The People Look for an Ox to Gore

A commentator has finally noticed and begun to make a little noise about a particular segment of the public sector's work force.

"But it's also noteworthy that one of the most generous defined-benefits public-employee pension plans in the country isn't being mentioned in this discussion. There is a branch of the federal government that lets you retire after 20 years on the job, even if you're under age 40, and guarantees immediate benefits of 50% of your final salary for the rest of your life. That branch is the military. If you joined the army at age 18, and retired in 2011 at age 38 as a $55,000-a-year sergeant (pay grade E-8) after an unexceptional career, you would be entitled to $26,000 per year for the rest of your life, plus cost-of-living adjustments. The average 40-ish retiring sergeant would put the taxpayers on the hook for over $1m in lifetime retirement pay. That's not counting a lifetime of free medical care from the VA. And the military doesn't have a pension fund; the Pentagon budget's $18 billion in retiree pay this year will be paid directly by taxpayers."

This post is not really designed to advocate a position on this but to simply reflect a fiscal reality combined with the point of view of those not in the service. I'm sure many of the state workers around the nation feel that they are owed their pensions, but the money is not there and the taxpayers are beginning to revolt. I'm sure that the private sector employees who have been removed from the pension plans they had through bankruptcy and the actions of the PBCG think they were owed what was contracted but they didn't get it either. I'm sure the retirees who thought they signed on for medical care for life and then were thrown out of the military hospitals in the mid 90's thought they were owed and yet they were shown the door. I'm sure the people who collect off of SS and Medicare think they are owed... but the programs are bankrupt. This nation has a history of bailing on such things. George Washington apologized to his officer corp for the betrayal of the congress after the Revolutionary War. MacArthur cleared out the veterans on orders from Hoover. On and on...

While the nation may love its military, I would not expect the American people who are struggling themselves to have a tremendous concern for the ability of a segment of the population to retire at 38 years old with millions in pensions. I would not expect them to think that granny should take cuts in medicare and SS so that the military guy can get his retirement. I don't know what will happen, but I'm fairly certain there will be a substantial change in the military retirement system... at least as it was presented to those who signed up over the years.

Do the tax payers owe the military? No. Like any other life it was chosen by the people who entered into it. While it is certainly unfair perhaps that people signed up with one set of information from what later on came to be recognized, there is a burden on those in a system to observe the exterior things that can effect it. Nobody is immune to reality. There is nothing in my mind more sacred about what they do than anyone else who takes a role in civilizations preservation. Guy who keeps the water system going... provides electricity... gets the food to the store... they provide value too. Should the contract be honored? Sure. But bankruptcy relieves us all of our burdens... the nation will declare it too.

Fighting for Freedom

How many today would fight for ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’. The question certainly is appropriate as many constantly claim we have less freedom than ever before (we will leave for further investigation and thought that opinion). It certainly is hard to argue that the burden of government was greater under King George than under our current system. While there is perhaps anger taking people to the polls, there is not a widespread social disruption or anything resembling an active revolutionary movement. Is that an indictment of today’s citizen? Shouldn’t they be risking it all for ‘liberty’?

If we look back to the inhabitants of the colonies in 1775-1776, most did not in that time either. The big losers were the big names. Though some of the big names became the big winners. Supporting independence and liberty was one thing. Fighting for it another.

The population in 1775 was ~2.5M (have seen higher figures). Probably safe to assume 1.25M of that was male and probably 60% of fighting age. Yet, this domestic population rarely stood and fought in any significant fashion against the 50K British troops and their 30K Hessian mercenaries. This foreign population was forced to fight over the entire east coast. Still we struggled.

Washington was not kind to deserters. He was not in general having to turn away recruits. America had difficulties fielding armies. We needed, or at least greatly benefited, from the involvement of France and Spain on our side.

People like to be on the side of winners, but few will fight... for independence... freedom... anything.

All of this was in the time of the enlightenment and revolutions were beginning to spread. Did the cause of ‘liberty’ and freedom not resonate?

Yes... at least at the intellectual level of society. While I believe that plenty of people did read or were capable of reading more complex material than now, I am not terribly certain that the average joe has ever had much consideration for the thoughts of the esoteric. People had to work pretty hard across the board just to eat. Freedom is a word that means different things to different people. Being able to demagogue a crowd is far different than that crowd taking up arms and slogging through the mud for years in a war.

Freedom for some probably meant no king... to others it simply meant freedom to have the British pay for our Indian issues as opposed to us. Freedom for others is more along the lines of FDR's list of freedoms than the Founders.

