The Last Resort

A key point that needs to be made in as president attempts to get his jobs bill passed is that federal government spending is spending of the last resort. This idea will bounce off most of the right these days. Sane people (such as myself) can't hope to pry the base's irrational fear from their cold, dead minds.

But it needs to be said anyway and I'm happy that former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said it in a recent piece in my local paper. In fact, he said a great deal of things which made complete sense. Of course, this means that nearly everyone on the right will hate it immediately.

Let's take a look at a few of Reich's comments.

Tax cuts, we know, don't have a huge multiplier effect because people in times of economic stress tend to use tax cuts to pay off debt or to save, rather than to spend.

Hence the reason why tax cuts really don't work most of the time.

The main motivation for businesses to hire is customers. Consumer spending is 70 percent of the economy. If consumers are holding back because they are under water with their mortgages and they are worried about losing their jobs, they don't have the cash to spend.If you've got the private sector, businesses and consumers, unwilling to spend, where do you look? Government is the spender of last resort. ... If government can't do it, we are not going to have a recovery.

Exactly. So, it's not the panic mongering myth of "uncertainty." Businesses simply don't have customers and most of these potential customers have less and less money to spend. This is why I state continually that less people having more money is a very bad thing for the overall health of our economy. Sooner or later, the greed at the top will be their own undoing and ours as well.

We are losing ground [to other countries] on education. We're losing ground on labor unions. And we have a politics that has been quite regressive, favoring privatization and deregulation. ...The only way out of this is not only a sufficiently high stimulus, but also addressing inequality through stronger education, stronger labor unions and tax reform.

I agree with everything here except the high stimulus. I think he underestimates the effect that short term debt to GDP will have in relation to our standing in the world.

But here's the best part

This isn't a zero-sum game. A lot of wealthy people are beginning to understand that they would do better with a smaller percentage of a rapidly growing economy than with a big chunk of an economy that's dead in the water.

Yep. And his mention of the zero sum game idea made me grin from ear to ear.

The Regulation Rap

Everyone knows the Republicans have no intention of passing any of Obama's jobs proposals. To do so would improve the economy and put people back to work, and that's something the Republicans just can't abide.

But in response, like some third-rate rapper, all the Republicans can do is repeat the same line over and over, even though it doesn't rhyme with anything: "slash regulations." This is a completely disingenuous proposal, a delaying tactic calculated to kick the can down to the road till the next election and accomplish nothing other than to keep the economy in the doldrums and make Obama look bad.

Exactly what regulations do they want to eliminate? FAA regulations for what things people can carry on planes, or spacing restrictions on how closely planes can follow each other landing? USDA regulations on slaughterhouses and dairies that prevent E. coli infections? FDA regulations on food safety and drugs? Consumer Product Safety Commission regulations on the materials that can be used in kids' toys? NHTSA standards for brakes and collision worthiness? EPA regulations on lead, mercury and sulfur in automobile exhaust and power plant emissions, which cause brain damage in children and acid rain that was on the verge of killing all life in northern lakes and forests 30 years ago? SEC regulations on the banks and corporations who just screwed us over in the financial meltdown with their irresponsible lending and investment practices? Regulations that limit the number of people you can cram aboard an airplane, ferry or bus?

Many regulations aren't even within the purview of the federal government. Building codes, zoning ordinances and land use covenants impede small businesses far more often than federal regulations, and those are governed by states, counties and municipalities. The federal government can't eliminate those regulations unless they usurp local control. Which I thought was bad.

Are there some harmful regulations? Sure. I'm all for revising regulations that have become useless or cumbersome. But it will literally take years to review, make new proposals, open them up for public comment and then revise the regulatory system. Any savings and increased employment wouldn't happen for several years, and it's doubtful that the net gain in employment would be significant (jobs would be lost -- regulators who are no longer needed will be on the job market competing with everyone else). But that suits the Republicans: they don't want to see any improvement in the economy for at least a year and a half.

At this point Republicans will argue that market forces will take the place of regulation. The problem is that market forces -- if they work at all -- are slow, retroactive and punitive. In the meantime, you just wind up with a lot of dead, maimed and sickened people who would otherwise be living and healthy if we had a modicum of sensible proactive regulations.

The Republicans have a three-pronged approach that would actually make individual consumers powerless against big companies, which belies their anti-regulatory fervor: 1) eliminate regulations, 2) eliminate the ability of consumers to sue companies in civil court with "tort reform" and class action suits, and 3) eliminate the government's ability to regulate mergers and prevent monopolies. Together, these three Republican tenets completely undermine the ability of market forces to reign companies in.

Without regulations, making bad products is not illegal. If you die in a car accident because the car doesn't have air bags or crumple zones, it's not the car manufacturer's fault. It's your fault for having the accident or buying the wrong car. If the brakes fail it's not the manufacturer's fault, it's yours because were driving too fast, braked too hard, drove through water, or didn't maintain them properly. If lots of people die in similar accidents, you can't band together to sue the companies for making faulty products because of tort reform and the elimination of class action lawsuits. And since there's no limit on how large companies can get, eventually there will only be one or two car companies. You won't be able to buy a car somewhere else. Your choice will be to own a car or not own a car. And since the oil companies and car companies have destroyed our rail system and Republicans work tirelessly every day to defund public transit, that choice comes down to no choice at all.

In particularly egregious cases where the publicity could adversely affect the company, they will be able to buy the silence of victims or their relatives, or if the victims have some spine the companies will be able spend unlimited amounts of money to discredit or otherwise sue their victims into silence.

In the worst case, the company can just declare bankruptcy. All the principals can just walk away with their personal fortunes intact. They would even be able to buy the assets of the bankrupt company for pennies on the dollar, and do exactly the same thing again under a new name.

Market forces only work when there's a market; they do not function when there's a monopoly. The logical outcome of Republican policies would be total domination of the American economy by market-segmented monopolies owned by foreign conglomerates. These interlocking monopolies will include media outlets, which means bad publicity -- the last remaining check against corporate abuses in the Republican Utopia -- can be prevented by another head of the giant multinational corporate hydra.

Our government doesn't make regulations just for the hell of it. Regulations forbid the use of lead in gasoline and paint because it causes brain damage in children and developing fetuses. Regulations limit emissions from power plants because polluted air kills people with asthma, and causes lung disease in otherwise healthy people. Car safety standards -- regulations -- save people's lives by reducing the forces in collisions on passengers.

If Republicans are really pro-life, they can't categorically condemn all regulations, because regulations have saved literally millions of lives.

And Republicans really aren't against all regulation: they want to regulate who you marry, how you can divorce, whether you have an abortion, how you talk to your doctor, who you have sex with, what kind of birth control you can use, what kinds of drugs you take, who can move into this country, who you can hire, and on and on. They claim to want us to take personal responsibility for our own actions, but do everything they can to allow corporations to avoid responsibility for their actions. They want to regulate our personal and social behavior -- our individual liberties -- but want corporations to be free to do anything they want. All they're really doing is carrying out the agendas of their various campaign contributors with no real ideology other than what their "think tanks" can cobble together as a bunch of talking points.

This mantra of "less regulation" is just a smokescreen, a lie carefully concocted to make it seem like Republicans are for personal freedom and responsibility, when all they're really doing is delaying serious action for making Americans' lives better.

The Insider

A while back, Nikto put up a post questioning his chiding of me  when I had referred to the current form of the GOP as a cult. I had decided before that to end the use of the word "cult" in reference to right wingers. I have to admit that this has been difficult what with the shoe fitting and all. Opinion pieces by Richard Cohen are flattering but still are just that-opinions.

But now that Mike Lofgren (left), a GOP Congressional Staffer who focused on budget and national security issues for 28 years, has released his Manzi-like analysis of the right, it seems that my initial assertions have been fully validated. To say that his piece is brilliant is the understatement of the political season. He sums up everything I have been saying for years on this blog.

