I just saw Michael Moore’s film Sicko. I’m not a big fan of Moore’s didactic methods, but this film contains less of that than his prior work. Overall, it’s a very compelling piece, no matter where you stand politically.

Moore uses the film to argue for universal health care in the US. At one point, he defends against the tactic commonly used by his opponents: the old standard, red-baiting.

The loopy logic goes something like this: Any program that’s publicly funded can be labeled “socialism”. The Soviets called their nation a Socialist republic, even though it was Communist. Therefore, Socialism equals Communism. We all know that Communism is bad, therefore, anything that’s publicly funded is bad.

The argument is completely flawed, but anyone who advocates against social programs counts on the public falling for labels over logic. They’re a lot easier to understand.

Moore makes the point that there are a lot of things already socialized in our society: the military, mail delivery, road construction, the fire department. Should we rid ourselves of all those pinko-Commie amenities too?

It’s time for America to wake up and realize something: The Cold War is over. We can stop with the demonization and propaganda now.

The Europeans had to deal with thousands of Soviet nukes a lot closer than we did, and they’re not afraid of turning to the socialist “dark side” simply by enacting some programs to help their people. They recognize that a modern nation can make efforts to care for its citizens while still maintaining a free democracy with capitalistic ideologies.

But the point of this article is not to argue for universal health care. The point is to bring to light the level of polarization and group-think that has become the standard of political discourse in the US. Politics and media have become so polarized that there’s no room for any compromise or consensus. You’re either right or left, red state or blue state, etc.

At some point soon, I hope people will realize that it’s perfectly OK to say, “I don’t want that party in power, but I do really like their proposal for ‘x’.” It’s not traitorous to decide that you are in favor of a policy proposed by your rival. Blind loyalty only works out for, well… the blind.

Similarly, it’s fine to say, “The Communist experiment was a failure and I’m glad we don’t have that kind of government here, but they did provide their citizens with universal access to decent health care. I think we should steal that idea from them.” That sentiment doesn’t make you a communist. It makes you a free thinker.

A large portion of the US Bill of Rights was lifted directly out of a 500 year-old document called the Magna Carta, drafted and put into law in England. That’s right, the Founding Fathers took policies directly from the country which had oppressively ruled over them, and against which they’d fought a bloody war for independence, then wrote those policies directly into our Constitution. Nobody said, “We can’t do that! It’d make us look too British.”

There are a multitude of viewpoints on every topic. And although we’re all Americans, we come from different backgrounds, experiences, and cultures, all of which contribute to the formation of our opinions. That being the case, it stands to reason that we won’t agree with another person, or party, on every single topic.

So ask yourself whether you agree 100% with the views of a particular candidate, pundit, news commentator, or party platform. If so, look carefully within and determine if you’re thinking entirely for yourself. It’s always easier to just trust someone else’s opinion, or even a particular ideology, than to take the time to figure out how you personally feel about an issue. But we live in a democratic republic, which makes it our responsibility to educate ourselves and be free thinkers, lest we defer to those who assume they know what’s good for us better than we do.

When North Americans look at a map of Central America, all the countries look fairly small and close together. They all speak the same language too, so it’s hard to imagine that they have such distinct cultures.

However, the geography is deceptive. Panama and Costa Rica share a border, but the cultures developed in relative isolation. Even today, it’s an 18 hour drive between the capital cities.

Because I lived in Costa Rica for a while, and now live in Panama, people often ask me a question that’s obvious, yet still leaves me a bit baffled: “Which one is better?”

Better for what? To live, to work, to vacation, to invest, to explore? And for whom? A retired couple, a family, a young single person? The question itself is so oversimplified that I usually just respond by saying that the decision to move was the right one for me personally. But that’s not really an answer, so over time, I’ve compiled this list of points on which to compare the two.

Note that the contents are based entirely on my own experiences and viewpoints. If yours are different, I’d love to hear them. Post a comment.

—

Climate. Both of these countries are tropical, but there are many different sub-climates within. Panama is smaller and the terrain varies quite a bit. Because of that, plus the better roads, one can be in an entirely different climate by driving just an hour. Panama City is right on the coast, so it’s hot and humid most of the time. Costa Rica’s capital, San Jose, is in the cooler central valley, but it’s a 3-to-5 hour drive to most beaches.

Cost of living. Food and rent are cheaper in Costa Rica. Real estate, gasoline and all imported goods are much cheaper in Panama.

Pace of life. Costa Rica is a good place for relaxing and for outdoor activities. It’s great for a vacation. Panama has parts that are also great for that, but it’s got a business atmosphere too.

Time has a different meaning in Costa Rica. When North Americans say that something would be “easier” or “better” if it were done a certain way, they often mean “faster”. A Costa Rican will characterize a process as being “easy”, even if it takes a long time. For instance, getting a phone line might take six months, but the process of ordering one is not difficult, so a Costa Rican would say, “Oh, it’s easy to get a phone line.” Easy means easy. It doesn’t imply anything about timeliness.

