Vote for me, I know nothing and hate the same things you do.

I finally got around to watching my TiVo'd copy of the HBO film, Game Change. Despite Sarah Palin's protestations, I found the film to be pretty much accurate and, not surprisingly, I'm still enormously frustrated that there are people out there still who think that she would be a competent president.

A recent piece by Richard Cohen over at RealClear Politics not only sums up the very core of Ms. Palin but also is extremely illustrative of what happens when the right gets caught in their willful ignorance.

The movie portrays Palin as an ignoramus. She did not know that Queen Elizabeth II does not run the British government, and she did not know that North and South Korea are different countries. She seemed not to have heard of the Federal Reserve. She called Joe Biden "O'Biden," and she thought America went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein, not al-Qaeda, had attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. Not only did she know little, but she was determinately incurious and supremely smug in her ignorance.

Being smug in their ignorance has now become a catechism. This is especially evident if anyone left of center confronts them with irrefutable facts.

At the same time, she was a liar. In the movie, she was called exactly that by McCain's campaign chief, Steve Schmidt, who came to realize -- a bit late in the game -- that one of Palin's great talents was to deny the truth. When confronted, she simply shuts down -- petulant, child-like -- and then sulks off.

Petulant and child-like..hmmm:)

Another thing about the film was the big reveal about the VP debate. I remember sitting in my family room and watching it with our very own last in line. After it was over, I turned to him and said, "Hey, she did a good job." Well, she did but, according to the film, it was all an act. She didn't have any idea what she was saying and simply memorized the lines. Great...

What's interesting about the rest of Cohen's piece is how he ties it to the 2012 election.

Apres Palin has come a deluge of dysfunctional presidential candidates. They do not lie with quite the conviction of Palin, but they are sometimes her match in ignorance...ignorance that has become more than bliss. It's now an attribute, an entire platform: Vote for me, I know nothing and hate the same things you do.

I think Sarah Palin was the spark that ended up given birth to the fictional character of Barack X. Many of his detractors (both public and private) simply can't accept the fact that he has been a good president and has done a good job. So, they ignore his accomplishments and create living pinata upon which they can unleash their hatred.

I guess I can take comfort in the fact that Sarah Palin will never be president and that the most ardent and extreme people like her really don't have as much power as the media makes them out to have.

A Problem With Math (and fundamental principles of markets)

A recent discussion in comments has once again illustrated the problems with facts and math that tend to come up when the right are talking about their fictional character, Barack X.

Their latest line of fantasy is how the president is responsible for high gas prices and if he would just unshackle the energy industry, we could decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

One small problem with this narrative is (as always) reality.

(Source: Energy Information Administration) 

The other reality item to consider is the world market.

(Source: Energy Information Administration) 

We could drill everywhere the right wants us to drill and it wouldn't matter. We will still be shackled to the world market.

So, the next time that mouth foaming uncle who gets his facts from right wing blogs says that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, politely inform them that President Obama has been doing that.

Pander-monium

Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney went to Puerto Rico last week to campaign for delegates. While there, both Romney and Santorum pandered.

Romney pandered to locals in the normal way: he said nice things about Puerto Rico, and pledged to help Puerto Rico become a state if the referendum for statehood passes this coming November.

Santorum went to Puerto Rico to pander not to the locals, but to the middle-aged angry white men in the Tea Party back on the mainland. Though Santorum has endorsed statehood for Puerto Rico without preconditions in the past, he no longer supports statehood for Puerto Rico unless they speak English. He said:

Like any other state, there has to be compliance with this and any other federal law. And that is that English has to be the principal language. There are other states with more than one language such as Hawaii but to be a state of the United States, English has to be the principal language.

There's no such law. In fact, Puerto Ricans already enjoy American citizenship. They have to pay most federal taxes—they're enrolled in Social Security and Medicare—but they don't have to pay federal income tax. Many American companies have subsidiaries in Puerto Rico, and since it's a U.S. territory and workers are American citizens, they are eligible for security clearances. High-tech military contractors like Honeywell are therefore sending high-paying jobs to Puerto Rico to take advantage of the lower salaries and cost of living.

There are two basic kinds of pander: saying nice pleasant things to endear oneself to your listeners (Mitt's), and saying mean and incendiary things to incite vitriol (Rick's). Santorum's defenders claim he's just telling it like it is, and Romney is mealy-mouthed. But because there's no English language requirement for statehood, Santorum is either woefully ignorant of the law and therefore not fit to be president, or he's willfully lying about it to get votes. Since Santorum previously supported Puerto-Rican statehood, he's obviously lying now.

