Nicholas Kristof is completely accurate in identifying the group of people who continually spoon off of the government. They are:
1. People who get subsidies for their private planes
2. People who get subsidies for their yachts
3. People who run hedge funds and and private equity groups
4. Banks
5. American Corporations.
Combined, these folks account for around $200 billion dollars a year of taxpayer money. And it's OK to cut SNAP money by $8 billion dollars? Really?
I hear quite a bit of mouth foaming over food stamps and nothing but crickets when it comes to the above list of welfare queens.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Stamp the ACA Right On Your Forehead
If Democrats want to retain control of the Senate this year, they need to stand proudly behind the Affordable Care Act. They can cite all of the people that are now covered that weren't covered before. They can hold up the basic fact that if you have a pre-existing condition you can't be dropped by your insurance company. They can illustrate how you won't go bankrupt if you have an illness. They can discuss how children and young adults up to age 26 are covered under the parents policies.
And they can reveal that the Republicans have nothing but spite, anger and fear to offer instead of the ACA.
Take the example of Mark Udall who is running for re-election in Colorado.
He'd vote for it again. Damn right!
And they can reveal that the Republicans have nothing but spite, anger and fear to offer instead of the ACA.
Take the example of Mark Udall who is running for re-election in Colorado.
He'd vote for it again. Damn right!
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Good Words
With respect to Mr. Romney’s assertion that Russia’s our No. 1 geopolitical foe, the truth of the matter is that, you know, America’s got a whole lot of challenges. Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors—not out of strength but out of weakness.
---President Barack Obama, March 25, 2014
Indeed. And say buh-bye to the G-8 (now G-7)
---President Barack Obama, March 25, 2014
Indeed. And say buh-bye to the G-8 (now G-7)
Conversion of A Clinton Hater
David Brock used to be a mouthfoamer but now he has seen the error of his ways.
On Tuesday, he was the featured speaker at the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas, where he delivered a speech about his political conversion and his efforts to “blow the whistle” on what he sees as the right-wing’s “obsession” with the Clintons. “At its root, I realized, Clinton-hating had nothing to do with what the Clintons did and did not do,” Brock said. “It had everything to do with fear of the kind of change they represented on one hand — and on the other, a newly brutal form of partisan politics.”
Sound familiar?
I wonder if years from now we will have converts from the folks who currently have Obama Mental Meltdown Syndrome. I hope so and I'm glad to see that there are people like Brock who are going to get out in front of the Hillary mouthfoam that's going to boil to full froth if she decides to run.
On Tuesday, he was the featured speaker at the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas, where he delivered a speech about his political conversion and his efforts to “blow the whistle” on what he sees as the right-wing’s “obsession” with the Clintons. “At its root, I realized, Clinton-hating had nothing to do with what the Clintons did and did not do,” Brock said. “It had everything to do with fear of the kind of change they represented on one hand — and on the other, a newly brutal form of partisan politics.”
Sound familiar?
I wonder if years from now we will have converts from the folks who currently have Obama Mental Meltdown Syndrome. I hope so and I'm glad to see that there are people like Brock who are going to get out in front of the Hillary mouthfoam that's going to boil to full froth if she decides to run.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Generation Wars
Atlantic's The Wire has the definitive guide to the generations. Well, as definitive as you can get.
Because, honestly, all this stuff about generations is nonsense. Take, for example, the Greatest Generation. Ostensibly these are the people who suffered through the Depression, fought WWII and saved the world for democracy. But that generation is defined as ending in 1946. 1946! How could someone born after WWII ended have done spit to save to the world for democracy?
For that matter, how could anyone born after 1928 contributed in any material way to our victory over the Axis? My dad, born in 1933, was 12 when the war ended. He joined the army in the early 1950s but spent the Korean War in Germany. This Washington Post story does a better job of splitting up the generations, calling my father's cohort the Silent Generation.
It's the same with the Baby Boom: it's really at least two different cultural cohorts. Supposedly, it's characterized by the anti-war, free-love, acid-dropping turn-on-tune-in-drop-out, women's lib and civil rights movements of the 1960s. I was born in 1957, smack in the middle of the demographic bubble. But I was 12 when the 1960s ended. All that counter-culture stuff was completely alien to me.
