may indicate just a difference in emphasis.

Obama’s international efforts have been uneven and more anemic than those of Chavez.  During his presidential campaign he looked like an ascending international star.  But once in office his star power seemed to poop out, and he remains in an international batting slump.  His current approach, giving world leaders whatever they might want, may improve his self-esteem.

However, three critical tasks that are necessary for any world-class Marxist / Socialist leader still remain to be completed in both Venezuela and the United States.  First, the government must have absolute control of the press / media.  Second, the (economic and political power of the) middle class must be eliminated.  Third, a critical mass of voters must be enticed to accept government as their religion.

Venezuela does not have nearly as strong a free press tradition as does the United States (undoubtedly a gross understatement).  Chavez seems to have effectively muffled the media in Venezuela, although a quick scan of the Internet verifies that his opposition is not yet totally silenced.  Hugo will unlikely be able to shut down communications as tightly as North Korea and Iran have done; but he probably has or will gain firm control of the information flow to a critical mass of Venezuela’s population.

In the U. S., opinion polls have confirmed that a majority of journalists / commentators / editors have distinctly liberal political outlooks.  Barak Obama has thereby already corralled much of the power of the press, thanks to a journalistically corrupt media.  His ability to eventually silence the remaining fraction of objective journalists, as well as the few opposition political commentators, is looking better all the time.

For the middle class problem Chavez does have a distinct advantage over Obama because of Venezuela’s much smaller middle class.  But his tendency to overreach has been a big obstacle to success in this campaign.  Hugo’s price controls ran aground when the prices were set too low to sustain production, thereby causing goods to disappear from markets. The middle and upper classes may have a large tolerance for an increasing burden when it is “to benefit the poor”; but when milk for their children is not available, they push back.  Hugo’s challenge in eliminating the middle class is to exercise patience, something foreign to him.

Obama’s lack of patience, like Chavez, may prove to be his biggest obstacle in finishing off the U. S. middle class. But it appears that our middle class is apathetic and truly vulnerable, suffering from extended affluence and good living.  Obama therefore has his Democratic Party proceeding full steam with plans for staggeringly high taxes, via the  “cap and trade” and “healthcare reform” initiatives, to debase the currency and bankrupt the middle class.

On the government-as-religion front, Chavez is becoming increasingly vociferous.  He has long implied that his interpretations of Jesus and Christianity are the only valid ones.  More recently he floated a trial balloon about taking over the Catholic Church in Venezuela, making himself archbishop and members of his administration the bishops.

Although Obama has been too busy to jump into the religion issue with both feet, he is nonetheless well prepared.  His twenty-year association with Black Liberation Theology enables him to speak soothingly of the perfection of the marriage of Marxism and religious conviction.

At this point in the race to become the ruler of The Union of North and South American Socialist Republics, it might just boil down to which one of these political twins can provide the better Marxist true believer performance, necessary for allegiance from like-minded leftist dictators.

It has been said that there was only one true believer of Marxism ever:  Karl Marx.  But it’s more likely that Marx was well aware that his pronouncements were pure nonsense and that he was just selling the sizzle and the aroma of a steak that that he knew to be dry, unpalatable and inedible.  The point is moot, though, because it appears that political correctness still demands every aspiring liberal / socialist leader pay the appropriate lip service to Marxism, e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Castro, Mugabe, etc.

In his true believer role, Chavez has been conservative and conventional.  His public communications appear to be authentic recycled Soviet propaganda.  He is also quick to denounce any and all countries that have yet to implement communist dictatorships.  When the leftist president of Honduras was deposed and deported for defying both the National Congress and the Supreme Court of Honduras (another “Presidente for Life” overreach casualty), Chavez was first to denounce this action against a fellow Marxist.

Barak Obama in his short political career has put on a better true believer performance than Hugo Chavez.  Each of his presidential campaign speeches had a “look and feel” resemblance to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in “The Communist Manifesto”:  see wealth redistribution, capitalist greed and corruption, from the able to the needy, etc.  His policies and actions appear to be guided by Marx’ prescriptions in “Das Kapital”:  see bank takeovers, financial regulations and controls, salary caps, etc.  Obama’s carefully scripted “town hall meetings” are opportunities for him to repeat his denunciations of upper class greed and to aggravate class envies.  It was also illuminating that Obama was almost as quick as Chavez in denouncing Hondura’s Legislature and Supreme Court.

It will be interesting when the oddsmakers in Las Vegas and London get around to posting the initial Chavez versus Obama odds.  My bet is that Obama will be the early favorite, because of his superior scheming, his fanatic followers’ fatter fortunes, and his serpentine eloquence in proselytizing for “church of the state”.

President Obama Comes Out

During the election campaign, Barak Obama was the least known, least understood presidential candidate in the history of the United States.  His public record was all but non-existent; his work record as a community organizer and lawyer was proprietary and not released; and he declined requests for any school, personal, or occupational information.  He did refer frequently to his two books of memoirs.  By Election Day, it turned out that what he told us in those volumes was essentially all of the information available to the average voter about Barak Obama.

