Conservatives love to heap adulation on the founding fathers and bloviate about how they were all Christians founding a Christian nation...at least their version of Christianity. Certainly, Thomas Jefferson, our nation's 3rd president, is one of those heroes who is held up as a champion of the Right and a defender of more local government power.
I have to wonder, though, what those same conservatives think about the fact that Jefferson created his own version of the New Testament.
Thomas Jefferson, together with several of his fellow founding fathers, was influenced by the principles of deism, a construct that envisioned a supreme being as a sort of watchmaker who had created the world but no longer intervened directly in daily life. A product of the Age of Enlightenment, Jefferson was keenly interested in science and the perplexing theological questions it raised. Although the author of the Declaration of Independence was one of the great champions of religious freedom, his belief system was sufficiently out of the mainstream that opponents in the 1800 presidential election labeled him a “howling Atheist.”
In fact, Jefferson was devoted to the teachings of Jesus Christ. But he didn’t always agree with how they were interpreted by biblical sources, including the writers of the four Gospels, whom he considered to be untrustworthy correspondents. So Jefferson created his own gospel by taking a sharp instrument, perhaps a penknife, to existing copies of the New Testament and pasting up his own account of Christ’s philosophy, distinguishing it from what he called “the corruption of schismatizing followers.”
In some ways, Jefferson had a point but I wouldn't go as far to cut and past my own version of the Bible nor accuse Christ's followers as corrupt. They were simply trying to understand something that was way beyond them which we can understand in greater clarity today. That's why I'm hoping that in a decade or two, we can leave behind the anti-science of the Right and start a new Age of Enlightenment in which we truly do "His works and greater than these." We can't allow angry, hateful, insecure, irrational people filled with fear to bully their way into being the "official" spokesmodels for God. He is much bigger than their petty obsessions with gay sex and lady parts which, honestly, is an extension of their own sexual hangups.
I wonder what would happen if Barack Obama did what Jefferson did with the Bible...:)
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Debt Ceiling Raised
House passes clean debt ceiling bill
Yes, I believe they have learned the folly of their ways...especially in an election year.
Yes, I believe they have learned the folly of their ways...especially in an election year.
This Winter Alaska is Warmer than Atlanta on Some Days
About the same time thousands of Atlantans were stuck in their cars on a frozen freeway, NPR reports that the temperature in Seward, Alaska reached 61 degrees:
FEIDT: Alyeska is known for getting a lot of snow. The upper mountain averages more than 50 feet each season. But this winter is different. It's been nearly a month since any significant snow fell. And in January, the mountain, along with most of Alaska, endured two weeks of rainy, warm weather that's more typical of early June. The same weather pattern that sent the polar vortex diving into the lower 48 pushed warm air and moisture from the subtropics up into Alaska. The result? Temperatures that were hard to believe.
RICK THOMAN: Seward's 61 degrees, the warmest January temperature ever recorded.
FEIDT: Wait. Seward was 61 or 51?
THOMAN: Sixty-one.
FEIDT: What?
THOMAN: Six-one, yes. That's correct.
Now, the average high in July and August for Seward is just one degree higher, 62 degrees.
Computerized climate models have long predicted these sorts of counterintuitive weather patterns as a result of global warming; it's one of the reasons climatologists prefer to call it "climate change" instead of "global warming." Not all places will get warmer, but the climate pretty much everywhere will be changed somehow: some places will get more rain, others less rain. In general coastal areas will have higher sea levels. As higher temperatures and migrating insect infestations kill off trees, temperatures will get even higher, because vegetation is a very powerful cooling mechanism.
Locally, this winter's cold snap will help stave off the arboreal Armageddon facing Minnesota: up to 90% of the the emerald ash borers that have infested ash trees in Minnesota will be killed by the cold.
The old saw about the cold winters in Minnesota keeping out the riff-raff has a grain of truth after all.
Michael Sam Is An American Hero
Missouri defensive end Michael Sam told The New York Times and ESPN he is gay, and the 2014 NFL Draft prospect plans to become the first openly gay player in the NFL. Sam figures to be one of the top defensive draft picks this year. I was born in Columbia, Missouri and have been a Tiger fan since birth so his honesty makes me very proud indeed.
Some are saying that Sam has diminished his chances from being picked high in the draft but I don't. The people that run teams in the NFL want to win. Period. If Sam is a good player, he will get picked and it looks like he is top notch. He ranks among the top pass rushers in the SEC last year with 10.5 regular-season sacks (he had another one in the Cotton Bowl), boosting his NFL draft stock despite his lack of size for the defensive end position (6-foot-2, 255 pounds). He was also voted Team MVP by his coaches and teammates this year who have known for the past five seasons that he is gay.
Make no mistake about it, though, this is a big deal and Michael Sam, like Jackie Robinson before him, is an American hero. The NFL's culture is notoriously anti-gay with the locker room stuck in the 1950s. Most people under the age of 30 won't give a shit about this but the older folks might get bunged up. It will be interesting to see what happens. For me, it's just another wonderful indicator of the progress we have made as culture.
Michael, good luck with your career. I know it will be a bloody magnificent one!
Some are saying that Sam has diminished his chances from being picked high in the draft but I don't. The people that run teams in the NFL want to win. Period. If Sam is a good player, he will get picked and it looks like he is top notch. He ranks among the top pass rushers in the SEC last year with 10.5 regular-season sacks (he had another one in the Cotton Bowl), boosting his NFL draft stock despite his lack of size for the defensive end position (6-foot-2, 255 pounds). He was also voted Team MVP by his coaches and teammates this year who have known for the past five seasons that he is gay.
Make no mistake about it, though, this is a big deal and Michael Sam, like Jackie Robinson before him, is an American hero. The NFL's culture is notoriously anti-gay with the locker room stuck in the 1950s. Most people under the age of 30 won't give a shit about this but the older folks might get bunged up. It will be interesting to see what happens. For me, it's just another wonderful indicator of the progress we have made as culture.
Michael, good luck with your career. I know it will be a bloody magnificent one!
Monday, February 10, 2014
And the Band Plays On
My father-in-law asked me to record the Minnesota Orchestra concert last Friday. He has Parkinsons and couldn't listen to the concert live. This presented a problem: I, like most everyone else, don't have a tape recorder any more.
So I had to dig around for the right cable and hook my receiver up to a computer and use Audacity to record the program, then export it as an MP3 file, which I burned to a CD.
The program, directed by laureate conductor Stanisław Skrowaczewski, included the Star-Spangled Banner, Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, Strauss's Don Juan, and Beethoven's Third Symphony.
My father-in-law had subscribed to the Orchestra's concert series for decades. He's heard all this music a dozen times before. Why was this concert so special?
It was the first Minnesota Orchestra concert after a 16-month lockout. After spending $52 million dollars renovating Orchestra Hall, Michael Henson, CEO and president of the Minnesota Orchestra Association (MOA), thought there were too many players and they were making too much money.
Somehow Henson doesn't understand that standard orchestral repertoire, such as Mahler and Bruckner symphonies, can require more than a hundred players. Like the emperor in Amadeus, I suppose Henson thinks there are too many notes.
These players are world-class musicians, having spent decades perfecting their art, and commanding top salaries, in the neighborhood of $100-200K. While that's much more than the average American's salary, it's typical for trained professionals: engineers and programmers in California make about the same, and many lawyers and doctors make far more.
During the grueling lockout the players of the Minnesota Orchestra put on their own concerts at university and college halls around the cities. They were always sold out. Throughout the Twin Cities you could find orange signs supporting the musicians. Never once did I see anyone voicing support for management.
Former US senator George Mitchell, who helped broker the peace accord in Northern Ireland, was brought in to negotiate, but management was recalcitrant.
Exactly how good was the Minnesota Orchestra before the lockout? It just won a Grammy for a recording of two Sibelius symphonies on the BIS label, which were made before the lockout. Osmo Vänskä, the orchestra's former music director, is the leading interpreter of Sibelius in the world.
A few months ago Vänskä gave management an ultimatum: end the lockout or he would resign. Henson continued to dawdle, so Vänskä followed through. When the Minneapolis city council started to make noises about taking Orchestra Hall away from the MOA because they weren't putting on concerts, Henson capitulated. The new contract gives the players a 15% salary cut in the first year, with raises in the next two. It was exactly the sort of contract the the musicians would have accepted the whole time.
The lockout cost the Minnesota Orchestra a recording contract, a tour in top concert venues in Europe, a conductor, 30-odd players who had to move on, millions in lost ticket sales and charitable contributions, its world-class reputation and much good will. It will take many years to recover.
This story has become typical in America. Lockouts have now become the main tactic of management. In 2012 the NHL locked the players out. In 2011 the NBA locked the players out, and the NFL did the same. The St. Paul Chamber Orchestra had a lockout in 2012. Companies have been using lockouts with increasing frequency, such as American Crystal Sugar, which locked out employees for years, and Kellogg cereals.
But the orchestra and sports lockouts are stunningly stupid, because the players are the product. Management can't step in and play the instruments or throw the football, and scabs are the ones who just don't make the cut. World-class musicians aren't interchangeable gears that just plug into the lowest rungs of the orchestra association's org chart.
The Minnesota Orchestra spent $52 million to upgrade Orchestra Hall, only to have it stand empty for a year and a half. Meanwhile, the players staged their own concerts around town, raising more than half a million dollars on their own.
There have been numerous calls for Osmo Vänskä to return. He has stated that he will not come back unless CEO Michael Henson resigns.
Even if Vänskä doesn't come back, Henson has to go. He has demonstrated massive managerial incompetence and a destructively antagonistic attitude toward the artists that are the very product he is trying to sell. What decent conductor would work for a man like Henson?