It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe.

Gee, I wonder which country he is referring to?:) Lofgren's piece goes beyond what I said because he saw all of this for himself. In other words, he is a primary source.  which means we have now gone past folks like Cohen and me and we are now starting to hear first hand experiences.

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

I'd say "Mission Accomplished" on this front. Congress's approval rating stands at 11 percent. He goes on to state the obvious (the Tea Party is "filled with lunatics") and reveal a sad truth (the GOP used a routine debt ceiling vote to create“an entirely artificial fiscal crisis.”) Of course, the GOP aren't his only targets.

The main reason the Democrats' health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is the Democrats' rank capitulation to corporate interests - no single-payer system, in order to mollify the insurers; and no negotiation of drug prices, a craven surrender to Big Pharma. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks.

I'd go along with most of that. The problem with the health care bill was the corporations and the Democrats horse shit way of packaging it. Lofgren has a great line about this as well.

Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? - can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative "Obamacare" won out. Contrast that with the Republicans' Patriot Act. You're a patriot, aren't you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn't the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?

Hmm...I think someone listened on that last one:)

It's important to note that Lofgren recognizes the contrast here.

But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.

Lofgren's piece is lengthy so that's certainly enough for now. I'll be taking pieces of it over the next few weeks and throwing it out in smaller posts with commentary because it's just that amazing.

Not only do I feel validated about my previous thoughts regarding conservatives but my inkling to go back to referring to the right as a Cult has mostly vanished. After all, we've got insiders like Mike Lofgren out there now.

I wonder how many more will start popping up as the election gets closer and the prospect of putting one of these "lunatics" in the White House gets closer to reality.

Cheering Voices In My Head

Listen for the cheering at about the one minute mark after Wolf asks his follow up question.



Must be a whole bunch of voices in my head!

Dollars and Cents and 9/11

In 2001 37,862 people died in car accidents in the United States. In 2001 16,037 people were murdered. In 2001 30,622 people committed suicide. In 2001 millions of people died from heart disease, cancer, kidney disease, liver disease and so on. In 2001 2,996 people died in the 9/11 attacks.

As a result of those attacks we have spent about a trillion dollars on increased "homeland security" either directly on government expenditures, or indirectly on increased costs to business and the public for airport security and other measures. We have spent a trillion dollars on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and will likely spend trillions more "stabilizing" post-war Iraq and Afghanistan, and caring for the veterans wounded in those wars. More than 6,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than 50,000 have been seriously wounded, many maimed for life.

Has the money, blood and tears we spent in the ten years since 9/11 yielded benefits in national security and lives saved commensurate with the costs? Slate has been running a series of articles about this, and the answer seems to be a definite "no." To justify the amount of money we're spending on security we'd have to prevent 1,667 Times Square-style attacks every year.

Certainly, some of the security measures taken since 9/11 have made us safer. But does anyone seriously believe taking our shoes off before getting on an airplane makes us safer? The shoe bomber failed. The underwear bomber failed, so why are 6 oz. cans of shaving cream forbidden on planes? Flight 93 showed why we don't need sky marshals -- after 9/11 we're all sky marshals.

There's been a lot of talk about the existential threat of radical Islamic terrorism. But the reality is that Al Qaeda cannot mount any kind of serious threat to the existence of the United States. Even if in the worst case they managed to obtain and detonate a nuclear device. Yes, they can hurt people, thousands of people, but they can never destroy this country. There aren't enough of them and we're too big and too strong. To put it in easily understood terms, anyone who really thinks Al Qaeda could possibly threaten our very existence is a coward and a wimp and hates America.

Yes, we need to take security measures. But we just can't afford to buy every expensive X-ray machine that's being hawked at the government. Even though the risk of cancer from those machines is very low, the increased cancer rate in the employees who run them will probably be greater than the number of deaths from terrorist acts prevented.

We accept all kinds of risks on a daily basis without a second thought. In mere seconds the Fort Hood shooter and Jared Loughner killed and wounded dozens of people with guns almost anyone can buy almost anywhere. But having guns everywhere is a risk we're willing to accept. Ten times more people die in car accidents every year than died in 9/11, but people still think nothing of speeding 10 or 20 miles over the limit, we still allow people to drink and drive, we still give 16-year-olds licenses, and many jurisdictions still have speed limits that far exceed the average person's ability reaction time, especially considering how many of us talk on cell phones while driving.

The chance of the average American dying from a radical Islamic terrorist attack is 0.000000285 per year (1 in 3.5 million), or essentially zero. And people who live in rural Alabama or Iowa or Arizona or really anywhere but large cities have, for all practical purposes, zero chance of being killed by Islamic terrorists.

Why are we so willing to spend trillions of dollars to prevent the potential loss of a few thousand lives to terrorism, but dead set against spending that same amount on a single-payer health care plan for the entire country? A plan that would have saved literally millions of actual American lives over the last 10 years? The money we're spending on security and the wars and their aftermath would do more to wipe out the debt problem than the work product of the debt supercommittee. Even modest increases in

The truth is, it's not about saving lives. It's about revenge. We will go to any lengths to frustrate Al Qaeda's plans, because we want to deny them the satisfaction of beating us. There's no easily identified villain involved in car accidents, or suicide, or heart disease, or cancer. Even though we know exactly what causes them -- alcohol and drug consumption, distracted and speeding drivers, poor diet -- we are still totally complacent about them even though they will cause us far more harm than Al Qaeda ever could.

Ten

Ten years ago today this forum started in email form. It became an outlet for my immediate and very justifiable anger over the September 11th attacks. A few years later, my friend Phil set up this site to continue the long discussions over what transpired that day.

Over the years, the site has obviously changed. The focus back then was on foreign policy. These days, it's mostly about politics. Part of me regrets the change but another part of me is happy that it happened. In many ways, I think I needed to put the horror of that day behind me and that's a big reason why I shifted to more political rants. I suppose in some ways it's avoidance and denial. Even as I watch the anniversary shows that have been on of late, it all seems so unreal.

The jumpers...I'll never forget the jumpers...

And I think that all of us who remember that day so well can't help but imagine planes flying into buildings nearly every time we see a simple jet flying over head in the bright blue sky.

The loss of life on that day is still too overwhelming for me to comprehend. When I stop and think about it, I can't help but cry in thinking about the people who will never see their loved ones again. My tears turn to frustration when I try to explain to the young people whom I see every day and who were very young at the time of the attacks just how awful that day was...only to get back reactions of indifference.

During those first few months after 9-11, I was so filled with anger and hate that I lost a lot my rationality. I watched quite a bit of Fox News and listened to the local right wing radio station (AM 1280) nearly every day. I argued vociferously with a poster and friend of mine named Charlie that we should invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat. My bigotry towards Muslims was seemingly infinite and it wouldn't be shocking to hear me back then say that they were essentially animals.

After several months, I looked at what I had become and hated it. I lost touch with my ideological roots and realized, through personal experience, how easy it was for the right to enlist foot soldiers with their propaganda. In many ways, the 9-11 attacks were a boon for the cottage industry that is conservatism today. With such a large audience willing to spend their hard earned money on anger, hate and fear, who can blame them for wanting to make millions? And they do...

So, I spent some time doing some serious reflection, much of which was played out in the early days of this site. I got back in touch with my convictions and let a lot of the narrow views that I had towards Islam, for example, fall away. Throughout this time, I came to a very clear realization.

We can't fight extremism with extremism. As with nearly everything else they propose, the right in this country are under the impression that we have to become religious extremists to fight religious extremism. In fact, it's the opposite. We have to use our reason and logic to prevail. In other words, our intelligence. In particular, we have to recognize that our military might alone will never work. In fact, we have a much more powerful tool that we are using that has been far more effective: our soft power.

