The Return of Corporate Abuse Part the Second

Yesterday, I updated the CenterPoint Energy meter inspection story in Minnesota. As I expected, questions regarding my sanity cropped up in comments. While I respect nearly all of the opinions that are posted here, I disagree that my cheese, in fact, has slipped off my cracker. And here's why.

Other than the reason of safety, which I agree is certainly a reason to check out a gas meter, what other reason could CenterPoint have for demanding access to my home? BLK answered it quite well in comments yesterday.

It is probably not the case that Big Bad government is forcing the gas company to do useless inspections. My guess is that the gas companies demanded the ability to do this because they want to be able to read meters so that they can charge you for the gas you use.

Bingo! So, is it really all that crazy to say that my theory is just that CenterPoint wants to make sure that they keep making tons of cash? No, it's not. So let's go back to the original question, posed by juris.

"What specific power has a corporation used to abuse you?"

Centerpoint Energy is forcefully demanding access to my home to make certain that they are getting every last penny they can out of me. Centerpoint knows full well that the old meters, like the ones I have, aren't as reliable as their new ones. They also know that they can't just say, "We demand more of your money so either let us in your home or we will get a court to force us in." Instead, they found another way to get in...a legitimate one, mind you...so now they can honestly say, "It's for safety."

Thus, Centerpoint Energy is forcing their way into my home so they can abuse me financially.

BLK raises another interesting point.

Corporations operate completely behind the scenes, we can never really know who is really behind the passage of laws. Corporations hire independent lobbyists, who talk to lawmakers behind closed doors. And of course, lobbyists are very frequently also involved with raising campaign contributions (usually with "bundling"). Depending on what state you live in you may or may not be able to find out how much corporations are spending on lobbying your representatives.

I have been asked several times to point to a specific example of corporate abuse. Even though I have done so above, I still say...how about all of it? The ENTIRE system. With the recent SCOTUS ruling in the Citizen's United case, can anyone honestly say that corporations DON'T now run everything? But hey, I'm a reflective guy so I'm going to give all of you another example of corporate abuse: the financial industry.

Elizabeth Warren, current chair of the TARP committee, was the first guest on Real Time with Bill Maher last Friday night. Ms. Warren stated, in no uncertain terms, that it was business as usual for financial services in this country. "The problem couldn't be more obvious," she said, "the solutions couldn't be more obvious. Lobbyists from the financial service industry, in numbers I have never seen, descend upon our representatives 2-4 times a day...writing position papers for them...and making certain they are in line.

"The financial institutions of our country are still trading in the high risk instruments that sent us into this recession in the first place," she stated unequivocally. So, my bank can still take my money and gamble it on air. Great.

Tell me again...who's the entity using force again?

In looking at all of this, one has to wonder...what in the fuck are people like the Tea Partiers talking about when they say that the government is taking over everything? It's obvious to me that the government hasn't done shit. Any time President Obama makes even the slightest noise about bank restrictions, the 12 year old girls that are the financial services industry begin to whine and cry. This, in turn, sets off a cascading effect which trickles down to folks like the commenters at TSM or the Tea Partiers who then respond with the outrage, paranoia, and fear bomb.

When you think about it, it's truly an ingenious way of controlling the way people think.

Private industry is beautiful....all corporations love you....they are golden, warm and snuggly....they only wish to raise quality of life....anyone who doubts this is a commie and wants to steal your guns and hard earned tax dollars...like Markadelphia...read Ayn Rand...read George Orwell...the government is bad....the government is bad....the government is bad....the government is bad....the government is bad....

















It's sort of like...a cult.

The Return of Corporate Abuse (in 3-D!) Part One

Last November, I wrote a piece entitled Corporate Abuse that caused quite a stir. For those of you new to NFTF, I'm sure you have wondered about the references (in comments) regarding how I "failed" to demonstrate that corporations are the ones with the real power in this country and the government is simply their stooge. These references and ensuing comments are quite typical of what transpires here and over at TSM.

Basically the pattern goes something like this:

1. Mark offers a viewpoint backed up by facts.
2. Some of the readers, many of which basically belong to a cult (more on that in the coming days), don't like it.
3. Rather than disprove it, they call me "stupid," "Marxadelphia" and a "liar."
4. Following this is a seemingly endless series of comments which "prove" that I have "been beaten." They go on in such perpetuity that one really has to wonder...if I am "wrong," why do they keep talking about it?
5. (and my favorite one) I'm secretly a Marxist who wants to cede my rights to a collectivist government.

This pattern, however, is part of a much larger one which I will illustrate through an update of the Centerpoint Energy Meter Inspection project that was the subject of my last post. For those of you who don't know, Centerpoint is the company that I purchase gas from to heat my house. They sent me a card, which I showed in my last post, which ordered me to allow them access to my house otherwise they would take legal action. It is the only company that I can get heat from in my area. I do, of course, have the choice of burning wood in my house but I think that most of us can agree that's not really "the free market" now, is it?

Take a look at this column from last December.

Gas Co. May Get Court Orders For Meter Inspections

Now, in my first column I was told that it was actually the government driving these inspections, not Centerpoint, due to safety and regulation. While it is true that there is a regulation that Centerpoint Energy must follow federal laws regarding safety, I'm wondering why the company themselves has to get the court order. If the government is the one doing the forcing, why don't they have them already? And where are the fines that we heard would happen if Centerpoint didn't follow the law?

To me, the company is the one driving this show, not the government. Further proof of this can be seen in the last line of the column.

WCCO-TV also checked with Xcel Energy, which has about 600 customers with indoor meters that still need to be checked. At this time, an Xcel spokesperson says the company is not considering court orders.

What? Why? Now, I was assured by several commenters here that if companies weren't compliant that BIG BROTHER was going to descend into their offices and nationalize them. So, why is Xcel Energy being so lackadaisical?

Because the government isn't the all powerful beast members of the cult claim it to be. They might make regulations but enforcing them? Forget it. It's not going to happen. In fact, I'd be willing to bet--just like Xcel is betting--that the government is so inefficient and weakened right now that this regulation would probably not be enforced in all of our lifetimes.

Thus, we see how this larger pattern works...a pattern of propaganda, if you will...as the comments start to roll in on this post. I will be told that while I see a company obtaining court orders, it's actually the government driving this whole thing in one massive power grab. I will be told that while I actually only have one company to choose from for my heating needs, I really do have a choice and am not being forced by any legalized monopoly to buy their product. Again, the government will be blamed. I will be told to not pay attention to Xcel Energy as that is not relevant. And so on and so on...This is but a small example of how the cult works.

(cue theremin)




















President Obama has taken away your hard earned money through tax increases (even though he has cut taxes for 95 percent of working families)....President Obama has taken away your hard earned money through tax increases....President Obama has taken away your hard earned money through tax increases.....President Obama has taken away your hard earned money through tax increases....

The question does remain, though, why does Centerpoint want to get into my home? No doubt, safety is a concern. Knowing corporations the way I do, I'm fairly certain there is another reason and that will be the subject of Part Two.

Hitch Your Wagon To This Star

"We're planting the flag on constitutional ground, and if you try to take our freedoms, we will fight back."

----Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty at the CPAC conference yesterday.

"I have a message for President Obama and my message is this: Mr. President, no more apology tours and no more giving Miranda rights to terrorists in our country."

----Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty at the CPAC conference yesterday.

Tim?

I'm fighting back.