There were a few unplanned campaign situations that generated questions from a very few reporters:  his church and its outspoken pastor; his association with a 1960s domestic terrorist; his business associate who was convicted of fraud, and even his encounter with “Joe the Plumber”.  But all that these campaign speed bumps generated were more questions and no real answers.

Barak Obama was elected by a comfortable margin and he has since been developing a significant public record.  We have gotten glimpses of the real Barak Obama and we have seen occasional clues to his identity. His FY 2010 budget proposal told us a lot, and his handling of the financial institutions and auto manufacturers has told us even more.

President Obama has given an extraordinary number of press briefings, including prime time televised events.  He has also taken the risk of granting one-on-one interviews with “safe” media personalities—risky because even an adoring, incompetent reporter / commentator might accidentally ask a hard question.  Thus little fragments of his true beliefs have been accumulating.

With more than 100 days in office, President Obama apparently feels secure enough in the position to finally “come out”.  We have a pair of quotes that precisely define his outlook and his intentions:

“I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation … I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities, chiefly against war, fascism and imperialism; and have traveled constantly in the United States to areas of conflict over workers’ rights to strike and organize.

“My chief aversion is the system of greed, private greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment …

“Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion.  …

“I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.“ ¹

We now know who Barak Obama is and what drives him.

The second quote quote reveals how our President wants his staff and his trusted Congressional allies to proceed toward his goals:

“Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise …We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.” ²

It has taken a while, but we now know what is in store for all of us.  Some, those who knew all along, are undoubtedly laughing at the naivety of the rest of us.  But most of us are not laughing.

——————————

¹  Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, Harvard Class Book of 1935, “Thirty Years Later”, as reported in numerous publications

²  Roger Nash Baldwin:  advice in 1917 to Louis Lochner of the socialist People’s Council in Minnesota, reported in numerous publications

A Tale of Two Kindergartens

In a community near us is a kindergarten for four-year-olds that has attracted quite a few compliments.  There are enough four-year-olds to warrant two teachers, and the community was lucky enough to attract two well-qualified individuals.  Both  teachers also have that enviable talent for establishing rapport with four-year-olds.

The community specified two somewhat overlapping but different curricula for the two classes.  The intent, it appears, is to address as wide a range of needs as these first time students might need.  A novel technique, established to assign the children to one or the other class, has also had its share of positive press.

On the first day of school, all the four-year-olds are assembled in one room.  Each of the teachers  makes an introductory presentation, describing the environment and curriculum of each class.  Ms. Jones, the senior teacher, emphasizes the growing and learning aspects of her class.  She covers the major expectations for each student:  learning the Arabic numerals, learning the English alphabet, recognizing colors and knowing their names, and so forth.  She closes with the overall goal:  students fully prepared to enter five-year-old kindergarten next year.

Mr. Smith, the more junior teacher, then presents a picture of his class.  He describes a relaxed, low stress environment designed to help these new students fit in and feel good about school.  He emphasizes that a selection of candy will be available at all times, a very large variety of toys will be provided, and within narrow limits the children can make their own decisions on what they want to do.  He summarizes the class year in terms of the fun the children will have.

At this point these first-time students are presented with their first election:  each is allowed to select the class of his or her choice.  Following the election the two kindergarten classes are begun, each in its own facility.  As might be expected, more children opt for fun and games and candy than for academics.  But it all seems to work out in the long run.

A notable absence of complaints, from parents and teachers alike, indicates some level of satisfaction.  It is believed that the teachers union is also well pleased.  In fact, only one minor annoyance has been pointed out.

In the period that this kindergarten for four-year-olds has been offered, neither Ms. Jones nor Mr. Smith has actually ever been able to teach.  Ms. Jones has yet to have enough children choose her class to reach the minimum class size.  Therefore her students have been folded into Mr. Smith’s class.  Because Mr. Smith’s class would then be over the allowable  student / teacher ratio, Ms. Jones is assigned to be Mr. Smith’s teaching assistant, with the pair working as a team.

Mr. Smith, the resultant “head kindergarten teacher”, has also not been able to teach because his curriculum effectively precludes teaching.  A few cynics have reportedly snickered that the class doesn’t have team teaching, but team babysitting.  However, this negativity has yet to percolate up to widespread levels.

Life goes on, and this kindergarten continues to attract positive media attention from time to time.   So far no media commentator has asked about objective measures of effectiveness or what the five-year-old kindergarten teachers think about it.  The attitude of the media seems to be that this is the way the kindergarten should have been run all along, and it champions the expansion of this winning strategy to the next grade level.

So long as the public passively accepts this kindergarten strategy, it most likely will be expanded to the whole school.

Data Security: Can It Be Politically Correct?

The relationship between data security and its degree of political correctness probably seems a little curious.  However, that relationship may be critical to seriously reducing hacking, viruses and other negative aspects of an insecure data network environment.

As I read, too often, about hackers, cyber-warfare and digital vandalism, I am reminded of the emperor’s new clothes:  surely some small child will eventually exclaim, “He has no clothes!”  But, alas, no child has yet noticed, and we go on, day by day, each of us praying silently that it is not our turn to be the winner of Shirley Jackson’s Lottery.