Earlier this year, I got an iPhone 4. A few days after I bought it, I was fiddling around with it during an exam at school. Three Muslim women, dressed in the customary garb, approached my desk. For a moment, I imagind how puckered your garden variety conservative's butt hole would become. I chuckled as it would have been my butt hole 8-10 years ago! I assumed they all wanted to go to the bathroom (the question a teacher gets asked more than anything else) but that wasn't it.

"Um...we wanted to know...is that the iPhone 4?" one asked.
"Yes," I responded.
"Ooo! Can we check it out?" another giggled. All of their eyes lit up.

And there it was. America's soft power on brilliant display.

We will always prevail in our struggle against the people who attacked us 9-11 and it is largely due to our economic might. The lure of open markets and free trade is much more powerful than the call to return to 12th century Islam. The children of the people who may have supported the 9-11 attacks have already succumbed to free market ideals and the prosperity that comes with the liberal global market place.

To put it simply, they want to drink a Coke, eat a Big Mac, and geek out on their iPhones.

The hirabis know that this is our most powerful weapon. This is why they targeted the World Trade Center-a world financial landmark. They knew that once this sort of ideal takes hold, it's impossible to reverse. There's no going back from the benefits of freedom and the hirabis know that they lose that battle every single time. Their only hope right now for any sort of victory is that the extremists in our own culture--and you know who I am talking about--give them red meat to feed to their own version of the base with the hopes of growing its population.

Let's not give them gifts and continue to focus on the most effective strategies that deter extremism. I've worked very hard to overcome my biases towards Islam and would be a liar if I said I am completely over them. It's pretty easy, though, and doesn't require any effort. We share the same ideals as they do...as everyone who cherishes freedom does. After all, one of the most common sayings among Muslims (something I use to greet all of my Islamic students) is "As-Salamu Alaykum."

Peace be upon you.

Great Speech But...

The president reset the table last night with his jobs speech before both houses of Congress. Here are my thoughts:

First, we all knew he would give a good speech. That's one of his strengths. But the tone was stronger than usual...more forceful...basically he's not fucking around and I like that. This was evident as we watched the color slowly drain out of GOP faces.

Second, he's got details. Here is the fact sheet to peruse. Next week, he is sending the bill to Congress and the week after he is submitting his own deficit reduction plan for the Debt Committee to consider. Included in that will be how this is going to be paid for and it will be deficit neutral which will mean more cuts.

Some items that jump out at me from the fact sheet:

Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.

As Manzi said, we are over regulated in some areas and under regulated in others.

Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country,supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.

If we are going to seriously compete in the world's labor force, we are going to have to do this and more. Other countries are surpassing us in this area and it needs to change.

A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.

Hallelujah! Nor hiring someone because they have been unemployed for a long time is ridiculous.

Obviously, we are going to see more details in the coming weeks but so far this is an impressive list.

Third, finally a piece of legislation with a simple name...The American Jobs Act. No one remembers the health care bill's name-they just know it as "Obamacare." They will remember this one.

Fourth, it's a win-win politically. If Congress passes the bill or some elements of it, he wins. If they don't, he is seen as giving effort to solve the jobs problem and Congress is seen as an impediment. With their poll numbers even further in the toilet, they can ill afford to be seen as obstructionist. The GOP, in particular, better try to salvage something after the debt crisis debacle. They received very poor marks from the American people on that one as well as the business community. As soon as the Tea Party becomes a liability for business (which they may have already), say buh-bye to them.

Finally, last night is yet another example of how the president and many Democrats actually have substance behind their proposed solutions. Most of the GOP have neither substance nor solutions. All they have is the ability to show you how to be afraid of something and who is responsible for it.

GDP Growth

Jobs Chart

GOP Debate Post Mortem

I think the most telling moment in last nights GOP at the Reagan Library came here.



Cheering that people were executed. I can't think of a more accurate summation of the conservative movement today...

Given this sort of behavior it's not surprising that the candidates (with the exception of Jon Huntstman) took facts and chucked them out the window. Both AP and Politfact have broken done their ridiculously devoid of fact statements.

Here are a couple of my favorites.

PERRY: On global warming, "The science is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just, is nonsense. ... Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy."

THE FACTS: The scientific consensus on climate change is about as settled as any major scientific issue can be. Perry's opinion runs counter to the view of an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. The National Academy of Sciences, in an investigation requested by Congress, concluded last year: "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks to humans and the environment."

National Academy Schamational Academy...the right wing blogs say otherwise...it's a plot by the left to steal the fruits of my labor, damnit!

And who could forget this old classic...right up there with "Obama's A Socialist!"

PEERY: Social Security is indeed a Ponzi Scheme.

THE FACTS (via Mitchell Zuckoff, author of "Ponzi's Scheme,"): "First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled. Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns.

"Second, A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted. That's when the last people to participate are out of luck; the music stops and there's nowhere to sit. It's true that Social Security faces a huge burden — and a significant, long-term financing problem — in light of retiring Baby Boomers...But Social Security can be, and has been, tweaked and modified to reflect changes in the size of the taxpaying workforce and the number of beneficiaries. It would take great political will, but the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."

"Third, Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme... At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see "Social") resolved to create a safety net (see "Security") in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers.By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones.That might rankle, but it's not fraud... None of this is to suggest that Social Security is a perfect system or that there aren't sizeable problems facing the incoming administration and Congress. But it's not a Ponzi scheme. And Ponzi himself, who died in a hospital charity ward with only enough money for his burial, would never have recognized it as his own."

So, to recap, applause for death, no facts...sounds about right for the right.

Overall, here are my thoughts on each candidate in attendance in order of whom I thought did the best.

Jon Huntsman: Languishing down in single digits, Huntsman has no hope of winning the nomination with the GOP being as far right as it is. It's too bad because he's one of the last good conservatives out there and his comments last night were very honest and poignant.

Mitt Romney: For once, the ol' Mittster looked very comfortable. His command was excellent, he went toe to toe with Perry and struck a a stark contrast with him intelligence wise, and actually had a few things to say that weren't all that bad.

Ron Paul: Ever eternal and infinite, Paul said all his usual stuff and could spoil Perry's chances in states where he has big following by sucking away votes from the Texas Governor. This will benefit Romney.

Rick Perry: I guess you could say he did well in the red meat department but his doubling down on Social Security is going to hurt him with seniors.

Cain, Santorum, Gingrich:Who cares? But they still did better than...

Michele Bachmann:Sad, but I think last night was the end of the Shelley experiment. The Spring romance with her is over and many of her supporters have gone to Perry. Does this mean Palin will get into the race?

Hmmm...what if she runs as an independent?

God Messes with Texas

Every time calamity strikes, religious zealots are quick to proclaim that this is God punishing us for some imagined slight. Last week it was Michele Bachmann, who joked (or did she?) that God had sent the earthquake and the hurricane to Washington as a message.

Jerry Falwell claimed 9/11 happened because pagans and abortionists had turned America into a secular society. Pat Robertson has been particularly profligate with God's curses, claiming in 1998 that God would smite Orlando for being soft on gays, and that the earthquake in Haiti was God's punishment for a pact they made with the devil to escape from slavery centuries ago. But then Hurricane Bonnie hammered Robertson's compound in Virginia Beach in 1998. I guess God doesn't like false prophets.

The right has been curiously silent about the heat, drought and wildfires ravaging Texas. Much of Texas has been suffering through 100+ degree temperatures for almost three straight months. Isn't it obvious why?

The Republican Party has controlled Texas for years. They have made it a paradise for oil companies and big business. Few environmental regulations, low wages, no health insurance, lax workplace safety regulation enforcement (especially at oil refineries), plenty of corporate welfare.

Yet God has cursed Texas with a Biblical plague of fire and brimstone. Looking at some of the pictures coming from Bastrop you would think Texas is Hell on Earth.