Panamanians, though not as time-conscious as North Americans, do have an understanding of the word that’s culturally closer. This results in a faster-paced lifestyle than Costa Rica. That works for me, and is one of the primary reasons I moved.

Availability of goods. Panama wins this one by a long shot. Because of the canal, Panama has been a hub of international trade for a century. Products from all over the world are readily available.

In contrast, Costa Rica imposes huge taxes on all foreign goods, resulting in prices so high that it’s simply not cost effective to import many of them. Those that do come through have especially high prices. The most noticeable example is cars, which sell for roughly double what they would in the U.S.

Politeness and warmth. Ticos (as the Costa Ricans call themselves) are extremely polite, in both their language and their demeanor. But it’s part of the culture, so it can sometimes be disingenuous. Panamanians are more direct. But interestingly, in Panama I am frequently invited to the homes of people who I’ve just met. Ticos, despite being outwardly polite and friendly, are less likely to do this.

Standard of living. The two countries are roughly equivalent in their range of living standards.

Infrastructure. This one’s not even close. Panama has near first-world infrastructure and Costa Rica’s is dismal. I have heard that the new President in Costa Rica is doing a decent job fixing the roads, but they have a long way to go. The rest of the infrastructure — phone lines, power, water, garbage collection, cell phones, etc — is all owned or controlled by government monopolies, resulting in terrible service. The Ticos are stiffly resisting the kind of competition that would be brought in by the Central American Free Trade Agreement, but honestly, it would do them a lot of good. In Panama, there are multiple companies competing for your phone, television, internet and cell phone services. That’s driven prices down and service up.

The beaches. Costa Rica wins this one. There are some great tropical islands off Panama with luxurious resorts, but if you’re looking for long stretches of gently-sloping white sand beaches bordered with palm trees, Costa Rica is the place to be. They’re lined up one after the next on the Pacific side.

The cities. Panama City is a big and bustling modern metropolis. Costa Rica’s capital, San Jose, is ugly and decrepit by comparison. However, San Jose does have some very nice suburbs, like Heredia and Escazu. Panama City has problems with traffic and bad odors, especially in certain areas. The city has grown faster than its infrastructure, so until the new sewage treatment plant is completed and a new traffic plan is implemented, the stinky bay and long commute times will remain a problem. San Jose has traffic too, but there’s a more concerted effort to address it, which seems to have helped.

Banking. Panama has far superior banking. There are more banks per capita in Panama than anywhere else in the world. The competition yields great advantages for the consumer. Getting home or commercial loans is relatively simple, and rates are good for both borrowing and savings. Banks in Costa Rica are just getting started with consumer financing, and the process of getting a loan is very cumbersome.

Food. This would seem to be obvious because Panama has had so much more international influence, and Costa Rican food has the reputation of being bland. Indeed there is a lot more variety in Panama. However, the locally grown and raised products in Costa Rica are some of the best in the world.

Costa Rica is one of the few places I’ve been where store-bought produce tastes like it’s home grown. You gardeners in the bunch know what I’m talking about. The variety isn’t there, but the quality is. You can walk to your corner grocery store and buy a pineapple for under a dollar that’s just about the most delectable juicy experience you can imagine. Even though they grow the same kind of pineapple in Panama, for some reason, they’re just not as good. And the locally raised chicken is almost sweet with flavor in Costa Rica.

You can get good lettuce in Panama, which is almost impossible in Costa Rica. In fact, much of Panama’s produce is imported, so you get a lot of choices, even for items that don’t grow well in this climate.

For dessert, Costa Rica has great dairy products; especially Pop’s ice cream. However, it is difficult to find dark chocolate there, which is at the top of my personal food pyramid. Panamanians don’t seem as into sweets, but because it’s easier to get good imported items here, I don’t have to search far and wide to get a chocolate fix.

Water. I drink the water in both countries, but depending on the area, I generally think it tastes and “feels” better in Costa Rica, though it is also much harder (more minerals). The water in Panama City leaves a slight film on my teeth. I notice it after only a day or two here. My dentist once described it as a “thin shell”, while scraping it off. I’m guessing that something added to the water here, probably a softener, is leaving behind a residue. I’ve since installed a filter in my apartment, which has removed all residue, as well as the chemical taste. I’ve never gotten sick from the water in either country. In fact, I’ve hardly gotten sick at all in the tropics, whereas I catch something almost every time I go back to the US these days.

Service. Ticos will bend over backwards with politeness to serve you and expect nothing in return. Panamanians take no crap and expect a tip.

Language. The Costa Rican Spanish is easier to understand. Costa Rica has a culture of language, especially in San Jose. They speak clearly and slowly, with proper pronunciation, making it easier for foreigners to understand. For that reason, I think Costa Rica is an excellent place to learn the language, especially if you can do an immersion program with a small class size; preferably one-on-one.

Panamanian Spanish is closer to Mexican Spanish, so those learning in the US should find fewer differences in vocabulary than they would when visiting Costa Rica. However, the Panamanians talk fast and cut off the ends of many words, especially those which end in “s”. They also tend to run many of the words together. This makes it quite difficult for a non-native to understand. On the other hand, more people speak English in Panama than Costa Rica, so if you barely speak a lick of the language, you can probably get by.

