A Survey about Surveys

I usually take the results of polls and surveys with grain of salt, and now there's good reason that you should too.

A study published by the Pew Research Center indicates that only 9% of households sampled respond to surveys. This is down from 36% in 1997. However, the study concludes that even with this abysmal response rate surveys still adequately represent the population at large.

I am doubtful. The population that responds to surveys is completely self-selected, and certainly has behavioral and preferential differences from the overwhelming majority of the population that doesn't respond to surveys.

The question is, does it matter? The study found that people who respond to surveys are more engaged in civic activity. Which probably means that people who actually go out and vote are more likely to respond to polls, which could mean that polls may still be somewhat accurate gauges of electoral outcomes, even if they don't represent the general sentiment of the population.

But that isn't a given, and it's basically impossible to determine the accuracy of that hypothesis because the tool you need to measure it with doesn't work.

So, exactly why are more people refusing to respond to surveys?

1. They don't want to waste the time.
2. They figure it's a gimmick or someone is just trying to collect demographic data in order to sell them something.
3. They don't think their opinion is anyone's business.
4. They really don't have an opinion or don't vote or buy a product so they would just be wasting everyone's time.
5. They don't want to burn cellphone minutes (polling now tries to balance cellphone and land-line respondents).
6. They are tired of being constantly interrupted.
7. They believe that poll and survey questions are intentionally slanted to achieve a desired result and are therefore not accurate gauges of their opinion in the first place.

I've declined to respond to surveys for most of these reasons at one time or another, but I'm particularly bothered by "push polls," which have become de rigueur. The the integrity of many polling firms has come into question because of the obvious political slant of their questions and outcomes that tilt consistently in one direction year in and year out.

It's interesting that in the age of Facebook, where everyone is constantly baring their innermost secrets for all the world to see, the number of people who are willing to respond to questions from someone who actually wants their opinion has shrunk dramatically.

I'd ask everyone to respond to the question above, but I know only 9% of you would do it, and the results would be worthless.

A Reset of the Table?

Interesting news on the health care front. 

In 2009 and 2010, total nationwide health care spending grew less than 4 percent per year, the slowest annual pace in more than five decades, according to the latest numbers from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. 

VERY interesting. But why? 

Much of the slowdown is because of the recession, and thus not unexpected, health experts say. But some of it seems to be attributable to changing behavior by consumers and providers of health care — meaning that the lower rates of growth might persist even as the economy picks up.

Because Medicare and Medicaid are two of the largest contributors to the country’s long-term debts, slower growth in health costs could reduce the pressure for enormous spending cuts or tax increases.

I'd say that's pretty good news. Even more interesting...

Still, the slowdown was sharper than health economists expected, and a broad, bipartisan range of academics, hospital administrators and policy experts has started to wonder if what had seemed impossible might be happening — if doctors and patients have begun to change their behavior in ways that bend the so-called cost curve. 

If the growth in Medicare were to come down to a rate of only 1 percentage point a year faster than the economy’s growth, the projected long-term deficit would fall by more than one-third. 

If this continues to be the case, all of the arguments we have heard about health care may be going out the window. Wow. 

Automotive Virtue

Last week George Will wrote about Paul Ingrassia's book on cars and the American dream. In America cars have long been considered symbols of their repressed sexual urges, or expressions of angst by middle-aged men who are suddenly cognizant of their own mortality, or expensive fashion accessories required to keep up with the Joneses.

Right out of the gate Will derided Prius owners as people who preen before the  benighted drivers of Ford F-150 pickup trucks. This reminded me of a conversation a few months ago with a conservative Republican at a dinner party at his house. My wife and I had arrived in her Honda hybrid, and almost immediately he asked me about "my Prius."

It's not mine, it's my wife's, I explained, and it's not a Prius, it's a Civic. As I described the technical differences between the Prius and the Civic he seemed to lose interest, perhaps because it was soon obvious that her choice of vehicle is purely practical rather than ideological. He had a big honking four-wheel drive pickup truck, which was parked in the driveway in front of the garage, alongside a big SUV (they have two kids). He was a nice enough guy, but when we left for the evening he had to make one last snarky comment about our car.

I've encountered people before who seem insulted because I drive fuel-efficient cars (mine is a 12-year-old two-door manual transmission Civic with standard gas engine that gets 35-40 mpg; yet it's miraculously twice the size of the so-called Smart car that gets the same mileage). They seem to think that I'm somehow attacking them by choosing not to waste money on an excessively large, ostentatious and wasteful vehicle.

I learned to drive during the oil crisis in the Seventies. My dad had a big battleship of a pimp-mobile that guzzled gas. The deal was that I could drive it as long as I put gas in it, so I learned early on to prefer efficient cars. Plus, I was always bad at parallel parking, which is so much easier in a small car.

I don't have a problem with people who actually need a pickup to regularly haul stuff for work—it makes no sense to have two cars when one will do. Or people who have six kids and have to get an SUV or minivan to fit everyone in. Or people who live in the boondocks at the end of a muddy, rutted driveway. Or even people who own fishing boats and need a vehicle with a big engine to haul the boat around.

But I just don't get people who commute to work in shiny four-wheel-drive pickup trucks or Hummers that they never use for anything resembling real work. In 33 years we've almost always bought small cars, often hatchbacks, and it's amazing how much stuff you can put in them (we once brought a dishwasher home in the back of a Chevette). When we needed to haul a lot of stuff, we rented a moving van. When we buy furniture or appliances we have the store deliver it (which is also a great way to avoid putting your back out).

People who commute in pickups could save a couple thousand bucks a year in gas money if they drove a regular car and rented a truck from Home Depot for the one time a year they need to haul plywood.

Like George Will, a lot of these people expect me to be smug and superior about the car I drive. I'm not. It's just a conveyance to get me from point A to point B. Perhaps I'm just immune to the automobile industry's cynical marketing ploys, in which they implore you to consider how good you'll look in their car or reduce the whole thing to a ridiculous mathematical equation: Drive = Love.

But let's say that there are Prius owners out there who are smug and proud of their purchase. Just like there are conservatives who are smug and proud about being American and Christian. Why is it wrong for Prius owners to be proud that they made a conscious decision to save money, generate less pollution and use less gas? And why is it right for American Christians to be proud of something that they lucked into, simply by being born here, completely beyond their control?

It's often said that when a middle-aged man buys a red Ferrari it represents his lost youth. If a conservative buys an F-150 to commute in does it represent his independence and toughness, or his vanity, selfishness and wastefulness? If a liberal buys a Prius it represents what? Efficiency? Moderation? Thrift? Economy? Frugality? Abstemiousness? Self-sacrifice? Aren't these all positive conservative virtues? Conservatives are ever more frequently compelling others by force of law to follow the virtues they hold dear with marriage and abortion. Why is it wrong for liberals to encourage others to pursue similarly positive virtues of efficiency and thrift that will produce cheaper gas and cleaner air for all? Why is it acceptable to curtail marital and reproductive freedom, and unacceptable to mandate greater fuel efficiency standards?

For their own completely selfish reasons conservatives should be encouraging others to drive efficient cars, take the bus, and build light rail systems: if more people did the price of gas would go down. The Iranians and the Saudis and the Venezuelans and the Russians and the Iraqis—the foreign powers that conservatives always fret about—would get less of our money. Fewer people would suffer from emphysema and asthma and health care costs would go down.