Deafening Silence

Yesterday, A. Joseph Stack III got into a small plane, took off, and crashed into a building housing the IRS in Austin, TX. The software engineer left an angry manifesto blaming the US government for a myriad of problems. He spoke of "Big Brother" and fumed that nothing would change with the IRS unless "there was a body count." Much of Stack's rants are similar to the every day posts over at The Smallest Minority. Kevin Baker, the site's host, declared last October

I say we take off and nuke the site from Orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

in reference to the US Education system in this country.

I have stated previously that it was only a matter of time before people who think like Stack start committing acts of violence. If President Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress pass health care legislation with reconciliation, it will be a virtual certainty. As has been said many times at TSM, "the time for reasoned discourse has passed." As a Holocaust survivor once said, "When someone says they want to kill you, believe them."

What strikes me as more interesting than these sad facts is the finest example of hypocrisy I have ever seen on display. I want you to imagine for a moment that Joseph Stack is Abdullah Mohammed and he just crashed his plane into the same building. Do you suppose we would have the deafening silence that we have now in terms of the base's response to this? Kevin Baker has a "Moment of Zen" post up today that I absolutely guarantee you would be a chest thumping, nationalistic screed against extremism had Stack been a Muslim.

IT'S NOT_______WHEN WE DO IT!!!

No shit.

Actually, tons of shit...as in they are full of it. So how many disgruntled, anti government engineers flying airplanes into buildings will it take before people wake up and see how similar they are to Al Qaeda?

The Real Slide To Tyranny

From the Times article I talked about yesterday:

But their vision of the federal government is frequently at odds with the one that both parties have constructed. Tea Party gatherings are full of people who say they would do away with the Federal Reserve, the federal income tax and countless agencies, not to mention bailouts and stimulus packages. Nor is it unusual to hear calls to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A remarkable number say this despite having recently lost jobs or health coverage. Some of the prescriptions they are debating — secession, tax boycotts, states “nullifying” federal laws, forming citizen militias — are outside the mainstream, too.

The article goes on to say that these folks view most government institutions as tyrannical entities who seek to "grab power," control our lives, and piss away our tax dollars.

I've been thinking a lot about Social Security of late. Remember back in 2004 when the base wanted to privatize Social Security? The argument was that the federal government was inefficient in managing your money and that the program was a failure. There were cries of "Ponzi scheme" and calls to invest all the money with the private financial institutions of our country. My question to all of you who supported this notion is quite simple:

What would've happened to all that money had we done that?

Cleaning Their Guns and Getting Ready for the Big Show

For quite awhile on this blog, I have been talking about how the conservative base of this country has essentially gone off the deep end. This troubles me because they are well organized, well funded, far more numerous than the left's loonies, and most assuredly have a much greater supply of armaments. I mean...seriously...what's a far left winger going to do...throw a granola bar or radio tuned to NPR at you? That's, of course, if you can find one. Yesterday's post regarding the Congressional Black Caucus proves that Maher was right...the Democrats are now the party the GOP used to be (corporate owned and bought) and the Republicans are...well....

THIS

In Indiana, Richard Behney, a Republican Senate candidate, told Tea Party supporters what he would do if the 2010 elections did not produce results to his liking: “I’m cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I’m serious about that, and I bet you are, too.”

Folks, these are not isolated loonies anymore. Read the whole article. This is officially a very large movement of well armed people spend their days like this:

Pam Stout wakes each morning, turns on Fox News, grabs coffee and an Atkins bar, and hits the computer. She is the hub of a rapidly expanding and highly viral political network, keeping a running correspondence with her 400 members in Sandpoint, state and national Tea Party leaders and other conservative activists.

Mrs. Stout forwards along petitions to impeach Mr. Obama; petitions to audit the Federal Reserve; petitions to support Sarah Palin; appeals urging defiance of any federal law requiring health insurance; and on and on.

I'm trying to get my head around the mentality of someone who thinks like this and I just can't do it. Anyone out there want to help me out? I have no doubt that, if there was a way, this woman would love to see President Obama ousted and Sarah Palin immediately installed as president. Don't think she is serious?

Not long ago, Mrs. Stout sent an e-mail message to her members under the subject line: “Revolution.” It linked to an article by Greg Evensen, a leader in the militia movement, titled “The Anatomy of an American Revolution,” that listed “grievances” he said “would justify a declaration of war against any criminal enterprise including that which is killing our nation from Washington, D.C.”

Remember, these are the same people who accuse liberals of harboring unrepentant domestic terrorists. As I have said many times, listen to the words of the base and how they characterize the left. Almost always, they are talking about themselves.

I've said many times that the fringe has now become the base. Here what Richard Mack, conservative activist, had to say about this movement.

He said he has found audiences everywhere struggling to make sense of why they were wiped out last year. These audiences, he said, are far more receptive to critiques once dismissed as paranoia. It is no longer considered all that radical, he said, to portray the Federal Reserve as a plaything of the big banks — a point the Birch Society, among others, has argued for decades.

People are more willing, he said, to imagine a government that would lock up political opponents, or ration health care with “death panels,” or fake global warming. And if global warming is a fraud, is it so crazy to wonder about a president’s birth certificate?

“People just do not trust any of this,” Mr. Mack said. “It’s not just the fringe people anymore. These are just ordinary people — teachers, bankers, housewives.”

Here we have confirmation from a member of the movement themselves that proves everything I have said all along. It's mainstream now to accept all of this nonsense. And it's growing.

I posted this link on the FaceBook page of a conservative friend of mine. He compared these folks to Cindy Sheehan, the anti war protester who referred to President Bush as Hitler. He then wondered what was going on with her as we never here about her anymore in the media (would that be the "liberal" media?).

I thought of his comparison. Cindy Sheehan's son was killed in Iraq, a war which clearly was not one vital to our national security and was, in fact, waged purely for profit. No one has died in regards to the "government takeover" of our lives and yet these people are "bracing for tyranny."

It's absolutely insane. There's no way to sugar coat it. They have lost their fucking minds.

Oh, and Cindy Sheehan? She was arrested on October 5, 2009 for protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. She also protested President Obama in Oslo when he received his Nobel Peace Prize. Anyone see this on the news anywhere? The liberal media? Anyone? Bueller? Must've been a huge crowd of crazed leftists!

She said:

I think the mood of the country and the mood of our movement is getting a little bit more desperate, and (that) this will be the time to be able to translate our tireless activism and work for peace.

Unrepentant liberal commie terrorist.

Liberal Media Watch (Onyx Edition)

As I enjoyed one of my very simple pleasures in life last Sunday morning (cracking open the Sunday edition of the Times), I was surprised to find the following rather lengthy expose. Isn't the New York Times a pinko commie liberal rag?

Yeah, not so much.

I haven't done a Liberal Media Watch in awhile though Lord knows I've had the opportunity. A few months back they had a piece enshrining the glory that is Dick Armey. I thought of just dave's vehement assertions that the Times never glorifies people on the right. They've also done a number of pieces on a variety of conservative economists regarding our enormous deficit. But this one really gave me pause.

The next time someone throws the "GOP is all about big business" meme, show them this article. The CBC gets lavish amounts of money from donors like Wal Mart, Coke, and AT & T. It might be nice to think that this money is doing the work for the people.

The bulk of the money has been spent on elaborate conventions that have become a high point of the Washington social season, as well as the headquarters building, golf outings by members of Congress and an annual visit to a Mississippi casino resort.