To top it off, Henson is paid the big bucks: he got a $200K bonus in 2011, for a total of $619K in the year before the lockout. In 2012 he received $589,416, which was almost 2% of the orchestra's expenses, even though the musicians were locked out for the last three months of the year! Someone so incompetent has no right to that job, especially since the orchestra is a non-profit charity!
At more than half a mil, Henson is well-entrenched as a one-percenter. He seems to consider himself one of the elite, rubbing elbows with fellow one-percenters constantly, hitting them up for contributions. Like too many of that ilk, he seems to have made it his life's work to cut everyone else's salary while raising his own. Corporate hacks might be able to sell that line of bull to shareholders, but the CEO of a charitable organization needs to get a clue.
Henson -- like so many CEOs -- just doesn't understand that he's the one that's completely disposable: without musicians an empty hall stands silent; without a CEO the band plays on.
So I had to dig around for the right cable and hook my receiver up to a computer and use Audacity to record the program, then export it as an MP3 file, which I burned to a CD.
The program, directed by laureate conductor Stanisław Skrowaczewski, included the Star-Spangled Banner, Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, Strauss's Don Juan, and Beethoven's Third Symphony.
My father-in-law had subscribed to the Orchestra's concert series for decades. He's heard all this music a dozen times before. Why was this concert so special?
It was the first Minnesota Orchestra concert after a 16-month lockout. After spending $52 million dollars renovating Orchestra Hall, Michael Henson, CEO and president of the Minnesota Orchestra Association (MOA), thought there were too many players and they were making too much money.
Somehow Henson doesn't understand that standard orchestral repertoire, such as Mahler and Bruckner symphonies, can require more than a hundred players. Like the emperor in Amadeus, I suppose Henson thinks there are too many notes.
These players are world-class musicians, having spent decades perfecting their art, and commanding top salaries, in the neighborhood of $100-200K. While that's much more than the average American's salary, it's typical for trained professionals: engineers and programmers in California make about the same, and many lawyers and doctors make far more.
During the grueling lockout the players of the Minnesota Orchestra put on their own concerts at university and college halls around the cities. They were always sold out. Throughout the Twin Cities you could find orange signs supporting the musicians. Never once did I see anyone voicing support for management.
Former US senator George Mitchell, who helped broker the peace accord in Northern Ireland, was brought in to negotiate, but management was recalcitrant.
Exactly how good was the Minnesota Orchestra before the lockout? It just won a Grammy for a recording of two Sibelius symphonies on the BIS label, which were made before the lockout. Osmo Vänskä, the orchestra's former music director, is the leading interpreter of Sibelius in the world.
A few months ago Vänskä gave management an ultimatum: end the lockout or he would resign. Henson continued to dawdle, so Vänskä followed through. When the Minneapolis city council started to make noises about taking Orchestra Hall away from the MOA because they weren't putting on concerts, Henson capitulated. The new contract gives the players a 15% salary cut in the first year, with raises in the next two. It was exactly the sort of contract the the musicians would have accepted the whole time.
The lockout cost the Minnesota Orchestra a recording contract, a tour in top concert venues in Europe, a conductor, 30-odd players who had to move on, millions in lost ticket sales and charitable contributions, its world-class reputation and much good will. It will take many years to recover.
This story has become typical in America. Lockouts have now become the main tactic of management. In 2012 the NHL locked the players out. In 2011 the NBA locked the players out, and the NFL did the same. The St. Paul Chamber Orchestra had a lockout in 2012. Companies have been using lockouts with increasing frequency, such as American Crystal Sugar, which locked out employees for years, and Kellogg cereals.
But the orchestra and sports lockouts are stunningly stupid, because the players are the product. Management can't step in and play the instruments or throw the football, and scabs are the ones who just don't make the cut. World-class musicians aren't interchangeable gears that just plug into the lowest rungs of the orchestra association's org chart.
The Minnesota Orchestra spent $52 million to upgrade Orchestra Hall, only to have it stand empty for a year and a half. Meanwhile, the players staged their own concerts around town, raising more than half a million dollars on their own.
There have been numerous calls for Osmo Vänskä to return. He has stated that he will not come back unless CEO Michael Henson resigns.
Even if Vänskä doesn't come back, Henson has to go. He has demonstrated massive managerial incompetence and a destructively antagonistic attitude toward the artists that are the very product he is trying to sell. What decent conductor would work for a man like Henson?
To top it off, Henson is paid the big bucks: he got a $200K bonus in 2011, for a total of $619K in the year before the lockout. In 2012 he received $589,416, which was almost 2% of the orchestra's expenses, even though the musicians were locked out for the last three months of the year! Someone so incompetent has no right to that job, especially since the orchestra is a non-profit charity!
At more than half a mil, Henson is well-entrenched as a one-percenter. He seems to consider himself one of the elite, rubbing elbows with fellow one-percenters constantly, hitting them up for contributions. Like too many of that ilk, he seems to have made it his life's work to cut everyone else's salary while raising his own. Corporate hacks might be able to sell that line of bull to shareholders, but the CEO of a charitable organization needs to get a clue.
Henson -- like so many CEOs -- just doesn't understand that he's the one that's completely disposable: without musicians an empty hall stands silent; without a CEO the band plays on.
Wal Mart Takes A Hit
Wal Mart is closing stores and has a dim outlook for the future. The primary reason for this is the reduced food stamp benefits to millions of Americans. Competition from other big box stores like Costco and Amazon (where they pay their employees a decent wage) are also causes for bearish view of Wal Mart's future finances.
I wonder if the execs at Wal Mart are going to get the message. If you pay your employees more money, they will spend more money, not simply at Wal Mart, but in the economy at large. This will, in turn, lead to more people being hired at other firms and then...spending more money at Wal Mart. This means that the execs make more money anyway.
Perhaps a review of Adam Smith is in order for them.
I wonder if the execs at Wal Mart are going to get the message. If you pay your employees more money, they will spend more money, not simply at Wal Mart, but in the economy at large. This will, in turn, lead to more people being hired at other firms and then...spending more money at Wal Mart. This means that the execs make more money anyway.
Perhaps a review of Adam Smith is in order for them.
Sunday, February 09, 2014
Time, Frozen
Time is like a river, the old saying goes. Always changing, yet ever the same. Summer is like the river; an eternal now, always the same, one day indistinguishable from the next.
But come winter, time freezes. We can see in four dimensions. Last night a deer walked through the woods. It lay down here and slept with several of its fellows. Sometime around dawn a coyote bounded through the snow, chasing a rabbit. A squirrel climbed down this tree, ran across the driveway and went up that tree. Here, a skier fell down. There, a man walked his dog. He was an inconsiderate lout, based on what he left behind.
Winter gives us second sight and superhuman powers of locomotion: we can see through thick forests and find animal trails that are completely hidden in the summer. Mere mortals become expert trackers. We can stroll through marshy bogs and dense thickets with nary a scratch; winter has stripped the leaves away, snow has crushed the brambles, our coats are armor against the thorns. But lakes cloud our X-ray vision: they are still mysterious broad snowy expanses, seemingly solid, but slush and thin ice could be lurking out there anywhere.
On the river, time is frozen on the surface. Our vision still extends into the past. As we walk we can look back to see exactly where we've been. But beneath the snow and ice time is still flowing forward, always beyond our sight.
Winter gives us time to remember, to look back, and to look forward. Snow is a physical manifestation of memory. Looking back at their tracks in the snow, two men walking along a river must agree on where they have been.
But we as a nation have come to a juncture where those same two men, if they are from opposing political parties, will look back at the last few years and completely disagree on the basic facts of everything that has happened.
If we cannot agree on where we've been, how can we possibly hope to find a way forward?
But come winter, time freezes. We can see in four dimensions. Last night a deer walked through the woods. It lay down here and slept with several of its fellows. Sometime around dawn a coyote bounded through the snow, chasing a rabbit. A squirrel climbed down this tree, ran across the driveway and went up that tree. Here, a skier fell down. There, a man walked his dog. He was an inconsiderate lout, based on what he left behind.
Winter gives us second sight and superhuman powers of locomotion: we can see through thick forests and find animal trails that are completely hidden in the summer. Mere mortals become expert trackers. We can stroll through marshy bogs and dense thickets with nary a scratch; winter has stripped the leaves away, snow has crushed the brambles, our coats are armor against the thorns. But lakes cloud our X-ray vision: they are still mysterious broad snowy expanses, seemingly solid, but slush and thin ice could be lurking out there anywhere.
On the river, time is frozen on the surface. Our vision still extends into the past. As we walk we can look back to see exactly where we've been. But beneath the snow and ice time is still flowing forward, always beyond our sight.
Winter gives us time to remember, to look back, and to look forward. Snow is a physical manifestation of memory. Looking back at their tracks in the snow, two men walking along a river must agree on where they have been.
But we as a nation have come to a juncture where those same two men, if they are from opposing political parties, will look back at the last few years and completely disagree on the basic facts of everything that has happened.
If we cannot agree on where we've been, how can we possibly hope to find a way forward?
Rand Paul: Texas Will Turn Blue
Rand Paul is clearly gearing up for a presidential run. Yesterday he said the following
What I do believe is Texas is going to be a Democrat state within 10 years if we don’t change. That means we evolve, it doesn’t mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a welcoming party.
Exactly right, Rand. Maybe now that you are saying it, some people will listen. Still, I wonder being more inclusive is going to be possible with people like this?
