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.