First of all...golf outings? WTF???!!!! So basically, groups like the CBC spend years ripping the old white man party of the GOP for playing golf and not paying attention to our country's needs only to FUCKING PLAY GOLF THEMSELVES!!!!

Most of you who know me personally have heard me, ad nauseaum, complain about the sport of golf. To put it simply, I loathe it. As Mark Twain once said, "Golf is a good walk spoiled." The fact that President Obama plays it now as well...instead of basketball...makes me fucking sick to my stomach. In fact, I'm going to go on record and say that for this reason alone he has lost a good deal of my respect.

Golf is a sport that wannabe short fat men with floppy boobs wearing dorky visors play...ignoring their three kids and hot wife's needs...so they can have time to pretend to be athletes whilst sexting their dim witted and mildly disgusting mistresses. I guess it should come as no surprise that this lifestyle has now become culturally diverse.

Equally as shocking as this sickening embrace of golf is this hypocrisy

“We’re unbossed and unbought,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the caucus. “Historically, we’ve been known as the conscience of the Congress, and we’re the ones bringing up issues that often go unnoticed or just aren’t on the table.”

Bull fucking shit.

The board of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation includes executives and lobbyists from Boeing, Wal-Mart, Dell, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, Verizon, Heineken, Anheuser-Busch and the drug makers Amgen and GlaxoSmithKline. All are hefty donors to the caucus.

Some of the biggest donors also have seats on the second caucus nonprofit organization — one that can help their businesses. This group, the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute, drafts positions on issues before Congress.

This also proves another one of my long standing arguments...corporations at virtually every level via every political slant...run our country. That's where the power is, folks. And see how clever they have been in incorporating progressivism?

I recommend reading the whole article. It's a little long but the details paint quite a picture. With SCOTUS ruling that corporations have the same rights as an individual regarding campaign donations, even the ghost of Paul Wellstone is being brought to you by Nike.

My Favorite Day of the Year

"I am rather inclined to silence, and whether that be wise or not, it is at least more unusual nowadays to find a man who can hold his tongue than to find one who cannot."

--Abraham Lincoln, our nation's BEST president.

"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

--John F. Kennedy, my FAVORITE president.

Chapman Nails It

I'm usually hot or cold with Steve Chapman, columnist for the Chicago Tribune, but he really hit the nail on the head with his latest column, "Palin Exposes the Partyers."

His basic assertion is that the Tea Party people--AKA "Classic Liberals"--basically use the Constitution only when it suits them.

Judging from the applause for Sarah Palin at its convention, the movement's suspicion of government power is exceeded only by its worship of government power.

I noticed that as well but had yet to formulate it so well.

Because if her speech made anything clear, it's that the shallow, ill-informed, truth-twisting demagogue seen in the 2008 presidential campaign is all she is and all she wants to be.

Hmm...I guess I'm not the only one who is "obsessed" with her.

When it comes to economic affairs, the tea partyers agree that — as Palin put it — "the government that governs least, governs best." When it comes to war and national security, however, her audience apparently thinks there is no such thing as too much government.

No shit. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. I have to say that I am now finished with any amount of respect I have for these folks when they start talking about how they are "strict Constructionists." Come back to me when you actually give a shit about the Constitution. Until then, I have two words for you. "Fuck" and "off."

The conventioneers applauded when Palin denounced President Barack Obama for his approach to the war on terrorists. Why? Because he lets himself be too confined by the annoying limits imposed by the Constitution. "To win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law," she declares.

Is her point that Obama is allergic to the use of military power or can't bear to fulfill his responsibility as head of the armed forces? That would come as a surprise to Iraqis, who have seen Obama stick to President George W. Bush's timetable for withdrawal.

It would come as a surprise to Afghans, who have seen him embark on a massive buildup of U.S. troops in their country. It would come as a surprise to Pakistanis, who have seen an increase in U.S. drone missile attacks on their soil.

This would be the twisting of facts part that we have seen on this blog of late--President Obama is "weak" on terror. Like I have said many times, they just make whatever they want to fit their dream.

Her chief gripe, though, is that federal agents read the alleged Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, his Miranda rights shortly after his arrest, at which point, she claims, he "lawyered up and invoked our U.S. constitutional right to remain silent."

Not for long, he didn't. The FBI says Abdulmutallab provided a wealth of useful information under questioning after he got a lawyer. For that matter, as FBI Director Robert Mueller and National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said last week, he is still being interrogated.

Really? Hmm, I did not know that he provided a wealth of information. And still is. Let's double check Steve's assertion.

What do you know? He's right. Gee, I'm shocked.

In addition, some of these tea partyers may be begging to have those rights if they ever decide to launch their own holy war. I wonder if they will bitch then about not being mirandized.

But facts have never been Palin's strong suit. Nor do they matter because what infuriates her is the mere idea that constitutional protections would apply to "a terrorist who hates our Constitution and tries to destroy our Constitution."

As well as many others I know who like to whack off to people being tortured even though it has been show by experts that this sort of interrogation is pretty much worthless.

This is not some bizarre paradox. Lots of people who despise our Constitution — Nazis, communists, Klansmen, Alaska secessionists — enjoy its protections. Does she think the Bill of Rights should apply only to people who share her views?

Yes, Steve, she and they do.

Besides, Obama didn't invent the heretical notion of accepting limits on the government's latitude with jihadists. The Bush administration turned hundreds of terrorism cases over to the federal courts, without audible complaint from the right. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution extends even to accused foreign terrorists held at Guantanamo.

Yep.

The advantage of having a former law professor in the Oval Office is that he doesn't have to be tutored in such elementary realities. But Palin evinces a bitter resentment of any information that contradicts her blind faith in a benevolent, all-powerful security regime. She's more than willing to trade liberty for safety.

Didn't our very own last in line and just dave say several times on this blog that they were all too willing to allow the government to listen to their conversations? And yet they complain about their tax dollars spent in "un-Constitutional ways." Hmmm...

That went over conspicuously well in Nashville, where tea partyers cheered a leader who places excessive trust in government, disdains constitutional freedoms and promotes a cult of personality. So remind me: What is it they don't like about Barack Obama?

Right! Isn't that EXACTLY how they view Barack Obama? What a fucking riot...well done, Steve.

Proud to Be an American

Many of you who have been reading this blog for years probably think that I am a cranky, cynical fuck a lot of the time. If you know me in person, I'm not really that way. I use this blog to vent mostly but also to have a central hub for a lot of the issues that are going on in our country and hopefully provide a forum to discuss those topics.

One topic that has been on the minds of many lately is the closing of the Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. To many people, this is a good thing. Former Secretary of State Rice and current Secretary of Defense Gates lobbied hard to have it closed during the latter years of the Bush Administration. Regardless of what went on down there, Gitmo has become a powerful rallying cry for hirabis. Strategically, it makes sense to close it. We want to take away and/or erode the one weapon they truly have which is propaganda. Your average hirabis has heard of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib but not of the dozens of prisons that currently house hundreds of convicted terrorists.

Sadly, though, we have some in this country (and we all know who I am talking about) that think that closing the prison and moving the detainees to US soil is a sign of weakness. In fact, many of these people have said that if we do that, we are inviting attack. Well, the residents of Carroll County, Illinois don't think this is true...AT ALL. Thank God.