From any practical perspective, it makes no sense for conservatives to denigrate efficient cars and those who prefer them. Yet they seem insecure unless others validate their purchasing decisions by emulating them. If they think hybrids are an insult to them, perhaps it's their guilt talking.

Many people justify buying big cars by saying that they need more power. Or that SUVs have better traction. Or that small cars are dangerous, or they're uncomfortable, or they don't have the features, etc. I have a friend who's 6'5" and 350 lbs who drives a Volkswagen beetle. Big people can fit into small cars just fine. Hybrids have all the modern technological and safety features.

Passengers in SUVs are much more likely to die in single-vehicle rollovers than in regular cars. SUVs are also more likely to cause deaths in other vehicles. If you buy an SUV to be safer because your car is bigger, it's only true if you hit a smaller car, which means you're much more likely to kill someone else. Isn't thinking your life is more important than someone else's a selfish, sinful pride? There could be little children in that Prius you cream, or a pregnant woman whose fetus might be killed! And if you hit another SUV the advantage disappears. Arms races typically result in mutually assured destruction.

And if safety is the real concern, reducing the speed limit from 70 mph to 55 mph would reduce the force of automobile collisions by more than 60%. That's because the kinetic energy of a collision is proportional to mass times velocity squared. That would save thousands of lives every year, as well as reduce gas consumption significantly. And there's a precedent: Dick Cheney's conservative hero Richard M. Nixon pegged the speed limit to 55 during the Arab oil embargo in 1973.

Here in Minnesota many people insist that they need a big four-wheel drive car because of the snow in the winter. I've lived here all my life, and front-wheel drive is all you need in the city or the suburbs. But a lot of people just don't understand physics: they think that four-wheel drive will let them start and stop on a dime. It just ain't so.

About a dozen years ago I was driving across town in a terrible snowstorm. I saw a state patrol car stopped on the freeway, lights flashing, warning off other drivers from a small pileup in the left lane just after my exit. I moved to the right and slowed down. While I watched, a big four-wheel-drive pickup truck came up from behind, sped past me and ran smack into the rear end of the cop car.

That happened partly because of the false sense of confidence drivers get from the feeling of control they think they have in four-wheel drive vehicles. They might be able to get you going, but with all that mass they can't stop on slick roads any faster than regular cars. As my dad always says (and I roll my eyes when he says it), the most important part of the car is the nut behind the wheel.

Metaphorically speaking, this country is obliviously tooling along in the left lane, about to smack into the rear end of climate change and $5 a gallon gas. The people buying fuel-efficient cars are just getting into the right lane and slowing down to avoid the massive pileup. Don't hate on them: the lives and money they save may be yours.

Fun Math Facts

Since 1932, Democratic Presidents have created 73.4 million new jobs, Republicans have created only 34.8 million. That's an average of 1.7 million jobs a year for Democrats and 967,000 jobs for Republicans.

In case your having trouble with the math that's 38.6 more jobs under Democrats since FDR which is more jobs than the Republicans have created all together during that time.

And that's a Fun Math Fact!

The President of RandLand

The New York Times' recent piece on Paul Ryan confirms that he is the best candidate for my new country of RandLand.

His prescriptions in the Republican budget plan he devised have become his party’s marching orders: cut income tax rates and simplify the code, privatize Medicare, shrink the food-stamp and Medicaid programs and turn almost all control over to the states, and reduce domestic federal spending to its smallest share of the economy since World War II.

I can feel the erections sprouting up around the right wing blogsphere.

What do you say, folks? Let's get RandLand formed and put this man in charge!

Sunday Funny

Fun Math Facts

Since this is an election year and I'm continually reminded that I'm not a logical or mathematical thinker, I thought it would be entirely appropriate to start an ongoing feature here at Markadelphia: Fun Math Facts.

The first one comes from Bloomberg News.

The BGOV Barometer shows that since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures.

For those of you logical mathematical minded folks, that's a difference of 18 million. Wow!

And that is a Fun Math Fact!!!

Help Me To Understand

OK, help me out here folks. Yesterday, Neal Bootz wrote

Obama really has nothing at all to campaign on. He has NO record of success on the one issue that in poll after poll turns up on the top of the list of voter’s concerns; the economy. Obama has the worst economic record of any president since World War II, and he knows it. It’s a record he knows he cannot run on.

Now, obviously there are many more than Neal that share this sentiment. Last in lines chides me constantly in the same manner even though he can easily click on "Obama's policies" in the tag below and see a veritable plethora of posts.

So what goes through Neal's brain (and others like him) when they see this.

And this...

The second picture I pulled from here....the president's own web site!

Help me out, folks. Is this like a nervous tick or something? "No record of success" the economy? "Worst economic record of any president?" "A record he knows he can't run on" even though it's right there on his web site and he mentions private sector job growth almost as much as Rudy Giuliani mentioned 9-11?

Seriously, WTF???!!!??

Bachmann A Go Go

Nikto has covered the Michele Bachmann "I'm Swiss-I'm not Swiss" story quite well but I wanted to throw an extra thought into the mix.

Her hurried and nervous retraction is further evidence of how powerful the right wing media industrial complex is in those circles. In short, she knows who her sugar daddy is...:

Here's Wonkette's take on the whole thing which is a fucking riot!

Bachmann Is Really a Double Agent!

After claiming Swiss citizenship in March of this year, Michele Bachmann has defected back to the United States and renounced her Swiss citizenship.

In her inimitable style, Bachmann again blamed it all on someone else:

In her statement, Bachmann said that "my dual Swiss citizenship ... was conferred upon me by operation of Swiss law" when she married her husband, Marcus, in 1978. 

and

Bachmann spokesman Becky Rogness said confusion arose over Bachmann's citizenship because the couple "recently updated their documents." She declined to elaborate.

Yes, I update my documents with the Swiss embassy at least twice a year. I completely understand.

This was a total airhead moment on Bachmann's part. One in a very long series of total airhead moments. For it she has received an endless series of derisive attacks. But many of those attacks came from the right, with some conservatives demanding her immediate resignation.

This isn't the first time I've confronted the issue of dual citizenship, so my incredulity at the depth of Bachmann's foolishness is genuine. Almost 20 years ago a former boss of mine found out that he could claim Irish citizenship because his grandfather was born in Ireland. He was considering going to Europe for work, and an Irish passport would allow him to work anywhere in the EU without work visas. I was shocked that a friend would abandon his own country this way. I would never consider such a thing.

It still escapes me how the United States allows people with dual citizenship and obviously divided loyalties to vote or contribute to political campaigns, like Sheldon Adelson's wife's Israeli-American daughters who contributed millions to Gingrich's campaign. People who apply for dual citizenship are essentially foreign agents, and in Bachmann/Palin-speak are not "real Americans."

However, I emphatically consider people who go through the process of naturalization and take the oath of citizenship to be completely American—that's really the whole point of this country: people who choose to come here and become citizens want to be American. They often have a better understanding of what America really is than people who were born here and smugly take everything for granted, ignorantly insisting everything about the United States has to be better than every other country.