The core of the problem with the Right today is all they have is pettiness. That's what the majority of their base is all about. One need only look at my comments section for evidence of this. They are an angry, hateful, bitter and fearful people who have not matured past the adolescent level of development. I wonder if Rand Paul is the one to help them grow up. It sounds like he certainly is, in terms of immigration.
“We won’t all agree on it,” he said. “But I’ll tell you, what I will say and what I’ll continue to say, and it’s not an exact policy prescription … but if you want to work and you want a job and you want to be part of America, we’ll find a place for you.” This is the exact kind of positivity the Right needs right now. Will more follow suit?
What I do believe is Texas is going to be a Democrat state within 10 years if we don’t change. That means we evolve, it doesn’t mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a welcoming party.
Exactly right, Rand. Maybe now that you are saying it, some people will listen. Still, I wonder being more inclusive is going to be possible with people like this?
The core of the problem with the Right today is all they have is pettiness. That's what the majority of their base is all about. One need only look at my comments section for evidence of this. They are an angry, hateful, bitter and fearful people who have not matured past the adolescent level of development. I wonder if Rand Paul is the one to help them grow up. It sounds like he certainly is, in terms of immigration.
“We won’t all agree on it,” he said. “But I’ll tell you, what I will say and what I’ll continue to say, and it’s not an exact policy prescription … but if you want to work and you want a job and you want to be part of America, we’ll find a place for you.” This is the exact kind of positivity the Right needs right now. Will more follow suit?
Going To Hell!
Right around this time of the year we talk about Charles Darwin in class and every year, I get a few students that question Darwin and evolution. This year, I was asked by a young woman what I thought.
"Evolution is scientific fact but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. What if He began the process for evolution? I think there is room for everyone to be right here."
I realize that's kind of a cop out answer (everyone wins!) but being open minded is something I try to pass on to my students. After class was over, the young woman came up to me and said, "I didn't want to say anything in front of class but people that believe in evolution are going to hell." She stormed out of the room in all her seventh gradedness and left me pretty much speechless. What sort of parents does a person like this have to have to bring them to this point? Worse, this recent poll shows that Republican belief in evolution is actually falling. Seriously?!?
I guess in some ways I was hurt by what she said but as the next class rolled in, another young woman came up to me and asked me how old I was. I told her I was 47 next month. Her jaw dropped to the ground.
"Everyone thinks you are 35!"
Ah, the life of a teacher...
"Evolution is scientific fact but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. What if He began the process for evolution? I think there is room for everyone to be right here."
I realize that's kind of a cop out answer (everyone wins!) but being open minded is something I try to pass on to my students. After class was over, the young woman came up to me and said, "I didn't want to say anything in front of class but people that believe in evolution are going to hell." She stormed out of the room in all her seventh gradedness and left me pretty much speechless. What sort of parents does a person like this have to have to bring them to this point? Worse, this recent poll shows that Republican belief in evolution is actually falling. Seriously?!?
I guess in some ways I was hurt by what she said but as the next class rolled in, another young woman came up to me and asked me how old I was. I told her I was 47 next month. Her jaw dropped to the ground.
"Everyone thinks you are 35!"
Ah, the life of a teacher...
Saturday, February 08, 2014
Your Logical Fallacy Is....
Recently, Kent from Minnesota wrote me.
Hey, Mark, what's the deal with these standard responses that your commenters always quote. Aren't those all ad hominem?
Yes, Kent they are. It should also be pointed out that ad hominem is part of the genetic fallacy family of logical fallacies. Kent also sent along this link which I found to be most helpful.
ad hominem:
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.
And...
genetic:
You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.
Example: Accused on the 6 o'clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.
Click here for more illustrative examples of how the TSM commenters consistently use ad hom and genetic fallacy. As to why they do it, they are obviously insecure about their own arguments. This explains why they only criticize and never make any of their own, living in a constant state of terror that they might be "proved wrong."
What a sad and pathetic way to live your life...
Hey, Mark, what's the deal with these standard responses that your commenters always quote. Aren't those all ad hominem?
Yes, Kent they are. It should also be pointed out that ad hominem is part of the genetic fallacy family of logical fallacies. Kent also sent along this link which I found to be most helpful.
ad hominem:
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.
And...
genetic:
You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.
Example: Accused on the 6 o'clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.
Click here for more illustrative examples of how the TSM commenters consistently use ad hom and genetic fallacy. As to why they do it, they are obviously insecure about their own arguments. This explains why they only criticize and never make any of their own, living in a constant state of terror that they might be "proved wrong."
What a sad and pathetic way to live your life...
Economic Growth Retreat
Great editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about just how stupid the Republican Party is these days. After criticizing the president, they had this to say.
Conservatives and the GOP are as responsible for the failure on immigration. The populist wing of the party has talked itself into believing the zero-sum economics that immigrants steal jobs from U.S. citizens and reduce American living standards. Neither claim is true, but Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and the Heritage Foundation might as well share research staffs with the AFL-CIO.
So great is the House GOP fear of a talk-radio backlash that it won't even pass smaller bills that 75% of Republicans agree on. There will be nothing to codify the legal status of children of illegal immigrants who have lived here for decades. And no expanded green cards for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, a policy Mitt Romney endorsed. And no cleaning up the work-visa morass that has obliged U.S. farmers to hire illegals to harvest their crops.
The result of doing nothing will be a de facto "amnesty" in which 11 million illegal immigrants will continue to work using fake documents. Mr. Obama will look for ways to grant more of them legal status using executive power, and the GOP will look even more unwelcoming to minorities.
This last bit is all too revealing. Republicans actually do favor amnesty and are granting it every day by doing nothing. Further, they will end up making the president look even better than the fears of an immigration win would by forcing him to do all he can with his executive power.
The GOP has a real shot at taking back the Senate this year but without immigration reform, I don't see it happening. Louisiana, where Mary Landrieu is going to have a very tough race, Latinos make up over 5 percent of the population. The New Orleans metro area has the 3rd largest Honduran American population in the country. Arkansas also has a growing immigrant population and Mark Pryor is very beatable. Both of these states could turn on the Latino and Asian vote. Pass reform this year and you can say goodbye to both of these Democratic senators.
It seems that the fear is too great, though...
Conservatives and the GOP are as responsible for the failure on immigration. The populist wing of the party has talked itself into believing the zero-sum economics that immigrants steal jobs from U.S. citizens and reduce American living standards. Neither claim is true, but Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and the Heritage Foundation might as well share research staffs with the AFL-CIO.
So great is the House GOP fear of a talk-radio backlash that it won't even pass smaller bills that 75% of Republicans agree on. There will be nothing to codify the legal status of children of illegal immigrants who have lived here for decades. And no expanded green cards for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, a policy Mitt Romney endorsed. And no cleaning up the work-visa morass that has obliged U.S. farmers to hire illegals to harvest their crops.
The result of doing nothing will be a de facto "amnesty" in which 11 million illegal immigrants will continue to work using fake documents. Mr. Obama will look for ways to grant more of them legal status using executive power, and the GOP will look even more unwelcoming to minorities.
This last bit is all too revealing. Republicans actually do favor amnesty and are granting it every day by doing nothing. Further, they will end up making the president look even better than the fears of an immigration win would by forcing him to do all he can with his executive power.
The GOP has a real shot at taking back the Senate this year but without immigration reform, I don't see it happening. Louisiana, where Mary Landrieu is going to have a very tough race, Latinos make up over 5 percent of the population. The New Orleans metro area has the 3rd largest Honduran American population in the country. Arkansas also has a growing immigrant population and Mark Pryor is very beatable. Both of these states could turn on the Latino and Asian vote. Pass reform this year and you can say goodbye to both of these Democratic senators.
It seems that the fear is too great, though...
Friday, February 07, 2014
The Real Story Behind Global Cooling
Right wing commenters on the inter webs love to do their little adolescent dance about how global cooling was all the rage back in the days when they didn't have man tits and could still see their penises. But Doug Struck's recent piece in Scientific American (you know, that magazine for scientists that has been published for nearly 170 years with past contributions from people like Albert Einstein) details exactly how the Church of the Climate Denier has lied about this theory.
For example, the author of the global cooling piece...
"When I wrote this story I did not see it as a blockbuster," Gwynne recalled. "It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking." And, revisionist lore aside, it was hardly a cover story. It was a one-page article on page 64. It was, Gwynne concedes, written with a bit of over-ventilated style that sometimes marked the magazine's prose: "There are ominous signs the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically..." the piece begins, and warns of a possible "dramatic decline in food production."
"Newsweek being Newsweek, we might have pushed the envelope a little bit more than I would have wanted," Gwynne offered.
Oh really? I'm most shocked that they would leave out these details...
For example, the author of the global cooling piece...
"When I wrote this story I did not see it as a blockbuster," Gwynne recalled. "It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking." And, revisionist lore aside, it was hardly a cover story. It was a one-page article on page 64. It was, Gwynne concedes, written with a bit of over-ventilated style that sometimes marked the magazine's prose: "There are ominous signs the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically..." the piece begins, and warns of a possible "dramatic decline in food production."
"Newsweek being Newsweek, we might have pushed the envelope a little bit more than I would have wanted," Gwynne offered.
Oh really? I'm most shocked that they would leave out these details...
The Explanation
Herewith is the explanation that was asked for:
Corporate boards are populated by executives of other corporations. To set salaries for executives they form "compensation committees" consisting of themselves and their underlings. They conduct "salary surveys" of other corporations to determine what appropriate levels of compensation should be.
The boards then tell themselves that to attract (or maintain) marvelous corporate leadership, they need to set compensation a bit higher than the median. CEOs are constantly fired when the stock doesn't perform. But every time CEOs change seats in their game of corporate musical chairs, no chairs are removed: the salaries are just increased.