Check out this slide show and accompanying audio over at CSM.com. First, moving the detainees there is good for jobs. Listen to the voices of the people in this presentation. They want the work. Second, security is not a concern. The prison is safe. Hear one resident chuckle at the thought of an hirabi getting lost. Third, the people there are not afraid much to the deep sadness of our own little version of Al Qaeda here in the states. Why aren't they afraid?

Y'see, folks, Carroll County was home to the Savanna Army Depot, a Defense Department facility that opened in 1917. It tested and manufactured munitions, though several wars, right up until the day it closed in 2000, putting 423 people out of work. Several generations of residents there understand what it's like to have their county be an actual target as opposed the boogieman one that is currently the product of our hyper paranoid "base." Nobody seems all that concerned about the prisoners being housed there. They have other, more pressing concerns like putting food on the table.

"Without understanding the nature of rural areas, it's harder to understand the devastating impact of losing 423 jobs," says Diane Kominskey, executive director for Savanna Depot Park, an organization that is trying to our economic development. Hmm...I guess the "base" doesn't understand rural America and their needs after all. Not surprising when their chief goal is to paint President Obama as "weak" on "terror." And to think that many of these people are probably part of the "Welfare State" now as well. Wouldn't these jobs take them off the government teat? What I am thinking? That just makes too much sense!

Anyway, this slide show honestly moved me. It goes beyond the MSNBC or Fox News version of this issue and let's the people be heard. As we say in the biz, they are primary sources. Their voices make me proud to be an American.

Shooting Themselves in Both Feet

As is usually the case, the reason why the Democrats have failed to pass health care reform is staring at them right in the mirror. No, I'm not talking about the failure to take Scott Brown seriously. I'm talking about the actually pieces of legislation themselves.

The Christian Science Monitor has a very insightful piece explaining all of this quite well. People are tired of finding out that a party that is supposedly for the little guy is...well...not...really.

In what may have been a fateful move, some touted what they had won for their states. For example, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) of Louisiana announced that reports that she had won $100 million for her state in exchange for a healthcare vote were inaccurate. "It's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix," she said on Nov. 21.

Well, that's nice. I'm sure she is looking out for the "little guy" in Louisiana (part of her job) but not the nation as a whole which will eventually affect everyone in every state. And the word "fix?" Not good.

Of course, Milk Toast Boy didn't help out much.

"There are a hundred senators here, and I don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them," he said in a Dec. 21 press briefing. "And if they don't have something in it important to them, then it ... doesn't speak well of them. That's what legislation is all about: It's the art of compromise."

And therein lies the problem. You can't say you stand up for the American people and seek to improve a broken system when in reality what you are doing is looking after the interests of your own state with taxpayer money. Does Senator Reid want us to believe that every Senator doesn't give a shit about the rest of the country except their own little corner?

Health Care reform has to be looked at from a bird's eye point of view. The Democratic majority in both the House and Senate was suppose to do that but they didn't. They failed to realize that, in this new information sharing age, people were going to be looking at these bills with mucho scrutiny...as well they should.

So when Ben Nelson says...

This was never just about Nebraska. It was to be a placeholder to try to get [the Medicaid extension] fully funded for all states. My priorities are Nebraska first, Nebraska always – not Nebraska only.

...he's actually full of crap because his vote was secured by exempting Nebraska from paying a $450 million dollar fee over 10 years. People can find this kind of stuff out very quickly now. What was he thinking?

What were any of them thinking? This was their chance to fix health care. President Obama told them to get it done and they failed. It wasn't his Waterloo.

It was their Waterloo. And they're going to find out all about it this November.

Um...Mr. President?

Being bipartisan cannot mean that Democrats give up everything they believe in, find the handful of things that Republicans have been advocating for, and we do those things, and then we have bipartisanship. That’s not how it works, you know, in any other realm of life.

---President Barack Obama, Feb 9, 2010, commenting on his meeting with Republican leaders regarding bipartisanship.

Ah, but Mr. President, that is how it works in their "realm of life."

Most Assuredly

I get a lot of grief on here whenever I put up a post that illustrates the complete insanity of the right. The responses I get are usually of the following

The left has just as many crazies!

Talk about the issues!!

Offer a solution instead of yelling!!!

You're being mean and letting your emotions cloud serious analysis!!!!

I still contend that serious discussions can't be had...truly had...until this situation is resolved. The numbers show that the left has nowhere near as many crazies, the right never talks about the issues, they have no real solutions, and operate exclusively on the emotions of anger and hate. I base these contentions on what they say and what they do not because "I just hate them."

Unlike most of my colleagues on the right, I am reflective. When you offer the above opinions, or something similar to me, I will listen. So when I saw this Daily Kos Research 2000 Poll, my first reaction was to not mention it at all on this blog. The Daily Kos is a left biased blog so was the poll truly accurate? And what purpose would it serve to list the results here?

So I ignored it for the last week but then a discussion over at The Smallest Minority regarding the BBC article I linked recently and the frustration that many on the left have in trying to explain reality to the right, I brought up the poll. I got the following response from Ed, a more regular poster here these days and most assuredly a conservative.

Actually, it appears to be a legitimate poll which was properly conducted. I didn't see any surprises in it.

So, the poll is properly conducted. Alright....

He then went on to say

So what?

In fact, we have tried to explain to Marxy over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and… (I gotta stop doing that) the facts and logic which lead us to the positions generally reflected in that poll.

Facts and logic. Alright, here are the "facts and logic' that I gleaned from the poll:

39 percent think that Barack Obama should be impeached

36 percent think that Barack Obama was not born in the US

63 percent think he is a Socialist

24 percent think he wants the terrorists to win

53 percent think that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president

31 percent think that Obama is a racist and hates white people

23 percent think that there state should secede

77 percent think that the Book of Genesis should be taught in public schools

31 percent think that contraceptives should be outlawed

As Ed pointed out to me in his latest response, some of these are minority opinions. How, exactly, do facts and logic lead us to the conclusion that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Barack Obama? First, this really an opinion based argument. But if one really wanted to look at simple facts...which one of them quit their elected post?

As the discussion over there degenerates into yet another debate about hyper paranoia and socialism, I am wondering here how it's possible to have any sort of serious discussion with a very large group of people who look at reality this way. I'm not sure what President Obama is hoping to accomplish in his sit down with Republican leaders on February 25th to discuss health care.

When a quarter of the people of the opposing party think that he wants Al Qaeda to win as our armed forces begin an assault an a key Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan, how can there be an sort of reality based discussion?

Rock On, Sarah

As I watched Sarah Palin's address to the Tea party convention last Saturday, I was reminded of a concert. "The Frightening Weakness of Obama", "Country In Danger", "The Thumb of Big Government", "Fascist Agenda", and "Death Panel" were all played and enjoyed mightily by the crowd.

The encore was "I ♥ Jonah Goldberg" which sadly left the crowd wanting more.

The Budget

President Obama unveiled his budget last week and, predictably, the right went ape shit. The Times has a very detailed analysis of how the money is going to be spent. Click here to check it out. So, my first question to my fiscally conservative colleagues is this: what do you think about the 738 billion that is going to be spent on defense?

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. Defense spending creates jobs in addition to the very obvious funds we need to finish the job in AfPak. What I guess I'm curious about is the fact that defense spending represents one of the two largest chunks of money. If it was removed, would the classic liberal be happy? Or is it just the entitlement programs that are the problem?

I guess I'm trying to figure out why it's OK to defend our citizens against attacks-both foreign and domestic but it's not OK to defend them against pneumonia. This pathological hatred of the government, that we see from folks like the Tea Party people, doesn't make any sense when you seriously consider how our government is defined and how our culture has evolved.