The idea that the tens of millions of people born during the same 20-year period all have some kind of personality traits in common is even sillier than the idea that everyone born in the same month shares the same horoscope. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were both born in 1946, but that's about all they have in common.
What's salient about generations is not what year you're born, but what cultural events affected you when you were impressionable. But it's more complicated than that, because kids of different ages are impressed by different things.
Kids 5-12 will be influenced by things such as video games, the space program, cuddly animals, dinosaurs, fire trucks, and so on. Wars in far-off lands, sex, booze and drugs will never enter their minds -- if their parents are doing their jobs right. Kids 13-17 will be affected by the opposite sex, booze and drugs because those things concern them directly. Eighteen- to 25-year-olds are leaving home and entering the wider world, but are still quite impressionable, and are now being influenced by greater concerns like fighting in wars, earning a living, taxes, raising children of their own, politics and so on.
Your parents also affect your development: two children born in 1957, one to a 45-year-old WWII vet and the other to a 17-year-old single mother, are going to have completely different influences.
Even where you live can make a big difference: social trends starting in California or New York may take 10 or 15 years to reach Memphis or Topeka.
In my case the sexual revolution and drug culture of the 1960s completely passed me by, but the space program and moon landing on the 1960s captured the interest of a 5- to 12-year-old. My politically formative years were the 1970s and early 80s, the tail end of the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Oil Crisis, the Iranian hostage crisis, and Iran-Contra. According to this website, that puts me squarely in Generation X. I was born at the height of the Baby Boom, but culturally I'm a Gen-Xer.
The problem is is trying to define generations as lasting 20 years, apparently conforming to the active reproductive years of the human female. But people don't fall into neat little 20-year boxes. They're being born constantly.
If we're going to talk meaningfully about generations, we have to give up the idea of all parents belonging to one generation and the kids belonging to the next. Instead we have to talk about smaller cultural cohorts that may not be the same length. Thus, the turmoil of the 60s lasted about 10 or 12 years, but the relative stasis of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s endured for almost 30 years.
I would divvy up the cultural cohorts this way:
The Greatest Generation was between 1910 and 1928. They came of age during the Depression and fought in WWII. These folks are mostly gone now.
My father's generation lived through the Depression as children; they knew deprivation, but not the desperation that comes with being unable to provide for your children. They came of age during the post-War years, the Korean War, and the height of the Cold War, when in the 40's and 1950s Russia and the United States tested nuclear weapons every other week and people were building bomb shelters in their back yards.
The cultural cohort that corresponds to what we call the Baby Boom were children in the 1950s and teenagers in the 1960s, born from, say, 1942 to 1955. They were affected by the Vietnam war and the sexual revolution and all the other perils of that turbulent time.
My cultural cohort was born between 1952 and 1970, people who came of age in the relatively calm times of 70s and 80s. I'd call it the Computer Cohort. This includes Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, the people who created the personal computer and made computers an integral part of everyday life during the 1980s. This generation were the shock troops in the fiscalization of our economy, where making money became more important than making things.
The next cohort came of age in the boom years of the late 80's and 1990s, when communism fell, America was unquestionably the king of the world, we could snap our fingers and the world would help us take down a dictator like Saddam Hussein and the Internet became widely accessible.
The next cohort comes of age in the 2000s and 2010s, their nights haunted by dreams of 9/11 and their days dogged by endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Internet becomes omnipresent and almost omniscient; this generation is the first to be electronically tethered to their peers all their lives.
We blame the children of each generation for their peculiar characteristics, but their parents and grandparents created the world that shaped them.
Baby Boomers are criticized for all getting old at the same time, putting a drain on the Social Security system and forcing their children and grandchildren to pay for their retirements. But they didn't ask to be born, and they had nothing to do with increases in Social Security payments, which are tied to inflation through automatic cost of living adjustments put in place by legislation Congress passed in the 1970s, when most Baby Boomers weren't old enough to be elected to Congress and many weren't even old enough to vote.