Thus, companies see an endless parade of CEOs whose salaries just keep getting higher and higher, while cycling the same old cast of characters through various executive suites and boardrooms across the country.
This inflationary spiral would be deemed completely unsupportable for maintaining a high quality labor force, but since each large corporation only has a few dozen execs, keeping the best talent around is "worth it."
The problem is that, when you add up the cost of all that compensation for the entire executive team, it starts to add to hundreds of millions to billions of dollars for the bigger companies. To pay for it, employees are laid off. Wall Street rewards the company by running up the stock price, lauding the CEO for his "tough management style" and "increasing productivity."
And the thing is, the average CEO is simply not worth what they're being paid. I've personally known CEOs, and they're just regular guys. The vast majority of them are not any smarter or faster than you or me. Most of them got where they are by being someone's son, someone's college roommate, or someone's drinking buddy. A rare few got there by being brilliant, innovative, hard-working. Almost all of them created nothing; most are just hired guns.
The only people who can make a claim that they deserve the big bucks are the real innovators, like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. But those guys are usually ill-suited to running a corporate bureaucracy; innovators and entrepreneurs are frustrated and stifled by the demands of shareholders and "Wall Street expectations."
The one thing most CEOs do have in abundance is the ability to project confidence. Corporate boards just love a CEO who projects confidence. But, just like all those confident and exciting boyfriends that so many women seem to fall in love with, only to find out they make absolutely terrible husbands, these supremely confident CEOs make absolutely terrible managers.
Corporate boards are populated by executives of other corporations. To set salaries for executives they form "compensation committees" consisting of themselves and their underlings. They conduct "salary surveys" of other corporations to determine what appropriate levels of compensation should be.
The boards then tell themselves that to attract (or maintain) marvelous corporate leadership, they need to set compensation a bit higher than the median. CEOs are constantly fired when the stock doesn't perform. But every time CEOs change seats in their game of corporate musical chairs, no chairs are removed: the salaries are just increased.
Thus, companies see an endless parade of CEOs whose salaries just keep getting higher and higher, while cycling the same old cast of characters through various executive suites and boardrooms across the country.
This inflationary spiral would be deemed completely unsupportable for maintaining a high quality labor force, but since each large corporation only has a few dozen execs, keeping the best talent around is "worth it."
The problem is that, when you add up the cost of all that compensation for the entire executive team, it starts to add to hundreds of millions to billions of dollars for the bigger companies. To pay for it, employees are laid off. Wall Street rewards the company by running up the stock price, lauding the CEO for his "tough management style" and "increasing productivity."
And the thing is, the average CEO is simply not worth what they're being paid. I've personally known CEOs, and they're just regular guys. The vast majority of them are not any smarter or faster than you or me. Most of them got where they are by being someone's son, someone's college roommate, or someone's drinking buddy. A rare few got there by being brilliant, innovative, hard-working. Almost all of them created nothing; most are just hired guns.
The only people who can make a claim that they deserve the big bucks are the real innovators, like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. But those guys are usually ill-suited to running a corporate bureaucracy; innovators and entrepreneurs are frustrated and stifled by the demands of shareholders and "Wall Street expectations."
The one thing most CEOs do have in abundance is the ability to project confidence. Corporate boards just love a CEO who projects confidence. But, just like all those confident and exciting boyfriends that so many women seem to fall in love with, only to find out they make absolutely terrible husbands, these supremely confident CEOs make absolutely terrible managers.
America Is Owed An Explanation
I think America needs an explanation as to why it's so difficult to raise the minimum wage yet incredibly easy to raise the pay of CEOs. Take a look at this recent piece in the LA times about CEO pay.
The great management guru Peter Drucker advised companies to stick to a ratio of about 20 to 1 between the pay of the CEO and that of the average worker. That's "the limit beyond which they cannot go if they don't want resentment and falling morale to hit their companies," Drucker wrote, according to a comment on the CEO pay rule submitted to the SEC by Rick Wartzman, executive director of the Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University. Drucker's standard was in line with the ratios of the 1970s and early '80s, when he wrote those words. Today they seem positively quaint.
The average CEO-to-worker pay ratio in 2012 was about 350 to 1. That's down somewhat from where it was before the 2008 recession, but it would have to come down a great deal more to return to the non-obscene range. It's plain that this ratio typically has little to do with an executive's performance. The CEO-to-average-worker pay ratio of the 250 largest companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index ranges from 1,795 to 1 (J.C. Penney's Ron Johnson) to 173 to 1 (Agilent Technologies' William Sullivan), according to Bloomberg, which ran the data for 2012.
My wife used to work for Supervalu. They went through a few CEOs during her tenure there and it was always the same thing. Somebody would be brought in to "fix" the company. They would be paid millions of dollars. They would fail. And then they would leave with their millions, accomplishing nothing, with dozens (if not more) of average workers being laid off. The information in this link details how something similar happened with JC Penney. In so many ways, this is complete bullshit. If the CEO fails to do is or her job or makes it worse, they shouldn't get any amount of money. Take the money you are paying the CEOs and keep the average workers longer.
At least the SEC seems to be doing something about it.
I wholeheartedly support this new rule and think that the public (especially the investing public) needs to be aware of how these companies are doing business. Firms like Penney's don't seem to understand, as Drucker noted above, that the health of a company springs from its employees, not from the top. They aren't going to be successful unless they start paying better wages to everyone. Worse, the social cohesion in our society is fraying as a result. There are a lot of people hurting out there and seeing wealthy people bitch about poor people while they themselves are getting something for nothing is really FUBAR.
The Right likes to scream about "class warfare" but that's really code for desperately wanting to maintain aristocracy.
The great management guru Peter Drucker advised companies to stick to a ratio of about 20 to 1 between the pay of the CEO and that of the average worker. That's "the limit beyond which they cannot go if they don't want resentment and falling morale to hit their companies," Drucker wrote, according to a comment on the CEO pay rule submitted to the SEC by Rick Wartzman, executive director of the Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University. Drucker's standard was in line with the ratios of the 1970s and early '80s, when he wrote those words. Today they seem positively quaint.
The average CEO-to-worker pay ratio in 2012 was about 350 to 1. That's down somewhat from where it was before the 2008 recession, but it would have to come down a great deal more to return to the non-obscene range. It's plain that this ratio typically has little to do with an executive's performance. The CEO-to-average-worker pay ratio of the 250 largest companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index ranges from 1,795 to 1 (J.C. Penney's Ron Johnson) to 173 to 1 (Agilent Technologies' William Sullivan), according to Bloomberg, which ran the data for 2012.
My wife used to work for Supervalu. They went through a few CEOs during her tenure there and it was always the same thing. Somebody would be brought in to "fix" the company. They would be paid millions of dollars. They would fail. And then they would leave with their millions, accomplishing nothing, with dozens (if not more) of average workers being laid off. The information in this link details how something similar happened with JC Penney. In so many ways, this is complete bullshit. If the CEO fails to do is or her job or makes it worse, they shouldn't get any amount of money. Take the money you are paying the CEOs and keep the average workers longer.
At least the SEC seems to be doing something about it.
I wholeheartedly support this new rule and think that the public (especially the investing public) needs to be aware of how these companies are doing business. Firms like Penney's don't seem to understand, as Drucker noted above, that the health of a company springs from its employees, not from the top. They aren't going to be successful unless they start paying better wages to everyone. Worse, the social cohesion in our society is fraying as a result. There are a lot of people hurting out there and seeing wealthy people bitch about poor people while they themselves are getting something for nothing is really FUBAR.
The Right likes to scream about "class warfare" but that's really code for desperately wanting to maintain aristocracy.
Thursday, February 06, 2014
Obama Mental Meltdown Syndrome (And The Lying It Produces)
I didn't get a chance to catch the Bill O'Reilly interview with the president but apparently Dana Millbank did.
O’Reilly devoted nearly 40 percent of his time to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, 30 percent to the Obamacare rollout and 20 percent to IRS targeting.
Wow. Talk about playin' the hits for the hardcore fans. Does he actually think that most people give a shit about any of these issues?
Of course, this is their modus operandi. We now live in a society where you are not only entitled to your opinion but your own facts as well. Case in point...
Anti-Obamacare, facts be damned
“Sick kids denied specialty care due to #Obamacare,” his Twitter feed proclaimed on Saturday, linking to a conservative blog post based on a TV news report out of Seattle. His Facebook page weighed in on the same story, calling it “heartbreaking” and vowing that House Republicans “will continue working to scrap this broken law.” There’s just one problem: The shocking claim — that the President’s health reforms resulted in sick children being denied care — was flat-out false. Which Boehner’s staff must have known, assuming they actually read the material they were helping to spread across the Internet.
The anger and the hatred towards the president is so irrational that the Right is simply lying now and they don't really care.
O’Reilly devoted nearly 40 percent of his time to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, 30 percent to the Obamacare rollout and 20 percent to IRS targeting.
Wow. Talk about playin' the hits for the hardcore fans. Does he actually think that most people give a shit about any of these issues?
Of course, this is their modus operandi. We now live in a society where you are not only entitled to your opinion but your own facts as well. Case in point...
Anti-Obamacare, facts be damned
“Sick kids denied specialty care due to #Obamacare,” his Twitter feed proclaimed on Saturday, linking to a conservative blog post based on a TV news report out of Seattle. His Facebook page weighed in on the same story, calling it “heartbreaking” and vowing that House Republicans “will continue working to scrap this broken law.” There’s just one problem: The shocking claim — that the President’s health reforms resulted in sick children being denied care — was flat-out false. Which Boehner’s staff must have known, assuming they actually read the material they were helping to spread across the Internet.