Bachmann's stance on immigration has been rather strident, so you would think that she would be particularly sensitive to this issue. My guess is that she did this because one of her kids thought it would be cool to get Swiss citizenship. In a moment of doting parental idiocy she forgot how the Republican gotcha game works and foolishly thought she could do something nice for her kids.

This whole episode exposes the truth behind the Republican notion of American nationalism and exceptionalism: it's all just a charade and a tactic. No one really believes any of it. Questions of immigration and patriotism and flag pins and the president's birth certificate are just hammers to use on enemies for political advantage.

What's truly incredible is that for a time there were people who thought Bachmann was fit to be president. I just hope that the voters of  Minnesota's sixth district—where Bachmann no longer lives after redistricting—have had their fill of her antics and decide that she's not fit to serve in Congress.

'Tis A Wonder

It is absolutely uncanny the ability the right has to take a simple fact in reality and completely turn it around so it's all the government's fault.

Take Kevin Baker's recent post about 401Ks. 

The naivete here is so monumental that someone seriously needs to commission a study on how one falls for a colossal amount of bullshit. He's actually doing the Rove on himself! Let me see if I can cut through it.

Kevin, the government doesn't want to take your retirement money. In fact, the reverse is true. The private financial institutions of this country want to take PUBLIC money (that's the money you have been paying into Social Security, Medicare etc) and play casino with it. These same private financial institutions want you to believe..well...what you erroneously believe in your (ahem) paranoia.

Let's review the six steps, shall we?

1. Go directly after the other side’s strengths.

2. Do not accept the truth or the obvious.

3. Instead, make claims that cloud the issue.

4. Some will believe you.

5. Others will be confused.

6. Your opponent’s strong point will be neutralized.

Integrity, Not

In a not all surprising move, the House GOP just voted to back out of the budget deal that would've cut defense spending. Instead, there will now be cuts to poverty programs. Awesome!

I find the whole thing to be quite illustrative as to the integrity of the Republican party. Perhaps John Boehner's recent admission might need to be revised. 

It's About Time

The media has been making a big deal about the president's recent announcement of his support for gay marriage.  I think it's a little late in coming but welcome nonetheless.

I realize it was largely a political decision to hold off on saying anything but this was one of a few areas in which I found fault with the president. In other areas where it wasn't really politically convenient (the PPACA, increased military attacks on Al Qaeda) he showed the courage to do what was best not what was politically beneficial. So why wait so long here?

I predict that this will all be quickly gone (even though the Republicans have promised to run on it) and we will be back to economic matters in short order. Most Americans really don't give a shit about this issue anymore.

Was This Senate Candidate A Regular Commenter On The Smallest Minority?

Inflict his Vill? (oops, I mean opinion:))

So, basically, what you are telling us, Dick, is that if you don't win the argument, you are going to be juvenile and take your ball and go home. Hmmm...

Clearly, we have some serious political porn here for the chest-thumpers to holler "YEAH" at the top of their lungs. "Take that, you Kenyan socialist commie pinkos!"

And the denizens of Kevin Baker's site, upon seeing this candidate, began to use their left hand to gently cup their balls whilst wanking with their right...

Images Explain So Much

The Physics of Names

One of the changes in foreign policy that President Obama made was to stop using the phrase "war on terror." He cast Al Qaeda as an aberration not truly representative of Islam. Instead of attacking all Muslims, as too many Republicans have been wont to in their quest to score domestic political points, the president has been attacking the people who are actually responsible for murdering innocents, going after them with drones in Yemen and Pakistan.

Obama's strategy greatly confounded Osama bin Laden. In letters captured in Abbottabad and recently released, bin Laden lamented the fact that the name of Al Qaeda didn't include a reference to Islam, which allowed Obama to differentiate Al Qaeda from Islam. Obama's strategy greatly frustrated bin Laden and has made the job of taking down Al Qaeda easier.

Recent news of the latest underwear bomb plot further underscores this. The would-be bomber was actually a CIA double agent. I imagine it's a whole lot easier for the CIA to recruit Muslims to help us beat Al Qaeda when we aren't constantly trashing Muslims.

Which brings us to the real point: to win a war in a foreign country you need local allies. Many Republicans have been relentlessly attacking Muslims abroad but also Muslims in the United States. Remember the Ground Zero Mosque flap? (Which was neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero.)

This is not the way to win hearts and minds. When the president stopped using "war on terror" and denigrated Republican tropes like "islamo-fascists" the Republicans accused him of being soft and politically correct.

But they know all too well how effective these words are: they use them intentionally to whip up sentiment in their base. What they don't seem to understand is the Newtonian physics of name-calling: such words work up an equal and opposite sentiment in the people they are insulting,

When Republicans are constantly on the offensive against Islam even innocent accidents like the  burning of Korans in Afghanistan blow up into major international incidents in which dozens of people are killed and serious damage is done to the NATO mission against the Taliban.

Effective problem solving requires focusing on the actual source of the problem, rather than getting distracted by broader issues and causing other problems in the process. The problem is Al Qaeda terrorists. Not Islam. Not terror. But specifically Al Qaeda terrorists. Republican Muslim-baiting serves only to rekindle memories of the Crusades and tear open centuries-old wounds.

Republican broadsides against Islam also make the millions of Muslims who live in the United States wary. Republican insistence that America is a Christian country makes them wonder whether the Constitution that is supposed to guarantee freedom of religion will really protect them.

If we want American Muslims to have our back, we have to have theirs. And we can't insult them at every turn. It's simple physics.

Michele Bachmann Defects to Switzerland

After years of yapping about President Obama's birth certificate, Michele Bachmann has taken the ultimate step in hypocrisy: she has claimed Swiss citizenship.

Her husband's parents were born in Switzerland, but Marcus Bachmann applied in February for dual citizenship. The papers were finalized in March and Bachmann has since been beholden to a foreign power.

In her inimitable style, Bachmann blamed the decision on her kids:

“Congresswoman Bachmann’s husband is of Swiss descent, so she has been eligible for dual-citizenship since they got married in 1978. However, recently some of their children wanted to exercise their eligibility for dual-citizenship so they went through the process as a family,” said Bachmann spokesperson Becky Rogness.

I wonder if Bachmann checked this whole thing out before doing it. Switzerland is in Europe, and is therefore suspiciously "European." They have a health care system that provides better outcomes than its American counterpart while costing much less. It's not strictly socialized medicine because it's based on mandatory health insurance. But maybe that's why her kids want to go live there.

I really have a hard time fathoming this. How can a sitting member of Congress accept foreign citizenship? If Obama did something like this, there would be calls for his immediate impeachment.

This represents, at a minimum, a huge conflict of interest for a member of Congress. How can I trust that anything Bachmann says or does is motivated by her devotion to the United States, if she has a Swiss exit strategy?

Now comes the real test of political purity. How many Republicans will accuse her of treason?

Thank You, Tea Party!!

With the defeat of Richard Lugar last night in Indiana, the Democratic Party should send flowers to the Tea Party movement in Indiana. The Democratic Challenger, Joe Donnelly, has no chance whatsoever against Richard Lugar. But with the ideologically pure (and that IS what matters, right?) Richard Murdock now the nominee, Donnelly has a chance to take seat away from the GOP. Even if he doesn't, the senatorial election in Indiana is going to get the vote out and that means good things for the president in a state that leans Romney but isn't a sure bet as the president won it in 2008.