I mean, if there is a God, and He's picking punishments that fit the offense, it's not particularly ironic to hit Washington with a minor earthquake or a low-end hurricane to punish bickering politicians. You'd expect a plague of laryngitis or flatulence or satyriasis.

But subjecting Texas -- the state that exemplifies the Big Oil, climate-change-is-a-liberal-lie mentality -- to 110-degree temperatures on a daily basis for months on end seems like a fitting punishment.

Sad to say, God isn't behind the drought and the heat wave. But we do know who is: human contributions to climate change are making a bad situation worse. We've already had 10 multibillion dollar weather disasters this year, and the hurricane season still has three or four months to go -- and we're already halfway through the named storm alphabet.

Will Bachmann play the God card in the debate tonight? Will she claim that God is punishing Rick Perry for his poor environmental record, his coddling of Big Oil, his dismissal of human-caused climate change? Or will she just admit that Texas is starting to choke and burn in their own waste products?

Are You Going To Help Them?

If you want to find out what the world would look like if the Koch Brothers ran it, take a look at income and wealth inequality right now and double it. Hell, triple it. After you have done that, explain to me how things are going to be better when our economy is two thirds consumer spending. If more people have less money and less people have more money, it's going to get worse because the consumer base is going to be so small.

The Kochs realize that they now have a fairly large audience that they can hoodwink into doing their bidding. They also realize President Obama and the Democrats (as well as a few Republicans) are a very large obstacle standing in their way. So what do they do? Compare Barack Obama to Saddam Hussein.



This is an audio recording of Charles Koch rallying his troops last June at their retreat last June. I find it very interesting that all of the things the Kochs do are highly secretive and rarely on display for the press. What are they hiding? To me, it's obvious.

Like the mob, they want to bust the joint out-the joint being America. They don't give a shit about the country or most of its people. They care about accumulating wealth and power. Period. More of it continually would be better. They are pathological in their pursuit of this and are clearly approaching the point in which they will do anything to further this goal.

Are you going to help them?

Back To School

As students across my state head back to school today, I was very heartened by a recent conversation with my gym buddy, Edward. Recall that Edward is an evangelical minister and is just about as right wing as you can be.

As were lifting he turned to me and asked what was involved in becoming a teacher. I told him and then asked why he was interested. He said he was thinking of becoming one at either the secondary level or college. He'd like to have another job in addition to the ministry that he runs and, with his wife's business struggling right now, he thought it might be a good field to look into for some stability. Of course, I told him that the high pay and exotic travelling were a big plus:)

Even though he and I differ on our ideological views, I was pretty amped that we was interested. Quite honestly, we need all the help we can get. I know that wherever he ends up, he is going to push his religious beliefs but I don't really care. Yes, he believes in Republican Jesus but at least he has convictions. So many people today don't. Maybe a few kids will be inspired and motivated by him to actually give a shit about something other than fucking X Box or their smart phone and go out into the world and be productive. And this is what led us to a point of mutual agreement that made me happy on this, the first day of school.

Parents suck.

Actually, they don't just suck. The majority of them are doing a fucking horrible job. He sees it every Sunday in church and I see it every day in school. All of us see it when we go to Target or Wal Mart. In fact, Edward said, "Liberal and progressive ideals are not the problem in schools. Parents are the problem in schools and in places like my church." He then went on to tell me a series of stories of incidents he has seen over the years at church which echo what I see every day in school. They ranged from a complete inability to discipline to encouraging children to misbehave.

The main avenue of socialization of children is parents. For a wide variety of reasons, they have ceded this authority to people outside of their home. People like me and Edward are ill equipped to handle the individual needs of so many children. So, they end up being socialized by their friends and the corporate owned media. I don't know about any of you other parents out there but I wouldn't trust the socialization of a styrofoam cup with several of my children's friends. To begin with, none of them have basic manners. Their social skills suck and most seem to care only about sports. And many of them are socialized by corporations as well so everything is geared around the incentive of materialism. Even at grade school age, they have smart phones and watch endless hours of TV. Why?

Because their parents are too busy, either with work or simply being selfish and lazy, to hang out with them and do something. To put it simply, parents don't raise their children anymore. Parents don't fucking parent. They can't be bothered to do it so it's left up to people like me and Edward. Unfortunately, this leads to both of us (especially me) getting the blame when a child isn't doing well. Geez, you'd think I could easily socialize 100+ kids a day and turn them ALL into winners. What a lazy ass I am! With parents, it's always someone else's fault...never their own.

This is largely what our culture has become, though, so I guess I shouldn't be shocked. We are a nation filled with people who completely fail when it comes to reflection. It's easier to blame someone else or come up with wild eyed conspiracy theories on why our schools have these problems. Pointing the finger at the parents simply isn't done.

Even if we could point the finger at them, what then? We can't force parents to do a better job. Can we? If so, how?

Where We Are

We used to be a nation that makes things. Now we are a nation that makes things up.

---Arianna Huffington, 30 Aug 2011.

No shit, A-Train. I can't think of a more perfect message for Labor Day.

More Of This, Please...

Hallelujah and Polarity

The regret is — the Republican candidates out in the field are not calling for a dramatic new direction of — Father help me, but i agree with Dr. Jeffrey Sachs. The United States — the United States is in virtual headlong retreat from the world. We’re coming out of all these places. We are bankrupt as a nation. We cannot balance our budget.

The great blunder was made by George W. Bush when he had the whole country and the world behind him and he went up to Congress and declared ‘now we’re going after an axis of evil; Iraq, Iran and North Korea.’ We are plunging into that part of the world instead of fighting al-Qaeda and handling it the way he should have. As a consequence of that, I think he broke the Republican party and frankly, he broke the United States as a superpower. We are a diminishing superpower today and there is no doubt China is a rising one.

Praise Jesus! Finally, an admittance of how we got here.No doubt about it...Al Gore would have been a better president and we would not as fucked as we are now.

2011: A Space Junkyard

Space is a vast and empty void, right? Like the earth itself, it is so outrageously immense that we could never possibly affect it in any material way, right? Well, we've already managed to fill it full of junk after only sixty years.

Yes, there is so much junk in space now that astronauts on the space station recently had to take shelter when a piece of debris came within 1,000 or so feet. And this isn't an isolated incident. They had to do this in 2009 as well. Also in 2009 Iridium 33, one of the Iridium Constellation satellites, collided with Kosmos 2251, a defunct Russian satellite. (Iridium is a planet-wide network of 66 satellites in polar orbits used for satellite phones and pagers.)

What is all this junk? Some of it is old satellites, like Kosmos 2251. The Russians were notorious for launching lots of satellites with extremely short lifetimes, and they rarely bothered to deorbit them, something which NASA usually does to avoid this problem. Some of the junk is stuff that was dropped off manned spacecraft. Some of it is from intentionally destroyed satellites -- like the one the Chinese killed with an anti-satellite weapon in 2007.

But half the junk is debris from accidents like the Iridium-Kosmos collision. Which means that in the near term (10-20 years) the problem is going to get worse. Each time there's another collision there'll be that more much junk created, creating a cascade effect of more and more debris, causing more and more collisions.

Why is this stuff so dangerous? Orbital velocity in LEO (low-earth orbit) is about 17,000 miles an hour. A lot of satellites orbit in the same direction, a more-or-less equatorial orbit. But some satellites -- like Iridium and American spy satellites -- are in polar orbits so that they can, over time, communicate with or spy on any point on earth. When a polar satellite hits an equatorial satellite the amount of kinetic energy is huge. When the debris from that collision hits something else, it's still going 17,000 mph, and even a small bolt going that fast can totally destroy a satellite or the solar panels that power it.

In the long run the very thin atmosphere in LEO will eventually bring down most of the debris, as it brought down Skylab in 1979 (controllers changed the orientation to aim it, but it didn't land exactly where they wanted it to). But we'll probably have to take some action before then, as we put more and more things into orbit.