The anger and the hatred towards the president is so irrational that the Right is simply lying now and they don't really care.
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
How The Gun Laws Will Change
Last Friday, Bill Maher and his guests wondered on Real Time what it would take for our nation's gun laws to change to suit our current challenges. If Sandy Hook didn't change things, what possibly could? I kept waiting for them to say it and they didn't. Here is how it will happen.
There will be a mass shooting at some sort of gun event in which powerful people in the gun lobby will be affected personally and very deeply. They will lose family members and friends and will realize their own hubris played a part in causing this. And that's when the gun cult will completely fall apart.
Americans don't move to change until they are affected by things in an overwhelmingly personal way. Sandy Hook and the other shootings we've had in the last year haven't done that because they were incidents that occurred outside of the sphere of the gun lobby. Once they start happening within that sphere, things will change and very rapidly indeed. One need only look at the issue of gay marriage, for example, to see how it will happen. Republicans were very anti gay marriage until family members, friends and donors started coming out. The sphere was no longer closed. Cigarettes were nearly identical, as I have mentioned previously. When the pro smoking crowd started losing people to cancer and heart disease, it all fell apart. The same thing will happen with climate change.
So, we will see incremental changes, with people like Gabby Giffords and her husband making small gains, for what seems like a far too long of a time and poof! Suddenly, it will all change and we will wonder why we didn't have enough common sense in the first place. I realize this isn't much solace for the citizens of our country that have to endure the pain of losing someone to gun violence because a minority of people in this country are mentally unbalanced. People should take some heart, though, that we have made progress in identifying the underlying causes of mass shootings (in particular, school shootings) and talking about them more frequently. Check this recent article out.
Bill Bond, who was principal at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky., in 1997 when a 14-year-old freshman fired on a prayer group, killing three female students and wounding five, sees few differences in today's shootings. The one consistency, he said, is that the shooters are males confronting hopelessness. "You see troubled young men who are desperate and they strike out and they don't see that they have any hope," Bond said.
We can give the young men in our community hope right now. We don't need altered gun laws to do this. In addition, we can make sure that these troubled young men don't have access to firearms. If we can pursue this vigor and care, we will reduce the number of school and mass shootings in this country. This could be the beginning of a very necessary sea change in this country in which we wake up to the fact that American culture has some very deep flaws in terms of gun competency.
There will be a mass shooting at some sort of gun event in which powerful people in the gun lobby will be affected personally and very deeply. They will lose family members and friends and will realize their own hubris played a part in causing this. And that's when the gun cult will completely fall apart.
Americans don't move to change until they are affected by things in an overwhelmingly personal way. Sandy Hook and the other shootings we've had in the last year haven't done that because they were incidents that occurred outside of the sphere of the gun lobby. Once they start happening within that sphere, things will change and very rapidly indeed. One need only look at the issue of gay marriage, for example, to see how it will happen. Republicans were very anti gay marriage until family members, friends and donors started coming out. The sphere was no longer closed. Cigarettes were nearly identical, as I have mentioned previously. When the pro smoking crowd started losing people to cancer and heart disease, it all fell apart. The same thing will happen with climate change.
So, we will see incremental changes, with people like Gabby Giffords and her husband making small gains, for what seems like a far too long of a time and poof! Suddenly, it will all change and we will wonder why we didn't have enough common sense in the first place. I realize this isn't much solace for the citizens of our country that have to endure the pain of losing someone to gun violence because a minority of people in this country are mentally unbalanced. People should take some heart, though, that we have made progress in identifying the underlying causes of mass shootings (in particular, school shootings) and talking about them more frequently. Check this recent article out.
Bill Bond, who was principal at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky., in 1997 when a 14-year-old freshman fired on a prayer group, killing three female students and wounding five, sees few differences in today's shootings. The one consistency, he said, is that the shooters are males confronting hopelessness. "You see troubled young men who are desperate and they strike out and they don't see that they have any hope," Bond said.
We can give the young men in our community hope right now. We don't need altered gun laws to do this. In addition, we can make sure that these troubled young men don't have access to firearms. If we can pursue this vigor and care, we will reduce the number of school and mass shootings in this country. This could be the beginning of a very necessary sea change in this country in which we wake up to the fact that American culture has some very deep flaws in terms of gun competency.
Robots Saved Steeltown
Politico has an absolutely fascinating piece in their magazine about how robotics literally saved the economy of Pittsburgh. In many ways, it's rebirth should be the model for how our economy should be transformed to fit the age of globalization.
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Obamacare = More Freedom and Job Opportunities?
The Congressional Budget Office issued a report saying that up to two million Americans will quit their jobs because they can sign up for a policy under the healthcare exchanges.
Republicans have been quick to characterize this as "two millions jobs will be lost!" But the reality is that corporations are really losing two million employees. "Employees quitting" does not equal "jobs lost."
You could just as easily characterize this as two million jobs that pay well enough to provide health insurance are opening up for the unemployed.
When these people quit the companies that they were being forced to work for just to get health insurance, many of those companies will need to hire additional workers.
Some of the people quitting will move to part-time work. Some will retire early and leave the workforce completely. Some will open entrepreneurial small businesses because they're no longer shackled to the corporate/industrial health care complex.
This could also lead to higher productivity. People locked into jobs for fear of losing health care coverage are probably not the most motivated workers. If they quit, they'll make room for people who actually want to do that job.
The report says that some smaller companies may try to downsize in order to duck under the employee limit for businesses to provide health care. That might cause some short term pain, but in the long run that's what should happen overall.
Companies should not pay for their employees' health care, any more than they pay for food, clothing and housing. The health care mandate is a huge expense that companies in other countries don't have to pay, one that makes American businesses less competitive.
Eliminating the requirement for companies to pay for health insurance should be a goal that everyone can embrace, Democrats, Republicans and Independents. It will make healthcare providers more responsive to their actual customers -- rather than their bosses -- put everyone in the country on equal footing when it comes to health care. And it would end the perverse motivation for costs in the health care industry to always go up.
Republicans have been quick to characterize this as "two millions jobs will be lost!" But the reality is that corporations are really losing two million employees. "Employees quitting" does not equal "jobs lost."
You could just as easily characterize this as two million jobs that pay well enough to provide health insurance are opening up for the unemployed.
When these people quit the companies that they were being forced to work for just to get health insurance, many of those companies will need to hire additional workers.
Some of the people quitting will move to part-time work. Some will retire early and leave the workforce completely. Some will open entrepreneurial small businesses because they're no longer shackled to the corporate/industrial health care complex.
This could also lead to higher productivity. People locked into jobs for fear of losing health care coverage are probably not the most motivated workers. If they quit, they'll make room for people who actually want to do that job.
The report says that some smaller companies may try to downsize in order to duck under the employee limit for businesses to provide health care. That might cause some short term pain, but in the long run that's what should happen overall.
Companies should not pay for their employees' health care, any more than they pay for food, clothing and housing. The health care mandate is a huge expense that companies in other countries don't have to pay, one that makes American businesses less competitive.
Eliminating the requirement for companies to pay for health insurance should be a goal that everyone can embrace, Democrats, Republicans and Independents. It will make healthcare providers more responsive to their actual customers -- rather than their bosses -- put everyone in the country on equal footing when it comes to health care. And it would end the perverse motivation for costs in the health care industry to always go up.
The Imperial President?
The Christian Science Monitor had the following cover story last week.
Is Barack Obama an imperial president?
As is usually the case with their reporting, it is very balanced and offers some very interesting critiques of the president. It's a lengthy piece but worth of a serious read as we, once again, debate the limits of presidential power.
My take on this issue is this. If Republican leaders in Congress are going to bitch about the limits of presidential power, then they should offer alternatives to what the president wants to do. It's easy to be a critic (which is essentially all the Right does these days...take a look at my comments section) but let's see some serious policy proposals to tackle the major issues of the day. Saying the government should just stay out of it isn't the answer either.
The president and the Democrats also need to bear in mind that Republicans are going to loathe to the core anyone who is the leader of this country and not a member of their tribe. They did it with Bill Clinton, they are doing it with Barack Obama, and they will do it with Hillary Clinton, if she runs and wins. They may bitch about government authority but when it's their guy, they love it and can't get enough of it. They want their Reagan-esque, father figure to tuck them in at night and say that it's all going to be OK.
So, whatever they do, the Right is going to irrational motivated by fear, anger, and hatred leading to bitching without any viable solutions of their own. They've essentially become like pop stars in which they sing the hits for their fans and then exit stage left. What they don't realize, though, is that most stars are famous for only 15 minutes. If they want to stay relevant, they are going to have to produce. That means that if the president produces (and this is mentioned at the end of the article), the debate about whether or not he is imperial will fade away.
Is Barack Obama an imperial president?
As is usually the case with their reporting, it is very balanced and offers some very interesting critiques of the president. It's a lengthy piece but worth of a serious read as we, once again, debate the limits of presidential power.
My take on this issue is this. If Republican leaders in Congress are going to bitch about the limits of presidential power, then they should offer alternatives to what the president wants to do. It's easy to be a critic (which is essentially all the Right does these days...take a look at my comments section) but let's see some serious policy proposals to tackle the major issues of the day. Saying the government should just stay out of it isn't the answer either.
The president and the Democrats also need to bear in mind that Republicans are going to loathe to the core anyone who is the leader of this country and not a member of their tribe. They did it with Bill Clinton, they are doing it with Barack Obama, and they will do it with Hillary Clinton, if she runs and wins. They may bitch about government authority but when it's their guy, they love it and can't get enough of it. They want their Reagan-esque, father figure to tuck them in at night and say that it's all going to be OK.