Andy, over at Electoral Vote, has a nice take on all of this.

In the long term, the defeat of such a respected conservative senator (who the Democrats didn't even bother to oppose in 2006), is going to send a signal to all Senate Republicans that any deviations from tea party orthodoxy and any attempts to work with the Democrats to actually govern, will result in a (possibly career-ending) primary challenge.

But wait! Surely, this must be a "voice in this head."

“Hoosier Republicans want to see Republicans inside the U.S. Senate take a more conservative track. Tonight, friends, it’s time.” Murdock said in his victory speech. 

“The message to the establishment is, ‘You’re our servants. We’re the masters. Do what you’re supposed to do, adhere to the Constitution or we’ll fire you,’” said Greg Fettig, founder of Hoosiers for Conservative Senate. 

Do Not Disobey Our Will...sorry...Vill!!!

Remember, they don't care if they lose elections...as long as they are pure...

Restore the Constitution?

Never underestimate the truly ugly side of American populism.

Sadly, Not Really A Farce

All Of Area Man's Hard Work Finally Pays Off For Employer

 "There were definitely some nights I'd lie awake in bed and wonder, 'Is Sam absolutely killing himself day in and day out for nothing?'" Pardahee told reporters while driving to his weekend home in a recently purchased 2012 BMW luxury sedan. "But Sam just put his head down and never looked back, and this year his blood, sweat, and tears have proven profitable to the tune of a 15 percent larger bonus for myself."

Despite Reality, They Can't Let Go

I had lunch with an old friend and colleague last week who teaches 7th grade Social Studies at the junior high that my daughter will be attending next year. As we were talking shop, she told me that she was at the point in the year when she begins her unit on the Communist Revolution in China. Like many teachers around the state, she uses the film To Live in support of this unit to illustrate what happened in China during that time.

The film tells the story the Chinese Civil War, The Great Leap Forward, and The Cultural Revolution as seen through the eyes of one family. It's a gut wrenching piece that several students always have difficulty with due to its stark and very accurate portrayal of the horrors of communism. If you haven't seen the film, I highly recommend it. I've used it many times myself in class.

In fact, the film is so critical of Communism, that it has been banned in China. My colleague's entire unit takes this same critical approach as well. Twelve and thirteen year old kids in her class (and around the state as it is a Minnesota standard) see with their own eyes exactly what happens under totalitarian regimes.

As she told me of some of the reactions (some students have to cover their eyes or leave the room during some parts of the film), I began to think about the complaints from the right (in particular right wing blog pundits like Kevin Baker), that communism is soft pedaled in schools. Or that the teachers themselves are communists and indoctrinating our children into becoming little maoists. Given the fact that my colleague and many like her have taught this same unit for the last 15 years or more, I simply don't get from where this paranoia arises. It's just not true.

It would be one thing if Kevin and his followers were outliers but they aren't. Pastor Ed at my gym thinks the same thing. Former Navy Secretary and now Romney national security adviser John Lehman said recently,"We are seeing the Soviets pushing into the Arctic with no response from us." 

The Soviets? Really?

It seems that no amount of truth or facts can persuade them. They needs to have themselves a commie threat otherwise they simply can't identify themselves or their place in the world. Such a deep level of willful ignorance frustrates me on so many levels that it's pathetic.

What exists inside of these people that they simply can't let go despite reality?

Whither Student Loan Debt

The ever venerable and eternally handsome last in line emailed me this article recently regarding student loan debt.  The piece gets right to its point very quickly.

Ms. Romine's $900-a-month loan payments eat up 60% of the paycheck she earns as a bank teller in Beaufort, S.C., the best job she could get after graduating in 2008. Her fiancé Dean Hawkins, 31, spends 40% of his paycheck on student loans. They each work more than 60 hours a week. He teaches as well as coaches high-school baseball and football teams, studies in a full-time master's degree program, and moonlights weekends as a server at a restaurant. Ms. Romine, now 26, also works a second job, as a waitress. She is making all her loan payments on time. They can't buy a house, visit their families in Ohio as often as they would like or spend money on dates. Plans to marry or have children are on hold, says Ms. Romine. "I'm just looking for some way to manage my finances."

A stark outlook, indeed.

Most of you know that I respond well to personal stories like this. Ms. Romine is no doubt a primary source on this issue. But I think the point last was trying to make in sending me this (and he can certainly correct me in comments) is that young people should put off college until they have worked for a couple of years to earn money to pay for it rather than go into massive amounts of debt. I disagree and here's why.

Setting aside the concern that I have that taking a gap year might lead to dismissing a college education, time is very much of the essence here. We are in a very critical point as to how we fit as a country in the emerging and ever shifting global marketplace. You can damn well believe that BRICS aren't skimping on education for their young people. In fact, they are sending them all here so when they come back home, they are ready to improve their country's competitiveness in the world. This is why each one of those countries is likely to be quite powerful as we shift into a new, multipolar world.

Obviously, people entering college need to be smarter about the loans they take out. More importantly, schools need to charge less money. 1 trillion dollars in debt smells like one giant racket akin to most health care markets. Of course, this makes me wonder how the right would react if the federal government capped tuition on colleges. Would they blow a bowel and say that it distorts the market? Or would they cheer that the Commies who run the schools finally would be less powerful? Graduating seniors should also consider community colleges and technical schools as lower cost options to a preliminary education before moving on to get a bachelor's degree.

But not having a college degree or delaying the pursuit of one is not a fucking option. If you can't get on board with the United States needing to stay competitive with BRICS, then take a look at the unemployment numbers for non college graduates compared to an individual with a bachelor's degree.

7.9 percent compared to 4.0 percent. 

Essentially, if you have a bachelor's degree, you have just as much of a chance of getting a job as you would in a normal economic environment. Without one, it's going to be tougher.

So, I sympathize with Ms Romine but how much of her debt is her fault? After all, aren't people supposed to take responsibility for their choices?

Between A Rock And A Rock

Mitt Romney is in a tough spot. In order to get the base excited about turning out to vote for him, he has to be super angry, paranoid, and hateful in his criticism of Barack Obama. After all, that's what they want to hear. Buuuttttttt......

Doing that would turn off independents who he very desperately needs in order to beat the president. In fact, he has several prominent Republicans saying he needs to go positive and I think there is some truth to that. I think this election is going to be about who paints the most positive vision of the direction this country needs to take. So far, it's the president and he has the accomplishments to back it up. There is no doubt to the rational thinker that we are headed in the right direction.

So, Mitt's stuck between a rock and a rock. What should he do?

While you are mulling over you answer, check out this video below...

Really?

The first 30 seconds pretty much says it all...wow...

How Dare You Politicize bin Laden!

The Rove, Perfectly Defined

The tactic being used today is familiar to those who have followed the activities of Karl Rove: Go directly after the other side’s strengths. Do not accept the truth or the obvious. Instead, make claims that cloud the issue. Some will believe you. Others will be confused. Your opponent’s strong point will be neutralized. 