Generation X is criticized for living with their parents, but their elders tanked the economy, forcing them into that ignominy. And their parents let them stay in their basements. Millennials are castigated for constantly texting and playing video games, or their parents coming to to job interviews with them. But it's their parents and grandparents who built the Internet, created microelectronics, cellphones and wi-fi, and go to the job interviews with their kids.
In so many ways, it's the parents who are responsible for the way their kids turn out. Yet we always blame the kids for our mistakes.
If you look closely at the criticisms leveled at every generation, they're always the same: those people are selfish, self-involved jerks who don't give a rip about my problems. All of this boils down to the same old-man rant: kids these days just ain't got no respect.
And get off my lawn!
Find The Gun Cult A Fainting Couch!
Springfield, Illinois is now GROUND ZERO for the battle over gun rights after this absolute abomination was used in a classroom setting.
Oh no!! Someone fetch the smelling salts!!
Oh no!! Someone fetch the smelling salts!!
GOP 2016 Presidential Nominee: Vladimir Putin
A colleague of mine in the social studies department finally decided he had had enough. He had to let loose his opinion on the situation in the Ukraine at a recent staff meeting. He's also the chairman of the department so we all sort of had to listen. He spoke of Obama's weakness and how since there was a Democrat in the White House, Putin was emboldened to do whatever he wanted. He posited that we should move NATO troops into Ukraine and send part of our navy to the Black Sea. It was a classic neocon screed that in many ways made me wax nostalgic for those good ol' days of Cheney and Rumsfeld.
More importantly, it made me realize that the perfect candidate for the GOP in 2016 is none other than Vladimir Putin himself. Think about it for a minute. He's strong, doesn't take any shit from anyone, and thinks with his guts! He has all the aristocratic airs that conservatives pretend they don't really like. He doesn't do all the pussy talking and diplomacy crap or rely on mealymouthed sanctions. He ACTS! Add in what President George W. Bush said about him...
He's not well informed. It's like arguing with an eighth grader with his facts wrong.
and he is so unbelievably perfect as the GOP presidential nom that I can already feel that tingle up my leg!
More importantly, it made me realize that the perfect candidate for the GOP in 2016 is none other than Vladimir Putin himself. Think about it for a minute. He's strong, doesn't take any shit from anyone, and thinks with his guts! He has all the aristocratic airs that conservatives pretend they don't really like. He doesn't do all the pussy talking and diplomacy crap or rely on mealymouthed sanctions. He ACTS! Add in what President George W. Bush said about him...
He's not well informed. It's like arguing with an eighth grader with his facts wrong.
and he is so unbelievably perfect as the GOP presidential nom that I can already feel that tingle up my leg!
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
World Meteorological Organization: Extreme Weather Due To Climate Change
A recent search for the annual report from the World Meteorological Organization brought me to Fox News of all places.
A rise in sea levels is leading to increasing damage from storm surges and coastal flooding, as demonstrated by Typhoon Haiyan, the agency's Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said. The typhoon in November killed at least 6,100 people and caused $13 billion in damage to the Philippines and Vietnam. Australia, meanwhile, had its hottest year on record.
"Many of the extreme events of 2013 were consistent with what we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change," Jarraud said. He also cited other costly weather disasters such as $22 billion damage from central European flooding in June, $10 billion in damage from Typhoon Fitow in China and Japan, and a $10 billion drought in much of China.
Perhaps the fact that Fox allowed this on their site is a sign of a shift in ideology. It actually makes sense when you think about it given that Fox is a huge supporter of the corporate world and firms are starting to lose money as a result of climate change.
A rise in sea levels is leading to increasing damage from storm surges and coastal flooding, as demonstrated by Typhoon Haiyan, the agency's Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said. The typhoon in November killed at least 6,100 people and caused $13 billion in damage to the Philippines and Vietnam. Australia, meanwhile, had its hottest year on record.
"Many of the extreme events of 2013 were consistent with what we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change," Jarraud said. He also cited other costly weather disasters such as $22 billion damage from central European flooding in June, $10 billion in damage from Typhoon Fitow in China and Japan, and a $10 billion drought in much of China.
Perhaps the fact that Fox allowed this on their site is a sign of a shift in ideology. It actually makes sense when you think about it given that Fox is a huge supporter of the corporate world and firms are starting to lose money as a result of climate change.