So, whatever they do, the Right is going to irrational motivated by fear, anger, and hatred leading to bitching without any viable solutions of their own. They've essentially become like pop stars in which they sing the hits for their fans and then exit stage left. What they don't realize, though, is that most stars are famous for only 15 minutes. If they want to stay relevant, they are going to have to produce. That means that if the president produces (and this is mentioned at the end of the article), the debate about whether or not he is imperial will fade away.
Delusions of Failure
Paul Krugman has a great piece up detailing how the Right lies about the Affordable Care Act. Some choice cuts.
But isn’t Obamacare in a “death spiral,” in which only the old and sick are signing up, so that premiums will soon soar? Not according to the people who should know — the insurance companies. True, one company, Humana, says that the risk pool is worse than it expected. But others, including WellPoint and Aetna, are optimistic (which isn’t a contradiction: different companies could be having different experiences). And the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has run the numbers, finds that even a bad risk pool would have only a minor effect on premiums.
Ah, so no boiling pit of sewage. Just the usual free market stuff.
Bette’s tale had policy wonks scratching their heads; it was hard to see, given what we know about premiums and how the health law works, how anyone could face that large a rate increase. Sure enough, when a local newspaper, The Spokesman-Review, contacted Bette Grenier, it discovered that the real story was very different from the image Ms. McMorris Rodgers conveyed. First of all, she was comparing her previous policy with one of the pricier alternatives her insurance company was offering — and she refused to look for cheaper alternatives on the Washington insurance exchange, declaring, “I wouldn’t go on that Obama website.”
Even more important, all Ms. Grenier and her husband had before was a minimalist insurance plan, with a $10,000 deductible, offering very little financial protection. So yes, the new law requires that they spend more, but they would get far better coverage in return.
Wouldn't go on that Obama website...I don't get the personal hatred toward the man. If it's not racist, what is it?
But isn’t Obamacare in a “death spiral,” in which only the old and sick are signing up, so that premiums will soon soar? Not according to the people who should know — the insurance companies. True, one company, Humana, says that the risk pool is worse than it expected. But others, including WellPoint and Aetna, are optimistic (which isn’t a contradiction: different companies could be having different experiences). And the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has run the numbers, finds that even a bad risk pool would have only a minor effect on premiums.
Ah, so no boiling pit of sewage. Just the usual free market stuff.
Bette’s tale had policy wonks scratching their heads; it was hard to see, given what we know about premiums and how the health law works, how anyone could face that large a rate increase. Sure enough, when a local newspaper, The Spokesman-Review, contacted Bette Grenier, it discovered that the real story was very different from the image Ms. McMorris Rodgers conveyed. First of all, she was comparing her previous policy with one of the pricier alternatives her insurance company was offering — and she refused to look for cheaper alternatives on the Washington insurance exchange, declaring, “I wouldn’t go on that Obama website.”
Even more important, all Ms. Grenier and her husband had before was a minimalist insurance plan, with a $10,000 deductible, offering very little financial protection. So yes, the new law requires that they spend more, but they would get far better coverage in return.
Wouldn't go on that Obama website...I don't get the personal hatred toward the man. If it's not racist, what is it?
Monday, February 03, 2014
Walking on Water
We got cross-country skis in the 1990s, and haven't been able to use
them since. After almost two decades of wimpy winters, during many of which we haven't gotten any snow until late December or January, we have finally have a normal winter for Minnesota, the coldest one in 30 years by one reckoning.
Some people are using this throwback weather to "prove" that global warming is a hoax. This is a normal winter for Minnesota; the south and east did get a bit of snow and set a few record low temperatures, but it's a different story in the rest of the world: Europe and Alaska have been very warm this winter. All the snow at the Sochi Oympics is being made by machines. Australia was burning up during the tennis tournament, and parts of the American West are experiencing severe drought. Fox News reports that water rationing may be in store for parts of California, Nevada and Arizona. Globally, we're still setting far more record high temperatures than record lows.
But we finally got some snow here in Minnesota, and riding the exercise bike gets a little old. We dug the skis out of the basement, only to discover that the plastic and rubber in the ski boots had disintegrated. I tried to put on my ice skates, but they're at least a size too small now.
Last fall the friends we bike with suggested snowshoeing. I pictured Canadian mounties with tennis rackets tied to their feet. But, what the hell: we got snowshoes. Mine have lightweight aluminum frames; other designs have all-plastic construction similar to a skateboard with bindings and teeth.
I don't know a thing about snowshoeing. But it seems self-evident how to use them: they have two ratchet bindings that go over the toe and arch of the foot, and a strap behind the heel. They pivot at the ball of the foot, so the toe of the shoe stays high when you lift your foot and doesn't get hung up in the snow. There are steel claws on the bottom for traction.
I expected snow shoes to be clumsy to walk in. But once you learn to pick up your feet up high enough to avoid kicking the binding, or tripping yourself up by catching the claws on the surface, you're extremely stable.
The claws keep you from slipping on ice and packed snow. The snowshoes keep the snow out of your boot tops. Going up hills is easy; my snowshoes came with poles, but they seem unnecessary unless you're on really rough terrain. Going downhill is a little trickier: angling your feet and side-stepping seems the easiest way.
A lot of people snow-shoe on trails in parks. We just followed the tracks of a cross-country skier through the woods at the end of our street. I was expecting a quiet snow-bound trek, but snowshoes make a fair amount of noise, between the crunching of the snow and the scraping of the shoes. It was ten degrees, but there was little wind, so we didn't really feel cold.
When we reached the lake beyond the woods, we blazed our own trail. We got four or five inches of fresh powder recently, on top of 12 to 18 inches of old snow. The lake was an untouched expanse of virgin cream. We set off straight across. The snowshoes usually punch through the snow and you sink in six to eight inches. But instead of getting stuck up to your knees and filling your socks with snow, the snowshoes keep you high and dry. Walking in fresh snow is also quieter .
If you do it just right, keeping your weight on both feet, you can walk on the top of the snow. It's like walking on water.
We crossed the lake and came to a sidewalk that had been half-heartedly plowed. We stayed on the icy part because you make a lot better time. Then we crossed a street that had been plowed to the pavement. Walking with steel claws on asphalt is like fingernails on a chalkboard, and the snowshoes make a dreadful racket.
We normally take walks when we can't bike, but we've been walking a lot less because of the treacherous condition of the streets. Earlier this year my wife slipped on an icy spot while crossing a busy street with her arms full of groceries. Back in the nineties my volleyball team lost three setters in a single season to knees torn up from nasty spills in parking lots.
One of the major hassles when it finally gets around to snowing in Minnesota is shoveling sidewalks, parking lots and streets. Even if people do their duty, there are always little slippery spots that form from drifting and melting, creating booby traps.
Is all this energy-intensive technology like snowblowers and snowplows going at it the wrong way? Instead of spending all this time and effort trying to maintain that ever-elusive bare pavement, maybe we should just wear snowshoes.
Some people are using this throwback weather to "prove" that global warming is a hoax. This is a normal winter for Minnesota; the south and east did get a bit of snow and set a few record low temperatures, but it's a different story in the rest of the world: Europe and Alaska have been very warm this winter. All the snow at the Sochi Oympics is being made by machines. Australia was burning up during the tennis tournament, and parts of the American West are experiencing severe drought. Fox News reports that water rationing may be in store for parts of California, Nevada and Arizona. Globally, we're still setting far more record high temperatures than record lows.
But we finally got some snow here in Minnesota, and riding the exercise bike gets a little old. We dug the skis out of the basement, only to discover that the plastic and rubber in the ski boots had disintegrated. I tried to put on my ice skates, but they're at least a size too small now.
Last fall the friends we bike with suggested snowshoeing. I pictured Canadian mounties with tennis rackets tied to their feet. But, what the hell: we got snowshoes. Mine have lightweight aluminum frames; other designs have all-plastic construction similar to a skateboard with bindings and teeth.
I expected snow shoes to be clumsy to walk in. But once you learn to pick up your feet up high enough to avoid kicking the binding, or tripping yourself up by catching the claws on the surface, you're extremely stable.
The claws keep you from slipping on ice and packed snow. The snowshoes keep the snow out of your boot tops. Going up hills is easy; my snowshoes came with poles, but they seem unnecessary unless you're on really rough terrain. Going downhill is a little trickier: angling your feet and side-stepping seems the easiest way.
A lot of people snow-shoe on trails in parks. We just followed the tracks of a cross-country skier through the woods at the end of our street. I was expecting a quiet snow-bound trek, but snowshoes make a fair amount of noise, between the crunching of the snow and the scraping of the shoes. It was ten degrees, but there was little wind, so we didn't really feel cold.
When we reached the lake beyond the woods, we blazed our own trail. We got four or five inches of fresh powder recently, on top of 12 to 18 inches of old snow. The lake was an untouched expanse of virgin cream. We set off straight across. The snowshoes usually punch through the snow and you sink in six to eight inches. But instead of getting stuck up to your knees and filling your socks with snow, the snowshoes keep you high and dry. Walking in fresh snow is also quieter .
If you do it just right, keeping your weight on both feet, you can walk on the top of the snow. It's like walking on water.
We crossed the lake and came to a sidewalk that had been half-heartedly plowed. We stayed on the icy part because you make a lot better time. Then we crossed a street that had been plowed to the pavement. Walking with steel claws on asphalt is like fingernails on a chalkboard, and the snowshoes make a dreadful racket.