My bottom line is that I do not think the fact that 95% of people now would not have fought then is any great indictment. Most people rarely fight willingly for any cause. Most people care about food, women, entertainment and beer. As long as you don't interfere too much with those they will tolerate a great deal.

'Porno' Scanners


In the discussion that surrounds the airport backscatter systems (more emotionally known as 'porno scanners') the risk of radiation is frequently combined into the list of why these devices are so awful. Most of those commenting on this are ignorant of what they speak and likely do not seek true education in it. One location I read from that had been linked off of LRC (I believe the link was to dontscanme or something similar) a report was linked detailing the risk from cataracts that ionizing radiation can pose. Linking cataracts to backscatter machines either reveals profound ignorance or willful disingenuousness.

Cataracts are a deterministic effect from radiation. Even the linked report was dealing with cataract formation from exposure to individuals working in an occupational capacity in a cardiac cath lab. Cardiac cath lab workers are among the highest receivers of occupational exposure and even there cataracts are not common. The regulations (awful that they exist I know), industry standards and general ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principles minimize stochastic effects from radiation (cancer) and have pretty much eliminated deterministic effects. Further, the article is referring to a study from Malaysia. It is hard to speak about what their practices are. Practices matter a great deal in this area. To pass on the information on cataracts… it takes a minimum of 500,000 uSv to cause cataracts if the exposure is given in a short time… if the time frame is longer than the required value is much greater.

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q5208.html

So, what is the radiation risk from these scanners. There is published data on this in NCRP Commentary No. 16 “Screening of Humans for Security Purposes Using Ionizing Radiation Scanning Systems”. The effective doses from the common field system is 0.03 uSv per scan for the anterior view and 0.02 uSv per scan from the posterior view. I think we can agree that 0.03 + 0.02 is < 0.1 uSv which is what I will use as the value from here on. First let us compare the value of 0.1 uSv to the exposure you would receive from the actual flight.

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q444.html

This value ranges at our latitudes from 0.3 uSv/hr to 0.4 uSv/hr depending on the solar cycle. So, if you are on a two to three hour flight from Atlanta to San Antonio you would expect an exposure of between .6 – .8 uSv. So, the exposure from the backscatter system is a small component of the overall trips exposure.

Let us now compare it to principles discussed in NCRP Commentary 16. We have the concept of annual Negligible Individual Dose (NID). The NID is 0.01 mSv (which is 10 uSv). It would take 100 scans from the backscatter device to reach the NID. It would take 2500 scans to reach a particular administrative control level.
The average American receives 6.2 mSv (6,200 uSv) of radiation effective dose per year from all sources (natural, medicine etc). 3 mSv of that comes from inescapable natural radiation (no medical exposure). This data can be found in NCRP Report No. 160.

But again… what about risk? There is no really good data on such minute amounts of radiation. For regulatory purposes (oh those things again) the linear-non threshold theory applies. From that we assume no radiation exposure is good. But the data for that is extrapolation from atomic bomb survivors who received well in excess of 2,000,000 uSv in a single blast. There are papers out there studying hormesis (the concept that low levels of exposure are beneficial to humans). So while there is a regulatory concept it is not related that much to scientific evidence.

The best formula for lifetime risk of cancer to radiation exposure is for the non-occupational population 5% per Sv (1,000,000 uSv) increase in the risk of cancer. At 0.1 uSv per scan you would have a lot of frequent flyer miles to get there.

Growing radiation exposure is an interesting subject. But the bang for the buck (yeah… I went with Pareto) is not in backscatter machines but is in medicine (particularly CT). Given the number of unnecessary medical images that people demand or allow themselves to be subjected to chasing after backscatter machines on the issue of radiation demonstrates a lack of knowledge in the field and the underlying science.

There are many good reasons not to implement and deploy these devices. Radiation exposure is probably the weakest of these and certainly the most poorly understood by the people making the case.

The Insuring of the 47 Million

I like the Kiplinger Letter. It provides nice concise information. In the letter dated 20 June 2008 they provide a breakdown of the oft cited 47 Million uninsured. I often wonder how you arrive at that number. It seems a little large to go out and talk to each one. Was there a phone number to call? Some statistical study? That rarely seems to be talked about if at all. However, assume the 47M is correct and then we can try to break it down.

- 70% are in families with at least one full time worker
- 10% are in families with at least one part time worker
- The rest retired or unemployed

-8.4M are already eligible for government programs
-10.2M are non-citizens
-9.2M have household incomes > $75k
-7.5M are between ages 19-24

I realize that health insurance generates some strong opinions in people, but looking at the above, what group should I feel terribly bad about? If you are going to use a number like 47M then you are dealing with groups.