How a Minority Wins An Argument.

Where..again...now?

Health care has come up again in comments and I thought I would point to an excellent (and short) piece written by Andy over at Electoral-Vote.com. It's a perfect summation of some of the conundrums of health care legislation.

If people could walk around uninsured and then be able to sign up when they got seriously sick, many people would adopt precisely that strategy. For the average family of four, health insurance costs something like $13,000 a year. If a family expected its medical costs to be below $13,000 it rationally it would forego insurance. Then if a member got seriously ill, it would sign up for insurance and couldn't be refused. The consequence of this new law would cause healthy people to cancel their insurance until the insurance companies were just insuring sick people, which would cause premiums to skyrocket and more people to drop their insurance.

The only way to prevent astronomical premiums is to make sure the pool of insurees contains very large numbers of healthy people who pay premiums and don't file many claims. That is what insurance is all about, after all, sharing risk. That is why all other industrialized countries have mandates--everyone has to buy health insurance under penalty of law, to fill the pool with healthy people. Both the Senate and House bills contain mandates, which are unpopular but essential to prevent premiums from skyrocketing.

So my question is...how do we prevent premiums from skyrocketing with no mandate? Can we really rely on having pools of health people?

Ah Hah!

Last in Line will be happy to know that I finally have an answer to his question "Why can't you get anything passed with Democrats running both the executive branch and the legislative branch?"

My answer?

It only takes one person to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!!!" in a crowded theater.

The BBC's answer?

This brilliant article from the BBC.

For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: "One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious.

"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him."

No shit.

"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining."

Double no shit!!

The List

My friend Scott from the gym (an ultra conservative) made me promise him that I put this on the blog. He never reads it, barely checks email, yet was insistent that his thoughts be known to all of you. So, without further adieu, here is The List, by Scott, of the people/organizations that are destroying our country from within and without followed by a short explanation as to why this is so.

1. The Liberal Media-all of it is liberal including Fox News now. They seek to spread lies.

2. The Hollywood Elite-Scott hasn't seen a film since Titanic (or so he claims) because he refuses to fund the liberal agenda of Hollywood.

3. Democrats-well, we know why this is here.

4. Socialists/Communists-actually, just see #3.

5. Teachers-all liberal commie pinko faggots...thanks Scott!

6. Climate Changers/Environmentalists-they're all looney and want to take Scott's money.

7. Affirmative Action Supporters-taking away jobs from people who are more qualified. Also part of a commie plot.

8. ACLU-against all that is good and Holy about our country.

9. Unions-commies

10. U.N.-Anti American to the core.

11. Illegal Immigrants-go home. We don't want you.

12. RINOS-Republicans who, in any way whatsoever, support any of them previous 11 items.

Note: This list is real and Scott was very insistent that I put it down exactly like I did.

Export What?

President Obama recently announced that he wants to double the amount of exports from the United States. I'm curious as to what exactly he would like to export. And double.

Twice the amount of financial re-shuffling services?

Well, this is just....great....

Opened my copy of the Times this morning (ah...the simple pleasure of the Sunday New York Times) and found yet another example of why we need to get into the green energy game.

TIANJIN, China — China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.

China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.

These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.

Meanwhile, here in America, we have this sort of thing.

Climate Change Hoax: Inconvenient Lies Exposed

News Media Falls For Climate Change Hoax

Does Climate Change Exist?

Here's what I can't figure out...why are there millions of people in this country who I KNOW love making money and beating competitors out (especially China) blinded by the insanity of simply having to be right?

WHO THE FUCK CARES IF IT'S REAL OR NOT? PEOPLE WANT TO SPEND MONEY ON THIS STUFF!!!!!!

At this point, any person that claims to be a supporter of the free market and also believes that climate change is a liberal commie plot to fluoridate our drinking water is restricting innovation and being a complete fool.

In ten years, when China is sitting on a fat pile of cash, people will ask why the United States didn't step up as an international competitor in the green energy sector. The answer will be simple.

The Wrecking Crew.

Yet Another Game Changer

I'm going to be talking about this one for the next few days. This is a long video (1 hour and 7 minutes) so take your time with it.

Some initial thoughts....has anyone ever seen another president do this before? I'm not trying to be snarky...I honestly don't know or don't recall.

The first line bit that jumps out at me....

When asked about the later health care conferences not being televised, President Obama said "It’s a legitimate criticism. So on that one, I take responsibility.”

Funny, though. Isn't that actually the fault of congressional leaders? Last time I checked he ran the executive branch.

God Loves The Marines

A while back, I became a "friend" of the Department of Defense on Facebook. They put out a lot of cool info every day and so, from time to time, I thought I would share it with all of you.

American Forces Press Service
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla., April 22, 2009 – All 64 major Air Force bases in the United States are participating in a campaign to change out incandescent bulbs with energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs, or CFLs.

In the past year, beginning with Earth Day 2008, Air Force participants have changed out more than 228,000 bulbs. This will save millions of pounds of greenhouse gases and enough energy to power 3,841 homes for a year, officials said. The Air Force will save $7.5 million over the lifetime of the bulbs.

And that's not the only way that our armed forces are going green. In fact, they have a whole section of their web site devoted to it. Check it out.

Pretty cool, huh? Well, that is if you think that climate change is not a stinkin' commie liberal plot designed to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. If you are someone who thinks this way, what runs through your head when you see all of these green initiatives from the DoD? Heck, I'm not even convinced that man made climate change is happening with a hundred percent certainty yet I still think it's great.

Hats off to our brave men and women in the armed forces who, once again, are going above and beyond the call of duty.

Three For Thursday

1. State of the Union-I thought it was great but what does it matter? 30 million people hate him no matter what he says or does so I'm still feeling like a cynical and bitter fuck today. They want him to fail especially if it means success for this country...which would mean they were wrong about their ideology...which means the end of all that is holy.

2. No Ben-I think Ben Bernanke should not be elected to a second term as Fed Chair. Clearly, he wants to maintain the status quo on Wall Street. How about we nominate Jim Manzi? Or Bruce Bartlett?

3. Karma-Apparently conservative activist James O'Keefe, last seen dressed like a pimp and entrapping ACORN (aka actually being the person engaging in voter fraud) has now been arrested. Apparently, O'Keefe and some of his pals thought it would be cool to try to tap into Louisiana senator Mary Landrieu's phone system. Ah, the mid 20s mafia (geek conservative subset)....I take comfort in the fact that if they do go to prison, they can enjoy all the "luxuries" from our hard earned tax dollars:).

Bitterness Rising

I'm feeling bitter and cynical tonight. I've always been excited on the night of the State of the Union speech regardless of who was in office. The part when the Congressional Sargent at Arms yells, "Madame Speaker, the President of the United States!" But tonight, no matter what President Obama says, it won't matter.

The vomitous spew that is our current political climate will gnaw over the metaphorical piece of meat that is our president...removing all honor, dignity, and truth from anything he says. No doubt he has the best of intentions but does anyone really care any more?

No.

The chief concern of most media outlets is to sell advertising through higher ratings. They get these ratings by presenting what is essentially political porn. Whatever your political stripe, there is a channel for you to wax your poly-rod whilst thumping your chest and feeling happy that your side is "right."

Meanwhile, our country is falling apart and all of the solutions slip away in a vitriolic spew of propaganda.