We normally take walks when we can't bike, but we've been walking a lot less because of the treacherous condition of the streets. Earlier this year my wife slipped on an icy spot while crossing a busy street with her arms full of groceries. Back in the nineties my volleyball team lost three setters in a single season to knees torn up from nasty spills in parking lots.
One of the major hassles when it finally gets around to snowing in Minnesota is shoveling sidewalks, parking lots and streets. Even if people do their duty, there are always little slippery spots that form from drifting and melting, creating booby traps.
Is all this energy-intensive technology like snowblowers and snowplows going at it the wrong way? Instead of spending all this time and effort trying to maintain that ever-elusive bare pavement, maybe we should just wear snowshoes.
Hating On Coke (A Voices In My Head Story)
Apparently, some conservatives got pretty pissed off about the Coke ad yesterday that was in multiple languages. Recall Chuck Schumer's words as they very much apply here.
The second deep-seated force that fueled the emergence of the tea party is the rapid pace of change in America's cultural, technological and demographic makeup. Tea party adherents see an America that's not reflective of themselves, and the America they have known, and they just don't like it.
Here is the ad.
I suppose this all part of that liberal multi culti agenda they are trying to ram down our throats, right?
Fox News commentator Todd Starnes' tweets were completely ridiculous...talking about baiting the race baiters. The best mouthfoam was from Allen West.
If we cannot be proud enough as a country to sing “American the Beautiful” in English in a commercial during the Super Bowl, by a company as American as they come — doggone we are on the road to perdition. This was a truly disturbing commercial for me, what say you?
Cue the boiling pit of sewage!
More ironic, though, is why wouldn't conservatives want different cultures singing American the beautiful? Don't they want everyone to love America?
The second deep-seated force that fueled the emergence of the tea party is the rapid pace of change in America's cultural, technological and demographic makeup. Tea party adherents see an America that's not reflective of themselves, and the America they have known, and they just don't like it.
Here is the ad.
I suppose this all part of that liberal multi culti agenda they are trying to ram down our throats, right?
Fox News commentator Todd Starnes' tweets were completely ridiculous...talking about baiting the race baiters. The best mouthfoam was from Allen West.
If we cannot be proud enough as a country to sing “American the Beautiful” in English in a commercial during the Super Bowl, by a company as American as they come — doggone we are on the road to perdition. This was a truly disturbing commercial for me, what say you?
Cue the boiling pit of sewage!
More ironic, though, is why wouldn't conservatives want different cultures singing American the beautiful? Don't they want everyone to love America?
Saving $$$ With Obamacare?
Financial adviser Jay Larson has done quite well for himself in life so it makes sense that he would look to save money on his health care expenditures. Guess what he found out?
I am 63 and my wife is 61. Beginning on July 1, 2012, through Jan. 1, 2014, the cost of our MCHA premium was $1,788 per month for my wife and me. This was for a $1,000 deductible plan for both my wife and me, with a maximum lifetime benefit of $5 million. My wife and I have now enrolled in Obamacare via a large, well-known health insurance company with coverage that began Jan. 1, 2014. We are now paying $1,053.98 per month (compared with $1,788 per month in the previously mentioned pre-Obamacare plan) with a similar $1,000 deductible. This is a savings of $734 per month — $8,808 per year. A 41 percent cost savings. Wow!
Wow is right...even the wealthy are saving money now?
I am 63 and my wife is 61. Beginning on July 1, 2012, through Jan. 1, 2014, the cost of our MCHA premium was $1,788 per month for my wife and me. This was for a $1,000 deductible plan for both my wife and me, with a maximum lifetime benefit of $5 million. My wife and I have now enrolled in Obamacare via a large, well-known health insurance company with coverage that began Jan. 1, 2014. We are now paying $1,053.98 per month (compared with $1,788 per month in the previously mentioned pre-Obamacare plan) with a similar $1,000 deductible. This is a savings of $734 per month — $8,808 per year. A 41 percent cost savings. Wow!
Wow is right...even the wealthy are saving money now?
Conservatives Embrace Renewable Energy
Check out this recent piece in the Times.
One would not expect to see Barry Goldwater Jr., the very picture of modern conservatism and son of the 1964 Republican nominee for president, arguing passionately on behalf of solar energy customers. But there he was last fall, very publicly opposing a push by Arizona’s biggest utility to charge as much as $100 a month to people who put solar panels on their roofs. The utilities, backed by conservative business interests, argue that solar users who have lower power bills because of government subsidies are not paying their fair share to maintain the power grid.
Mr. Goldwater and other advocates have struck back by calling the proposed fees a “solar tax,” and have pushed their message in ads on Fox News and the Drudge Report. Similar conflicts are going on in California and Colorado, with many more to come. And as the issue pops up, conservatives are even joining forces with environmental groups. In Georgia, a Tea Party activist and the Sierra Club formed a “Green Tea Coalition.”
Green Tea...love it! And it makes perfect sense when you think about it.
To Mr. Goldwater, the true conservative path lies elsewhere. “Utilities are working off of a business plan that’s 100 years old,” he said in an interview, “kind of like the typewriter and the bookstore.” On the website for his campaign, Tell Utilities Solar Won’t Be Killed, Mr. Goldwater, a former congressman, says, “Republicans want the freedom to make the best choice.” He says conservatives are the original environmentalists, especially in the West. “They came out here and fell in love with the land,” he said, and added that his father used to tell him, “There’s more decency in one pine tree than you’ll find in most people.”
Yes, conservatives are the original environmentalists. Let's help them get back to their roots!
Meanwhile, how about yet another severe drought in California? Weren't we warned about this 10 years ago?
One would not expect to see Barry Goldwater Jr., the very picture of modern conservatism and son of the 1964 Republican nominee for president, arguing passionately on behalf of solar energy customers. But there he was last fall, very publicly opposing a push by Arizona’s biggest utility to charge as much as $100 a month to people who put solar panels on their roofs. The utilities, backed by conservative business interests, argue that solar users who have lower power bills because of government subsidies are not paying their fair share to maintain the power grid.
Mr. Goldwater and other advocates have struck back by calling the proposed fees a “solar tax,” and have pushed their message in ads on Fox News and the Drudge Report. Similar conflicts are going on in California and Colorado, with many more to come. And as the issue pops up, conservatives are even joining forces with environmental groups. In Georgia, a Tea Party activist and the Sierra Club formed a “Green Tea Coalition.”
Green Tea...love it! And it makes perfect sense when you think about it.
To Mr. Goldwater, the true conservative path lies elsewhere. “Utilities are working off of a business plan that’s 100 years old,” he said in an interview, “kind of like the typewriter and the bookstore.” On the website for his campaign, Tell Utilities Solar Won’t Be Killed, Mr. Goldwater, a former congressman, says, “Republicans want the freedom to make the best choice.” He says conservatives are the original environmentalists, especially in the West. “They came out here and fell in love with the land,” he said, and added that his father used to tell him, “There’s more decency in one pine tree than you’ll find in most people.”
Yes, conservatives are the original environmentalists. Let's help them get back to their roots!
Meanwhile, how about yet another severe drought in California? Weren't we warned about this 10 years ago?
Sunday, February 02, 2014
Jesse Ventura on Racism in the NFL
Something to mull over as we settle in for the game this evening...
Good Words
An individual has not begun to live until he can rise above the narrow horizons of his particular individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity. And this is one of the big problems of life, that so many people never quite get to the point of rising above self. And so they end up the tragic victims of self-centeredness. They end up the victims of distorted and disrupted personality. ----(Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)
Homosexuality Is Not A Sin According To These Christian Denominations
Here is a list of Christian denominations that do not consider homosexuality or transgenderism to be sins. Take a close look at the list and you may find some surprises. There are some very mainstream faiths that think that the Hebrew text and history that the word sodomy literally means "male temple prostitute", and not a translation for homosexual.
Saturday, February 01, 2014
The Keystone Report
The State Department has released its report on the Keystone Pipeline. There is no recommendation one or another on whether the pipeline should be built. It noted that even with some sort of governmental blockage on the line, it would accomplish very little to slow the expansion of Canada's vast oil sands. The report offered some solace to climate activists who want to stem the rise of oil sands output. It reaffirmed the idea that Canada's heavy crude reserves require more energy to produce and process - and therefore result in higher greenhouse gas emissions - than conventional oil fields.
So where does that leave us? In my view, still undecided. I don't see any convincing evidence that Keystone is going to do massive environmental harm, as activists claim. Yet I also don't see a negligible impact on the environment either. I guess I'm wondering why we are having this debate in the first place. Arguing about oil is like having a debate over the viability of the cassette tape versus Mp3s. We should be spending our time on bringing down the cost of renewable energy and making it as cheap as coal and oil. The entire debate over Keystone reminds of past arguments over the NEA (a loser for both sides who just want something stupid to club each other over the head with).
So, John Kerry is going spend the next three months consulting with government agencies when he should be doing other things like...oh, I don't know...an actual peace deal between Israel and Palestine.
Yay!
So where does that leave us? In my view, still undecided. I don't see any convincing evidence that Keystone is going to do massive environmental harm, as activists claim. Yet I also don't see a negligible impact on the environment either. I guess I'm wondering why we are having this debate in the first place. Arguing about oil is like having a debate over the viability of the cassette tape versus Mp3s. We should be spending our time on bringing down the cost of renewable energy and making it as cheap as coal and oil. The entire debate over Keystone reminds of past arguments over the NEA (a loser for both sides who just want something stupid to club each other over the head with).
So, John Kerry is going spend the next three months consulting with government agencies when he should be doing other things like...oh, I don't know...an actual peace deal between Israel and Palestine.
Yay!
Friday, January 31, 2014
Who Was Ronald Reagan's Infamous Welfare Queen?