Many satellites have thrusters to correct their orbits (remember Jack Bauer always asking Chloe to reposition spy satellites for him?). Those thrusters could be used to deorbit the satellites. The problem is that their fuel is finite: the choice is between using the fuel for a longer useful lifetime for the satellite or for sending it to a fiery death in the atmosphere to eliminate the chance of collision.

The thing about this "pollution" in space is that it doesn't really hurt space or the planet earth at all. But it can hurt us. If our weather satellites are taken out by random junk, our ability to track hurricanes can be severely degraded, and people could die because they didn't get sufficient warning.

In a way, space junk is like global warming: the seemingly small increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels poses no direct threat to the planet, and it won't even kill all humankind. Directly. But it will cause the temperature to rise several degrees, which will cause polar ice to melt, which will cause the seas to rise several feet. That's a trivial increase in sea level in the grand scheme of things, but it so happens that most of our major cities will be flooded. It will disrupt billions of lives, and cost trillions of dollars as we have to either move or protect major cities with dikes as they do in the Netherlands. And that's not even considering the disruptions temperature changes will wreak on farming, water supplies and the lives lost in wars caused by those disruptions.

There always consequences when we throw things away, whether it's old car batteries and computers in the landfill, junker satellites in orbit, antibiotics and birth control pills down the toilet, the exhaust from our cars or the smoke and ash from our coal-fired power plants.

We used to think we could just throw crap away and never see it again. But now there are so many of us, and we create so much trash, that all our waste products eventually just come back around and hit us upside the head like one of those satellites.

Deep In The Heart of Texas

We've heard quite a bit lately from the latest GOP primary presidential candidate, Governor of Texas Rick Perry, about how he is a "job creator." He points to his state of Texas as being an example of what he can do for the entire country. He champions himself as being a less spending, less government and less tax sort of fellow and, by gum, that's just what he is going to do with the federal government if the American people give him a chance.

The problem with all of this is...well...it's not really true.

Take a look at this graphic.

Take note of the bright blue state of Texas. That indicates that Texas is spending at an amount greater than 3% above FY08 levels. How very interesting. Compare them to the other states that are spending less, many of which are not doing as well as Texas. Of course, this all comes with some good news for states in general.

So, Governor Perry doesn't really spend less as he say he does and likely recognizes the benefits of government spending. But what about his other claims?

Factcheck recently released an excellent piece that outlines a series of additional facts as to why Texas is doing so well. It's true that Texas has added a great deal of jobs recently but they have also been doing so since 1970. In other words, that's normal for them. It's really a no brainer when you think about it given that they do have some of that there black gold down those parts.

Throw in jobs being added in the natural gas sector as well as all of those government jobs I have mentioned previously and it makes sense that Texas is the nation's leader in job creation. Yet, this creation of jobs hasn't kept pace with the influx of people an unemployment has risen to 8.4 percent in the last two years. This happened while the national rate was dropping. And Texas, along with Mississippi, has the largest percentage of hourly workers at or below the minimum wage. The lone star state also has the highest percentage of people without health care (26%).

In addition, Texas didn't experience the housing bust as other states did because of...wait for it...government restrictions on loans! What's that you say? The government interfering in the free market to improve a market outcome? Yes. Yes they did. And it benefited the citizens of Texas and their economy.

Finally, while Texans don't pay a personal income tax, they still pay above the national average in sales tax with local municipalities able to add on to that amount. Property taxes (collected at the local level) are among the highest in the nation.

So, Governor Perry's claims make no sense whatsoever when you consider these facts. He talks a good talk game about less spending, less government, and less taxes because he knows that plays well to the true believers. But the reality shows that he is doing what is necessary to govern.

Three For Thursday (1)

Well, it's official. CEOs now make more money than their companies pay in taxes. The only uncertainty they must feel is where to spend all that money. Here are some examples.

* eBay whose CEO John Donahoe made $12.4 million, but which reported a $131 million refund on its 2010 current U.S. taxes.

* Boeing, which paid CEO Jim McNerney $13.8 million, sent in $13 million in federal income taxes, and spent $20.8 million on lobbying and campaign spending

* General Electric where CEO Jeff Immelt earned $15.2 million in 2010, while the company got a $3.3 billion federal refund and invested $41.8 million in its own lobbying and political campaigns.

So, where are all these high taxes I keep hearing so much that are holding back business? It's very clear to me....I'd say very CERTAIN...that with these low numbers, we also have a revenue problem in addition to a spending problem.

But, hey, being this low on the list of income inequality is no big deal at all. We're only...like what?...60th or something? And the fact that the eroding skills of our work force, due to this inequality, are causing us to fall behind in the global economy should also be of no concern, right?

I'm just being my usual ol' silly self.

Three For Thursday (2)

Many of the Obama supporters I know are very worried about the president's low approval numbers of late (the low 40s). I'm concerned as well but when you consider that the question is "do you approve or disapprove of the way the president is handling his job?" there are clearly many liberals who don't approve.

Take one of my FB friends, Tim, for example. Here is his latest status update.

Barack Obama is a great Republican president ...for me to poop on.

Tim thinks that the president is a corporate shill just like Bush. He would be one of those who does not approve of the president.

The other reason Obama supporters shouldn't be as nervous about the poll numbers is this article I have been saving since last March.

The 2010 Census revealed that in the past decade the adult Latino population has nearly doubled in Nevada, Virginia, and North Carolina. Also, it's increased by 60 percent or more in two Midwestern battleground states, Indiana and Ohio.

Obama won all five of those states in 2008 — two of them by very narrow margins — and they are likely to be decisive in next year’s balloting.

National exit poll surveys in 2008 indicated that Obama won about two out of three Latino voters.Based on 2008 exit poll data, if Latino voters were subtracted from the total, Obama would have lost two of the states that he won: New Mexico and Indiana.

Since it's clear that the GOP is doing pretty much everything it can to alienate Latino voters, the president is going to benefit greatly from this demographic.

Three For Thursday (3)

Yesterday was a classic example of the 8 year old boy temper tantrum bullies on the right. President Obama's office contacted Speaker Boehner's office to let them know that the president wanted to address a joint session of Congress next Wednesday. Rather than say no publicly, before the official letter was sent, they said nothing. Obama's staff wrongfully assumed that this meant the night was OK.

But Boehner's staff was waiting for the opportunity to "prove" that they are the cocks of the walk by standing up, saying no, and putting on a show for their base. They got this opportunity when the president's office sent the formal letter. Boehner and his staff knew that the GOP debate was scheduled that night. They also knew they had an out with next Wednesday being the first day Congress is back in session for the fall. So, they issued their imperial NO and looked all that, marking the first time in our nation's history that a president has been told no to address Congress. It was "You lie!" on steroids.

President Obama, being the adult of the two, switched to Thursday and has now turned his attention to the actual reason he is going there: jobs and the larger issue of improving the economy. This whole episode is indicative of how GOP extremism is eroding our ability to get anything done. Of course, that's what they want (him to fail) so it shouldn't be surprising that they did what they did. What is surprising to me is that the president continues to operate under the assumption that he is dealing with adults.

He's not.

Knowing What They Want To Believe

It's hard to not be terrified in reading Paul Krugman's recent piece regarding the GOP's emerging anti science campaign. A living example of this is the current front runner of the GOP field for president, Governor of Texas Rick Perry, saying that "more and more scientists are questioning global warming. Let's examine Perry's claim first.

To put it simply, he's wrong and here's exactly why he is wrong.

The IPCC, the US Global Change Research Program, and earlier this year the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences all are in agreement on the sources of climate change and why it is happening. The last two concluded that climate change is occurring, that it is caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and that it poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. It specifically rejected the view that that those findings are in some way questionable

This committee organized by the NRC and the Academy had this to say.

Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanations.