State of the Union (Part Eight)

Manzi leaves us with two other broad reaching fix-its. The first one obviously hits close to home.

Over the coming decades, we should seek to deregulate public schools...We now need a new vision for schools that looks a lot more like Silicon Valley than Detroit: ­decentralized, ­entrepreneurial, and flexible.

To a certain extent, he's right. He ignores the central problem with teacher today, however...they are lazy. The real problem with our education system is that it is built to not force teachers to adjust their pedagogy to fit the times and culture. Tenure, for example, should be done away with forever. His idea of the entrepreneurial student intrigues me and this gets back to teachers being lazy. Instructors need to shift their focus from themselves and onto the students. Students should decide how best they learn and should choose how to assess themselves, not teachers.

His other idea is fantastic.

We should reconceptualize immigration as recruiting...we should think of immigration as an opportunity to improve our stock of human capital...It would be great for America as a whole to have, say, 500,000 smart, motivated people move here each year with the intention of becoming citizens.

No shit. Enough with the rants against illegals. Let's be realistic. They're here...let's embrace them...and get this country moving again.

And now, of course, we come to the key, concluding idea.

Balancing economic innovation and social cohesion is the challenge of every free nation today — but it is a particularly pressing challenge for the special nation that holds in its hands so much of the fate of democracy and capitalism in our world.

On this day, I declare that the central mission of this blog will be to search for this balance and, hopefully find some answers. I can't promise that I won't get off on a rant from time to time (I am only human) but Manzi will be in the back of my mind forever.

So much hangs in the balance...

State of the Union (Part Seven)

We now come to the point in Manzi's article where he lays out solutions to the problems he identified earlier. He points to four very broad solutions to these issues.

Most obviously, government ownership of industrial assets is almost a guarantee that the painful decisions required for international competitiveness will not be made.

Agreed. But that also means that if companies start to fail they can't go hat in hand to DC and beg for money. They need to file for bankruptcy and take their lumps. Speaking of which...

When it comes to the auto industry, for instance, we need to take the loss and move on.

Also agree. Detroit has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no idea how to run a manufacturing business. And remember, our country is not about manufacturing any more.

Manzi goes on to detail how the government should pull its tentacles out of all industries and get back to the pre-stimulus status quo. I'm not certain I agree with him on this one. Banks, for example, are already causing a problem by not lending to anyone. If not the government, what is the mechanism to push them to do what has to be done in order to jump start this economy?

The financial crisis has demonstrated obvious systemic problems of poor regulation and under-regulation of some aspects of the financial sector that must be addressed — though for at least a decade prior to the crisis, over-regulation, lawsuits, and aggressive government prosecution seriously damaged the competitiveness of other parts of America's financial system.

So the government does too much or too little. Yep, pretty much says it all.

Regulation to avoid systemic risk must therefore proceed from a clear understanding of its causes. In the recent crisis, the reason the government has been forced to prop up financial institutions isn't that they are too big to fail, but rather that they are too interconnected to fail. For example, a series of complex and unregulated financial obligations meant that the failure of Lehman Brothers — a mid-size investment bank — threatened to crash the entire U.S. banking system.

The best paragraph in the entire piece, really. President Obama is basically going to do this when he takes on the banks. I can't wait. It's one of the reasons why I voted for him. Glass Stegall needs to be law again.

As we work to adapt our regulatory structure to fit the 21^st century, we should therefore adopt a modernized version of a New Deal-era ­innovation: focus on creating walls that contain busts, rather than on applying brakes that hold back the entire system. Our reforms should establish "tiers" of financial activities of increasing risk, volatility, and complexity that are open to any investor — and somewhere within this ­framework, almost any non-coercive transaction should be legally ­permitted.

Yep.

The tiers should then be compartmentalized, however, so that a bust in a higher-risk tier doesn't propagate to lower-risk tiers. And while the government should provide guarantees such as deposit insurance in the low-risk tiers, it should unsparingly permit failure in the higher-risk tiers.

Definitely. If such compartmentalization was present, a bigger bank could fail and an insurance agency wouldn't fall as well.

Such reform would provide the benefits of better capital ­allocation, continued market ­innovation, and stability. It would address some of the problems of cohesion by allowing more Americans to participate in our market system without being as exposed — or unwittingly exposed — to the brutal effects of market ­collapses. It would also help get the government out of the banking business and preserve America's position as the global leader in financial services without turning our financial sector into a time bomb.

But do the wealthy elite of this country want "more Americans to participate in our market system?" I don't think so. Herein lies the real challenge behind the second part of Manzi's solution. Why on earth would anyone want to share their power? It goes against human nature and the need to control and dominate your sphere of influence.

So, I don't see this happening any time soon in our little plutonomy.

Tomorrow I will wrap up my State of the Union series just in time for....the State of the Union on Wednesday.

State of the Union (Part Six)

And now we get to even more bad news for the left.

All told, finance, insurance, real estate, automobiles, energy, and health care account for about one-third of the U.S. economy. Reconfiguring these industries to conform to political calculations, and not market-driven decisions, is likely to transform American economic life. And the fiscal consequences of the spending involved will be enormous. The federal budget deficit for 2009 was about 11% of gross domestic product, which is far higher than any the United States has experienced since World War II.

Transform it, indeed. Obama's stimulus package has had an enormous impact on all of the sectors mentioned above. In fact, only about 5 percent of the federal stimulus funds went to things like roads and bridges. The rest went into the banking industry, the automotive industry, schools, food stamps and health care. One could argue that much of this funding was needed in anticipation of possible economic collapse. But this sort of spending carries with it great risks.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that existing laws will now lock in a structural budget deficit of more than 3% of GDP every year for the foreseeable future. And this assumes we will escape the current global economic situation without further financial catastrophe (and that America won't be forced into a war or other unanticipated major contingency over the next several decades). The CBO states flatly that this long-term budget path is "unsustainable."

The basic character of America's financial position is changing before our eyes. One year ago, federal government debt held by the public was 41% of GDP. Today, it is about 54% of GDP. The CBO projects that it will approach 70% of GDP by 2020, which is a level not seen since the immediate aftermath of World War II.

Clearly, not good. So what are our options?

According to Manzi, there are three: raise taxes, default on debt, or devalue our currency. I highly doubt the last two are going to happen so, more than likely, it's going to be raise taxes. Manzi talks of a value added tax but an easy fix would be to raise the top tax rate. Of course, this will never happen because raising taxes in this country is akin to going on a shooting spree at an elementary school.

An option that Manzi doesn't mention is cut spending. Does anyone out there think that is going to happen considering our government? But let's suppose it did. Where would we cut spending?

We begin to see a fairly apparent direction.

The end result would be an America much closer to the European model of a social-welfare state, which prioritizes cohesion over innovation. Of course, the European model is not an inherently terrible way to organize human society. It is, however, a model very poorly suited to America's current strategic situation, and would leave us in a far worse position to deal with the challenge of balancing innovation and ­cohesion. We do not have the luxury of drowning our sorrows in borrowed money while watching our power and influence wane.

He's right. We can't move towards a European model of socio and political economics. It won't work here and it will leave us vulnerable to our enemies in a plethora of ways.

Before I get to Manzi's solution, does anyone have any idea at all how to achieve the balance between innovation and social cohesion? Obviously, I have a few ideas of my own but would like to hear from you first.

State of the Union (20 Second Time Out)

Before we continue with the Manzi article, I just had to put this up. This is courtesy of TH from a discussion on another site.