How Free Markets And Government Spending Can Stabilize A Country
When someone mentions Rwanda, the first words that come to mind are violence and instability, not free markets and prosperity. This recent article in the Times shows just how far Rwanda has come and you can thank the power of capitalism for their recent success. One of my add-ons to the "teach a man to fish" saying is "teach a village to fish and they create a free market economy" and that is clearly what has happened in Rwanda.
Rwanda offers an alternative model, analysts say, a country where the economy has grown an average of nearly 8 percent over the last four years because of increased agricultural productivity, tourism and government spending on infrastructure and housing. Despite having a population of just around 12 million, the consulting firm A.T. Kearney last week named Rwanda the most attractive African market for retailers in its first ever African Retail Development Index.
As the article notes, there are still challenges ahead for Rwanda but the simple fact that it has made it to this point illustrates that with the right balance of free market principles and government involvement stability can be achieved anywhere.
Rwanda offers an alternative model, analysts say, a country where the economy has grown an average of nearly 8 percent over the last four years because of increased agricultural productivity, tourism and government spending on infrastructure and housing. Despite having a population of just around 12 million, the consulting firm A.T. Kearney last week named Rwanda the most attractive African market for retailers in its first ever African Retail Development Index.
As the article notes, there are still challenges ahead for Rwanda but the simple fact that it has made it to this point illustrates that with the right balance of free market principles and government involvement stability can be achieved anywhere.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Are The Republicans Celebrating Too Soon?
If you pay attention to politics, the 2014 elections (over seven months away and without nominees in many contests) has already been won by the Republicans. They've gained more seats in the House and taken back the Senate. Even statistical guru Nate Silver is on their side this time (his new site is pretty boss, btw).
But Tim Alberta says, "Whoa, there, son" and posits that the GOP is celebrating too soon. In looking at his main points, I don't see much progress. In short, he's right. And so is Doug Sosnik. The Republicans are channeling Groucho Marx.
At the national level, Republicans continue to be viewed as the congressional opposition party whose intransigence led to the government shutdown last October. These same interests actively worked to scuttle immigration reform this year. In this environment, it’s the likes of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and California Rep. Darrell Issa who define the Republican brand. The struggle for the party’s future is playing out in real time as we approach the crucial period leading up to the 2016 elections. Ironically, Republicans’ short-term tactics to pick up additional seats in the 2014 midterms—as well as the rightward pressures of the presidential primary process—will only reinforce the public’s perception of the Republican Party as unwelcoming and out of step with the majority of Americans.
Right. They only think in terms of short term gains and never long term victories. 2016 could be an absolute disaster for Republicans if they don't moderate now. They'll have 24 seats up in the Senate and it's a presidential year which means higher voter turnout on the Democratic side. If Hillary runs, she will likely win and possibly have both Houses back.
It will be interesting to see who they put up for candidates against the vulnerable Democrats. If they go moderate, it's a sign that they are thinking ahead to 2016. If not, they won't take back the Senate and will totally fuck themselves in two years.
But Tim Alberta says, "Whoa, there, son" and posits that the GOP is celebrating too soon. In looking at his main points, I don't see much progress. In short, he's right. And so is Doug Sosnik. The Republicans are channeling Groucho Marx.
At the national level, Republicans continue to be viewed as the congressional opposition party whose intransigence led to the government shutdown last October. These same interests actively worked to scuttle immigration reform this year. In this environment, it’s the likes of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and California Rep. Darrell Issa who define the Republican brand. The struggle for the party’s future is playing out in real time as we approach the crucial period leading up to the 2016 elections. Ironically, Republicans’ short-term tactics to pick up additional seats in the 2014 midterms—as well as the rightward pressures of the presidential primary process—will only reinforce the public’s perception of the Republican Party as unwelcoming and out of step with the majority of Americans.
Right. They only think in terms of short term gains and never long term victories. 2016 could be an absolute disaster for Republicans if they don't moderate now. They'll have 24 seats up in the Senate and it's a presidential year which means higher voter turnout on the Democratic side. If Hillary runs, she will likely win and possibly have both Houses back.
It will be interesting to see who they put up for candidates against the vulnerable Democrats. If they go moderate, it's a sign that they are thinking ahead to 2016. If not, they won't take back the Senate and will totally fuck themselves in two years.