But he's just playing out the new "Southern strategy" that many Tea Party and anti-immigrant groups adopted the last few years. It is this core group of Republicans that Santorum went to Puerto Rico to pander to, solidifying his position as the one true Anti-Romney. In contrast to Romney's placid acceptance of Puerto-Rican self-determination, Santorum is pledging to inflict pain and humiliation on Puerto Rico before letting them into the club.

As it turned out, Romney got more than 50% and therefore won all 20 delegates. (Santorum apparently got only 8%.) This was expected, as pretty much the entire Republican establishment, including the governor of Puerto Rico, had endorsed Romney. Santorum almost certainly knew this, and knew going to Puerto Rico could not possibly win him a single Puerto-Rican delegate. The entire exercise was therefore cynically executed to maximally manipulate anti-Latino sentiment among the Republican base.

The thing is, it's not clear whether Puerto Rico really wants to become a state. When they voted on this in 1998, "none of the above" beat out statehood 50.5 to 46.6%. It's also not clear that Republicans would allow it to happen: with all the anti-Latino vitriol they've spewed in the last several years, they're probably afraid it would mean adding two Democratic senators and three or four Democratic representatives.

But Puerto Rico's current status seems wrong: they're essentially in the same boat the American colonies were in before the Revolution. They're subjects of some big country across the sea, but they don't get to vote for president or Congress. In other words, they are suffering from taxation without representation. That should get them some sympathy from the Tea Party.

He Said...What?

If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy. So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies.---Mitt Romney, February 21, 2012, in Shelby Township, Michigan 

Uh...yeah, that's actually correct. How did we miss that one?

Oh, The Irony...

It's become quite obvious over the last several weeks that the mouth foaming that emanates from the right about the president's policies, as well as the federal government in general, is continuing to reach heretofore unseen depths of hypocrisy. A shining example of this is the states that continually vote Republican actually receive the most federal aid and tax dollars from the states that vote for Democrats.

But this one really takes the cake.

Plaintiff challenging healthcare law went bankrupt – with unpaid medical bills

Mary Brown, a 56-year-old Florida woman who owned a small auto repair shop but had no health insurance, became the lead plaintiff challenging President Obama's healthcare law because she was passionate about the issue. Brown "doesn't have insurance. She doesn't want to pay for it. And she doesn't want the government to tell her she has to have it," said Karen Harned, a lawyer for the National Federation of Independent Business. Brown is a plaintiff in the federation's case, which the Supreme Court plans to hear later this month.

But court records reveal that Brown and her husband filed for bankruptcy last fall with $4,500 in unpaid medical bills. Those bills could change Brown from a symbol of proud independence into an example of exactly the problem the healthcare law was intended to address.

This would be funny if it weren't so tragic. The willful ignorance here is simply astounding.

The truly frustrating part is that we all still end up paying for her anyway, as Wendell Potter, former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA, recently noted...

Somebody has to pay for it. And guess who that is? It is all of us. Even Mary Brown. She and the rest of us cover that uncompensated care either through higher taxes to support the Medicare and Medicaid programs or through higher health insurance premiums. The care that presumably is "absorbed" by the hospitals is, in reality, being absorbed not by those facilities but by us. This is what the term "cost shifting" is all about. 

And this irrational way of paying for that so-called uncompensated care has us locked into a dysfunctional system in which costs for both the insured and the uninsured keep spiraling upward.

That's right, adolescent whiners, and that's why the PPACA is the best option at present. Scream all you want about it but simple and neat solutions to complex problems like health care don't fucking exist. Everything is not going to be perfect and we're just going to have to live with it...a truly hard thing to swallow for many people.

But, hey, at least those adolescents on the right will always have something to bitch about because it won't be perfect so that counts for something, hmm?

Not A Good Sign

Voter turnout thus far in the GOP primaries has been very low. In fact, it is lower than 2008 and that is not a good sign for the eventual nominee. A recent report from the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Center for the Study of the American Electorate details the numbers.

Overall, voter turnout so far is 11.5% of the 68.1 million citizens eligible to vote in the 13 states. That's a drop from a 13.2% voter turnout rate in the same states four years ago. 

And there really wasn't that much enthusiasm back then either. But what about the key battleground states? In Florida, 1.6 million people voted in 2012 compared to 1.9 million in the 2008 GOP primaries. In Nevada, the turnout in 2008 was 44,000. This year it was 32,000. That's nearly a 25 percent drop off. And in Colorado voter turnout was down about 7 percent this year in comparison to 2012.