In a political arena business power is used to influence politicians, primarily with the goal of to creating barriers to competition or even eliminating competition in markets. This has the effect of retarding many of the benefits of having a free market system. For a competitive free market to flourish what is needed is a government that is powerful enough to resist the pressure of business power so that it can be the voice of the people.

What has really been hurting the US economy for a long time is that businesses have found it more profitable to use their influence over politicians to create regulation and conditions favorable to their interests than to innovate and to compete. The lack of competitive forces at work in health care (really, health care insurance) is one of the more egregious examples of this.

With the recent reversal of Federal campaign finance laws we can only expect to see more of this sort of thing.

A perfect summation of what I have been saying for quite awhile.

State of the Union-Time Out

I would be remiss in my political commentary if I did not address the election last night in Massachusetts. First of all, the Dems have only themselves to blame for two reasons. One, they ran a lack luster campaign there thinking it would be an easy win. And two, they dicked around with election law so much that it came back to bite them in the ass.

I find it tremendously sad that Ted Kennedy, a champion of health care reform, lost his seat to someone who vows to torpedo it. It's crushing, no doubt.

The GOP have confirmed exactly what they are all about...destruction. They want Obama to fail and they really don't give a shit what harm it does to our country. Without significant reform, we are going to be in big financial trouble. It amazes me that even if conservatives are adversely affected by this, they will never admit how wrong they are.

Compare how the Dems conceded to Bush on so many issues (Iraq War, education) to what the GOP is doing with Obama. They'll never give an inch. They are, after all, The Wrecking Crew...bent on the destruction of the other side. They don't care...even it means our country going down the fucking tubes. The Dems don't get this and are still running campaigns in a very warm milk and damp toast sort of way.

People ask me all the time...how does the minority party have any say in anything? Well, three quarters of the people in this country voted for change. Two thirds wanted universal health care. Cue the hate, anger and fear machine and now we are down to 50 percent on both.

Mission Accomplished.

State of the Union (Part Five)

Well, we have had full illustrations of how wrong I have been about many things regarding our country. Now we get to the part the confirms what I have been saying on here for awhile.

As Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke noted in a 2007 speech, "the share of income received by households in the top fifth of the income distribution, after taxes have been paid and government transfers have been received, rose from 42% in 1979 to 50% in 2004, while the share of income received by those in the bottom fifth of the distribution declined from 7% to 5%. The share of after-tax income garnered by the households in the top 1% of the income distribution increased from 8% in 1979 to 14% in 2004."

No one can look at this and say it bodes well for social cohesion. In fact, I'm not even sure it bodes well for innovation. Consider this.

A typical senior partner in a high-end ­investment-banking, corporate-law, or ­management-consulting firm can now expect to make upwards of $1 million per year. In the stratosphere of the economy, the increases in wealth have been mind-­boggling: Even after the recent market meltdowns, there are about 30 times as many American billionaires today as there were in 1982.

So, what then, is the intrinsic motivation for these billionaires? Why do they need to work? I get the argument that people in the welfare state are less motivated to work. Why should they when they have everything paid for by the government?

But why should the wealth elite work to innovate and keep our country competitive in the global marketplace when they have everything paid for by their wealth? Time and again, I hear how lazy people are and how if you take care of them, they will do NOTHING. Isn't that exactly what is happening right now? I submit that slovenliness knows no economic bracket.

Rising inequality would have been easier to swallow had it been merely a statistical artifact of rapid growth in prosperity that substantially benefited the middle class and maintained social mobility. But this was not the case. Over the same period in which inequality has grown, wages have been stagnating for large swaths of the middle class, and income mobility has been declining.

And all of this feeds into the growing deterioration of our culture in general. This is why I have been stating for awhile that "there is no middle class." There isn't! It's some wealthy people and the rest of us who live paycheck to paycheck...worrying constantly about unpaid leave, sick days, and the rising cost of health care.

The divisive effects of this cluster of trends — ­rising income inequality and reduced income mobility, some degree of ­middle-class wage stagnation, increased personal debt, and increased class stratification of stable social behavior — are only intensified by climbing rates of assortative mating and residential segregation, as well as an increasingly crude and corrosive popular culture combined with the technology-driven fragmentation of mass media.

The last bit says it all. We are a culture that has shifted dramatically from intrinsic motivation to extrinsic motivation. This motivation...this desire...knows no economic bracket as well. Someone who makes 15K a year has a cel phone and the latest ipod. So does someone who makes 1 million dollars a year. It's all the same mindset. We want the latest gadget and then in a year we want the next one. In fact, we are encouraged to throw the old one out because it's "sucky and not cool."

Until we begin to do things for the joy of doing them (intrinsic value), we will continue to decline.

So, is there any hope. Well, according to Manzi....no and then yes...which we will see next.

State of the Union (Part Four)

All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem.

--Dr. Martin Luther King.

If the pain of innovation calls for some mitigation of its effects, but the demands of global competition require that we not unduly stifle ­innovation, clearly some balance must be found. The task of striking such equilibrium, however, is made far more difficult by the internal deterioration of our society — which harms both our ability to compete and our capacity for social cohesion.
--Jim Manzi, Keeping America's Edge.

How appropriate to think of what Dr. King said in terms of our current discussion regarding the state of our union. I have to tell you I would have loved to hear his solution to trying to find a balance between innovation and social cohesion. This is the crux of the problem. Can we have both? As we continue to examine Manzi's article, the answer becomes more elusive.

Of the many social and cultural changes that have rocked American society over the past half-century, the most relevant to the state of our political economy today may be the growing bifurcation of America. Increasingly, our country is segregated into high-income groups with a tendency to bourgeois norms, and low-income groups experiencing profound social breakdown.

Bifurcation, indeed, and not just the social breakdown of the lower class. We are a house divided in so many ways. We have a ruling, wealthy elite and everyone else. Our country has become a plutonomy....an oligarchy...in which the majority of the wealth is controlled by a small number of people. For unequivocal proof of this, please refer to this document and this one put out by Citigroup in 2005.

In addition to this, we have political division that has become...well...a gigantic pile of shit. I'll be the first to admit that I have been a contributer to that pile. Vitriol, acrimony, and anger have always been popular in various sporting events. Football and boxing come to mind as two examples of this. Now, these three things drive our political environment. In fact, they make money off of it. Fox News, for example, makes a ton of money from raising the hate, so to speak, and essentially being the political porn version of Jenna Jameson...getting the rocks off of conservatives everywhere...telling them exactly what they want to hear.

As a reaction to this, MSNBC has added liberal commentators over the last few years who, in addition to failing to tell the whole story in an unbiased way, add further to the hate and fear pile by simply reacting to what Rush Limbaugh says on a daily basis and give him a wider audience. I have done this many times myself.

All of this is showcased under the banner of "The Battle for America's Soul."

This breakdown did not happen overnight. Longstanding academic and avant garde attacks on traditional social norms exploded into a political and popular movement identified with the left in the 1960s. In the '70s, American attitudes and behavior began to change on a mass scale. This cultural shift naturally stimulated a response in defense of tradition from the right.

One thing I do agree with in terms of where many on the right stand is a decided lack of spirituality in our country. I wonder what might have happened if Dr. King had lived. Would today's liberals and conservatives be different? I think so. Would there be as much of a divide? I think not. Of course that is why he was killed.