Remember when President Reagan used to go on about a woman who “used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans’ benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare. Her tax-free cash income alone has been running $150,000 a year?" It turns out that the woman was very much real after all.
Small problem, though. She wasn't a lazy black woman from the ghetto as the story morphed into over the years. She was Linda Taylor, master con artist and feared criminal. President Reagan left out that part about how she was a kidnapper, baby trafficker, and possible murderer. Apparently, she also once impersonated a heart surgeon. Read the entire piece and see that she was far more than the poster child for government abuse that Reagan made her out to be.
Essentially, it was like saying that government is bad because Al Capone was a tax dodge.
Small problem, though. She wasn't a lazy black woman from the ghetto as the story morphed into over the years. She was Linda Taylor, master con artist and feared criminal. President Reagan left out that part about how she was a kidnapper, baby trafficker, and possible murderer. Apparently, she also once impersonated a heart surgeon. Read the entire piece and see that she was far more than the poster child for government abuse that Reagan made her out to be.
Essentially, it was like saying that government is bad because Al Capone was a tax dodge.
Economy Gearing Up
From the Wall Street Journal...
A potent mix of rising exports, consumer spending and business investment helped the U.S. economy end the year on solid footing. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services churned out by the economy, grew at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.2% in the fourth quarter, the Commerce Department said. That was less than the third quarter's 4.1% pace, but overall the final six months of the year delivered the strongest second half since 2003, when the economy was thriving.
Many economists see the U.S. economy moving into a higher gear. Federal Reserve officials, in further pulling back on a bond-buying program meant to spur growth, noted this week that the economy has shown "growing underlying strength." Consumer confidence is rising, and manufacturers are getting busier to meet increased demand. A big driver of growth in the fourth quarter was a rise in consumer spending, which grew 3.3%, the fastest pace in three years. Consumer spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of economic activity.
Really great news.
Take a look at this graphical representation of the Obama years. Note the downward trend of government investment (i.e. spending).
Considering this is the Wall Street Journal, will anyone believe the BS being peddled by the Right about how awful the president is for the economy and how he is a big government spender?
A potent mix of rising exports, consumer spending and business investment helped the U.S. economy end the year on solid footing. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services churned out by the economy, grew at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.2% in the fourth quarter, the Commerce Department said. That was less than the third quarter's 4.1% pace, but overall the final six months of the year delivered the strongest second half since 2003, when the economy was thriving.
Many economists see the U.S. economy moving into a higher gear. Federal Reserve officials, in further pulling back on a bond-buying program meant to spur growth, noted this week that the economy has shown "growing underlying strength." Consumer confidence is rising, and manufacturers are getting busier to meet increased demand. A big driver of growth in the fourth quarter was a rise in consumer spending, which grew 3.3%, the fastest pace in three years. Consumer spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of economic activity.
Really great news.
Take a look at this graphical representation of the Obama years. Note the downward trend of government investment (i.e. spending).
Considering this is the Wall Street Journal, will anyone believe the BS being peddled by the Right about how awful the president is for the economy and how he is a big government spender?
Another 1 Percenter Comes Around
As I have previously predicted, the wealthy are starting to come around on inequality. Bill Gross, the most powerful bond manager of his generation and co-head of a $2 trillion investment management firm, has joined Nick Hanauer and other members of the 1 percent on the perils of this much inequality.
"We're not just experiencing a new Gilded Age, but a Bitcoin Age," says Mr. Gross, referring to the digital currency. "Artificial money, corporate K Street, and Wall Street interests are producing one world for the rich and an entirely different world for the working class," says the founder and co-chief investment officer of PIMCO in Newport Beach, Calif. "It can't go on like this, either from the standpoint of the health of the capitalist system itself or the health of individuals and the family," he adds.
Why not, Bill?
"For the past 10, 20, 30 years, capital has moved away from labor and towards corporations and investors," Gross says. "I'm not sure capitalism can thrive in a system in which ... [labor] has a declining interest, in terms of percentage of the pie. Then ultimately the pie itself can't grow, because consumption can't be supported."
Exactly right. Capitalism can't thrive, most lose their percentage of the pie and the pie itself can't grow. And to think someone as wealthy and knowledgeable about finance as Gross is saying the same things I am...what on EARTH is going on??!!??:)
So what do we need to do?
When Gross highlighted many of these trends and others in an investment outlook piece posted on his company's website in late October, he told his peers that maybe they should be willing to pay higher taxes. More provocatively, he challenged the orthodoxy on capital gains taxes, saying they should be taxed at rates as high as that for income.
Oh no he DI INT!!!
Based on some of the other testimonials in the article, it seems like we have finally turned a corner and that makes me very happy.
One other part of this piece I found interesting...
Just over two years ago, growing inequality was the rallying cry of the "Occupy" movement. Its "we are the 99 percent" slogan has since become part of the cultural lexicon, and many of its members have moved on to fast-food strikes and protests calling for a higher minimum wage.
Again, just as I have been saying..
"We're not just experiencing a new Gilded Age, but a Bitcoin Age," says Mr. Gross, referring to the digital currency. "Artificial money, corporate K Street, and Wall Street interests are producing one world for the rich and an entirely different world for the working class," says the founder and co-chief investment officer of PIMCO in Newport Beach, Calif. "It can't go on like this, either from the standpoint of the health of the capitalist system itself or the health of individuals and the family," he adds.
Why not, Bill?
"For the past 10, 20, 30 years, capital has moved away from labor and towards corporations and investors," Gross says. "I'm not sure capitalism can thrive in a system in which ... [labor] has a declining interest, in terms of percentage of the pie. Then ultimately the pie itself can't grow, because consumption can't be supported."
Exactly right. Capitalism can't thrive, most lose their percentage of the pie and the pie itself can't grow. And to think someone as wealthy and knowledgeable about finance as Gross is saying the same things I am...what on EARTH is going on??!!??:)
So what do we need to do?
When Gross highlighted many of these trends and others in an investment outlook piece posted on his company's website in late October, he told his peers that maybe they should be willing to pay higher taxes. More provocatively, he challenged the orthodoxy on capital gains taxes, saying they should be taxed at rates as high as that for income.
Oh no he DI INT!!!
Based on some of the other testimonials in the article, it seems like we have finally turned a corner and that makes me very happy.
One other part of this piece I found interesting...
Just over two years ago, growing inequality was the rallying cry of the "Occupy" movement. Its "we are the 99 percent" slogan has since become part of the cultural lexicon, and many of its members have moved on to fast-food strikes and protests calling for a higher minimum wage.
Again, just as I have been saying..
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Burning a Million Dollars a Day
Across the country there's been a lot of controversy over opening up new natural gas fields to fracking, as the technology makes it possible to extract gas from places not feasible till now. Drillers have been madly opening up new fields, often without regard to environmental consequences or if they can make a profit in a market flooded with cheap natural gas.
Meanwhile, in North Dakota oil drillers are flaring off a million dollars a day worth of natural gas:
"People are estimating it's about $1 million a day just being thrown into the air," says Marcus Stewart, an energy analyst with Bentek Energy. Stewart tracks the amount of gas burned off — or flared — in the state, and his latest figures show that drillers are burning about 27 percent of the gas they produce.Natural gas is frequently associated with oil deposits (you see methane flares at oil drilling sites all the time), so this shouldn't have been a surprise.
Part of the problem is the energy industry's focus. As drillers arrived to tap the riches of the Bakken shale formation under western North Dakota, they were looking for oil, not natural gas.The oil companies are being sued by mineral rights owners who should be getting royalties from this natural gas. They could simply wait until they developed the necessary infrastructure to handle all the gas and oil. But instead they're pumping oil out as fast as they can, shipping it in completely inadequate rail cars that explode in giant fireballs.
Now that they've found gas, it's taking time and money to build the pipelines and processing plants to use it. Meanwhile, infrastructure for the oil rush needs to be built, too, and oil prices are relatively high, while natural gas prices are really low. That means companies are investing in oil infrastructure first.
"Where would your emphasis be?" asks Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council. "If you've got a barrel of oil that's worth $95 and you've got [1,000 cubic feet] of gas ... that's worth $4.25, which infrastructure would you build first?"
In their haste to get that oil out right now, the oil companies don't care that they're screwing mineral rights owners out of millions of dollars in royalties. They don't care that they're pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the air, completely wasting natural gas at a time when utilities are advising customers to turn their thermostats down to 60 degrees and avoid using gas appliances. They don't care that people are dying and towns are burning because their oil can't be safely transported.
And these same oil companies are telling us that global warming isn't real, that climate scientists are promoting climate change theories in order to get research grants. Through their dark money channels conservative groups like the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobile are spending a billion dollars a year denying the facts of climate change. This completely dwarfs the research budgets of all climate researchers the world over.
But I guess they have the money to burn.
The Nazi Attack on the 1 Percent
I guess recent attacks on the wealthy are just like the Nazis. Look out!!
"Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its 'one percent,' namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the 'rich,'" he wrote, opening a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal. This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent 'progressive' radicalism unthinkable now?" he concluded.
Yes, Tom, it is just like Kristallnacht. Just the other day I saw my wealthy friends being hauled off to the local internment camp for reprogramming, experimentation, and ultimately execution. Good grief, what a fucking moron...
"Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its 'one percent,' namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the 'rich,'" he wrote, opening a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal. This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent 'progressive' radicalism unthinkable now?" he concluded.
Yes, Tom, it is just like Kristallnacht. Just the other day I saw my wealthy friends being hauled off to the local internment camp for reprogramming, experimentation, and ultimately execution. Good grief, what a fucking moron...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)