Travel. Getting to Panama is $200-300 more expensive per round trip, even though it’s just about the same distance from the US or Europe. If you’re traveling back and forth a lot, this can add up. Once inside the country, Panama has better roads to travel on, and less expensive regional airlines that criss-cross the country every day.

Political stability. Both countries have stable democracies with very minimal political unrest. Costa Rica’s democratic system has been in place for 60 years, making it the longest running democracy in Central America. Panama’s democracy was restored when the US ousted Noriega almost 18 years ago, and has had entirely peaceful changes of power since.

Both countries have abolished the military. They rely on strategic alliances for protection from foreign aggression.

Economy. Panama is experiencing an unprecedented economic boom right now. Unemployment is low and wages are rising. Costa Rica’s 15-year boom has slowed, but there is still impressive growth in many sectors.

Visa restrictions. Panama and Costa Rica have the same policy regarding tourist visas. For citizens of most countries, your visa is automatically in force for 90 days just by getting your passport stamped upon entry. Before your 90 days is up, you must leave the country for at least 72 hours, after which you can return for another 90 days. Getting a long-term visa or residency status is easier in Panama.

Dating. I meet more single people in their twenties and thirties in Panama. In Costa Rica, people seem to marry younger, so there are single people under 21, and divorced people over about 45, but not much in between. If you’re looking to date someone in his/her 20s or 30s, Panama is a better choice.

Medical care. Both countries have surprisingly good medical care. Panama City has a couple top notch hospitals and ready access to high quality services. Similarly, Costa Rica has very well-regarded hospitals in San Jose. The difference seems to be in medical education, as people from all over the world come to Costa Rica to train as doctors. That, plus the mandatory residency program in rural clinics, results in better overall care outside of the capital. In fact, the World Health Organization ranks care in Costa Rica as 36th worldwide, right above the United States. Panama is further down the list, primarily because there are rural communities without clinics nearby.

Crime and personal safety. Crime is the dirty little secret of both of these countries. Nobody likes to talk about it, but it does exist. In the United States, you hear about crime every day, but statistically, the per capita crime rate is nowhere near the highest in the world. The murder rate in both Costa Rica and Panama is higher than the US.

That being said, I have never felt unsafe in Panama. There is a huge and visible police presence here, which brings up the biggest contrast in the approach of these two countries: In Costa Rica people are afraid of the criminals. In Panama, people are afraid of the cops.

When I was younger, I believed that the former was much better, but having now lived in a place with a degree of lawlessness, I can tell you that a balance must be struck. Up to a point, I’d rather the people (especially the criminals) be afraid of the cops.

Costa Rica’s law enforcement is under-staffed and under-budgeted, and the laws are heavily skewed towards protecting the rights of the accused. That makes it quite difficult to arrest, hold, charge and convict someone of a crime. Of course, the criminals know this, so there’s very little deterrent effect. Panama takes more of a “tough on crime” approach.

You see houses with bars on the windows in both countries, but to be fair, part of that is an architectural choice. In very safe parts of Spain, every house has barred windows. Locals will tell you that the house just looks “naked” without them.

Pets. The cultural fear of dogs, especially large ones, is very obvious in this part of the world. It’s stronger in Panama than anywhere else I’ve been. When I’m walking down the street with Bandi (my very mellow German Shepherd), many people will cross to the other side in order not to pass us. In the building where I live, over half of the people would prefer to wait for the next elevator than to share a ride with us. There seems to be a belief here that large dogs are prone to unprovoked attacks on random people.

Interestingly, the Colombians I’ve met seem very comfortable, even enthralled, with Bandi. Yet Panama used to be part of Colombia… curious. In Costa Rica, especially outside of the city, the fear of dogs is noticeably less than in Panama. Very few people keep cats as pets in either country, although it is common to see them on the street.

Both countries have good veterinary care.

Schools. Public schools in both countries are somewhat lacking. There’s high literacy, but that’s about it. However, both countries have well-regarded private schools. In Costa Rica, there are a few outside of the capital, but most are in San Jose. In Panama City, the best-regarded schools are in the canal zone. I meet people who grew up there and they are indistinguishable from your average North American… not even a trace of an accent.

Retirement. Panama has excellent incentives for retirees right now. They’re really trying to attract foreigners, and it’s working. Most of their ideas were borrowed from Costa Rica, but while the Panamanians have taken them one step further, the Ticos have slowly eliminated most of their incentives. Also, real estate is still considerably more expensive in Costa Rica, meaning the pension dollar doesn’t go as far there. The town of Boquete, in the mountains of Panama, is consistently ranked as one of the top five places in the world to retire.

Salon has a great article about the mainstream media’s complicity in shaping public opinion using Whitehouse linguistic trickery.

Here’s a little trivia quiz…

In 1933, a particular substance became illegal for any American to possess more than 5 ounces of? Failure to surrender this substance was punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or up to ten years in prison. What was the substance?