Further, the Academy also did a study which found that 97-98 percent of those scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change that human beings are causing climate change. Other surveys reveal the same percentages.

Of course, Perry also hauled the classic "faulty or manipulated data" line which has been thoroughly debunked by three separate reviews. This brings us to Krugman's Anti Science piece.

I could point out that Mr. Perry is buying into a truly crazy conspiracy theory, which asserts that thousands of scientists all around the world are on the take, with not one willing to break the code of silence. I could also point out that multiple investigations into charges of intellectual malpractice on the part of climate scientists have ended up exonerating the accused researchers of all accusations. But never mind: Mr. Perry and those who think like him know what they want to believe, and their response to anyone who contradicts them is to start a witch hunt.

For those of you who are in the GOP or on the right, is this really the direction you want to head? It's honestly just another example of how there is literally nothing behind your ideology other than proving the other side wrong...your central credo being, "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

Krugman points out where we might be headed.

We don’t know who will win next year’s presidential election. But the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic, and more — that’s a terrifying prospect.

Amen, brother. And this is why I have this site.

The Republican Reformation

Markadelphia has yet again vented his spleen about the Republican Party and how it is ultimately doomed, but again I think he is off base. It's not doomed, it's just going through a very messy Reformation, as England did during the rule of Henry VIII. The Tea Partyers see themselves as saviors of the Republican Party, modern Luthers, but a better analogy is Thomas Cromwell.

At that time the Catholic Church was riven by schism. Lutherans in the Germanic countries split off from Rome. Luther felt the papacy was corrupt, it was obsessed with money and material goods, it allowed sinners to buy indulgences, it engaged in idolatry, it had too many saints and minor deities like Mary, it forbade the common people to read the word of God (William Tyndale translated the Bible into English and was hanged for it), and it set the priesthood up as a wall between the people and Christ.

In England this played out differently. There were some Lutheran-style reformationists, but there were many who remained loyal to the Catholic Church, including the Henry's first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and her daughter Mary, who eventually became queen. Catherine could not give Henry a son and he wanted the marriage dissolved so he could remarry a more fecund bride.

Thomas More, Henry's chancellor, was a solid Catholic. He opposed the Reformation and burned heretics at the stake (he was eventually canonized). He was opposed to Henry's divorce, and was ultimately executed.

Thomas Cromwell, who became Henry's chief minister, used his position to push the English Church into the Reformation, rounding up and executing his religious and political enemies. He also closed down many monasteries and other religious institutions and took their money for the king and himself.

(Incidentally, this history makes it obvious why America's founding fathers believed wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state. These very conflicts caused so many people to flee England to America. It wasn't Muslims killing Christians, this was Christians killing Christians because one believed that holy wafers were actually Christ's flesh, and the other thought it was just a bland cracker.)

Cromwell got Henry his divorce from Catherine, and the English church split from Rome. Henry married Anne Boleyn, who bore him Elizabeth who eventually became queen. Anne never gave Henry a son and was ultimately executed on charges of infidelity and incest, which were almost certainly trumped up. Henry then married Jane Seymour, who did give him a son, but she died in childbirth.

It was Cromwell's fanatical zeal that did him in. He forced Henry into a marriage with Anne of Cleves in order to more closely ally England with the Lutheran countries. Henry married Ann just five days after meeting her, even though he had no attraction to her, and the marriage was annulled before being consummated. Cromwell was executed for treason, heresy and corruption. But his real crime was being a bad matchmaker.

Then Henry married Catherine Howard, a girl many years his junior, who did commit adultery, and was executed for it. Finally he married Catherine Parr who outlived him.

What can we learn from this history? Cromwell's Reformationist zeal is much like the Tea Party's. He was willing to kill on the slightest pretext of heresy, in exactly the same way the Tea Party radicals are willing, nay, eager, to destroy traditionally conservative Republicans like Orrin Hatch. The Tea Party is conducting a hunt for heretics, and are finding them everywhere. The Tea Party cry is "Convert or die!" Heretics will be burned at the stake.

But the Tea Party, like Cromwell forcing Anne of Cleves on Henry, is in danger of forcing an unelectable presidential candidate on the Republican Party. By holding the country's economy hostage to their debt-ceiling dogma, the Tea Party's negatives are going up all around, most importantly among independents with a conservative bent.

The evangelicals and Reformationists were a minority in England, and even though they held great power while they enjoyed the king's favor, in the end the traditional bent of the clergy, the people and the nobles won the day, and many of the reforms that Cromwell and his ilk killed for went by the wayside. Since then the Anglican Church has been much more like the Catholic Church than the evangelical and Lutheran churches, and for many years there was talk of reunification (women and gay priests have pretty much ended that).

In the long run the Republican Party is inherently conservative, and will return to the conservative roots it had before the current wave of Tea Party radicalism. Over the last 50 to 80 years Social Security and Medicare and the concepts underlying them have become part of the fabric of American society. They have problems, but Americans want them fixed, not destroyed. The Tea Party was born in opposition to the health care law, even though everyone knows we need some kind of health care reform, and that means some kind of collective responsibility for all Americans' health. Opposition to health care reform is a prelude to the demolition of Medicare and Social Security. The Tea Party's fervent zeal to destroy them will ultimately fail when America's elderly -- the people who vote in the greatest numbers -- finally realize what the Tea Party has in store for them.

It's tempting to assign historical roles to the modern players in the Republican Party. Sarah Palin as Anne Boleyn for seducing John McCain and causing a terrible schism in the Republican Party. Michele Bachmann as Catherine Howard, the crazy bimbo. Karl Rove as Thomas More, for executing Reformationists like Christine O'Donnell. Grover Norquist as Thomas Cromwell, for going after anyone in the old guard who dares cross him and his radical tax-cut theology. And Rick Perry as Henry VIII, for executing more people in Texas than any other governor, including the insane, mentally deficient and children (Henry had a law passed allowing the execution of the insane so that Lady Rochford, who helped Catherine Howard arrange her adulterous liaisons and went mad while imprisoned in the Tower of London, could be beheaded).

In the end, if the Republicans run a Tea-Party turkey and lose to Obama in 2012, the Tea Party will find its head on the executioner's block just like Thomas Cromwell did.

The (Grand Old) Party is Over

Right after the 2008 election I made the mistake of saying that the GOP was essentially finished. Later, I realized that I failed to take into account the fear, anger and hatred in their base that would keep them going and achieve marginal victories.

Lately, however, I have begun to realize that I made the mistake of looking at this in the same way the right does: "winning" the argument and "proving" people wrong. The election of 2010, for example, could be seen as a repudiation of President Obama and the Democrat's policies. The GOP won back the House in a landslide victory so that must mean that they're not dead by a long shot, right?

Wrong.

I submit that they are dead and it's only a matter of time before the coroner's final report. Further, I'm not just talking about the GOP. I'm talking about the majority of the right today including libertarians and the Tea Party.

The problem here is that most people are thinking about this in terms of winning elections and not actually solving problems. Solving problems implies that you have solutions. The right don't have any solutions. Zero. Go down the line on every issue and I challenge anyone to show me that the ideas of the right have worked in any sort of practical situation. There is no evidence for this on any sort of serious scale. For the last 30 years, they have been miserable fucking failures and continue to say the same things over and over again which, honestly, is a sign of insanity.

Now, I'm talking about their ideology here...the fundamental things they stand for...laissez faire economics...national and international security...health care...abortion...education...the environment...all of them, epic fails with the same answers for each one of these issues. In short, shoving the square peg in the round hole.

I'm certain they are going to continue to win elections in the near future but that isn't because they have been "proved right." Or, more importantly, are doing a good job. It's because people prefer them the way some people like the Dave Matthews Band and I don't. It has nothing to do with results. The Democrats aren't perfect but at least they are trying and it's because of this that they leave themselves open to criticism because they will make mistakes. How nice it must be to have no real solutions but still be able sit back and criticize! It's too bad that there are millions of Americans right now that don't see the obvious: when you only think in terms of winning the argument and proving people wrong, you don't have any substance any more.