This passive attitude is not new in human history.  Before modern science and the invention of vaccines, prayer was the only action we could take to prevent contracting the plague, smallpox or other deadly diseases.  There is undoubtedly a very long list of large and small disasters which we simply accepted for years as unavoidable.  So waiting for an inevitable encounter with the hacker trolls isn’t new, from a historical perspective.

Surely there must be a better way!

SECURITY 101

We know a lot more about data security principles and practices than might be guessed from observing present circumstances.  We know that we have to consider physical, technical and procedural measures.  Physical includes tangible things such as padlocks, strong doors and the like.  Technical includes alarm systems, computer hardware and software features, cryptography, and so forth.  Procedural involves passwords (changed often), regular audits of the locked doors and the hardware / software safeguards, backing up of data off-site, etc.  When the physical, technical and procedural measures work together the way they’re supposed to, the bad guys have to work much harder.

Computer hardware and software is at the front line of data security. The computer processors must include instructions for protecting memory (both store and fetch operations) and for protecting access to the small number of powerful privileged instructions, which are designed for use by only the operating system or control program.  The Intel architecture design (and its “me-too” competitors) used for a very large number of small computer processors today incorporates essential security features, as does every (or almost every) large and small computer processor available today.

But if genuine security is as simple as it seems, why are we still vulnerable?   If you don’t physically engage the lock on your door, the quality of the lock and strength of the door are moot.  If a bank should decide that an existing greenhouse could be the vault for its new branch location, you might wonder if enough add-ons could ever make that vault secure.  If the computer operating systems or control programs do not fully utilize the built-in security features of the processors, how could we expect secure networks and systems?

How did we arrive at what seems such an indefensible position? Two curious facts from the paradigm shift represented by the change from steam locomotives to diesel electric locomotives give us a clue.   None of the companies which developed and produced the diesel electrics had ever been in the locomotive business; and none of the companies which produced steam locomotives ever started producing diesel electric locomotives.

DATA SECURITY LORE AND HISTORY

The large mainframe computers, which preceded microcomputers, had (and still have today) very stable, reliable and secure operating systems and networks.  Unfortunately for all of us, little of that existing body of security knowledge, architecture and experience crossed the gap into the world of personal computers.

Way back when, AT&T’s Bell Labs and Western Electric divisions were the preeminent designers and manufacturers of telephone switching computers.  To help streamline the integration of rapidly-arriving new solid state electronics technology into communications switching computers, Bell Labs computer scientists developed the C programming language to help speed up the programming (as contrasted with low-level assembly language).  A related follow-on was the control program, Unix.  Because the world of telephone-switching computers was absolutely internal to the AT&T network and the Bell Telephone companies, the Unix software architecture design did not include the robust features now considered necessary for security.

A good corporate citizen, Bell Labs provided the source code for Unix essentially free to colleges all over the U. S.  Therefore, to most computer science students the Unix design was their familiar model—security deficiencies and all.  As an expected follow-on, Unix-like control programs became the norm for the growing population of small computers and the microcomputers we call “personal computers” today.

Another unfortunate (for security, that is) aspect of computer networking was the design criteria for the U. S. Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Administration Network, ARPANET.  The intent of this network was to facilitate communications between the scientists who were working worldwide on DOD unclassified projects.  Because these projects were pure research (not applied research) and therefore unclassified, the decision was made to dispense with the hassle of normal DOD security precautions.  Because only accredited scientists working on existing contracts were provided with network connections, there was very little fear of mischief making.

But a funny thing happened on the way to network:  ARPANET became the basis for what we now call the Internet.  Adding the essential security  to a wide-open network has been somewhat analogous to adding security to the original non-secure Unix control program.

MORE LORE THAN HISTORY

From this point, we phase into more lore than history.  What we know is the result of informal conversations with individuals who worked in the various computer and communications disciplines during the extremely rapid growth of personal computing and networking.  In short, this information is comprised of leaks, inadvertent or intentional, by the principals involved.

Personal computers were being sold several years before International Business Machines finally developed a general personal computer product.  But there is no argument that IBM’s entry into the general personal computing arena was what really accelerated the phenomenal growth of the PC, its associated support businesses, and the Internet.

IBM had actually been successfully building and selling personal computers for some number of years to the scientific and engineering niche market (what we might call “engineering workstations” today).  Other divisions of IBM also had extensive experience in microprocessor design, manufacture and programming.  However, this wealth of expertise and experience unfortunately caused, or contributed to, decision paralysis:  which division should be assigned the new general personal computer project?  Failing to make a real decision, IBM formed a small independent business unit to create the PC product.

It’s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, and there were a number of questionable decisions made by this independent business unit.  Two of those were significant in setting the path to the insecure data environment in which we find ourselves today.  First, the business unit chose a microprocessor supplier that didn’t really have a product that met the unit’s requirements; second, the business unit made a microprocessor control program supplier decision, which even today seems bizarre.  The hardware manufacturer subsequently worked diligently to improve its product, and it has little or no security shortcomings today.  Unfortunately, it does not appear that the same can be said of the control program supplier.