Does this mean good things for the president?

Hmm...

An apt description of some of my commenters...:)

Where It's At

Well, the GOP primaries are slogging merrily along and Rick Santorum simply will not go away. That's because, as much of the base and the country knows, Mitt Romney isn't really a conservative. He is just awkwardly playing one on TV.

Now, most of you know that I like Mitt Romney personally and wish that he would just come out and be the pragmatic dude that I know he can be. But there's this little thing called the Republican nomination that he has to get first. And, since the GOP keeps moving further and further right every day, he has to play make believe and pretend that Barack X is building an army of robots programmed to take away guns and bibles.

But he just doesn't look like he's into it...talking about cheezy grits and y'alls and such...so, Rick Santorum just won three states in a row (Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi) and Mitt's inevitable nomination doesn't look so inevitable.

I think he's still going to win but I guess I'm wondering how far he is going to go in trying to get the nomination. What crazy crapola is going to come out of his mouth to prove to the base that he's a "severe conservative?"Likely it will be worse than his "the president is destroying free enterprise" comment but, hey, that's they ugly face of American populism that he has to placate.

Personally, I'd rather people go after Mitt on his foreign policy plans. What exactly are they? And how will they be more effective than President Obama's policies, nearly all of which have been successful?

No Shit

The Evolution of Princesses

It's springtime, and we all know what that means: the beginning of the blockbuster movie season. Last weekend Disney's John Carter opened, with many critics predicting its doom, pointing out that the viewing public has not been kind to movies about Mars. Speculation was rife that the movie—about a Civil War vet who goes to Mars—would bomb terribly. As it turns out, it wasn't a total dud; it did fairly well overseas so it may break even in the long haul. But prospects for a sequel—apparently the only criterion for success in movies—are bleak.

I liked the film. Over the years I've come to like historical dramas like Rome and The Tudors, alternative histories and retro-future Victorian steampunk settings. But I can see that for some John Carter might lack a certain pizzazz; it's more or less true to the understated tone of the Victorian era, and the characters don't have the same edgy sarcastic wit we've come to expect in summer blockbusters, even characters in the Victorian era like the Sherlock Holmes of Robert Downey Jr. The deserts of Mars feel more like Roman Egypt than Tatooine, especially with the casting of Rome's Ciaran Hinds and James Purefoy.

John Carter is based on  Edgar Rice Burroughs' first Barsoom novel,  A Princess of Mars. 2012 is the hundredth anniversary of its publication in serialized form in The All-Story, with the title Under the Moons of Mars. It was republished as a novel in 1917. (It's available for free at Project Gutenberg in HTML and e-book formats.)

Burrough's novels paved the way for the Tarzan movies and Buck Rogers serials in the thirties, which were the templates for modern blockbusters like Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Arc. Jules Verne and H.G. Wells preceded Burroughs, but their work was somewhat abstract, while Burroughs's pulp fiction was full of rip-roaring swashbuckling adventure. And naked ladies.

Though I've read science fiction for more than forty years, I hadn't read any Burroughs until two years ago. My tastes tended more toward "hard science fiction" and writers like Asimov, Benford, Clarke, Heinlein, Niven, Varley, Zelazny, and so on. In my younger days Burroughs' Victorian writing style didn't attract me, and the social attitudes on race and gender expressed in his work, typical of his era, turned me off. Though I'm sure many of his contemporaries found his ideas outrageously radical and far too sympathetic to "primitives."

Making a movie from a book entails a great deal of condensation and restructuring. A two-hour film simply doesn't have the time to delve into subplots, or develop characters to the same extent a novel can.  Many characters have to be axed, or their functions must be combined into a single character. Often the conventions of a novel don't translate well into film.

Thus, many aspects of Burroughs' novel were changed: the mode of Carter's translation to Mars was altered to suit modern technological sensibilities; a new major character was added (pulled from a subsequent book in the series); even the characters' attire was altered—if filmed as originally written, the movie would have drawn an NC-17 rating. Did I mention naked ladies?

But perhaps the biggest change of all was the character of Dejah Thoris. As described in the novel, "She was as destitute of clothes as the green Martians who accompanied her; indeed, save for her highly wrought ornaments she was entirely naked, nor could any apparel have enhanced the beauty of her perfect and symmetrical figure." Symmetrical?

Burroughs' Dejah Thoris was the typical damsel in distress. When they first met, she was depicted as the haughty, condescending daughter of a nobleman, though somehow even this endeared her to Carter.

