X_Zachary_Wright

Stamping on Conventional Wisdom

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:12:00 GMT

In 1970, there were 4.3 million people on food stamps in the US and the program cost $576 million. With the US population at 203 million at the time, 2.1% of the people in the US were on food stamps. Even though the program is now called SNAP, I am going to keep calling it by its old name, food stamps.

In 2004, the figures were 23.8 million people on food stamps for a total cost of $27.1 billion. In 2012, the number of people on food stamps had almost *doubled* from the 2004 figure to 46.6 million, for a total cost of $78.4 billion. With an estimated 315 million people in the US, that's an alarming 14.8% of our country's population on food stamps--a seven-fold increase in the *percentage* of folks on food stamps since 1970. I find this disgraceful and heartbreaking. Here is a link to the government data I am quoting.

Conventional wisdom is that we require this program as a safety net for the neediest folks in the country, and it would be heartless to make any big changes or cuts. But what if CW is totally wrong here? It seems we should be doing better than almost 50 million people dependent on government for food stamps, especially when the program is not working great--there are STILL hungry people in the US; there are still children who can't learn at school, because who can learn on a truly empty stomach, when all you can think about is food? Also, many folks on food stamps are buying foods that fuel the obesity crisis. These two issues alone suggest that the program is failing in some important ways. I have a radical idea (really a re-hash of one of my father's ideas) for massively improving the situation.

But before I get to that, some background: I do not purport to be an expert in this area, but I do have an interest in it. When I was a kid in the 1970's, my family was on and off food stamps and welfare. I remember "dumpster diving" with my father on a few occasions in the late 1970's; one place we found food was in Palo Alto's Mitchell Park on weekends after the picnic crowd had gone home for the day. And in 1998, when I was in business school, I did a "field study" project for the LA Regional Foodbank, sort of akin to a senior thesis that was simultaneously a consulting assignment for the LA Foodbank.

My father suggested something many times that I used to roll my eyes at, but now I see some potential wisdom in it. His idea was to have "people kibble available on every street corner in America." With the idea that this nation is far too rich to have hungry people here. I used to think people kibble ("PK") would be logistically infeasible, cost too much, sap people of ambition and drive and self-respect, and make people depressingly dependent on government. But if you're hungry, I mean really hungry, or you can't feed your hungry child, all that becomes secondary; you just want to get food.

I think with some modifications, PK could succeed. First, in line with my father's name for it, it should be nutritious, but extremely bland and boring. Next, instead of every street corner, what about every post office, every Saturday? You can take as much PK as you want for the week, for free. And let's stop the silliness of Saturday mail delivery and instead have the PO focus on PK distribution on Saturdays. Why the PO? Because they already have a massive distribution network built out.

Next, assuming that PK was widely available to all, I would cut food stamps, maybe to zero. This is painful to say, but food stamps, at great cost, are making tens of millions of folks depressingly dependent on government. And if we taxpayers are paying for food for millions of folks, we should have some say not allowing recipients to fuel the obesity crisis--and that's one of the things PK would accomplish.

With PK widely available, food banks could try to focus more on fresh fruits and vegetables. And I think, ultimately, with the blandness of PK, people would be motivated to not become dependent on it in the same way they become dependent on food stamps. Folks would ideally get tired of eating it and seek out alternative ways of earning enough money for food. Perhaps even take jobs, as stepping stones, that they previously may have felt were beneath them. My father, in a effort to keep food on the table for us, sometimes took jobs like the night shift at a rest home, helping folks near the end of life do things like use the restroom. In retrospect, I am very proud of him and respect him enormously for doing that. There was no job that was beneath him if it could feed his family.

And when folks succeed in "getting off the PK," they would feel again the self-respect and satisfaction of NOT depending on the government for their food. And if they failed or the job didn't work out, or for any reason, they could go back to PK and food banks until they can undertake their next endeavor to earn enough money for their own food. With no food stamps available, but and endless supply of PK, no one would go hungry.

Disgraceful Irony

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Tue, 7 May 2013 23:25:00 GMT

I think I have a standard blogger's conumdrum, namely--what to post on FB vs my blog, especially when there is only partial overlap of FB friends and blog readers, and especially when the number of FB friends exceeds the number of blog subscribers by something close to 20X.

Post everything on my blog that I post on FB? Seems too redundant, since I think there are only a handful of folks who see this blog who are NOT on FB with me.

Shut down the blog? No, it seems premature for that. It has been clicked on over 277,000 times since 2005, mostly by you, my dear readers. (I know some celebrities get multiples of that number on every tweet, but I never aspired to reach a mass audience, just wanted to reach my friends and family).

So as I wring my hands about this, let me give you something that I did not post on FB, for no particular reason. I know this may be reverse gender discrimination, but has anyone in the military perhaps thought of installing a woman with impeccable credentials as the head honcho for prevention of military sexual abuse? Because the man that was recently in the job was clearly not up to it. It's a supreme irony, and utterly disgraceful.