In other words, when the only tool in your tool kit is a hammer, everything is a nail.

Another Significant Blow

As the tenth anniversary of the September 11th attacks approaches, I am very heartened to see that the people who attacked us on that day are being taken apart. One of the main reasons why I voted for Barack Obama was his promise to focus more heavily on AfPak (where Al Qaeda actually is) and alter the strategy for dismantling their operational capabilities. His policies have been tremendously effective and much more successful than his predecessor.

Osama bin Laden is dead and the data we seized from his compound that day has led us to strike another crippling blow to Al Qaeda. Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, Al Qaeda's #2, was killed in a recent missile strike in Waziritstan along with four other Al Qaeda members. From the article.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last month that al-Qaida's defeat was within reach if the U.S. could mount a string of successful attacks."Now is the moment, following what happened with bin Laden, to put maximum pressure on them," Panetta said, "because I do believe that if we continue this effort we can really cripple al-Qaida as a major threat."

Al Qaeda's defeat within reach? Amazing. There can be no denying that the Obama administration deserves the credit for this and I think that we may very well see Zawahari taken out by next year as well.

Once again, well done!

Two Voices In My Head

It's been awhile since Rush Limbaugh has been on anyone's radar. That means it's time to haul out something racist.



And while we are on the subject of food...Sarah Palin recently confirmed, in an email discussing her attendance at the Iowa State Fair, just how much the right are like 8 year old boys.

I’m excited to try some of that famous fried butter-on-a-stick, fried cheesecake-on-a-stick, fried Twinkies, etc...in honor of those who’d rather make us just ‘eat our peas.’

WAAHHHH!!!! I don't wanna!!!

Friday Bonanza (Part Four)

It was only a matter of time...

These programs [Social Security and Medicare} actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities. All of a sudden, for an increasing number of people in our nation, it was no longer necessary to worry about saving for security because that was the government’s job.

---Florida Senator Marco Rubio, 8-24-2011.

So, family members and neighbors can cough up the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to take care of someone today? I suppose they can magically solve the inefficiency of health care markets as well. Of course, he completely ignores the FACT that poverty in the elderly dropped by 40 percent as a result of Social Security so, no, these people were not being taken care of at all back in the days of yore. They got sick and died.

Aren't there a lot of elderly people living in Florida? Did they vote for this guy?

Friday Bonanza (Part Three)

With all the anti-science talk lately from the GOP candidates (save the only sane one, Jon Hunstman), I thought it appropriate to share this quote from one of my favorite authors.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" ---Isaac Asimov

Paging Thomas Sowell...

Friday Bonanza (Part Two)

A little while back in comments I submitted the idea that LBJ was complicit in the JFK hit. Apparently, I'm not the only one. 

Friday Bonanza (Part One)

I have a bunch of smaller thoughts that I have been saving so I'll just spill them all out at once for a Friday Bonanza. First up is this piece about the Bachmann cover of Newsweek. Does she have the Crazy Eyes?

Real Class Warfare

Every time someone talks about raising taxes on the wealthy, Republicans scream "Class warfare!" When Warren Buffett called on us to stop coddling the super rich in the New York Times, Republicans instantly labeled him a socialist.

But Republicans are really the ones waging all-out class warfare, mostly against union members, workers in low-paying jobs and the poor. Scott Walker gutted union rights in Wisconsin. Mitch Daniels has been attacking unions in Indiana for years. Boeing is moving its aircraft production from Washington to South Carolina for the express purpose of destroying the union. When the National Labor Relations Board interceded Republican Congressman Darrell Issa filed subpoenas against the NLRB, interfering with an ongoing legal investigation.

Republicans aren't going to stop at unions: they're declaring war on low-paid workers as well. Tea Partyer Austin Scott of Georgia introduced a one-sentence bill to banish the Legal Services Corporation that even Herman Cain can read. Why? Because LSC helped a bunch of American workers sue Hamilton Growers, a company that was found guilty of preferentially hiring foreign workers from Mexico on H-2A visas over Americans.

Republicans will tell us that this is another government agency interfering with private individuals conducting their business as they see fit.

But when Republicans defend companies who are selling out Americans to foreigners, the hypocrisy should become apparent to all. It's not a question of government regulation or individual freedom. It's a question of employers who want to treat employees like interchangeable machines and slaves.

Now conservatives like Ann Coulter, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have gone into full frontal assault with class warfare, directly attacking the nearly half of all Americans who can't pay income tax. They call these people lazy, freeloaders, animals and all manner of nasty names.

What they don't bother to mention is that these people don't pay income tax because they make very little money, or draw Social Security (which is not taxed if you have no other income). They also neglect to mention that the "freeloaders" who draw a salary still pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, and all of them will pay federal gas taxes, federal cigarette taxes if they smoke, taxes on phone bills, state sales taxes, etc. A part-time waitress earning $20,000 may not pay income tax, but she will pay almost $1,000 in payroll taxes.

But Bachmann is still demanding that these "freeloaders" pay "something" even if it's only a dollar. Why? It would cost much more than a dollar for the IRS to process a one-dollar payment. And what if they don't pay? Is Bachmann so vindictive she would sic tax collectors on all those waitresses who owe the symbolic $1, even though it would cost hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars to collect that delinquent one-dollar payment? That would ultimately waste billions and billions of tax dollars on pointless attempts to collect insignificant sums of money. And these same people complain in the next breath about wasteful federal spending.

The Republicans have been using these divisive class warfare tactics for decades, bitching about illegal immigrants, welfare queens and "reverse discrimination." As with the Southern Strategy, they are stoking anger in a very specific segment of the electorate -- lower middle- to middle-class whites, or "real Americans" -- against an inferior segment of the electorate -- this time the working poor and the elderly -- by saying that the working poor and elderly are somehow getting a special deal that "real Americans" have to pay for.

By vilifying the poor and disadvantaged, the Republicans get "real Americans" to demand "justice" because the poor are getting things they don't "deserve." The unspoken code is that rich deserve everything they get, even though they pay proportionally less tax than the "real Americans" they've bamboozled into hating the poor, illegal immigrants and blacks.

Despots have used this trick throughout history to sway public opinion. In the modern United States it's easy to make people hate those they already feel are somehow undeserving and inferior (union members, the poor and other races), and harder to make someone hate that which we all aspire to (wealth and fame). In other countries in other times the targets were Jews, the bourgeoisie, communists, other tribes, Catholics, Protestants, and so on.

What people refuse to admit is that there are good and bad people in all strata of society. There are lazy poor people, and there are lazy rich people. There are union workers who use work rules to sit around, and there are corporate execs who just play golf and fly around on corporate junkets. There are welfare queens who just watch TV and wealthy trust fund babies who pay next to no taxes and just shop all day. There are illegal (and legal) immigrants who steal jobs from American citizens, and CEOs who send millions of American jobs to China and India. And there are poor people who work three minimum-wage jobs non-stop just to keep food on the table, and billionaires who have worked tirelessly to create thousands of jobs for people in this country.

But it's not practical to tax people who don't make enough money to feed, clothe and house themselves. And it's not right to make the wealthy pay for everyone else.

So, I'm not saying soak the rich. I'm saying Warren Buffett, CEOs, hedge fund managers and the clowns who caused the economic meltdown should pay taxes at the same rate as secretaries, doctors, nurses, engineers, janitors, cooks, construction workers and all the other people who actually make this country run.

They Haven't Changed, Have They?

Wow. FDR sounds like he is describing right wingers in 2011 and not just those in 1936. Not much progress in 75 years!

Bachmann, Paul and Prostitution

The Iowa straw poll gave an interesting result, with Michele Bachmann squeaking out an insignificantly tiny win over Ron Paul. The two are almost polar opposites in all ways.