DATA SECURITY GOING FORWARD

The Wham-O¹ marketing strategy has proven to be very successful.  However, the use of that strategy for computer control programs and software does not appear to have good results for consumers and users of that software.  We all want new bells and whistles (”the sizzle sells the steak”) but most of us, given a choice, would put reliability, maintainability and security way ahead of new features.

But we have not been given that choice.  Insiders tell us that an essentially complete redesign (and recoding) would be required in order to have architected, built-in, state-of-the-art security features in the Unix-like microprocessor control programs or operating systems used in small computers today.  Those insiders also tell us that such an extreme redesign would be quite expensive and that there is no business case for such a project today.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TO THE RESCUE!

One thing many of us observed over the past twenty or thirty years  is the power of political correctness.  Once an idea, a concept, or even a food item is accepted as politically correct, we can count on forty percent of our population to support it—irrespective of its degree of rationality or absurdity.  So our challenge is to convince a critical mass of citizens that secure computers and secure data networks are politically correct.

During the last few years of apartheid in South Africa many of us refused to buy South African products or invest in South African companies.  This was the politically correct thing to do; and we have numerous other examples of shunning companies and products which were not politically correct.

Surely if the word gets out, a number of us (possibly including the occasional enlightened government organization) will refuse to purchase computers of any type that are loaded with Microsoft Windows (or other Microsoft control program) until Microsoft produces a control program / operating system that is as secure as IBM’s “MVS Server Family” of operating systems.  (This is not a promotion for IBM’s software; it’s just that MVS is a good basis for security comparison).

Bill Gates is widely admired for his political correctness and for his philanthropy that supports politically correct endeavors.  If buyers avoid the Windows control program because of its lack of robust security, perhaps Mr. Gates will get the message that data insecurity is definitely not politically correct. I would hope that he then might use his still-important influence to convince Microsoft executive management that a secure operating system could indeed be a profitable project.

—-

¹The Wham-O Company is an admired and successful west coast company which has brought us, among other blockbuster products, the Hula Hoop and the Frisbee.  The Wham-O strategy has been to roll out an attractive product quickly, grab as much market share as possible, and utilize intensive marketing as the inevitable copycat products of competitors start arriving in the retail supply conduits.  It is likely that many companies have studied Wham-O’s techniques and adopted them for their own products.

Health Care Done Right

I wish our government could do a few things as well as Kentucky Fried Chicken does chicken (and biscuits, for that matter).  My qualifications for judging fried chicken are sparse, but genuine:  I grew up in the south, eating my grandmother’s fried chicken.  Recognizing the difficulties of doing things on the monumental scale that KFC does, I really believe they do chicken right.

It’s too bad the government can’t learn a little bit from KFC.  Government does a small number of highly focused things effectively.  At the local government level, fire and police protection is mostly adequate to excellent; at the national level, the military has kept us intact as a country for over 230 years.  But by and large, government does almost nothing well.

When it comes to health care, government has performed up to its mediocre-to-unacceptable reputation:  expensive, tons of bureaucratic details, unable to effectively combat overuse and fraud, etc.  The next chapter in health care, the so-called Health Care Reform (actually, a gratuitous solution to an undefined problem), is being mindlessly rushed toward becoming the Mother of all Government Disasters.  But its spectacular failure won’t be for lack of funding:  how about eight to sixteen times that of the Department of Defense?

We might imagine how Colonel Sanders, and the management teams of the subsequent KFC owners, would approach the task of making health care affordable, accessible and effective.  First, they would make sure they know what the goal is.  This sounds overly simple, but has anyone heard a single elected or appointed government official state a real goal, or endpoint, of health care reform?  The only defensible real goal (as yet not mentioned by Obama, Pelosi or Reid) is healthy Americans, substantially healthier than they are today!

We are not going to go from our current state of health to being as healthy as we can be in a short time.  It will take at least two generations; but we would be consistently improving all along the way!

First, we need to implement an ongoing healthy living initiative with the goal of assuring that everyone has the opportunity to learn all of the practical information that we have accumulated to date about health maintenance and disease prevention.  This initiative, involving public schools and universities, government health agencies, and private organizations from the health care community, can be implemented and maintained indefinitely for what amounts to pocket change, compared to the cost estimates for the currently envisioned “health care reform”.

A world-class, full-court-press health initiative can, on its own, significantly reduce health care costs as more and more Americans take heed.  This effort, unlike any of the “health care reforms” proposed to date, starts accruing health benefits and health care cost savings from day one.  This initiative is also essential to the long-term success of any genuine health care reform.

Second, the current health care system must be documented and defined, including its strong points, deficiencies and everything in between.  For example, medical schools failed to ramp up for an impending shortage of doctors:  why did that happen, and what are ways to prevent a recurrence?  This systems analysis will be a large and costly project, involving operations research problem-solvers, systems analysts, and experts from every public and private area of health care.  It would, of course, be broken down into multiple sub-projects in order to keep each segment within manageable size.   While this effort will be costly (although nowhere near the sums politicians are proposing for “reform”), it is the critical first step if we are going to have health care that is effective, accessible, and affordable by our families and by our country.  The health care system  analysis also provides the information necessary to make truly informed decisions on public sector / private sector responsibilities and authorities.