How ironic, then, that each party has decided to tell us what to do with our lives. The Democrats have decided that government should be the entity to control social cohesion which basically means that they get to tell us what to do with our money. The Republicans also think that government should be the entity to control social cohesion. In their case, however, it's in the name of Manzi's "defense of tradition" (gay marriage, abortion etc.) Both parties desire cohesion yet both are failing miserably in achieving due to their incredibly thick ideological blinders.

Post-war America had much more widely shared bourgeois norms, and so was better able to contend with the negative side effects of the welfare state. Today's American underclass, however, is increasingly developing in the absence of such norms — to a large degree as the result of the welfare state itself. Meanwhile, the need for innovation and the pressures of a global economy only continue to reinforce the causes of our social bifurcation.

Imagine if we lived in a country where everyone--and I mean everyone--was actually generous with their money. There would be no need for this debate. In fact, the conservative dream would be realized as there would be no more need for social programs. The liberal dream would also be realized as social inequality would be greatly diminished.

Of course, being generous isn't enough. Accepting and using that money wisely is the other part of the bargain. Many Americans would fail at this and, as Manzi describes, have regressed from social norms. In fact, there's no doubt in my mind that many affluent people have probably given in the past only to be burned by pathetic loser after ignorant asshat. I have seen this personally many, many times.

And, sadly, we seem no closer to an answer on the balance of innovation and social cohesion.

State of the Union (Part Three)

Innovation is in danger of being squashed in this country. This is happening for several reasons. The first is that the Democratic Party has decided that social cohesion is more important than remaining competitive in the global economic order.

Another big reason is that the innovation that we have had (and something I have talked about quite a bit here) is made up of nothing. The CDO, the hedge fund, and the complex stock derivative have replaced actually investing in actual goods. Part of the reason for this is that our country is not really a manufacturer of goods any longer. Just as we changed from an agricultural society to an industrial one, now we are shifting from an industrial one to a global-technological-served based one.

Yet another reason is that change is just fucking difficult for cultures. Manzi describes the historical effects of this quite well. He concludes his discussion of societal transformation with these two paragraphs.

One obvious response is to use the political process to both slow down the rate of innovation to an acceptable pace and redistribute the country's economic output in a manner designed to maintain social ­harmony. That way, the pain of innovation is avoided and the pain of stagnation is mitigated — especially for the middle and lower classes, who are most vulnerable to the effects of both. This is the logic of the welfare state, and the direction pursued by much of Western Europe since the Second World War.

The problem, however, is that the United States does not exist in a vacuum, and making our internal economic changes less stressful is far from our only concern. We also face external challenges, especially rising competition from abroad. And our position in the global order means we cannot afford to go easy on ourselves and constrict ­innovation. Quite the opposite: We need rapid growth just to keep up.

Indeed. Witness the effect of what happens when you use the government to slow down the rate of innovation.

From 1980 through today, America's share of global output has been constant at about 21%. Europe's share, meanwhile, has been collapsing in the face of global competition — going from a little less than 40% of global production in the 1970s to about 25% today. Opting for social democracy instead of innovative capitalism, Europe has ceded this share to China (predominantly), India, and the rest of the developing world. The economic rise of the Asian heartland is the central geopolitical fact of our era, and it is safe to assume that economic and strategic competition will only increase further over the next several decades.

Wow. That's a 15 percent drop in global output. To be honest, we can't afford to lose 5 percent. The way our economy stands right now and given how much we owe China, our country could end up in economic ruin.

The one question I have for anyone reading is this: how did China, with its restrictive government, end up beating Europe? I have a few ideas but need some rounding out. Juris?

And now the death of Markadelphia's dream:(

It is common to think of the post-war global economy as a baseline of normalcy to which we wish to return. But it seems more accurate to see that era as an anomaly: the apogee of relative global economic dominance by the West, and by the United States within the Western coalition. The hard truth is that the economic world of 1955 is gone, and even if we wanted it back — short of emerging from another global war unscathed with the rest of the world a smoking heap of rubble — we could not have it.

Yet the strategy of giving up and opting out of this international economic competition in order to focus on quality of life is simply not feasible for the United States. Europeans can get away with it only because they benefit from the external military protection America provides; we, however, have no similar guardian to turn to. We do not live in a Kantian world of perpetual commercial peace. Were America to retreat from global competition, sooner or later those who oppose our values would become strong enough to take away our wealth and freedom.

To put it simply, the world has changed and no one has our backs. That is why I applauded President Obama's acceptance speech in Oslo. America, more than any other country in the world, has to protect the economic freedom of the world. Because the world is filled with a bunch of greedy scumbags (Chavez, Jong-il, Ahmadinejad), our armed forces are the ones that are going to insure this stability and peace.

Unfortunately, our country has currently become "A House Divided" which will be the topic of the next post.

State of the Union (Part Two)

Continuing with my analysis of Ken Manzi's Keeping America's Edge article in National Affairs, we see why America is having so much difficulty reconciling the quandary of deregulation and social cohesion.

Reconciling these competing forces is America's great challenge in the decades ahead, but will be made far more difficult by the growing bifurcation of American society. Of course, this is not a new dilemma: It has actually undergirded most of the key political-economy debates of the past 30 years. But a dysfunctional political dynamic has prevented the nation from addressing it well, and has instead given us the worst of both worlds: a ballooning welfare state that threatens future growth, along with growing socioeconomic disparities.

A dysfunctional political dynamic. I'll be the first to admit that I'm part of the problem. Granted, this is a small blog with very little readership. Nonetheless, I do add to the stink of politics and this article has made me seriously question what I am doing. Part of me wants to blow off steam when I hear people like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson denigrate the people of Haiti after tens of thousands have died. Another part of me ignores them, writes a check to Doctors Without Borders. Still another is nauseated at the thought of the millions in this country who accept Limbaugh's word as gold. Any choice I make contributes to this dysfunction that Manzi has identified.

Certainly, we have the worst of both worlds. Basically, Manzi is saying that both sides lack true perception and their principles are grounded into continuing the failure.

Conservatives have correctly viewed the policy agenda of the left as an attempt to undo the economic reforms of the 1980s. They have ­therefore, as a rhetorical and political strategy, downplayed the problems of cohesion — problems like inequality, wage stagnation, worker displacement, and disparities in educational performance — to emphasize the importance of innovation and growth.

In one paragraph, Manzi sums up what I have been saying on this blog for years. Brilliant.

Liberals, meanwhile, have correctly identified the problem of cohesion, but have generally proposed antediluvian solutions and downplayed the necessity of innovation in a competitive world. They have noted that America's economy in the immediate wake of World War II was in many ways simultaneously more regulated, more successful, and more equitable than today's economy, but mistakenly assume that by restoring greater regulation we could re-create both the equity and prosperity of that era.

And here's where things get really interesting. I have espoused this on my blog as well. As we get to later portions of this document, we will see exactly how I short sighted I have been with this belief and how I was wrong.

The conservative view fails to acknowledge the social costs of unrestrained economic innovation — costs that have made themselves ­powerfully apparent in American politics throughout our history. The liberal view, meanwhile, betrays a misunderstanding of the global economic environment.

This last sentence is the bird's eye view of my lack of vision. We can't return to that "Golden Age of Capitalism." It's gone. Forever. The world has changed and I, like my colleagues on the right, have not caught up with the times. Ironically and quite hypocritically, I have accused them of believing the earth is "flat." And yet I have been thinking in just the same way.

Tomorrow we will pinpoint exactly why this happened.