Sexual abuse in the military is a big issue and it is disturbing that so many women who serve our country are subjected to it. It's partly a culture thing and hopefully our military will change to make sexual abuse less common than it is; and to the extent that doesn't happen, I hope the military develops more women who fight back hard--like the young female soldier in Dubai who kicked the crap out her assailant (a non-military bus driver) and beat him into submission in January this year. I know, it's much harder from a "career advancement" standpoint to kick the crap out of your superior officer who is sexually assaulting you, but we must start somewhere.

I Object, Your Honor

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:26:00 GMT

For my blog friends who are not on FB with me:

A friend, Sonia Nazario, just had an op-ed published in the NYT. If we, the taxpayers, can pay for lawyers for rapists, murderers and other criminals, we can surely pay for lawyers for immigrant children who are facing deportation and worse. Immigration is a highly complicated issue, but what's not complicated is the absurdity of having a small child face a judge alone, with no advocate.

Sonia is also the author of "Enrique's Journey," a Pulitzer Prize winning series in the LA Times several years ago, that she turned into a book. Her courage is astonishing--she literally rode freight trains in Central America with migrants for her research on Enrique's Journey, the story of a child from Honduras who endured the unfathomable, all in an effort to come to the US to find his mother, who came here looking for work.

Here is the piece.

A Time of Innocence

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:41:00 GMT

Eight years ago today, my father was murdered. Of course I still miss him and think about him, especially when my daughter makes a silly joke and laughs uproariously.

Today we are reminded again of the fragility of life and how everything can change in an instant; that if you have something to say to someone you care about, say it today; that taking a moment for that extra hug or kind word for someone in your family or a friend is always a good idea, since tomorrow is not guaranteed. Cliche? Maybe so, but as so many families hit by violence know, cliches can be true, and often learned the hard way.

Eight years ago, I realized something as Holly, my wife, stood with me at the murder scene, which had not been cleaned much: Holly is a good woman in a storm. She was a pillar of strength in the aftermath and I shall be forever grateful for her courage and compassion. I was blessed to be surrounded by friends and family who literally and figuratively held me up in those dark days, those trying times that one of my father's favorite writers called the "inexorable miasma of murder."

Can there be a silver lining after a bullet to the head kills your father? Yes: the murder served as the catalyst for reuniting with my "long lost" sister, Gabrielle, and her family. What good fortune, what serendipity, for that to happen.

Over the past few years on this day, I have quoted from "Let It Be" several times. But today, I will leave you with wise words from Simon & Garfunkel: "Time it was and what a time it was, it was a time of innocence, a time of confidences. Long ago, it must be, I have a photograph. Preserve your memories, they're all that's left you."

Thanks, U.S. Government!

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Sat, 2 Mar 2013 20:48:00 GMT

Well, there are some of you who are not on Facebook (or at least not with me). So I am re-posting here what put on FB today:

On Planet Normal, people or companies dealing with budget cuts typically try to inflict as little pain as possible. By astonishing contrast, our government (including folks on both sides of the aisle) is apparently attempting to inflict maximum pain. Here are some simple facts regarding why these cuts shouldn't be so painful:

Actual U.S. Federal Government Spending, 2000:
$1.789 trillion / 281.4 million people = $6,357 per capita; increased at the inflation rate over 11 years to 2011 is $8,303 per capita

Actual U.S. Federal Government Spending, 2011:
$3.603 trillion / 311.8 million people = $11,555 per capita

Therefore, the inflated 2000 number is $3,252 per capita LESS than the actual spending of $11,555 per capita in 2011.

The $85 billion in sequestration cuts comes out to $273 per capita. Therefore, we could cut almost 12 times (twelve times--not a typo!) the amount we are cutting and still be at the inflation-adjusted per capita spending level of 2000 (i.e., after accounting for 11 years inflation). I don't recall that the level of federal spending in 2000 pushed us into the abyss. In fact, we had peace, prosperity, and more or less balanced budgets in the late 1990's and 2000.

Instead of cutting $3,252 per capita, an amount that would take us back to the per capita spending level of 2000 inflated to 2011, we are simply cutting $273 per capita and our politicians are trying to turn it into Spendamageddon. Many of them seem focused on showing that this spending cut is going to send us into the abyss, by forcing the cuts to be implemented in areas of maximum pain. Disgraceful. If you have made it this far, you are either outraged or falling asleep. Link to source below.

Budget Info

Knee Slapper

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:29:00 GMT

Sometimes I read something that is such utter horsepucky that it is hard to keep from laughing. My esteem for the folks running the Catholic church has been plumbing new lows after it was recently revealed that the Los Angeles Archdiocese raided its own cemetery fund (all donated by the faithful for upkeep of Catholic cemeteries) to pay for some pedophile priest legal settlements. So this item is minor compared to that, but when I read a quote like this, it makes me think, "stop insulting my intelligence."