For example, in 2004, rather than just accepting the fact that Sen. John Kerry was a war hero, get people to say that he is not. Make such claims even if your own side is notoriously weak on the issue, even if your candidate worked hard not to go to Vietnam and spent months absent from his unit. 

 ---Richard Clarke, Senior White House counterterrorism adviser in the Clinton and Bush administrations.

This is the tactic they use time and again. Count on seeing it a lot in this election and, sadly, in the comments section of this site.

Where's That Fail Again?

Dow Jones average hits highest mark since '07

The fastest growth in U.S. manufacturing in 10 months gave stocks a lift Tuesday and pushed the Dow Jones industrial average to its highest close in more than four years. Manufacturing expanded last month at the strongest pace since June, according to the Institute for Supply Management. Orders, hiring and production all rose. A measure of manufacturing employment also reached a nine-month high, a hopeful sign ahead of Friday's monthly jobs report. 

I'm still having trouble still seeing how the president is destroying the economy and wanting America to fail. Can anyone help me out?

Promised and Delivered

As I write this, we have just learned that the president will shortly address the nation after he has made a surprise trip to Afghanistan and signed a long term agreement with Hamad Karzai, president of Afghanistan, regarding US involvement in that country.

He took the time to address the troops  and thanked them for their service to our country, leaving little doubt that on the issues of national security and foreign policy, his record has been stellar.

As promised, he turned our attention away from Iraq and towards an area of the world that has been a hotbed of international terrorism. On his watch, Al Qaeda has largely been decimated. Their ability to carry out significant, 9-11 style attacks, has largely eroded thanks to the president's efforts in this region of the world. bin Laden and Al-Awlaki aside, the increased drone attacks have taken out scores of Al Qaeda senior leadership. In short, we are indeed safer at home.

But his foreign policy cred doesn't end there. He signed a nuclear arms treaty with Russia, enacted tougher sanctions against Iran, shown no hesitation in dealing with Somali pirates, and sent 2,000 marines to Australia to counter rising Chinese influence in the region.

More importantly, he has improved the United States standing in the world which, in today's increasingly changing and competitive global market, goes quite a long way. One of the main reasons I voted for and support the president was because of his promised and delivered foreign policy.

As I predicted, he has not disappointed. Well done sir!

Fucking. Brilliant.

What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

With this amazing volley, Stephen King, one of my favorite authors of all time, has entered into the Election of 2012 with an absolute corker of a piece in The Daily Beast. 

Here’s another crock of fresh bullshit delivered by the right wing of the Republican Party (which has become, so far as I can see, the only wing of the Republican Party): the richer rich people get, the more jobs they create. Really? I have a total payroll of about 60 people, most of them working for the two radio stations I own in Bangor, Maine. If I hit the movie jackpot—as I have, from time to time—and own a piece of a film that grosses $200 million, what am I going to do with it? Buy another radio station? I don’t think so, since I’m losing my shirt on the ones I own already. But suppose I did, and hired on an additional dozen folks. Good for them. Whoopee-ding for the rest of the economy.

That makes him a small business owner, right? Hee Hee...

Oh, and about that whole envy thing...

The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don’t ask me why; I don’t get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can’t seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber … which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins.

This would be why they think that folks like me and other Democrats are secretly envious of rich people...BECAUSE THEY ARE. And that's the only sort of perception they seemingly understand.

In a perfect little verbal nutshell, he sums up exactly how I feel.

What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.

Good Lord, I think I actually have an erection from reading.

The next time someone says to you, "Well, if rich people want to pay more in taxes, they should just write a check to the Treasury" show them this brilliant piece by a man much eloquent than I!

Look Out!

Just re-discovered this chestnut from last year that I lost in my "Ideas" file.

You bought into the myth that unions are the cause of America’s demise. You didn’t bother to learn America became a world power when union membership was at its peak. You didn’t bother to learn America became the envy of the world while 1 of every 3 Americans was a union member.

Right. But remember, unions are the biggest threat to our country what with all those teachers, police officers, firefighters and city clerks that make millions a year. Look out!

To make matters worse, you’re again being played for a chump. The same puppets who did nothing while your standard of living decreased are now using the oldest gimmick in the book — jealousy — to continue their assault on American workers. Rather than protect Americans’ jobs, they deflect your attention through jealousy.

“Cut the pay of government workers,” they cry. “Increase their health premiums. Decrease their pensions. Break their unions. After all, you’ve suffered so they should suffer too.” And in your misery, you buy their argument while more jobs head oversees. Pretty stupid, eh?

That's why it cracks me up when I hear all this talk about envy. As usual, it's accurate but it's more of a self description.

Misery does indeed love company.

The Antithetical Man

Your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love. 

 ---from a letter that group of Jesuit scholars and other Georgetown University faculty members wrote to Paul Ryan last week.

And just like that, any sort of capital the right had built up with Catholic leaders after the contraceptive flap evaporated.

Thankfully, there are many other folks out there that see Paul Ryan's budget exactly for what it is.

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I write to urge you to resist for moral and human reasons unacceptable cuts to hunger and nutrition programs. The committee has been instructed to reduce agricultural programs by an additional $33.2 billion. In allocating these reductions, the committee should protect essential programs that serve poor and hungry people over subsidies that assist large and relatively well-off agricultural enterprises. Cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment. These cuts are unjustified and wrong.

Huh. They must see the same thing I do when I see Ryan's budget: cutting food stamps to the poor. Ah well, I guess they are liars too. I guess Paul Ryan is a liar now as well.

Ryan argued that government welfare "dissolves the common good of society and it dishonors the dignity of the human person." He would restore human dignity by removing antipoverty programs.

What's terribly ironic about all of this is that Ryan himself said recently that he used "his Catholic faith" as inspiration for his budget. Really?

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.

2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first. 

3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

I'd say that's a Trifecta of Failure, according the leaders of his faith. Of course, this is what I was talking about when I wondered how Ayn Rand and the teachings of Jesus can somehow be magically fit together. The truth is they can't.

Unless you live inside the bubble.

In which case, subsidies and tax cuts for the wealthy are just fine.

Health Care Fallout

Conventional wisdom says that if you voted against the health care law then you are safe, right?

Wrong.

Representatives Jason Altmire and Tim Holden both lost in primaries to opponents who joined together with activist groups to pummel the veteran lawmakers over the opposition to the new health care law and climate change legislation — positions they had used to their advantage in the past to show their independence from President Obama and the Democratic Party.

Ooops.

Further...

While Republicans have seized on the health care law as a political weapon to employ against the president and Congressional Democrats, many Democratic voters and party activists see it as a major achievement and are poised to punish Democrats who fought it. The results on Tuesday also suggest health care could be a major rallying cry if the Supreme Court overturns all or part of the law this summer.

Obviously, I'd like to see the Supreme Court uphold the law. But perhaps I'm wrong in thinking this. What if they do overturn it? That could galvanize a mildly listless base out to vote. Moreover, I still maintain if it is overturned, then you will see a revival of "Medicare For All" that may actually happen.

Oh, and if you are keeping score (and I know some of you are:)), if the Supreme Court does overturn the law AND there is increased voter turnout and/or renewed life for a single payer, government option, that would be an example of losing the argument and still achieving the goal.