Answer: Gold!

As part of the effort to end the Great Depression, Americans were forced to turn over their personal gold to the federal government at a fixed market price. As soon as the government had all the gold, they raised the price and sold it to foreigners at a profit. Americans didn’t regain the right to buy gold until 1974.

Did anyone see the recent episode of the BBC show Panorama about Scientology? Scary. In response, Scientology produced a highly polished and pointed rebuttal, which didn’t really refute the claims of the BBC story, but did take the reporter to task for his supposed objectivity. The BBC’s editors responded with spin of their own. All great theater.

I had one brief experience at a Scientology center many years ago, and oddly, my feelings about it were somewhat parallel to those I get when entering a Catholic church or a casino. The thought process goes something like this: “Wow. It must have taken a huge amount of money to build all this. Where did it all come from? Everyone who walks in the door is contributing, and they’re not walking out with anything that has real-world value (can be traded for goods), yet they all feel like it was money well spent and they’ll happily come back and do it again. Great racket. How do I buy in?”

Other than that first impression, I didn’t really have much to go on, but the BBC program made me want to find out more, so I did some research. It’s difficult to get a clear picture of Scientology’s practices and beliefs. Every interview I’ve seen where Scientologists are even gently challenged, they spend all their time attacking the source of the criticism rather than explaining their position. However, I got a sense that the stated goal is to help people control their own internal impediments to success. As part of my research, I also uncovered the funniest Wikipedia article I’ve ever read. I laughed out loud.

When reading stuff like the Xenu story, a lot of people discount Scientology out of hand. I don’t. It’s not that I think Scientology is a noble institution. It’s just that I can acknowledge it serves a function in some people’s lives. Does that make it a religion? I don’t really know. Does that mean it has the potential to become very powerful? Absolutely.

I’m going to offend some people here (if I haven’t already), so I apologize in advance. Please don’t spam, flame, “fair game”, or harass me. These are just my opinions, hopefully expressed in a somewhat humorous way. If you don’t like them, please just go read something else.

Back in 63 (B.C., that is), when the Romans occupied Jerusalem, I bet they didn’t know what to make of the Jews. I can imagine some brash soldier saying, “One God?? How can you only have one God? Granted, we Romans may have gotten a little carried away with the whole polytheism thing… god of Thursday, god of toenails, god of low-hanging branches… so yeah, maybe we could pare it down to just the basics: earth, water, fire, war, hedonism… you know, the essentials. But just one?? I mean, that’s so minimalist and boring. Plus, what would I do with all my little figurines? Nah… that ‘one God’ idea is too nutty. It’ll never catch on.”

And maybe there was one centurion in in the corner who said, “Ya know, the Jews all seem to get a lot out of this, and they’ve built some pretty impressive stuff here. Perhaps this one God idea is the next big thing?” And then he was ridiculed and thrown to the lions.

A few generations later, I can imagine some Jews scratching their heads about the steady rise of Christianity. I picture them sitting outside the schul one day saying, “Have you read what these people believe!? Son of God? Immaculate conception? Walking on water? That’s some imagination. And how can somebody die for my sins? That doesn’t even make sense! This is just a fad. It’ll never catch on.”

And there was probably one old Rabbi in the corner saying, “Guys, you don’t understand… it makes them feel better about themselves. It doesn’t matter how ridiculous it sounds to us. They like it and they pay good money to hear about it. We should be worried.” And he was probably written off with a simple, “Ah… quit your kvetching, you crazy old codger.”

Two thousand years later, the world’s major religions are monotheistic, and Christianity is the dominant one.

My point is, just because the story of Xenu strikes some of us as ridiculous now, it doesn’t mean that in a few more generations, Scientology won’t be considered a major religion. In terms of wealth, power and intimidation, they’re already well on their way. If that prospect frightens you, you’re not alone.

Lately, I’ve had a wonderful kind of primitive microcosm in which to examine the effects of fear.

A couple months ago, I moved into a large apartment complex with my big dog, Bandi. There are a lot of families with kids here, and we come across them frequently on our walks.

I’ve noticed that there’s an innate misunderstanding between the kids and Bandi. They think he’s dangerous simply because of who he is… big dog, big teeth, etc. He thinks they’re dangerous because, in dog behavior, they act like enemies. They approach directly, eyes fixed, arms outstretched, not allowing him to recognize them by smell before they reach out to touch him, usually in one of the few areas where he cannot defend himself (top of the head, hindquarters).

So, when Bandi and a kid meet up, they both approach each other with a measure of caution, based largely on misunderstanding. But they’re still interested enough to want to meet. That’s when things really start to get interesting.

The kids desperately want to interact with Bandi. But because they’re fearful, they take a defensive posture. Some ways they do this are:

Any readers who have dogs know that all of these actions will be perceived as aggressive by a dog who is in any way fearful. Bandi barks ferociously to warn off any stranger who approaches him this way. He won’t bite, but his bark is loud and scary.