Cardinal O'Malley of Boston is off to the conclave and he is a long shot candidate to be Pope. He said that "I assure you no cardinal goes into the conclave with the ambition of being chosen for this overwhelming responsibility." He can speak for himself; maybe he has no ambition. But a blanket statement about no other Cardinal having the ambition to be the leader of over a billion Catholics in the world? Please. I beg you, have some respect for the intelligence of people that you speak to, Cardinal O'Malley.

The Doctor and the President

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 06:58:00 GMT

Yesterday the WSJ had a short editorial entitled "Ben Carson for President." I had never heard of him before--he, according to the WSJ, is "the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins and probably the most renowned specialist in his field." Dr. Carson was raised by a single mother in inner-city Detroit. The article is the "most forwarded" on the WSJ website today.

By putting this link here, I am not offering an endorsement of everything Dr. Carson said in his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, a speech which brought about the WSJ editorial. However, I thought it was a fascinating talk, and I think that Dr. Carson is brilliant and compassionate and cares deeply about our country and about giving every child a chance to succeed, even if he is just a bit full of himself at some points in the talk.

Also quite interesting to me was how Barack and Michelle Obama reacted to the talk. The Obamas were seated to Dr. Carson's right when he made the speech, with the President at the edge of the screen and Mrs. Obama just off the edge of the screen for most of it. But at several points during the speech, you can see Mrs. Obama's hands clapping while the President stares at Dr. Carson (you decide whether it is a polite or stony stare).

The point of bringing all that up is to remind everyone that there is a lot conservatives and liberals can agree on or compromise on; it's just that most politicians on both sides seem to have insatiable need to win that precludes working together (this is a topic that Dr. Carson addresses in the talk). Dr. Carson is a man to watch and it would not surprise me to see him as a political candidate at some point.

XZW Breaking News Edition

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:15:00 GMT

AP is reporting that Lance Armstrong confessed on Oprah today, the show will be aired on Thursday. My question for you: will Lance be forgiven or shunned?

Bella Figura

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:25:00 GMT

Thanks for the response, dear readers. For those of you not FB friends with me, this is what I posted early today:

Rita Levi-Montalcini, a Nobel-Prize winning Italian biologist, recently died at 103. Why is this interesting or important?

To find out, read her very well-written obituary in the Economist, which says in part, "Along the way, she proved that you can exude bella figura from every pore and still win the world's highest intellectual honour."

I only sort of knew the meaning of "bella figura"--all I knew was the literal--so I admit to looking it up. From an article by Celeste Stewart, it "means 'the beautiful figure' but is actually a way of life emphasizing beauty, good image, aesthetics and proper behavior."

What I didn't mention on FB is that I should collect these stories for my daughter to read someday, as reminders that she can be anything she wants to be, and that the story of world-renowned female scientists does not begin with Marie Curie and end with Jane Goodall. There is a much richer tapestry out there and this Economist piece is a compelling reminder of that.

Giant Balls

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:22:00 GMT

Well folks, I haven't posted much on this thread in a few weeks, mostly because I have been posting to Facebook the items that I would otherwise post here. Most of you (with notable exceptions, including The Anonymous Hawk and Uncle Dobe) are FB friends with me so you can read my ramblings over there. As for AH and Uncle Dobe, they are either not on FB or don't want to publicly admit to being friends with me, both of which I can fully appreciate. Mercifully, my FB posts are much shorter than my blog posts.

So this humble thread is still alive and kicking...it's been going for about seven years, and as much as you might like to, you are not going to strangle it and drown it in the bathtub. (Do I have to apologize to Grover Norquist for using that line?)

Back to today's entry. You may have thought that the title "Giant Balls" was going to be some clever play on planets or Zorb balls. But alas, no--in this case, I am, in fact, talking about the giant balls of Maurice "Hank" Greenberg. If only I could write headlines for The Wall Street Journal, today's would have been "The Giant Balls of Hank Greenberg."

Instead the WSJ went with the rather mundane "AIG Board Won't Sue Over Terms of Rescue." Greenberg, the former head and currently large shareholder of AIG, is suing the US government for about $25 billion because he believes that the feds illegally took AIG stock as a part of the giant federal (i.e., taxpayer) bailout of AIG. During the financial crisis, the feds ultimately made up to $182 billion available to AIG, which allowed the company to stay out of bankruptcy. The feds were repaid in full and as I understand, made about $22 billion in profit on the deal for us, the taxpayers. When AIG was bailed out, the board agreed to the terms at the time. If they didn't like the terms, they had a clear and obvious alternative--bankruptcy.