Backwards

Here's another piece to go along with my latest post on immigration.

According to the Pew Research Center, the net migration between the U.S. and Mexico over the last five years was essentially zero, and the downward trend suggests that flow of both legal and illegal immigrants may have actually reversed back toward Mexico.

Again, they aren't coming, folks.

The First GDP Report of 2012

The first quarter of 2012 GDP report is in and the initial estimate (there are two more to follow) speaks volumes.  US growth was at 2.2 percent. Of course, how you interpret this depends on whether or not you are a half full or half empty kind of person.

Any growth of 2 percent is good but with unemployment still over 8 percent that simply isn't enough to significantly bring the later number down. The good news is that this result suggest that the economy will continue expand into the year with analysts predicting 3 percent growth throughout the year and that will bring the unemployment rate down.

More importantly, this growth has been fueled by consumer spending which accounts for 70 percent of economic activity. It's also important to note that this marks the 11th straight quarter that the economy has expanded since the Great Recession of 2007-2009. This coincides with the election of President Obama so to say that he is "destroying the economy" is simply wrong when you consider these numbers. That also doesn't mean he's done an absolutely perfect job either. It simply means he's done the best he could given what he was handed and considering the mistake that was made in estimating how deep the recession was back at the time. In other words, a good (not poor or amazing) job.

Oh, and then there's this.

All levels of government are under pressure as they struggle to control budget deficits. Government spending fell at an annual rate of 3 percent in the first quarter.

But wait! I thought that when government cut spending, that would spur growth. Oh well, I guess not.

THE WEIGHT OF GOVERNMENT-Government spending cuts are weighing on the U.S. economy in a way that hasn't been seen in generations. Those cuts have reduced growth for six straight quarters - the longest stretch since 1955.Reduced government spending subtracted 0.6 percentage point from the first quarter's growth. Fortunately, the drag may decline the rest of this year. Defense spending fell sharply in the past two quarters, which isn't likely to continue. And state tax revenue is recovering, closing budget gaps."It's hard for the economy to accelerate when the government has its foot on the brake," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors.

This is why I have zero respect for right wing economic advice. It's simply wrong.

Some other notes from this report...

Many economists predict growth will strengthen in the second half of this year because they think hiring will continue to improve. Job growth has helped drive the unemployment rate to 8.2 percent in March from 9.1 percent in August and given households more money to spend.

That's good news for the president. If the unemployment rate drops below 8 percent, it is very likely he will win re-election.

Consumers this year have reduced their debt loads. Housing is inching back. State and local governments aren't cutting as much. Banks are lending more. And the threat from Europe's debt crisis has eased somewhat.

But no! The world is still ending!!! It has to be!!!

I'm nearly certain that the right will jump on this and spin it to be horrible and Armageddon-like but I guess I don't see how above 2 percent growth can be a bad thing. You certainly can't call it amazing but it's definitely good considering the external factors of 2011 some of which were simply unpredictable.

We Want YOU!!!

Are you a washed up actor or actress that needs a gig before you get spit out the bottom of the porn industry?

Well, the right wing media industrial complex WANTS YOU!

Take Janine Turner, for example.  She couldn't find work anymore in that liberal cesspool called Hollywood (buncha fucking socialists who don't want to make any money) so she parlayed her talents to reach a willfully ignorant audience of millions eager to fork over the hard earned cash to commiserate with others in their fear, paranoia, anger and hatred.

Here's an example of what YOU can do!

Here are some tools. When the Democrats start ranting, use the GIRLFRIENDS acronym to forge through the storm.

G: Get Reasonable. Want to teach your children that laws don’t matter? Be a Democrat. 
I: Informed on Phony Contraception Battle. Want your children to lose their religious freedom? Be a Democrat. 
R: Republicans Are the Women’s Party. Want your daughter to be constrained by government? Be a Democrat. 
L: Legislative Liberty Is Lost. Want your child to live under tyranny? Be a Democrat. 
F: Fuel and Energy Policies Are a Farce. Want your child’s transportation to be a horse? Be a Democrat. 
R: Return Women to the Workforce. Want your daughter to live off the government? Be a Democrat. 
I: Insolvency — Sinking in a Sea of Debt. Want your child to live in debt, hounded by creditors? Be a Democrat. 
E: Entitlement Society — “Give me Liberty and Gimme, Gimme!” Want your child to be dependent on other people’s money? Be a Democrat. 
N: National Security — We Are Vulnerable. Want to teach your child it’s okay to be bullied? Be a Democrat. D: Darkness — Democrats Want Us to Be in the Dark. Want your child to sit in the dark? Be a Democrat. 
S: Sick — Our Health Care Will Soon Be Hopeless. Want your child to be sick for a year? Be a Democrat. 

Steady paychecks guaranteed by Bill Whittle. And remember, it doesn't matter at all if you believe what you are saying or are even factual. This has $$$ written all over it!

So why let Sarah Palin get all the market share? This is one oil well that won't dry up (wink wink!)

Should I?

I can't help but think of Mike Lofgren when I watch this video which just came up on my dashboard courtesy of Cult Grand Wizard, Kevin Baker.

 

I'm wondering if he would recant his promise to post this once a month considering that  he and his readers have assured me on several occasions that they are, in fact, logical and mathematical thinkers yet there are no facts or evidence supporting most of the claims in the video (aside from the usual War On Christmas type anecdotes).

Are there any facts I could present them that would change their mind? Should I bother?:)

Look Out! They....aren't coming...

Talk to any conservative these days about illegal immigration and they' ll tell you that our country is being overrun and our president is doing a terrible job of protecting our borders and stopping it.

As with many things they foam at the mouth about, this simply is not true. 

Roughly 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S. last year, down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to the Pew Hispanic Center study released Monday. It was the biggest sustained drop in modern history, believed to be surpassed in scale only by losses in the Mexican-born U.S. population during the Great Depression.

About 1.4 million Mexicans left the U.S. between 2005 and 2010, double the number who did so a decade earlier. In the meantime, the number of Mexicans who entered the U.S. sharply fell to about 1.4 million, putting net migration from Mexico at a standstill. More recent data suggest that most of the movement is now heading back to Mexico, accounting for the drop in the illegal immigrant population.

Why is this happening?

Much of the drop in illegal immigrants is due to the persistently weak U.S. economy, which has shrunk construction and service-sector jobs attractive to Mexican workers following the housing bust. But increased deportations, heightened U.S. patrols and violence along the border also have played a role, as well as demographic changes, such as Mexico's declining birth rate.

So, the president deserves some of the credit as well.

The Christian Science Monitor has a great piece on why Mexicans are staying home and why its likely to continue. Here's a video to go along with it.



I think we are going to see more of these types of stories as prosperity continues to rise worldwide and as we shift into a multipoloar world.

Not Just Fox

True not only of Fox but the general thinking of the base and its pundits as well.

Oh, Really?

Minnesota GOP gets eviction notice, after being behind in rent since August

 

The party of fiscal responsibility...hmph.

Explain, Ass Hats...

My Oh My

As I perused the Wall Street Journal this morning, I was positively stunned to see this headline.

High Tax Rates Won't Slow Growth

Holy fucking balls on a Popsicle stick!!