Predictably, the kid views this response as confirmation of his fears that the dog is dangerous. If he ever dares to approach Bandi again, he’ll take even more precautions, causing a vicious cycle of mistrust and conflict. The kid has no idea that his actions were the direct cause of the dog’s defensiveness.

Similarly, this situation puts the idea in the dog’s head that the kid is a threat, and needs to be defended against. Bandi will be more cautious with him in the future too.

In noting all of this, I find fascinating parallels to human interactions on a geopolitical scale. The world is getting smaller, and many cultures which don’t understand each other well are finding themselves in close contact. There’s a natural curiosity, and also a natural fear. But just as with kids and dogs, it is often that very fear, borne out of misunderstanding, which breeds the conflict. We’ve taken to approaching each other with our metaphorical “sticks” (aircraft carriers, nuclear missiles) in hand, thereby justifying the other side’s fear.

The most interesting part of the dog example is that, occasionally, without provocation, a kid will get it into his head that the dog is such a threat, that the child needs to strike preemptively. One day last week, Bandi was paying no attention as we passed a toddler who promptly took his shoe and threw it at the dog. It didn’t come close to hitting him, but Bandi was shocked.

It’s amazing how fear of aggression, even in the absence of any true experience being aggressed upon, can cause our base desires, our childlike impulses, to come forward and turn the imagined potential for conflict into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Anyone who’s been reading this has probably noticed that I’ve taken a growing interest in public policy. In doing so, I’ve been reviewing proposals from the current crop of presidential candidates. You can find them at SelectSmart.com and ExpertVoter.org.

We’ve all heard about the popular issues: taxes, immigration, the war, health care, the environment, abortion, gas prices, etc. But some candidates are also talking about issues that aren’t particularly mainstream, and have even taken positions that might be regarded as “wacko”.

These politicians are my personal heroes. They’re principled enough to propose changes to public policy which might have a real impact on the way everyday Americans live their lives, and they’re willing to subject themselves to the ridicule that often comes with being an outsider. Whether or not they win, they ignite debate, which is the lifeblood of a democracy.

Over the coming weeks, I’m going to address a few of these proposals with an eye towards showing why they might not be as strange as they seem. It’s not my goal to convince the reader to support these positions or candidates, but rather to provide information and perspective which allows you to view these proposals in the proper context.

New and improved?

We get used to things. That’s no secret. The status quo is comfortable and most people fear change. So when somebody presents an idea that really bucks the common wisdom, especially one that has the potential to affect our lives, we’re naturally cautious. That’s just sensible.

But what happens when somebody presents a genuinely good idea that’s just not part of the national discussion? Well, he’s usually ridiculed and marginalized. One of the biggest mistakes a politician can make is being prematurely correct. But it is my hope that some of us can learn to view these proposals on their merits, without a mind to whether they’re currently in fashion.

Today’s article deals with two proposals which are related to each other. The descriptions can get a bit complicated, but I’ve tried to simplify them as much as possible.

Issue #1: Abolish the Federal Reserve

This policy is supported by Republican candidate Ron Paul and independent candidate Ben Thompson.

Most people don’t know what the Federal Reserve is. A few will recognize the name Alan Greenspan, who served as chairman of “The Fed” for 18 years. Greenspan mocked his own infamously obtuse “Fed-speak” when he said, “I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you’ve probably misunderstood what I said.” (from Wikipedia)

So, what is the Federal Reserve? The Federal Reserve is a privately-owned central banking system which lends money to the US government at interest. That’s important, and not widely understood, so if you didn’t get it, here it is again. The Federal Reserve is a privately-owned central banking system which lends money to the US government at interest.

The term “Federal Reserve” is a deliberate misnomer. It’s not Federal and it has no reserve. Although the Congress approves the President’s nominee for Fed chairman, who is then required to report to the Congress, the government has no actual power over the Fed. In contrast, the Fed has an extreme degree of power over the US economy.

When the nation was formed, it had no central bank. Monetary policy was controlled directly by the government through management of the money supply. The law creating the first central bank of the United States was instituted in 1791 over the bitter objections of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. After its 20-year term, Congress declined to renew the bank’s charter. A second bank was installed in 1816 and the renewal of its 20-year charter was killed by a staunchly determined President Andrew Jackson. It was a hard-fought battle, which he considered the most important achievement of his presidency.

For the next 77 years, the United States had no central bank. The economy managed to expand and be a leader of the industrial revolution during that time, but also had its share of currency crises. These crises eventually gave rise to renewed calls for the stabilizing influence of a central bank.

In 1913, a bill to reinstall a central bank failed under Republican sponsorship in Congress. However, powerful bankers got Democratic presidential candidate Woodrow Wilson to support the idea, and in turn, the bankers supported his campaign. One month after his inauguration, on December 23rd, 1913, with over a quarter of the Senators already gone for the holidays, the Senate passed the Federal Reserve Act. And with that, a new private central bank, the Federal Reserve, was installed in the United States.