This approach has several advantages. Improvements can be recommended, approved and implemented as the various segments are completed. It would be expected that some elements could be started independently, while others will need to be coordinated with related segments.  Projected costs of the individual recommendations will be much more accurate than would have been possible with one giant “health care reform” unknown.

Third, we must eventually get around to open, honest and thorough discussion and debate of “entitlements”.  One entitlement, Social Security, is by far the largest item in the federal budget.  Another, Medicare, is the second largest item in the budget, far more expensive than the much-maligned Department of Defense (the fourth largest budget item, behind number three, Interest on the National Debt).  Unsustainable cost is the most immediate and most obvious concern about entitlements; but you will presently see the real problem that entitlement creates for effective health care.

Our Social Security program works exactly like the scheme Bernard Madoff pulled off; Social Security is also headed for the same collapse as Mr. Madoff’s little $65 billion, tragic fiasco.  Medicare, which was originally projected to reach a $15 billion per year cost by its 15^th year; actually reached that level by its third year, and the government has been scrambling ever since to try to keep it under control (by reducing provider reimbursements, thereby effectively rationing health care).  Also, the government has been unable to root out the intractable twenty-plus percent of fraud and waste from the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

The critical “entitlement” questions that need to be asked, studied, and debated are (1) “What is the obligation of each individual citizen?” and (2) “What is then the obligation of the government?”

Although cost, or cost-versus-worth, is the concern usually debated, the most serious entitlement problem is rarely, if ever, mentioned.  Most people are familiar with Descartes’ “I think, therefore I exist” (cogito ergo sum).  But in our entitlement era it has become “I exist, therefore I deserve”.  We can, and do, endlessly debate all the moral aspects of entitlements.  But the one thing we forget to ask is:  does our entitlement mindset actually create a barrier to accomplishing the intended benevolent result?

In the case of health care, “entitlement” creates the illusion that absolutely nothing is required of the individual.  But I seriously doubt that a single medical professional can be found who would agree that an ignorant, uncommunicative, uncooperative patient could truly benefit from his or her health care—irrespective of cost or accessibility.  While we have heard the word “accountability” in almost every utterance by the politicians in power, they are nonetheless extremely reluctant to ask individuals to take a serious interest in their own health.  It appears that the vote-attracting potential of entitlements precludes the advocating of personal responsibility, and it therefore also makes healthy Americans an unattainable goal.

Given the choice, I would prefer Kentucky Fried Chicken for my primary health care over any form of  “universal health care” that the political powers have proposed.  An added bonus might be a drumstick and a biscuit with honey at each doctor’s appointment.

Comrade Obama Debuts, President Obama Fades; Chairman Barak’s Little Red Book To Follow

Our pragmatist President dampened his deep-seated ideology for as long as necessary, or possibly as long as he could stand it.  Today President Obama’s ideology trumps his pragmatism and is completely unfettered.   The President’s proposed Fiscal Year 2010 budget reveals the Marxist initiatives that he reasonably believes the predominantly free-lunch Congress will readily accept.  Now there is freedom for  Hollywood socialists to celebrate, the Reverend Wright to smile again, and Black Liberation Theology believers to feel vindicated.  The rest of us now get to learn just how large the free-lunch fraction of our electorate is.

We have elected an intelligent, charismatic and well-educated man to lead the United States of America.  But it does not appear that he took any hard science courses, like physics or calculus, where the correct answers are not determined by opinion polls, ambiguous semantics or legal interpretations.

President Obama apparently believes that wealth just exists, like matter.  He must remember from grade-school science that matter can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed between phases.  Therefore, because wealth just exists and cannot be created, the President is poised to transform wealth from places he believes it should not exist, to places where he prefers for it to be.  We will not be surprised to hear the President tell us, “It’s just a simple matter of physics”.

As many predicted, the President’s idea of “Health Care Reform” turns out not to be any meaningful reform that would result in more effective health care delivery,  more efficient use of health care resources, or result in more healthy Americans.  In Obama semantics, “Health Care Reform” means only government-subsidized, government-regulated health care. There is no hint of actually defining the current health care system and its problems, no suggestion of  any healthy living initiatives, and no mention of health maintenance and disease prevention.

One hyper-expensive initiative, an education entitlement from birth through university (and law school?), does offer an intriguing bit of hope.  Much credible evidence indicates that our educational deficiencies are not caused so much by lack of affordability as by lack of believability.   A large percentage of parents, and consequently most of their children, simply do not believe in the value of education.   Over the last five decades very little progress has been made in opening the minds of these parents and students to the potential value or necessity of education in our world today.  Assuming there is some way to pay for the education entitlement,  it might have a beneficial effect of taking away the financial excuse commonly touted as the reason for our widespread ignorance.  Perhaps then the opinion leaders of the various communities within the U. S. might feel some obligation to encourage their constituents to believe that education is now  not only politically correct, but also necessary and valuable to them.

That tiny bit of hope buried in the education area of the FY 2010 budget may also lead our president to perform a personal education initiative for all of us.  There is precedent for a leader of millions to compile the rules for his subjects in a small book, preferably with red binding.   Although it might commonly be called “Chairman Barak’s Little Red Book,” with today’s technology it would likely be available online as well as in print.