It's hard to gauge the real significance of the Ames straw poll, because the candidates are basically buying votes -- candidates ship their people in on buses, there is a registration fee, which the candidates pay, and the candidates usually provide lunch. My guess is that the real reason Pawlenty withdrew from the race was because he paid for many more votes than he actually got. If you can't even buy votes, your campaign is in serious, serious trouble.

The mainstream media have completely ignored the Paul result, which has been noted in niche media such as the Daily Show.

The reason Paul is such an embarrassment to mainstream Republicans is that he illustrates perfectly what a disaster Republican laissez-faire policies would be if carried to their logical conclusions. Paul is opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our involvement in Libya. The rest of the Republican field believes military spending should be increased. Paul believes drugs and prostitution should be legal. The rest of the Republican party wants stricter government controls on all social activity, even restricting divorce laws.

While a group of us, four men and three women, were discussing Paul and Bachmann, two of the men concurred with Paul that prostitution should be legalized (is it a coincidence that one weighs upwards of 250 lbs and the other more than 350 lbs?). The more fervent advocate for prostitution has libertarian leanings, and he stated that in the places where it's legal and well-regulated, there are few problems.

Prostitution is handled in four basic ways: illegal outright, legal but regulated, legal but unregulated, and in places like Sweden accepting money for sex is legal, but paying for sex is illegal. That is, it's legal to be a prostitute, but illegal to be a john.

In countries where prostitution is legal and regulated, prostitutes typically work in highly-controlled brothels, are subject to regular testing, and safety precautions such as condoms are required. The problem with regulation is that it's limiting. Not using condoms is illegal because of the risk of infection, but most men don't like using condoms. Certain practices (anal sex) carry a higher risk of condom failure. Many johns like rough sex, including spanking, slapping, hitting, biting, whipping, etc.

This is the inherent contradiction in the legalization of prostitution. The more you regulate it to make it safer, the more incentives you create to get around those regulations. For example, Elliot Spitzer, former governor and attorney general of New York, was himself put away for soliciting prostitutes. His proclivity for going "bareback" has made him the object of much ridicule.

Thus, attempting to legalize prostitution creates a new class of prostitutes that will operate outside the limits of legal prostitution. This is borne out in countries where prostitution is legal. Human trafficking is a serious problem in those countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Turkey. Foreigners -- usually from Eastern Europe -- are abducted, shipped into the country and forced to have sex.

Illegal prostitution almost always involves some kind of coercion. Proponents of legalization claim it would eliminate this. I am unconvinced. How much latitude do prostitutes have to refuse to service clients that they find objectionable in some way? If prostitution were legalized throughout the US, how long would it take conservatives like Rush Limbaugh to start complaining that women on welfare should get off their asses and get on their backs and starting earning their keep?

But if you ignore all that, the real coercion in prostitution is the repeated exposure of workers to parasites and diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, HIV, and hepatitis multiple times a day. Testing prostitutes does nothing to protect them from an HIV-positive man who "accidentally" breaks his condom.

If you're serious about making prostitution safe, all johns would have to be licensed, registered and tested, just like prostitutes. Since there are incubation times, a waiting period would be required after testing. All the johns' sex partners would also have to be registered and tested. All sex acts in this network would have to be recorded in order to track the vector of any infections. Johns would have to be certified psychologically stable (violence against prostitutes is common) before being licensed, and prostitutes would have to be undergo training in conflict management.

To achieve this Libertarian ideal of safe and clean prostitution, a tremendous amount of regulation would be required of both johns and prostitutes.

But that's the rub, so to speak. "Libertarian regulation" is an oxymoron.

Uncertainty? Really?

Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, had this to say recently about President Obama during a conference call.

And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems -- that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money.

and

Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America. The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.

Fairly typical of what we hear every day now from the president's critics. It's the "uncertainty" and the "socialism" that is holding back the private sector. What makes these statements so unusual, though, is what was said earlier in the call.

We had a great first quarter, the best in our history. And we went through it -- we were just around $400 million in the first quarter. We are $447 million this time, and that quarter was about 59% better than a year ago. And in fact, for the 6 months, we're 62% better than a year ago. We are all, in this organization, heartened by the results.

On January 3, -- excuse me, on July 3, I got a phone call. I was in a different city from my colleague, Marc Schorr, and he told me that on the third day of July, we equaled in Las Vegas, our cash flow, our profits of the entire year of 2010. That was a very supercharged thing to hear, but we did $271 million last year and we hit $271 million on the third of July. So for the balance of the year, everything from here on in, in Las Vegas is improvement. And we benefited from a very favorable whole percentage.

So let me see if I have this line of thinking down here...President Obama is a "giant wet blanket" to business...there are examples that "prove" this...and he is a (snore) socialist. All of this has led to the best quarter they have ever had? And it only took six months this year to make what they made last year? Uh.....what?

There is no logic or reason to the irrational feelings these people have. They make statements simply based on personal preference, not reality. They are making record profits and they still hate him. It's no different than someone like me saying that the Dave Matthews Band sucks. It's an opinion with no basis in fact.

Why can't they simply admit that it's the same thing with the president?

The Highly Skilled International Player

As I write this, the 40 year rule of Libya by Muammar Gaddafi is coming to a close. Once brutal and now psychotic, Gaddafi is the latest (and probably not the last) in a line of Arab dictators that have fallen from power. The fire of democracy is spreading in the Arab World and, at this point, there is nothing that can stop it.

Combined with the successful mission to take out Osama bin Laden, the president has clearly shown that he is very adept at foreign policy. His initial Libyan policy, criticized at the start by the usual collection of naysayers, has worked. One of the key elements that led the Libyan rebels to victory was direct assistance from US intelligence that led to pinpoint strikes against Gaddahi's forces.

The president has, once again, fully proven himself to be a highly skilled international player. The "Obamateur" narrative is now seen for all it was ever worth: a pile of shit.

When The Only Tool In Your Tool Kit is the Apocalypse...

It's Sunday and I find my thoughts turning to prophecy. This is largely due to my recent pop in over at Kevin Baker's site. I give him a look every week or so to see if he's still spouting Bircher nonsense. Most of the time, this is usually the case. But a post from last Friday caused me to sadly shake my head.

Kevin put up a quote from another site which essentially was no different than a Chuck Manson looking dude holding up a sign on a street corner which says, "The End of the World is Coming." Kevin himself than commented, "Our major cities may very well burn." The ensuing comments detail possible alignments in inter-city warfare. I've seen a few of these types of posts here and there but this one was starker than I have ever seen. Honestly, if this is what he and his readers truly think, I find little difference between them and your typical apocalypse cult. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as the right has been trending that way since the evil socialist gun grabber, Blackie McBlackerson, took office.

These sorts of things never end well. Take a look at Glenn Beck. He was riding high at Fox-spewing dire warning after boiling pit of sewage prophecy-and when it kept not happening, he lost viewers and Fox gave him the boot. He still has his radio show and will likely find some sort of TV outlet but people have stopped paying attention to him. Being a member of the right wing blogsphere, as Kevin is, means that he will always have that niche just like Beck does.

But I have to wonder...what is the half life for predicting the end of America? Doomsday scenarios have become more prevalent as human beings have less ordinary things to worry about but, folks, Red Dawn never fucking happened! The logic of the United States' geostrategic position made that scenario impossible. Yet, we still things like Home Front, a video game written by John Milius ( a fave of Kevin's), that depicts yet another one of these faux scenarios. There is no doubt in my mind that there are many people who think that this has a good chance of happening. This leads us to recall point #1 from Boaz's 14 points.

1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.

I don't know. I mean, I get that they have no real solutions to offer that work in reality and likely are avoiding real problems in their own lives which leads to the creation of these paranoid fantasies but with this sort of talk, I have to question their sanity.