Just a few years later, President Wilson would reflect on what had transpired by writing, “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world – no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

There were good times and bad for the first 75 years of the Fed’s existence, but true stability proved elusive. In contrast, the Greenspan period was marked by exceptional economic stability. This is largely attributed to Greenspan himself, and the other members of the Fed’s open market committee. Their approach to manipulating the money supply to target specific interest rates, a policy which was actually started by the central bank of New Zealand, yielded an exceptionally long period of stability.

But given the influence the Fed holds over the economy by its control of the money supply, opponents contend that so much power should not be left to the whim or wisdom of one man, or even a small group of men; especially if their own profit is part of the equation. Without congressional oversight, we’re basically just hoping that we chose the right guy for the job and that he doesn’t screw us.

Indeed Greenspan himself has admitted what many economists long contended: that monetary policy of the Fed contributed to the stock market crash of 1929 and caused the subsequent Great Depression. Proponents of abolition would say that we really don’t want an institution with that kind of power over our entire economy to exist in the United States, no matter how smart its current chairman is. Supporters of the Fed say that it provides economic stability and continued growth with low inflation.

People have good reasons to stand for or against the Federal Reserve, or any private central bank in the country. But to characterize the idea of abolishing the Fed as “fringe” is to deny our history. For roughly half of the years that this nation has existed, it has done so without a private central bank.

Issue #2: Abolish the Federal Income Tax for Individuals

This policy is supported by Democratic candidate Mike Gravel, Republicans Ron Paul, John Cox and Michael Smith, Libertarians Steve Kubby and Christine Smith, and independent candidates Steve Adams, Phillip Morrow and Ben Thompson.

The proposal usually follows from, or implies, the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, since the main function of the IRS is to collect the income tax. All of the proposals include eliminating the requirement to file an individual income tax return.

There was no federal income tax for the first 73 years of the republic. In 1862, President Lincoln and Congress enacted an income tax to pay Civil War expenses. It was repealed 10 years later.

The Constitution expressly forbids any direct tax that’s not “apportioned”, meaning the revenue is distributed amongst the States based on population. So when Congress wanted to enact an income tax which would not be evenly distributed, they had to amend the Constitution to do it. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, allowing the creation of a national income tax that was not apportioned.

Interestingly, that was the same year the Federal Reserve was created (see above), which is convenient since a large percentage of every current tax dollar goes to pay the interest on the money our government has borrowed from the Federal Reserve.

When the income tax came into being, the rate for all but the excessively wealthy was 1 percent of annual incomes over $3,000. In today’s money, that would be equivalent to an income of about $62,000, so the majority of Americans paid little or no income tax. Over time, the rates steadily crept up. Today, the average taxpayer gives about 30 percent of his income to the government. At one point near the end of World War II, the top marginal tax rate reached 94 percent!

Amazingly, the government’s spending has increased even faster than it can raise taxes. It must borrow to cover the difference, which results in a “national debt.”

There’s a classic applause line in the movie “Dave” where an average businessman is trying to help the President with the federal budget and remarks, “Who does these books? If I ran my office this way, I’d be out of business.” Well, you don’t have to be an accountant to figure out that if you spend more than you take in every year, and you just keep borrowing money at interest to make up the difference, you’re going to be in hot water before long. That’s the situation our government has a tendency to get itself in. The current national debt is the highest it’s ever been.

The annual budget for running the IRS is about 11 billion dollars, so eliminating it would save that administration cost. But the government would of course lose the trillions of dollars it collects from taxpayers each year. That’s why most of the plans to eliminate the income tax call for an alternative way to raise the money. The goal is to find a taxation method that’s more “fair”, less cumbersome, less costly, and easier to administrate/enforce. There are a variety of ways to do that, including a national sales tax, higher corporate taxes and many more. The point is, most of the proposals to eliminate the income tax are really just proposals to replace the tax with something else. These ideas are referred to as “revenue neutral”, because they bring in just as much money for the government as the current system.

Structuring it this way prevents politicians from having to deal with the other side of the equation: spending. If you cut spending, you cut government programs that many people are accustomed to. For all the talk about how people don’t like “big government,” they usually scream and holler when you try to take away the stuff that their tax dollars are paying for. So, there won’t be much discussion about reducing overall tax revenue until we rein in spending.

The most costly type of government spending is war. Any nation would have a very difficult time fighting wars without at least the option to impose an income tax. That’s because wars require heavy borrowing, and the lenders (usually international banks) want a guarantee that the government will pay them back with interest. The government gives them that guarantee by passing legislation to tax its people and promising to use the tax revenue to pay the bankers. And the citizens are usually fine with that because, after all, “we’re at war.”

As you might see, the people who lend money to governments have a built-in incentive to see those governments involved in wars. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether they actually help bring that situation about, but there’s adequate history to imply that, at least in some cases, they do. And when that happens, the bankers almost always lend to both sides, so they come out ahead no matter who the victor is.