The vast majority of us have never seen such a book, much less been able to read one.  But we might imagine the tone of its contents:

• “A spirit of cooperation is necessary; dissent will not be tolerated”.
• “You have a right to everything your government wants to give you”.
• “Read budgets line-by-line and expunge all waste and frivolous spending not favored by your Leader”.
• “Remember that those who have more than you are your enemy”.
• And so forth. . .

In the spirit of cooperation, all thinking Americans should send President Obama their favorite aphorisms as idea stimulaters for “Chairman Barak’s Little Red Book”.

Hugo Chavez: Eclipsed By Protege?

Hugo Chavez has made significant progress, in ten years moving Venezuela much of the way toward his vision of a perfectly-governed country.  But one of his proteges has made even faster progress in only a few weeks.  Could it be that Hugo has stimulated a bit of competition with one of his admirers?

In a previous post, “Political Change:  The Hugo Chavez Model”, I identified the three-step program that Hugo Chavez is implementing in Venezuela. I noted that his Step 2 had run into a temporary roadblock, although his Step 3 was being rolled out at a rapid pace.   As I predicted, Chavez came right back, better-prepared to make Step 2 happen; with his recent victory at the polls he is 85% of the way.  Presidential term limits have been voted out, and Hugo’s Step 2 goal of Presidente For Life is within sight.

Chavez has proven he is smart, ruthless and tenacious; and he is totally consumed with two major goals.  The first is to transform Venezuela into a classic Soviet-style Marxist / Leninist dictatorship.  The second is to transform his entire continent into the Union of South American Socialist Republics, with Venezuela as its controlling center.  His progress is accelerating.

But his protege has also proven to be very smart, devious, and capable of using the ruthless elected politicians as well as the shady characters in his administration.  Barak Obama has utilized political muscle and sheer personality to leverage the United States to the threshold of European-style Socialism in less than a month.  The government is presently engaged in nationalizing U. S. banks, just as Karl Marx prescribed in “Das Kapital”.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are back to 100% government enterprises, and General Motors and Ford are getting their government marching orders.  Other efforts are under way to transfer management authority in private businesses to the federal government.

In addition, Obama has laid the foundation for his own Presidente For Life plan by the simple step of moving control of the U. S. Census into the White House.  Now his political party is within grasp of indefinite control, although Obama’s personal indefinite control will require a little more effort.

Barak Obama’s true beliefs and goals are unknown (except possibly to a very small circle of trustworthy confidants).  Hugo Chavez has always been more open about his plans, more so than even Adolph Hitler was in “Mein Kampf”.  But Obama keeps his cards close to the vest.  He talks a lot, but he says almost nothing.  Therefore we are limited to observing recurring themes from his writings and speeches and to watching his political appointments and official actions.

One clue to Obama’s true beliefs may lie in his twenty years as a member of a church immersed in Black Liberation Theology, which is heavily-laced with Marxism.  Then we notice the recurring themes in his communications tend to incite class envy and to convince American workers that they are downtrodden.  In fact, most of his campaign speeches sound like extracts from Engels and Marx in “The Communist Manifesto”, wrapped up in idiomatically up-to-date, politically-correct adjectives.  Please note that this is not an accusation of plagiarism; it’s just an observation of the “look and feel” similarity.

Obama’s cabinet nominations, for the most part, can pass a Marxist credentials threshold test (his Secretary of Labor candidate seems especially strong in this regard).

It is therefore not unreasonable to deduce that Barak Obama’s least ambition is to turn the United States into a  European-style Socialist state,  like many of the U. N. member countries.  This would be in keeping with the Democratic Party outlook (except for that brief period during the Cold War when Socialism / Communism was not considered politically correct).  How far beyond European-style Socialism Obama intends to move the U. S. remains unfathomable.

That leads us to wonder if Hugo Chavez has considered the implications of his protege’s parallel progress.  The value of the United States as a villain and object for fear-mongering cannot be over-estimated; it has been Hugo’s best tool.  How well will it work with Venezuela’s lower classes when they figure out that North America is now completely socialist—from Canada, through the U. S., to Mexico?  What will happen when Venezuelans also notice that the workers’ paradises of  North America at present look a lot better than that of Hugo Chavez?

How will Hugo take it if some of his fellow Latin American dictators find a better star to follow, one in the hated Estados Unidos de Norteamerica?  But, worse, what if Barak Obama sees himself as the emerging Josef Stalin of the Union of North and South American Socialist States?  Hugo Chavez may want to seek psychiatric help right away, just in case.

Forget Health Care Reform!

In its scramble to pass as much federal legislation as fast as possible, Congress should completely ignore health care reform.  One reason, totally unrelated to the subject, is that hastily-conceived bills, rushed through at riot speed, provide an opportunity for the more devious members of congress to engage in very expensive targeted pork production.  One of my favorite examples, in the emergency economic stimulus bill, is funding for a high-speed train to carry gamblers between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.  Gambling is, of course, economically important to Las Vegas and Nevada; but few people outside of the Nevada congressional delegation believe that this should be addressed in a national emergency stimulus bill.

Besides congressional mischief, which is just a fact of life, there are at least four critical reasons why health care reform should not be addressed before the essential groundwork for it has been laid.