Well, it is the opinion page so I suppose they can be forgiven for such heresy.

But they sure do make a convincing argument with (ahem) numbers, facts and stuff. Let's start with a few basic ones.

The share of pre-tax income accruing to the top 1% of earners in the U.S. has more than doubled to about 20% in 2010 from less than 10% in the 1970s. At the same time, the average federal income tax rate on top earners has declined significantly.

Of course, this begs a key question.

Will taxable incomes of the top 1% respond to a tax increase by declining so much that revenue rises very little or even drops? In other words, are we already near or beyond the peak of the famous Laffer Curve, the revenue-maximizing tax rate?

What is that Laffer Curve thing again?

The Laffer Curve is used to illustrate the concept of taxable income "elasticity,"—i.e., that taxable income will change in response to a change in the rate of taxation. Top earners can, of course, move taxable income between years to subject them to lower tax rates, for example, by changing the timing of charitable donations and realized capital gains. And some can convert earned income into capital gains, and avoid higher taxes in other ways. But existing studies do not show much change in actual work being done.

So what would that rate be on the top earners before we would see a decline in revenue?

According to our analysis of current tax rates and their elasticity, the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50%-70% (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes). Thus we conclude that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases at least until we reach the 50% rate that held during the first Reagan administration, and possibly until the 70% rate of the 1970s. To reduce tax avoidance opportunities, tax rates on capital gains and dividends should increase along with the basic rate. Closing loopholes and stepping up enforcement would further limit tax avoidance and evasion.

Holy SHEEEIT! That's a higher rate than even I have considered!!! So, what does it say that the fucking Wall Street Journal is recommending it? I've been told several times that they are a reputable source, after all.

Assuming the revenue problem is solved, how about the issue of economic growth. After all, we've been told time and again that high taxes mean less growth.

Will raising top tax rates significantly lower economic growth? In the postwar U.S., higher top tax rates tend to go with higher economic growth—not lower. Indeed, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP annual growth per capita (to adjust for population growth) averaged 1.68% between 1980 and 2010 when top tax rates were relatively low, while growth averaged 2.23% between 1950 and 1980 when top tax rates were at or above 70%.

Good grief, that can't be true, can it? Well, let's get back to revenue.

One cannot evaluate the ultimate growth effects of raising more revenue without identifying what is done with the revenue. If part of the revenue is used to reduce the federal debt, more of savings go into capital investment, enhancing growth. The fact that those paying higher taxes will reduce their savings somewhat does not fully offset this effect as some of their higher taxes would come out of consumption.

If some of the additional revenue is used for public investments with a high return, such as education, infrastructure and research, it raises growth further. The neglect of public investment over the last few decades suggests that the returns could be quite high.

Which is exactly what the president has been saying for his entire term. So why are the Republicans and others on the right against this given these facts?

RandLand

I had the distinct pleasure over the weekend to spend some time with my friend of 32 years, John Waxey. He owns a cottage in Wisconsin and we stayed up late on Saturday night/Sunday morning shooting the breeze. As is usually the case, one of the topics we discuss is politics and he came up with a very interesting idea that I am going to turn into an ongoing theme on this site.

Every day we hear conservatives/libertarians complain about the size of government, the lack of religious values, and....well...just about everything else in this country. They blame liberals and say that they are fucking everything up (despite many facts to the contrary) and if only they could run things the way they should be run, everything would be great. Essentially, their vision of how a country should be run  is superior and the liberal vision is inferior.

So, John's idea was simple. Allow them to annex a few states and form their own country. That way, they can govern as they see fit and not have to worry about liberals messing things up. I knew right away what it should be called: RandLand.

RandLand is a right wing dream, folks, and I'm here to tell you that I want to make it come true. Not only would the right be happy but the rest of us rational people would be too. With them out of the way doing their own thing, we wouldn't have to waste our time on all that hate, paranoia, anger, and fear. They could just do that in their own country.

I figure you could give them South Carolina, maybe a few other states in the south, and then Montana. Those would be more than enough to sustain them with each of those states have plenty of natural resources and access to the ocean to allow free trade. Of course, their xenophobia might be a problem but I'm sure they'd figure out a work around.

Think of the possibilities, though. Laissez faire economics...no drivel about climate change...abortion illegal...prayer in school...no gun laws...no social security...medicare...lazy fuckers on food stamps...no weird foreign people (or people who aren't white for that matter)...you know, REAL Americans.

Of course, I haven't even mentioned the best part. They could FINALLY prove folks like me wrong by having a living example of how well all their ideas would work in action. Moreover, they wouldn't have anyone to blame if (ahem, when) their policies failed because, after all, no liberals will live in RandLand. So, the responsibility would all be on them. I say we give them their moment to shine.

Now, I know some of you might be laughing by now and thinking that I'm just being silly but, I assure you, I'm not. In fact, I think this is the only way to show folks on the right how their little ideas would work in practical application. They need to live it and have no one standing in their way (see: no one to blame but themselves).

So, who's with me? Let's make RandLand the 197th country in the world!

My Kinda Joe!

Voices In My Head (Double Live Gonzo Edition)

If you can’t galvanize and promote and recruit people to vote for Mitt Romney, we’re done. We’ll be a suburb of Indonesia next year. Our president, attorney general, vice president, Hillary Clinton–they’re criminals. They’re criminals. Who doesn’t know the crimes our government are committing?

We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November! Any questions? 

If Barack Obama is elected, I'll either be dead or in jail this time next year 

 ---Ted Nugent (at the NRA meeting last weekend in St. Louis)

I'd say Ted has done a fine job of summing up what Charely Pierce wrote about recently in Esquire. I hope to God that he sticks around and keeps talking from now until November 6th!

Another Skirmish in the War on Women

The Republican-controlled Minnesota state legislature recently passed bills requiring women to take RU 486 (mifepristone, or the abortion pill) in the physical presence of a doctor. It's common practice for this drug to be administered via video conferencing.

Republicans claim that this is to protect women's health, but it's obviously just another bogus road block to prevent women from getting abortions. According to the bill's sponsor, Joyce Peppin:

This bill is about women’s health, Just a few statistics about this type of drug: 14 deaths, 612 hospitalizations, 58 ectopic pregnancies. That’s something to be taken seriously.

What Peppin neglects to mention is that these 14 deaths occurred over 10 years, between September, 2001 and April, 2011. According to the FDA 1.52 million women used the drug and 14 died: eight of those deaths were due to Chlostridium infections and the rest were due to illegal drug overdose, methadone overdose, murder, toxic shock and septic shock. Even if you include the questionably attributed cases, that's only 0.9 deaths per 100,000.

By comparison, the death rate for Viagra is about 5 out of every 100,000. A fact which led Phyllis Kahn to make an amendment to require men take Viagra under the supervision of a physician.

What's even more outrageous is the mortality rate among pregnant women in the United States:

Maternal mortality ratios have increased from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2006. While some of the recorded increase is due to improved data collection, the fact remains that maternal mortality ratios have risen significantly

Yes, a pregnant woman is 15 times more likely to die if she brings a child to term than if she uses mifepristone. By comparison, the death rate for people taking aspirin and other NSAIDs is between 21 and 24 deaths per 100,000, and the death rate for Tylenol is 150 or more per 100,000.