We have 8.4M who are already eligible for programs... yet they choose not to insure or cannot manage to figure out the application?

10.2M non-citizens... while granting that some of these people are certainly contributors to the economy, I doubt their would be much clamoring for them from the greater part of the citizenry.

9.2M who earn greater than $75k. Can this really be an issue of cannot afford?

7.5M between the ages of 19-24. This hardly represents the highest risk group. And having talked to this group I can assure you that health insurance does not top their lists of interests.

Without a doubt you have cases of people with preexisting conditions and other dilemmas that give them more unique problems with obtaining insurance. But this number is significantly less than 47M. And handing the reigns over even more fully to the entity that created so much of the problem to begin with seems foolish in an attempt to deal with the margins.

Us vs. Them

In which whatif makes a succinct case for why nothing ever changes and who 'they' are anyway.

"Them" government bureaucrats. The three branches of government in our Constitution control nothing. It is the federal and state bureaucrats who control most everything. They must protect and perpetuate government because that is what they do. Government pensions will ALWAYS be funded. The bureaucrat has no incentive at all to cut anything back or his own neck. This is why writing a congressman is a futile exercise by and large. The simplest and safest thing for a bureaucrat to do is to say NO to everyone, to every request for action. Once someone has been dragged into the judicial system, found guilty (whether he is or not) and put away, the government has no interest in determining if they indeed have the right man. The government has NO interest in its citizens, only in the survival of the government. The government will take away any liberties and create any new rules for its own well being. THEY ARE THEM.

Practical Libertarianism

I admit to having strong libertarian leanings. Simply meaning that I feel that the general philosophy of the country should be one of minimal government and individual liberty. However, I do like to descend from the mountains of ideology and attempt to apply the principles to the world in which I live. I find that is rarely something libertarians like to do. As a movement it seems to lack the ability to paint a picture of what life would be like, how certain issues would be handled or even any historical examples of its success. Ron Paul makes some headway in this area, but he is obviously more intelligent than many of the ilk.

I recently posted the following query at Vox Popli, the blog of WorldNetDaily columnist Vox Day.

This might be as appropriate a place as any to query the libertarian minded... Gary North posits that the Big 3 will soon be bankrupt and even further rushing to shed their retirement liabilities. Certainly North has been wrong in times past (Y2K), but he does put forth some good evidence... here is the question. What is the obligation of the Big 3 to the people with whom they had the contract with for those retirement benefits? How does that contract square with their obligation to their current contracted employees and the contracts (if they are viewed as such) with their stock holders? Should the companies be dismantled to provide payouts to prior workers in spite of the effect that would have on the economy? Should the prior contract workers be forced to eat the loss? It seems obvious a libertarian would not believe that the government should intervene. This is the type of bread and butter non theoretical issue that I imagine people would want addressed by those with a libertarian philosophy before turning over the keys to the kingdom.

I had hoped that someone would at least take a stab at the issue. I was not surprised when there were no takers. Certainly it may have simply been that no one was interested or that they felt it was a poor question. I tend to think it was more that people do not like to take on a challenging issue when they can employ hyperbole and ideology in big rant fests and flame wars.

I did attempt another angle in engaging an ongoing discussion that involved the trade philosophy of Pat Buchanan. I will confess to having free trade leanings, but that I find Mr. Buchanan's trade thoughts compelling and worthy of inspection. The free trade true believer of course showed up with the following tactics... a) claim that I do not know what free trade is b) link articles that are strictly repetitious theory c) avoid answering any questions about real world evidence. Intellectual giants are some of these ideologues.

I am interested in people making solid attempts to answer cultural and economic questions from the libertarian point of view with a little more depth then I commonly encounter. If there is no depth to the people... perhaps there is no depth to the movement.

Book Review #9

The Faiths of Our Fathers: What America's Founders Really Believed by Alf J. Mapp, Jr.

I found this book in the discount section at Barnes and Nobles. Paid roughly 7.00 for it. It is an engaging little book. I noted some errors in it... one of which was referencing an item in the appendix that is simply not there. However, for what I paid it provided a taste of the subject matter. I think it does reveal that the 'Founders' like many people today ranged in their beliefs. The Founders were certainly not uniformly evangelical as some church goers would have you believe and they most certainly were not all separated from faith and its role in society as some of the more secular among us would claim. They were humans with all that entails.