First, from what we see in the media on a daily basis it is apparent that the phrase  “Health Care Reform” is almost universally interpreted as a single-payer health care system.  Many envision a single-payer (U. S. Government) system  as a Medicare-like national health insurance program.  Others envision the single-payer system as a national health service like those of Canada or Great Britain.

But the requirement for a single-payer system, either insurance or actual health care delivery, is not the issue.  The real problem is that this “forgone conclusion” mindset strongly indicates that there is no accepted definition of the health care problem that we wish to solve.  The closest thing to a problem definition we have seen is the very general requirement for “affordable and accessible health care”.  We know from long experience that whenever government sets out to fix a problem that it does not understand, a disastrous outcome is inevitable.

We cannot fix what’s wrong with today’s health care by mindlessly accepting a gratuitous solution to an undefined problem.  We must first put forth the effort and cost to define our current health care system.  Then we can systematically go through each defined segment to ferret out and understand what problems exist.  Only then would we be prepared to develop solutions that could provide desired results.

Second, many or most Americans are not ready for health care reform.  Even without a detailed systems analysis, we can be pretty sure that what our citizens want is good health.  But it appears that too many of our fellow countrymen do not perceive that they have any individual responsibility for their own health; in their minds, their personal health is the responsibility of the doctors and the hospitals.

Medical experts have come to believe over the years that good health requires an active cooperation between patient and doctor.  Chronic disease accounts for about 80% of all health care costs, and a significant fraction of chronic disease is more the result of individual choices than of genetics or environmental factors.  Therefore doctor-patient cooperation is the critical element in disease prevention and health maintenance.

We have seen commendable progress in a number of health initiatives, most of which have been public and private cooperative efforts.  Among the better-known efforts are those to reduce smoking, prevent the spread of AIDS, and (more recently) head off obesity among our children.  What we need most is an expanded effort to educate Americans about healthy living.   An initiative by the combined forces of federal and state governments, including public schools and universities, could be implemented at an extremely modest cost (by today’s standards).

Third, all single-payer systems implemented in the world to date are, or eventually become, health care rationing systems.  This is true in Canada, Great Britain, Cuba, etc.

The first modern innovation in health care came about relatively recently:  the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) pioneered by the Kaiser Permanente company.  Henry Kaiser was best known as a man who, by thinking outside the box, figured out a way to build cargo ships during World War II much more quickly than had ever been done before.  So it is not surprising that the first systems approach to making health care delivery a more effective process was in a Kaiser organization.

The Kaiser Permanente HMO worked well initially, and it became the model for future HMOs.  But fast-forward fifty years, and you find “HMO” is today a sort of epithet.  One bit of black humor reflects this:  “triage is the process of dividing patients into three groups—those with cash, those with health insurance, and those with HMO”.  The word is out, and now HMO is most peoples’ last choice for health insurance.

The reasons why national health services eventually become health care rationing mechanisms seem to be (1) the irresistibility of something-for-nothing and (2) the failure to comprehend the critical distinction between good health and health care.  The resultant over-use, and questionable-use, of the “free” system leads to a tidal wave of cost overruns.

We have actually seen an American example.  The Medicare system was projected to reach a cost of $15 billion per year by its fifteenth year; it actually reached that level in its third year.  Ever since, we have watched our government work diligently to reduce costs, by a means that more and more resembles rationing.

Fourth, Congress should suppress its desire to legislate for the sake of legislation because I said so.  (Actually, this reason is not 100% facetious.)

During the ten years I worked for a regional health insurance company (where I was responsible for data security and corporate business continuation / disaster recovery), I read a daily digest of health news the first thing every morning—25,000 or so in total.  I would mark articles that related to my duties, or just caught my interest, for later reading:  I have no idea how many thousands of hours of reading that amounted to in ten years.

Among my reading interests was the subject of disease prevention and health maintenance and its growing acceptance in the health care community (an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?).  Early in my tenure I was meeting with the vice president I reported to and the executive vice president who was his boss.  The conversation touched on disease prevention and health maintenance, and I suggested that there were business opportunities in this area.  The executive vice president disagreed, noting that the company had not made earlier “wellness initiatives” profitable or popular with the employers who purchased health insurance for their workers.

But times changed, and before I left the company it was solidly into “wellness initiatives” demanded by those employer-customers.  One of the programs, diabetes education and management, turned out to be valuable for me when I was diagnosed with the Type 2 version of the disease.  (Should you have the interest, and the time, you might take a peek at several previous postings: “Healthcare Reform Lost Opportunity?”, “Health Care:  The Next Prohibition Amendment?”,  “Better Health, Lower Healthcare Costs”, and “Political Change:  The Healthcare Debate”.)

America’s Party Comes Out

In a previous post, America’s Political Party
I noted my family’s long association with the Democratic Party, dating back to Civil War days.  I described my father’s lifelong belief in the Party and in labor unions, and I speculated that he would be pleased to see the state of the Party today.  I also recommended that the Party bring its name up to date, both to reflect its principles, directions and goals, and to send a clear message to fellow members of the United Nations.