John Carter's Dejah Thoris is thoroughly modern, recast in the mold of Princess Leia. She's the Martian scientist on the verge of a technological breakthrough that would save her planet, only to be sabotaged by the villains. She's a top-notch sword fighter, wears more armor than Carter and could probably whoop him in a fair fight (his great Earthly strength is a major plot point). She's a scholar who can read ancient languages. When she's ultimately forced into cheesecake mode, she disdains it.

Even the underlying theme of the novel and the motivation for Carter and Dejah Thoris to meet—the deteriorating Martian biosphere—is discarded. Instead they are brought together when she flees a forced marriage to the villain who threatens to enslave all Mars.

In short, the changes with Dejah Thoris directly reflect the changed role of women in society a century after the novel was published. Today many top scientists, CEOs and politicians are women. Women serve in the military alongside men, and in workplaces everywhere else. Since 2000 women have outnumbered men in college 57-43%. Women still have not attained true equality, though the college numbers indicate that women will eventually to catch up.

Yet a hundred years after Under the Moons of Mars was published we still have politicians like Rick Santorum whose attitudes toward women seem to be even more antiquated than Edgar Rice Burroughs'. Santorum rails against birth control and abortion and women in the military; he seems intent on returning women to the chattel status that John Carter's Dejah Thoris fled. Women are not dainty, fragile princesses who must be coddled and simultaneously blamed for inciting men to lust.

Whether or not John Carter enjoys box office success, it's another clear reflection that in popular culture and among the young the issue of women's equality and their right to decide their own fate has been decided. And that's not just Hollywood propaganda. Women outnumber men in the voting age population, and they may well decide the election this fall.

It's just a matter of time until people like Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, the pope and the ayatollahs give up the ghost and give women their due.

So...this happened today...

Nasdaq Closes Above 3000

First time since December of 2000. But what about the Dow?

13177.68, which is a gain of 218 points-its highest level since May 2008.

Yeah, Obama's a socialist who's destroying free enterprise and creating an air of uncertainty, alright...somebody stop him...Quick!

Faces of Change: Emily's Health Care Story

And this would be how it works and why it is beneficial to our country...

A Bookend

A nice bookend to my post below is this recent article.

The report by six federal agencies was released Monday on the first anniversary of a speech by President Obama in which he pledged to reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports by one-third in about a decade. According to the study, the United States reduced net imports of crude oil last year by 10 percent, or 1 million barrels a day. The United States now imports 45 percent of its petroleum, down from 57 percent in 2008, and is on track to meet Obama's long-term goal, the administration maintains.

How have we accomplished this?

Imports have fallen, in part, because domestic oil and gas production has increased in recent years. U.S. crude oil production increased by an estimated 120,000 barrels a day last year from 2010, the report says. Current production, about 5.6 million barrels a day, is the highest since 2003.

So, most of the caterwauling about "Drill Baby Drill" is (as always) patently false. We already are.

And prices have gone up...gee, what a shock...

The Usual Suspects

I've pretty much had it with people blaming the president for high gas prices. First of all, he can't really control what happens in the Middle East, a major factor in the price hike. Second, drilling more oil here simply means that more oil will get sold to China and India, not us. US imports of oil have declined from 11 billion barrels a day  in 2009 to 8 billion barrels a day at the end of 2011. Simply put, we aren't using as much. Remember that we are a net fuel exporter now for the first time in decades and that simple fact still hasn't changed the price of a gallon of gas.

Add in the fact that the number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quad­rupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world and guess what? Prices are still high.

Why?

As Dennis Kelleher points out below, a big reason is the speculators...as always....

 

That graphic says it all...In 2002, 89 percent of crude oil training was commercial with 11 percent non-commercial. Now crude oil trading is 63 percent non-commercial and 37 percent commercial. What was the price of a barrel of oil in 2002?

$31.

Now?

$106.

Obviously, there are other factors to consider but this is the one that isn't talked about much because these are the same fucking people that got us into trouble in the collapse of 2008.

Steve Jobs: Visionary, Imitator or Roadblock to Innovation?

Since Steve Jobs' death there have been many paeans to his genius, with many books and movies dedicated to his memory. There's no doubt that he accomplished a great deal, but his true genius wasn't so much as a technologist, but as a marketeer.

Not so long ago people laughed at the very idea of a tablet computer. Who would want one? It's too big compared to a cell phone, it doesn't have a keyboard so it's inferior to a laptop, it doesn't have enough processing horsepower to do "real" work, etc., etc.

But when Steve Jobs "invented" the iPad everything changed. Just the other week everyone was breathlessly awaiting the arrival of the third incarnation of the iPad. But did Steve Jobs and Apple really invent the tablet computer? Nope. Not even close.