The Syrian Nightmare
A recent article in the Times shows just how bad the situation is in Syria.
The government bombards neighborhoods with explosive barrels, missiles, heavy artillery and, the United States says, chemical weapons, then it sends in its allies in Hezbollah and other militias to wage street warfare. It jails and tortures peaceful activists, and uses starvation as a weapon, blockading opposition areas where trapped children shrivel and die.
The opposition is now functionally dominated by foreign-led jihadists who commit their own abuses in the name of their extremist ideology, just last week shooting a 7-year-old boy for what they claimed was apostasy. And some of those fighters, too, have targeted civilians and used siege tactics.
I can barely imagine how awful the situation is there for any average citizen that stayed behind. We were very smart not to get involved and I suppose it's just going to continue until so many people are dead that there isn't any country left.
This terrible thought led me to wonder what kind of a country will be left for Assad or someone else to govern. Who would want to rule such a place?
The government bombards neighborhoods with explosive barrels, missiles, heavy artillery and, the United States says, chemical weapons, then it sends in its allies in Hezbollah and other militias to wage street warfare. It jails and tortures peaceful activists, and uses starvation as a weapon, blockading opposition areas where trapped children shrivel and die.
The opposition is now functionally dominated by foreign-led jihadists who commit their own abuses in the name of their extremist ideology, just last week shooting a 7-year-old boy for what they claimed was apostasy. And some of those fighters, too, have targeted civilians and used siege tactics.
I can barely imagine how awful the situation is there for any average citizen that stayed behind. We were very smart not to get involved and I suppose it's just going to continue until so many people are dead that there isn't any country left.
This terrible thought led me to wonder what kind of a country will be left for Assad or someone else to govern. Who would want to rule such a place?
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Heaven For The Gun Cult
I believe I have found the perfect place for the Gun Cult: Libya.
Libya, where hundreds of militias hold sway and the central government is virtually powerless, is awash in millions of weapons with no control over their trafficking.
A central government that is powerless? Holy shit! Someone find me some Kleenex in which I can shoot my load!!! I'm sure now that the country is not a gun free zone violence will drop to nearly zero. Hey, maybe we can finally find out what happened at Benghazi!!
Libya, where hundreds of militias hold sway and the central government is virtually powerless, is awash in millions of weapons with no control over their trafficking.
A central government that is powerless? Holy shit! Someone find me some Kleenex in which I can shoot my load!!! I'm sure now that the country is not a gun free zone violence will drop to nearly zero. Hey, maybe we can finally find out what happened at Benghazi!!
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Ukraine Inks Deal With EU
The EU and the Ukraine signed an association agreement yesterday but it got little notice in the press. Odd, considering that this was the spark that lit the flame which started all the instability in the region. Perhaps the "liberal" media has become too obsessed with either the "Obama is weak" meme or wringing their hands over the "fact" that "Obama is weak"
Regardless, the focus should be on this agreement because it's exactly why Vladimir Putin has already lost. It is the first step of trade and economic integration with Europe that won't stop with Ukraine.
The EU also announced it will speed up similar association deals with Georgia and Moldova, it said in its statement: The European Union reconfirms its objective to further strengthen the political association and economic integration with Georgia and the Republic of Moldova. We confirm our aim to sign the Association Agreements, including the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas, which we initiated in Vilnius last November, no later than June 2014.
As I have said many times in the past, the West's soft, economic power always wins in the long run. Sooner or later, Putin will have no choice but to fall in line like everyone else.
Regardless, the focus should be on this agreement because it's exactly why Vladimir Putin has already lost. It is the first step of trade and economic integration with Europe that won't stop with Ukraine.
The EU also announced it will speed up similar association deals with Georgia and Moldova, it said in its statement: The European Union reconfirms its objective to further strengthen the political association and economic integration with Georgia and the Republic of Moldova. We confirm our aim to sign the Association Agreements, including the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas, which we initiated in Vilnius last November, no later than June 2014.
As I have said many times in the past, the West's soft, economic power always wins in the long run. Sooner or later, Putin will have no choice but to fall in line like everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)