Why do we have all these maternal deaths? Basically, lack of health insurance, family planning services and prenatal care. Since a pregnant woman has a preexisting condition, insurance companies will be able to deny pregnant women insurance until the ACA takes full effect.

Mifepristone is one of the safest drugs on the market. Why? It's just a big dose of contraceptive hormones that cause the uterine lining to shed, something which happens naturally every month. This also happens spontaneously in a quarter (and some sources say as much as 50 or 75%) of all pregnancies, resulting in miscarriages, or spontaneous abortions.

So when these people claim that they're passing all these laws to protect women's health, they're lying. They're really pushing a religious or political agenda attacking women's freedoms and rights.

Cynical Republican Stance Against Gay Marriage Fading

NPR is running a series of stories on big campaign donors in the wake of the Citizen's United decision. The other day they ran a story on Paul Singer, a Wall Street vulture investor who preys on vulnerable companies. Singer is backing Romney, who has a similar background.

But the interesting thing about Singer is that he's also backing gay marriage. Singer's son is gay, and was married in Massachusetts. Singer has donated more than $8 million to the cause. From the story:

"I believe a generation from now, gay marriage will be seen as a profoundly traditionalizing act. It will have channeled love into the most powerful social institution on earth: marriage itself," said Singer in a video posted on the gay news blog Towleroad. 

He was speaking at a 2010 fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Chad Griffin, a political strategist and board president for the group, says Singer supports gay marriage not in spite of being a Republican, but because he is a Republican. 

"He is a real force in the fight for full equality in this country," Griffin says.

Singer isn't the only such Republican: it's well known that Dick Cheney supports gay marriage (his daughter is gay), and George W. Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, came out as gay two years ago. Bush's first Solicitor General, Theodore Olson, successfully led the challenge to California's Prop 8 gay marriage ban.

George Bush won the 2004 election largely on the strength of the anti-gay marriage fervor that was spreading across the country in the wake of court decisions at the time. Yet Bush's campaign manager, his representative at the Supreme Court and his running mate actually thought gay marriage should be allowed on constitutional grounds.

For years the Republican Party has been cynically manipulating popular sentiment against gay marriage for political advantage, knowing in their heart of hearts that it's wrong to deny people equal rights and force one religious group's beliefs on an entire nation. Now many of them are making their true feelings known, since the handwriting is on the wall and opposition to gay marriage is making its last desperate gasp.

Abortion is exactly the same: it's a personal freedom issue, just like gay marriage. The government shouldn't be telling me who I can and can't marry, and it shouldn't be telling my wife what she can do with her own body. It's a total Republican no-brainer: women must be free to use birth control and have abortions, within reasonable limits and with exceptions like those Rick Santorum's wife used. Sometimes the responsible thing for a pregnant woman is to carry the child to term, and sometimes the responsible thing is to get an abortion. Any true Republican knows in the core of his being that it has to be this way.

This Republican strategy is particularly cynical in their recruitment of Catholic voters. Republicans have used gay marriage and abortion to get Catholics to vote Republican, while taking stands that affect far more people and that Catholics have always opposed: the death penalty, the proliferation of guns and callously killing kids on the street, endless wars in foreign countries, harsh treatment of immigrants, degradation of the environment, cutting taxes on the rich while cutting programs for the poor and middle class, and on and on. John Boehner's recent rejection of Catholic bishop's criticism of House budget priorities is proof of this.

Voters of faith have to look beyond hot-button social issues and view the entirety of a party's platform. Their stands on social issues can blow with the wind, completely dependent on the whims of the big-money men or the schemes of political strategists. Because in the end, the rights guaranteed in our Constitution have to trump religious predilections.

Wealthy Republicans like Paul Singer are now openly supporting gay marriage. If he had a daughter who needed birth control or an abortion, you can be sure he would be able to flout whatever laws were in his way, by sending them abroad if necessary, and then spend millions to get those laws changed to ensure his granddaughters would have the same opportunity to exercise their right to control their own destinies.

Thanks, Charlie!

My first thought at Charley Pierce's brilliant piece in Esquire was, "Hey, he's stealing my shit!" which quickly turned to some inner rumblings about imitation being the highest form of flattery. In fact, he very simply defined the exact reason why I spend so much time talking about the conservative base.

Pierce echoes Mike Lofgren's tell all from a while back and sums up the current political situation quite well.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Republican party, root and branch, from its deepest grass roots to its highest levels, has become completely demented. This does not mean that it is incapable of winning elections; on the contrary, the 2010 midterms, as well as the statewide elections around the country, ushered in a class of politicians so thoroughly dedicated to turning nonsense into public policy that future historians are going to marvel at our ability to survive what we wrought upon ourselves.

This isn't merely an opinion anymore. It's a fact.

It is now impossible to become an elected Republican politician in this country if, for example, you believe in the overwhelming scientific consensus that exists behind the concept of anthropogenic global warming. Just recently, birth control, an issue most people thought pretty well had been settled in the 1960s, became yet another litmus test for Republican candidates, as did the Keystone XL pipeline, to which every Republican presidential candidate pledged unyielding fealty despite the fact that several prairie Republicans and an army of conservative farmers and ranchers are scared to death of the thing.

Again, all facts. But here's the worst part.

Eventually, as was proven by the failed candidacies of Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle, which helped lose the Republicans a golden chance at controlling the Senate as well in 2010, these people cared less about whether the party succeeded than they did that their ideology was kept pure and their private universe invulnerable.

They cared less about whether their party succeeded...in other words, they don't care if they win or lose elections. When you reach that level of irrationality, it makes me wonder what else you are capable of doing. This is exactly what the Democrats don't understand and why, I fear, they severely underestimate the conservative base of this country.

Certainly, this is a mistake I have made in the past but no longer. I know what I ...what we are up against.

Armed with the power of its extraparty institutions, there is a strong element within the Republican base that does not care if the party loses one, two, or three elections as long as their ideology remains pure. There is nobody so powerful in politics as influential people who don't care if they lose. The Republicans have these in abundance. 

Pierce doesn't hold out much hope for the Democrats.

The Democrats don't have them at all. This is what keeps the Democrats from being able to make the Republicans pay full price for their party's departure from reality on so many issues. In 2006, the Republicans were handed a defeat in the midterms every bit as resounding as the one suffered by the Democrats four years later. The difference is that there were so many institutions enabling and validating the Republicans' outré ideas that they didn't see any need to moderate them as a result of the 2006 debacle. They simply rode out the 2008 presidential election and retooled those ideas for the age of Obama. Suddenly, we started hearing about "czars," and more talk about socialism than you would have heard at Eugene V. Debs's bachelor party. What were once moderate Republican ideas were now the thin edge of the collectivist wedge. The transformation was complete. And it was remarkable.

Never underestimate the ugly side of American populism and what it can become.

So, is there a solution?

The Democratic party has an obligation to beat the Republican party so badly, over and over again, that rationality once again becomes a quality to be desired. It must be done by persuading the country of this simple fact. It cannot be done by reasoning with the Republicans, because the next two generations of them are too far gone. 

Hence, one of the main reasons for this site.

Thanks, Charlie!