It's an issue because Apple is suing other tablet manufacturers like Samsung for patent infringement. Apple is claiming that the Samsung device is a copy of the iPad, in part because it has round corners. Sorry, Apple, but you didn't invent round corners, or even the iPad's form-factor. Take a look at this video from Star Trek: The Next Generation's season 6 (circa 1992): Picard is holding what looks suspiciously like an iPad. The device is actually called a PADD (Personal Access Display Device). And Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey has another iPad precursor as well.

An article in the New York Times about Roger Fidler, a former Knight-Ridder think tank honcho, describes how Fidler designed an electronic newspaper in 1994. Fidler's group made a video in 1994 depicting how such a tablet computer would work. It pretty much looks like an iPad, only with a bigger screen and a stylus for input. Because Fidler's group worked for newspaper, they had no hardware or software development infrastructure so their ideas went nowhere. Except, it turns out, to Apple, who happened to be right next door.

Bill Gates had been pushing tablet computers for more than a decade, and everyone just laughed at him. We've seen those tablets running versions of Windows on futuristic TV shows like 24, though real people never seemed to own them. But in reality, ruggedized tablets with touch screens have been use in warehouses for many years to read RFID tags and maintain inventories. In the beginning everyone also laughed at Gates for pushing CDs as a computer storage medium.

The Amazon Kindle came out years before the iPad, and it had pretty decent success considering its limitations. It showed Jobs that the market was there for a table if it could be small and powerful enough: Jobs knew he could eat Jeff Bezos' lunch if he could make a general-purpose tablet that wasn't limited to reading e-books.

Apple has made a lot of cool stuff. But almost everything that makes the iPad possible was invented by someone else. Does Apple hold all the patents on Gorilla Glass? High-resolution LCD displays? Capacitive multi-touch screens? Low-power microelectronics? Flash memory? High-density batteries? Nope. Almost every piece of hardware in the iPad was invented by someone else.  And the software is a clear evolution of everything that has gone before. Apple takes other people's work, puts it in a nice clean package and has it assembled by FoxConn in China. In fact, most of the patents Apple holds are on design and software, patents that the US Patent and Trademark office would have flatly rejected thirty years ago. And many of Apple's patents are either based on prior art (such as Fidler's work), or are blatantly obvious and therefore not patentable.

The iPad isn't the first idea that Jobs borrowed from someone else. Touch screens were in use for general computing at the University of Illinois in the early 1970s. Apple didn't make the first personal computer; the Altair 8800 and IBM 5100 came years before. The graphical user interface and the mouse, made popular on the Macintosh, were invented by Xeroc PARC. The Macintosh's key innovation was to make the hardware as cheap as possible while charging a premium price. The iPod was not the first MP3 player; it was introduced in 2001, four or five years after the first portable digital music players came out. Apple has enjoyed great success with the iPhone, but didn't invent the cell phone, or the touch-screen cell phone, or even the smart phone. Apple's OS X is based on BSD and UNIX, an operating system developed by Bell Labs in the 1970s, because the original Mac OS was pitifully inadequate for real multitasking.

Jobs wasn't a font of new ideas. He was good at recognizing the potential of technology, synthesizing disparate elements and refining the technology, then convincing people it was fabulous and getting them to pay top dollar for it. Apple was also unafraid to throw out bad or outdated products and ideas. They've often dropped entire hardware and software product lines to suit their needs, switching processors and operating systems on Apple products at least four times (from the 6502 in the Apple ][, to the 68000 in the Lisa and Mac, to the PowerPC, and finally the Intel platform). Microsoft Windows has been running on the Intel platform since its inception, and can still run MSDOS programs written more than 25 years ago. That has left Windows with a lot of clunky legacy code.

With its patent lawsuits—and similar lawsuits by other patent trolls—Apple has been working to stifle innovation and prevent exactly the type of synthesis and refinement that Jobs practiced his entire life. In effect, Apple's rationale for suing Samsung over the Galaxy tablet amounts to "we stole the idea fair and square."

I would venture to say that Apple's primary product is not its hardware, but an air of preening, smug superiority, as evidenced by the John Hodgman/Justin Long Mac/PC ads and the "If you don't have an iPad, well, you don't have an iPad" ad campaign.

It is rather sad and ironic that the 2011 Jobs would have done everything in his power to crush the 1976 Jobs and prevent him from ever getting a start.

Why Is Mississippi So Conservative?

I Feel The Same Way, Mr. President!