With the current financial crisis opportunity, it is understandable that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid have been much too busy to handle routine housekeeping duties.  However, I believe that the name change would also help advance their legislative agenda.

It really is past time for the Democratic Party to come out of the closet.  I don’t mean this in the sense of gay and lesbian people taking the not inconsequential risk of going public with their sexual orientation status.  Gay people have been shunned like lepers; they have suffered discrimination in the workplace; and in too many cases they have had to fear for their very lives.  In contrast, Democrats have had only a trivial fear of the long-gone specter of McCarthyism.  Today, progressive Democrats need only summon up the courage of their convictions; they are free to openly and honestly explain and defend their political beliefs.

We now have a president who prides himself on his pragmatism but is willing to let his deep-seated ideology show through, in both his words and his actions.  He is supported by a solid Democratic majority in both houses, as well as by the leadership of each.  The president has also taken the bold step of moving control of the next census into the White House, thereby guaranteeing that Democratic majorities in both houses will continue to grow.  It is now apparent that the Party can define, pass and implement any and all legislation it desires.

Surely this is the perfect time and opportunity to bring the name of the Party up to date:  to reflect its true purpose and values, and to use the form of name most common in the world today.  The Democratic Socialist Union (DSU) Party is definitely ready to introduce its new name!  Imagine the thrill of people in U. N. member countries, seeing the appellations “Harry Reid (DSU, NV)” and “Nancy Pelosi (DSU, CA)”.

The recent Newsweek cover story, “We are All Socialists Now”, is both timely and prophetic.  The long-overdue Party name change will be well-received.

One immediate effect will be to hasten the departure of that small, irksome bunch of conservative Democrats, making room for more progressive members in future elections.  It may also help remaining dinosaurs to decide to retire.

A near-term international benefit will be better cooperation from Socialist states like Cuba and Venezuela.  President Obama has had good things to say about both (eg, Cuba’s health care and the feeling of hope among Venezuela’s lower classes).  The name change should help assure Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers that Barak Obama is indeed of like mind and will be their good  friend.

In the slightly longer term, the day the the U. S. Constitution can be replaced with an up-to-date, progressive document is in sight.  Without question, the Democratic Socialist Union Party will leave an indelible mark on the United States.

Guantanamo: Obvious Solution Overlooked?

Closing the prison for unaffiliated combatants at the Guantanamo Naval Base does pose a serious problem:  what to do with the current inmates (and any that may be captured in the future).  The politicians—from both of the major parties—have not offered any suggestions that meet a common-sense test.  Nor have the reporter-commentators from the semi-rational media.  This absence of plans from any source gives us ordinary people an indication of the perceived seriousness of the problem.

Yes, the prisoners at “Gitmo” are different—probably far worse than most of the current residents of the federal super-max prison in Colorado.  Somewhere around 15 – 20% of those released from the Guantanamo facility to date have rather quickly returned to their terrorist activities in Iraq, Afghanistan and vicinity:  some to be recaptured, some to be killed in action, and a few to publish videos of their triumphant return to jihad.  No wonder there are public safety concerns.

We are reminded  frequently that although these captives may be worse than just rowdy boys, we must consider their “rights” (which opens up a distracting discussion of how to handle people who have no Geneva Convention status and no country, who deny all authority, and who obey nothing and no one).  Clearly, this is a difficult problem, made more difficult by its breadth and its distractions.

Now is the time to remember what world-class problem-solvers tell us:    often the most obvious solution is overlooked.  Sometimes this is caused by the cost or unpleasant aspects of the obvious answer.  At other times the best solution is ignored because it seems too simple.

When we release convicts by parole or by completion of sentence in the United States, we know from long experience that some fraction of those released will go back to commit other offenses.  Therefore we have learned to expect and to tolerate the small fraction of recidivism—fifteen, twenty percent or whatever—that our experience teaches us.  We should not be surprised to see the same small fraction of recidivism in released terrorists.  But a bonus is that so far they have gone back to their own base of operations, far from the U. S.

We should just release the remaining prisoners on their own recognizance in a location where they would have the best opportunity to become normal, productive residents.  The ideal location would be one where the citizens have displayed a high tolerance and a welcoming receptivity for people who have a different ethnicity, culture, language, color, or way of life. At their release they should be provided with somewhat more than we normally give paroled criminals released from our prisons, considering the circumstances of these particular parolees.

In the United States, there are several locations which meet the criteria for release of these alien prisoners .  None is better than the northern California area around San Francisco represented by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.  The breadth and depth of the tolerance of these Californians is well known, and their support for the former terrorists would be all but guaranteed.

Each released person should be provided with a full complement of new clothing, of whatever type and style the individual desires.  Every one should be given $10,000 cash (for transportation to any location desired).  All released combatants should, of course, receive unemployment and health care benefits.   In addition, each should be provided with a package of hygiene, grooming, and other personal necessities.¹

In the warm and affirming  environment of the San Francisco area, it might be within the realm of possibility that every single one would become a welcome addition.

¹ Personal Necessities:  AK47; 250 rounds of ammunition;  10 hand grenades and  grenade launcher; and a choice of 3 anti-personnel mines, 2 Claymore  mines or a single 155mm artillery shell.