I think from this book I would branch out and engage in some of the other texts on the subject. I expect fully that it is a subject that will be highly effected by the personal beliefs of the author. If you only want a taste of the subject however, this would provide that in a very short form ( a mere 160ish pages). On that basis I would recommend it.

Book Review #8

The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul

Given the size of the Federal Register and the various state codes, you would think that the original Constitution and State governing documents were extensive tomes and written with the complexity of the King James Bible. As a capstone and summary of his Presidential bid and governing philosophy, Ron Paul provides a short, succinct an altogether impressive attempt to explain the politics of freedom and the nature of limited government to a new generation of Americans who has never known either as the Founder's would have envisioned.

It is always a boon when someone is able to capture the essence of a concept and movement in a compressed form. It is clear that Ron Paul is more effective with the written word than he is standing on stages delivering speeches or in our hideous and moderated 'debates'.

If one is looking for a quick yet thorough introduction to limited Constitutional government with basic libertarian principles then this book is a must read. If you somehow feel that the common political wisdom and dialog continues to yield only more of the same visibly failed policies then this book is a must read. If you only want to find out why this man was so fervently followed by those who did then you can find out with a minimal time commitment.

Do They Think Before They Write?!

Sometimes I am embarrassed that I have to share my libertarian leanings with inferior minds such as this... (article).

June 07, 2008 "Obama is Unelectable" Posted by Stephen Carson at June 7, 2008 10:38 PM Now that we know that Obama will indeed be running against McCain, I am thinking about what John Dvorak said in passing once on TWiT. (Paraphrasing) "The next president will be a Republican, I've been saying that for months. Clinton and Obama are both unelectable." The only reason I pass this on is that as soon as I heard it, it sounded exactly right. Dvorak didn't elaborate at the time (though see here) and I haven't been able to find him explaining elsewhere what he meant. But just think about the American electorate... Not the one you wish for, but the one we've got. Now picture them picking a lefty professorial type over a "war hero". I'm not saying what I want to be true, just saying: "Brace yourself".

Yeah... the American people would never vote against a 'War Hero'... oh, except they voted against Bush the 1st who not only had a distinguished enough war record but also waged what was viewed as a very successful war... and who did they vote for? Someone they viewed as a draft dodger...or the vote against Kerry in favor of Bush II? Now obviously someone could argue that Kerry put out a lefty professorial vibe... but he was the decorated war veteran... and the argument entirely falls apart with Bush I... Frat boy draft dodger defeats 'war hero'...geez... do you all think before you write...

The Little Amendment that Failed

As I ruminate on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America I am forced to conclude that if it was put in place, as it surely seems, as a personal right with the intent to fortify the people against domestic tyranny then it certainly seems to have failed. Given the proportion of our population that is armed, is there a more timid people? In fear of everything they resist nothing. Where 300 might have resisted 100,000 in Greece here it is inconceivable that 300,000,000 would resist 700,000 (an estimate of the domestic law enforcement population). Despite tax rates that would have set the world ablaze in times past, government intrusions far beyond the bounds envisioned during the country's formation, unaddressed and massively unpopular immigration and active and increasingly common violence against the population there is little more than the occasional harsh word, law suite or youtube video to mark any signs of resistance. The South seceded and the continent was bloodied over issues no more divisive than those we face now.

In the few acts of resistance to the Government of the United States you have the use of fertilizer, planes and powders. The weaponry that was supposed to steel the spine of the nation has failed in that purpose. While government seems to fear its citizenry, it is not through the collection of firearms that it acts out its will upon them. By the time it would get to that point it is far to late anyway...

Is it an overarching faith in government and its legitimacy that restrains the current population in ways prior populations would not? Is it the relative economic prosperity that gives more people a stake in the system as it stands? Is it a preoccupation with foreign affairs that has kept the domestic scene so tranquil? Is it simply a level of passivity in the general population that exceeds the vision of those who authored the amendment, and if so, what accounts for the passivity of this population group compared to the French, early Americans and the Eastern Bloc countries?

Book Review #4

I Am America (And So Can You!) by Stephen Colbert

A decade or so ago I probably would not have liked this book. It is certainly fun, but I would have chafed a bit at the fact it was picking at 'my side'. At this point in life though I can find the humor in it and even agree that those who I would have once thought on 'my side' deserve a good skewering.

This book is based, in my opinion, on the model of the old Rush Limbaugh books. Issues thrown out there with the opinion of the author addressing them. The book is just the right length to cover a good amount of issues and not become tiresome. There are some true gems in here... the comment on the Catholic Church and getting production value for your offerings still brings a smile to my face. He even has a point there.

A comedy book worth a read.