One could argue that, if we didn’t have the option to invoke an income tax, we wouldn’t get into so many wars because we couldn’t afford it. In an ideal world, that might make us more likely to seek negotiated settlements. However, my understanding of human nature prevents me from being that much of an idealist. As it stands now, the government doesn’t worry too much about the cost of arming up, because it just borrows the money and leaves the debt burden to our children. The effect doesn’t hit people directly in their pocketbooks, so they don’t feel the impact personally. But future administrations will have to take in more money from the citizens, usually by raising taxes, to pay the debt. Based on some estimates, 20% of current tax revenue goes to paying for past military expenditures.

To wind it all up, of the 231 years that have passed since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the United States has been without a direct federal income tax for more than half of them, or 127 years. So, one can’t really claim that a system without the IRS and income tax is unheard of in the US.

And even though our current system has been in place for over 90 years, it bears strikingly little resemblance to the program enacted in 1913. Since then, the administration costs and amount collected have ballooned to an unimaginable size in comparison to where we started. For most of its history, with or without the income tax, the US has had one of the most robust and productive economies in the world.

–

Up next on the list of “fringe” proposals to explore: the national initiative, decriminalization of marijuana, single-payor universal health care, public financing of elections, plus any other good suggestions I get.

There are currently 18 candidates from the two major US political parties running for President in 2008. A few nationally televised debates have taken place in advance of the primaries to be held early next year.

The question that seems to occupy the TV commentators is some variation of “Who’s winning?” The answer is: nobody.

In our democratic process, we decide who wins our elections by the number of votes cast for a particular candidate. There has not yet been a single vote cast in the presidential primaries. So how does the national media measure which candidates are ahead?

One method is by polling. But polls are notoriously unreliable, especially in primaries with almost a year before the election. Another way is by money raised. The unfortunate reality of American politics is that it takes money to get elected; a lot of money. But do we really want to be telling the public that this is a contest to see who can hold the most $1000 per plate dinners, rather than who can govern best? Another standard is “name recognition,” which again, really doesn’t have anything to do with ability to govern. Lastly, the media rely on “pundits” or “analysts” to tell us who is ahead at any given time.

But if you examine these criteria carefully, you can see one glaring problem: they’re all self-fulfilling. The higher a candidate scores in the polls, the more likely he is to be heard, and thus his polling numbers will climb. The more money a candidate raises, the more exposure he can buy, and thereby raise more money in the future. The more a candidate’s name is mentioned, the more name recognition she gets in the future. The more “experts” suggest to us that a certain candidate is legitimate, the more legitimate he seems.

People rely on the mass media to keep them informed. But that same media is shaping our opinion with their coverage, legitimizing certain candidates over others. In essence, we let a couple dozen people in a few newsrooms decide which potential leaders are worthy. Then they’re anointed with innocuous sounding titles like “front-runners” or “leading candidates” even though not a single vote has been cast. I encourage people to really question why those candidates are considered more legitimate than others, and who’s saying so.

The Latest Democratic Debate

On June 3rd, eight candidates participated in the Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire. It was broadcast and co-sponsored by CNN. I decided to do a careful analysis of how balanced the coverage of the candidates was.

Face Time

One of the keys to any successful run for national office is TV “face time”. That’s the time the candidates get to speak to the public through something other than a 30-second commercial. Common examples are interviews, press conferences, speeches, and most of all, debates.

It’s natural for humans to connect with faces and voices. The more we see and hear someone, the more comfortable we feel with that person. That’s why it’s so important for the people who want our votes to get sufficient exposure.

I timed each candidate’s appearance on camera in Sunday’s debate. If the candidates are truly all equal in the eyes of the moderator and director, one would expect that they’d all get roughly equal camera time. But a funny thing happens when you look at it methodically: you find out that the candidates’ exposure is not even close to balanced.

I used a self-designed set of rules to define the face time of the candidates. Here they are:

1. Initial introductions of the candidates are excluded. Timing begins after the debate has progressed to the question and answer phase.

2. Face time is counted when the candidate is in the camera frame.

3. If two or three candidates are in frame at the same time, they all get credit for the face time, even if only one of them is speaking. If more than three candidates are in frame, only the one speaking gets credit. (This was done because three faces is about the most that can be quickly and easily recognized on a small screen.)

4. A candidate is considered to have face time if he is the primary speaker at the time, whether or not he is on camera.

This is a graph representing the minutes of face time per candidate over the course of the debate:

Note that Clinton and Obama were on screen for triple or quadruple the amount of time as some of the other candidates. These contenders have also consistently maintained the highest poll numbers, which brings up a chicken-and-egg question. Are they polling higher because they’re getting better exposure, or are networks giving them more exposure because of their numbers? Whichever the case, there does not seem to be an effort to provide a level playing field.

It is also notable that almost 20 minutes of the debate had elapsed before candidate Mike Gravel made his first appearance. By that point, candidates Edwards, Clinton and Obama had combined for nearly 13 minutes of face time.

Number of Appearances

Some viewers may only tune in to parts of the debate, so a candidate’s exposure is not just about the amount of face time, but also about the number of appearances spread out over the course of the debate. Here’s a chart showing the number of appearances by each candidate, using the same “three in frame” rule as above:

Hillary Clinton made 60 appearances on camera, compared to just 48 for Mike Gravel, Christopher Dodd and Joe Biden combined.