Greenberg wanted AIG to join him in the lawsuit but the board of AIG met yesterday and decided not to. They obviously understand the absurdity of Greenberg's position. But the 87 year-old Greenberg has giant balls and does not let common sense stop him from pursuing this nuttiness. And his legal team, headed by big-shot attorney David Boies of course is saying that Greenberg has the legal facts on his side.

This is one situation where I can say with great authority, "facts, schmacts." I don't care if the facts give rise to a compelling interpretation of existing laws that Greenberg was wronged by the feds. Orders of magnitude more compelling is that US taxpayers risked up to $182 billion to save AIG, and the board APPROVED the deal at the time. The board was not comprised of 21 year-old green kids who can later shout "Contract of adhesion! I didn't understand the deal and I was forced to do it!" They were and are seasoned and highly sophisticated business and legal experts who knew what they were agreeing to.

So, I say to Greenberg: Why don't you let go of this nuttiness, and you and your giant balls proceed to enjoy your remaining years peacefully--you still have a big pot of money. Of course he won't do that so what I would like to see is (a) Greenberg lose the case; and (b) the US government counter-sue Greenberg (for frivolous litigation perhaps) for all he is worth. Of course (b) won't happen but let's all hope for at least (a).

Obvious or Oblivious?

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:13:00 GMT

Just below the polite, sober post-tragedy surface, the debate about gun violence rages on, each side with their stack of studies backing their own points and refuting the other side's points.

I am tired of hearing one-dimensional solutions when it is so obviously a multi-dimensional problem. For most people, I think there is recognition that this is a complex problem requiring complex solutions. But for some (and unfortunately some of the loud and powerful and influential) there is an astonishing head-in sand approach that starts with the oblivious premise that "only the other side needs to change; what I do or advocate is harmless."

For example, a Hollywood movie or video game producer who says that ultra-violent movies or video games have nothing to do with the issue; instead all we need to do is ban guns and everything will be fine.

Or the hard-core NRA member who says flatly that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," and says that all guns of all types should be legal, and all we need to do is address mental health issues and everything will be fine.

Or the media executive who says that the hyper-relevance bestowed upon all these mass shooters, and telling the life story of the shooter in minute detail, and airing the grievances of the shooter, has no affect whatsoever on other troubled people who are considering seeking fame by mass shooting and trying for a higher body count.

Upon reading numerous times that the Sandy Hook shooter was an avid gamer, focusing on ultra-violent video games, I would like to underscore Peggy Noonan's recent challenge to President Obama, to make a game-changing speech to Hollywood executives about violence in video games and movies. Some of those games and movies need triple X ratings to at least try to limit the ability of kids to partake. In the same column, Noonan suggested a ban on certain high-capacity ammunition magazines that would infuriate some NRA members, so she is obviously not just taking one side.

And that leads to the point, my opinion that any solution that has any hope of meaningfully improving the situation needs to involve four key areas:

Gun control
Mental health
Ultra-violent video games and movies
Media coverage of mass shootings

You can argue for years about the relative importance of each of those areas, but we don't have time to argue for years. Despite my recent tough words for certain NRA members, I have to give credit to some prominent NRA members (e.g., Senator Joe Manchin, who has a perfect rating from the NRA) for coming out in the past couple days and taking positions that may make them persona non-grata among certain folks in that organization. I haven't seen any prominent Hollywood types recently stand up and talk about reducing access to ultra-violent movies and video games; hopefully that's coming soon. Or maybe I missed it.

Meantime, I am tired of dueling statistics and tortured data from all sides. How about focusing on common-sense solutions covering all four areas and not yelling at each other so much?

Nutcracker

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:27:00 GMT

I am not a big "Nutcracker" fan but this is brilliant.

On a simple outdoor plaza in San Jose, Costa Rica, this group has distilled the piece down to its very essence--the music and the dancing and the joy; it seems more powerful without being encumbered by costumes and sets.

Boots on the Ground

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:27:00 GMT

This is a great story. Someone once defined integrity as how you behave when you think no one is looking.

Art Police

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:07:00 GMT

Excellent front page story in The Wall Street Journal today, headline: "Is It Art? On Venice Beach, Police Can Make the Call."

Kicker: "Ordinance Limits What Types of Works Can Be Sold; No Pottery, Snow Globes OK"

No joke, the LAPD in Venice Beach, California have officially been asked to decide if it's art. Here is a link to the article. If that link does not work you and you want the article, let me know and I will email it to you.

Bittersweet Symphony

jayhartman@gmail.com (X_Zachary_Wright) — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:29:00 GMT

After all the years of noting that besides being Veterans Day, today would have been my father's birthday and was the day that my mother died in 1980, I have nothing to add this year, except for another drop in that particular vale of tears.

But I am also well aware of my abundant blessings, particularly family and friends. So the vale of tears sits hard against a vale of gratitude.