December 2004 Archives

Well, we got to Detroit for the holiday weekend, but getting back to Baton Rouge was another story.

Remember all those Comair customers that had their flights cancelled? Miss Julie and I were two of them.

We got into Detroit just fine, barely avoiding the original meltdown of Comair's computers. But our Sunday morning flight back to New Orleans was cancelled, then re-booked, then finally revoked.

We stood in line for three hours at various ticket desks, spoke to various agents and endured what passes for customer service at Delta Airlines these days. At one point, I was convinced that the ticket agent scanning the system for our alternate flight info was, in reality, instant-messaging her boyfriend.

Needless to say, tempers, ah, "flared."

Note to service employees: no matter how bad your day is going, no matter how many hours in a row you've worked without a break, you should never, never, ever yell at a customer.

Finally, a great guy from Northwest booked us on a non-stop flight from Detroit to New Orleans...departure: Monday morning. So we holed up in a nearby hotel with "The Longest Continuous Hallway in Michigan" (I kid you not). We ordered in, read lots of books and watched HBO while, outside, the temperature hovered around 12 degrees.

Monday morning finally arrived and we flew out of Detroit and back to New Orleans. All is well.

But let me tell you about the scariest part of the trip...

Flying into Detroit on Thursday afternoon, Delta lost Miss Julie's bag. But that wasn't scary -- just annoying.

They promised to deliver it by Friday afternoon but, you guessed it, no bag. That still wasn't scary -- just disappointing.

Since I had to pick up my brother at the same terminal Friday evening, we decided to ask Delta about the bag. So while I circled the main access road, MJ walked into the terminal to find my brother and see about her bag. When I came back around, she had found her bag!

Still not scary -- just unbelievable. Delta didn't even make the effort to put the bag on a truck.

"It was just sitting there by the baggage carousel in a huge row of orphan suitcases," she says. "So I just picked it up and walked out."

"No one stopped you at the door for ID or anything?"

"Nope."

"Hunh. So in other words, someone could just rent a step-van, park at the curb, walk into the terminal and start loading stuff into the hold?" says I.

"Think of all the Christmas presents!" says she.

Ho, ho, ho. But that's still not the scariest part.

The scariest part is that anyone could have walked into the terminal (a few short steps off the sidewalk) and delivered a ticking suitcase bomb right into the middle of baggage claim. And then just walked away.

That's the scariest part.

(HT to Pat Oliphant)

The 20th century was dubbed "The American Century." That's nice. But you're fooling yourself if you think that we've arrived at the 21st century as an unassailable Empire.

The fact is, we must never stop thinking about the long-term future -- where we want to be, how we want to get there, and what obstacles might be in our way.

But conservative Republicans, and their corporate sponsors, are notorious for taking a short-term approach to the future. For example, Hal observes that the elimination of high progressive taxes at the top end of the scale has probably led to a drop in overall investment in R & D:

High progressive rates provide a strong incentive for companies not to fund the additional twelve yachts for the corporate executives and to take these funds and invest them else where in the companies interest - for example, in worker's salaries or - shudder - research and development.

In other words, corporate America took a look at the 21st century and decided that "the future is now, baby!" Bust up the future and sell it off for parts -- what a concept!

So I'm worried that my as-yet-unborn grandchildren will look back at the 21st century and dub it "The Chinese Century." If you think I'm being silly, go back and read that article by Mark Helprin.

Go -- now. I'll wait up for you. Just come back when you're done and pick up where you left off...

[pause]

Have you read it? Good.

Now, let me tell you this: those that want to "shrink the government," those that want to "give you back your money," are really taking away your future. Don't believe me? Go ahead -- call 'em up. You'll get a recorded message that says, "the future is now, baby!"

But we know that's baloney. We all know that the best way to face the challenges of the future is to face them together. You know that. History shows us that, time and again.

I guarantee you that China knows this. But we don't have to look to China to figure it out -- Ben Franklin said it best, over two hundred years ago: "We must hang together or we will certainly hang separately."

What can we do to stay vital? Well, for starters, we can insure that our kids are at the top of their class, worldwide, in math and science. We have our work cut out for us:

U.S. eighth-grade students are improving in science and math compared with international peers, but the nation's fourth-graders have stagnant scores and are slipping behind in both subjects, according to a study of achievement across the globe...

Asian countries are setting the pace in advanced science and math, said Ina Mullis, co-director of the International Study Center at Boston College, which manages the study.

As one example, 44 percent of eighth-graders in Singapore scored at the most advanced level in math, as did 38 percent in Taiwan. Only 7 percent in the United States did.

"We have to keep at it, and maybe even step up the pace," Mullis said. "Even though a lot of people are working very hard on reforms, we don't seem to reap commensurate benefits."

Business and academic leaders say such scores warn that students aren't getting prepared for a global economy, a point Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan often makes.

"The lack of improvement at the elementary level does not surprise us," said Gerald Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association. "We've been hearing from many elementary teachers that they are not teaching science because of the increased emphasis on literacy.

"Science is essentially being squeezed out of the elementary classroom."