Methodology note: In the second half of the debate, the audience posed questions, but the moderators directed the questions towards specific candidates. In cases where the candidate was answering while the camera briefly flashed back to the person who posed the question, this is considered one continuous appearance by the respondent.

Exposure Score

For the last graph, I normalized and combined the face time and appearances for each candidate, then expressed those as a percentage of the total to come up with what I call the “exposure score”. Here’s a pie chart representing the relative exposure received by all eight candidates:

How we are being manipulated

It’s pretty clear from the graphs above that the candidates are not all being presented equally by the mainstream media. So, how does this kind of manipulation happen? Well, the broadcasters are very clever. First, they simply direct more questions to the favored candidates. Next, they place the “mainstream” contenders together in the center of the stage. That way, they can put them all on the screen simultaneously at a recognizable size. The first two graphs show the candidates in the exact order that they appeared on stage. Notice how the center ones are favored.

There was fantastic moment towards the end of the first debate segment where the camera zoomed in and then panned to reframe the image so that Bill Richardson was removed and only Edwards, Clinton and Obama were on screen. It’s worth noting that Obama was speaking at the time, and Richardson got pushed out of the frame even though he was standing immediately adjacent. You can just see the edge of his coat in the resulting image:

Conversely, the “fringe” or “marginalized” candidates are placed on the fringes or margins of the stage. On the rare occasions when these lesser-known candidates are on camera, the angles are narrow, so that the candidates next to them aren’t seen at all.

One of the worst byproducts of this type of marginalization is that it too tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The less-publicized candidates know that they’re not going to get much air time, so they try to cram as many points as they can into strong emotional bursts, without the time to carefully explain their positions, thereby giving the impression that they are indeed outside the norm.

So what do we do about it?

We must realize the true nature of the situation. To come back to where I began, all the contenders have the same chance of winning. On the Democratic side, there are eight candidates and each voter can cast a ballot for one of them.

Next, we need to recognize that we’re being manipulated. For the media to tell the voters who has a better chance of winning, almost a year before the election, is just irresponsible. And again, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, because those who don’t get adequate exposure also don’t get the support needed to carry them through. By the time we get to the primaries, many will have dropped out because they’ve been effectively marginalized. If you see this kind of thing in the future, be aware. Write your objections to the TV network, newspaper or magazine who engages in this type of bias.

Finally, don’t let the media tell you who is and isn’t worthy of your vote. Do some research and decide for yourself. Your vote is your best weapon.

—

Closing note: I had intended to do this same kind of analysis for the most recent Republican debate, but ran out of time. I may go back and do it later, depending on the response to this article. However, it is noteworthy that after the Fox-sponsored Republican debate, where the lesser-known candidates were completely marginalized, the network was in for a surprise. Their own online poll showed the top vote-getter as Mitt Romney (29%) and second as Ron Paul (25%). That’s right, Americans who presumably were interested enough to actually watch the debate voted for these guys over higher profile names like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. But if you listened to any of the post-debate commentary, you wouldn’t have heard about that.

In the recent Democratic debate, candidate Bill Richardson said he thinks the US should consider boycotting the 2008 summer Olympics in Beijing if the Chinese don’t get tough with Sudan over the crisis in Darfur. What kind of idiot is he? Does anyone actually believe that’ll make a darn bit of difference?

The Chinese have the fastest growing economy in the world, almost four times the US population, and an ever-expanding military. They also have a huge trade surplus with America and hold an enormous amount of its national debt. A boycott would be a joke. The world isn’t going to stop buying Chinese goods if we boycott the Olympics. Heck, even we’re not going to stop buying Chinese goods.

President Carter tried using an Olympic boycott as political leverage with the Soviets over Afghanistan. All it did was make us look like the kid on the playground who says, “I don’t like the way you play so I’m taking my ball and going home.” It also profoundly disappointed scores of American athletes who had trained their entire lives for a chance to compete on the biggest stage in the world.

The Olympics is, and has always been, a way for nations to come together and compete, despite their political differences. It should not be politicized. But if nations want to use it as a forum to make a statement, the way to do that is to go kick some butt!

The 1936 Berlin games took place during the rise of Nazism, when Hitler was touting the superiority of his Aryan ideal. The US flaunted its diversity by sending African-American athletes such as Jesse Owens. He went on to win four gold medals, disgracing Hitler in the process.

That’s the way you promote America. Go around the world and demonstrate to people that the US a meritocracy. ‘We don’t care if you’re short or tall, fat or thin, white or brown, rich or poor. As long as you can do the job, come on over and we’ll give you an opportunity to do it.’

Just a few years after those Olympics, thousands of Germans fled to the US before the outbreak of war. Many of them helped defeat the Nazis. We had the reputation as a just and equitable society back then, with opportunities for hard workers.

Nowadays, our reputation around the world is, well… not so good. Part of the reason for that is a perception that America thinks it’s above everyone else, refusing to engage with people it doesn’t like, and trying to impose its will upon others. Boycotting the Olympics only reinforces those sentiments.