Upon reading this, I'm reminded of the current struggle to establish "Intelligent Design" in our childrens' science classrooms. I'm reminded of a comment from a regular here at E Pluribus Unum who has said that the first objective of his childrens' education is for their souls to be saved; learning how to read comes second.

And when I think of that, I resolve to re-double my efforts, to do what I can to insure a brighter future, here on Earth, in this lifetime.

P.S. Hal sends along a link to an article from The Panda's Thumb, wherein the author debunks the "Intelligent Design" movement.

Although this article was originally published before the election and was entitled Memo to the President-Elect, David Hackworth offers some specifics on how to best use the most powerful military force on the planet:

Once upon a time (circa 1949), a very young Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote these words:

Free society and totalitarianism today struggle for the minds and hearts of men...If we believe in free society hard enough to keep on fighting for it, we are pledged to a permanent crisis which will test the moral, political and very possibly the military strength of each side.

Of course, Schlesinger was a Democrat and went on to work with another cold-warrior, Jack Kennedy.

Back in those days, Republicans like Joe McCarthy talked a good game about the Communist menace, but when it came to actually doing something about it, well, that was a different story.

Schlesinger again:

An important segment of business opinion still hesitates to undertake a foreign policy of the magnitude necessary to prop up a free world against totalitarianism lest it add a few dollars to the tax rate.

Today, the situation is different. Or is it?

The fact is, since 9/11, Pres. Bush has not increased the size of the military. He can't -- his tax cuts have been too deep and the deficits too large. And if anything, the military has gotten smaller, thankyouverymuch Secretary Rumsfeld.

So in a lot of ways, we're re-living the Republican vision of the late 40's and early 50's. Except now they control everything in Washington.

Now before I tell you what I think, I want you to tell me what you think this means for Democrats.

Recently, I was in Little Rock, Arkansas, during the week that the Clinton Library opened. While I wasn't able to attend the opening, I did spend a couple of evenings hanging out in the bustling River Market District which is within walking distance of the Library.

One evening, I sat at the bar of the Flying Saucer (I highly recommend it) and had a sandwich and a beer. While I was waiting for my food to arrive, I picked up a copy of the Little Rock Free Press, one of those local alternative papers that is edgy and hip. You know the kind.

Anyway, I came across an article from Christy Ward that got me thinking that progressive Democrats need not move to the right in order to appeal to most of America's electorate. While Christy gets all in your face, I realized most Americans would have no problem with what she believes in nor, for that matter, how she points it out.

Here is the passage that jumped out at me:

Here's part of what you'll find in the legal complaint (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District) filed by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

The 20th century was the "American Century."

What are the obstacles keeping us from also making the 21st century the "Second American Century?"

Discuss.

But before you do, read Mark Helprin, in the Journal, about China's steady economic and military expansion. He observes that, in the next decade or two, China's defense outlays (adjusted for purchasing power) could be at parity with ours.

Here's the summary of his main point:

This century will be not just the century of terrorism: terrorism will fade. It will be a naval century, with the Pacific its center, and challenges in the remotest places of the world offered not by dervishes and crazy-men but by a great power that is at last and at least America's equal. Unfortunately, it is in our nature neither to foresee nor prepare for what lies beyond the rim. [empasis added]

If that's the summary, how does he build his case in the first place?

I'm reading dot.con, by John Cassidy, which is a short history of the Internet bubble. In it, he details the four classic steps in a bubble:

1. Displacement
   Something changes people's expectations about the future. A few early adopters cash in by jumping in early.
   
2. Boom
   Skepticism changes to greed as people follow the leaders.
   
3. Euphoria
   Established rules of investing go out the window; prices lose all connection with reality; people know it can't last forever but they still want to cash in while the getting is good.
   
4. Bust
   Something triggers a stampede and prices plummet. Suckers are left holding the bag.

It got me thinking about what's happening in the Bush Administration.

Then this morning I read Tom Friedman's column entitled The 9/11 Bubble.

The very reason Mr. Bush had the luxury of launching a war of necessity in Afghanistan and a war of choice in Iraq, without a second thought, was because of the surpluses built up by the previous administration and Congress. Since then, the Bush team has been slashing taxes in the middle of two wars, weakening the dollar and amassing a huge debt burden - on the implicit assumption that nothing will go wrong in the future.

But what if there is another 9/11 or war of necessity? We're cooked. The tax revenue won't be there, so the only option will be more borrowing and a weaker dollar. But what happens if the Chinese and other foreigners, who now hold over 40 percent of our Treasury securities, decide they don't want to hold these depreciating dollars anymore, let alone buy more?

It is now clear to me that we have followed the dot-com bubble with the 9/11 bubble.

Both bubbles made us stupid. The first was financed by reckless investors, and the second by a reckless administration and Congress. In the first case, the public was misled by Wall Street stock analysts, who told them the old rules didn't apply - that elephants can fly. In the second case, the public was misled by White House economists, peddling similar nonsense. The first ended in tears, and so will the second. Because, as the dot-com bubble proved, elephants can fly - "provided it is not very long."

At some point in the near future, people are going to wake up with a headache and a Bloody Mary and say, "How the hell did we let this happen?"