One of these days, if and when I get past the unbelievable sense of disappointment, I might get around to commenting on the stupidity and the lack of empathy of a president who, after treating the people who were instrumental in his election like the drunk at the other end of the counter, tells them that they are irresponsible and that they should buck up (after his chief of staff called them retarded, and his press secretary called them the professional left-wing, or something to that effect.)
In the meantime, I am going to leave it at Greg Sargent's eloquent rebuke of the White House and its tone deafness on what progressives are "whining about."
OK, I can't resist the urge, such is the level of my frustration and impatience with this White House: The President and the Vicepresident are either playing dumb, or they are dumb altogether, when they say that folks like me are whining because we did not get everything we wanted. (Or, an even scarier and more offensive prospect, "change you can believe in" was all about misdirection.)
I, as many folks like me, am not complaining because I did not get everything I wanted: I am complaining because I did not get anything I wanted.
Obama's appointments have been dis-appointments, from Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, to Tim Geithner and Larry Summers at the helm of the economic ship.
The advice the President has gotten from his Chief of Staff has been dismal, with plenty of critics coming out of the woodwork now that Rahm Emanuel is on his way out, if this Financial Times article is to be believed.
Obama's approach on health care and financial reform, in pursuit of the mirage of Republican support, was comparable in ineptitude and lack of foresight to Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy. He gave up his negotiating strong points before the negotiations even began. The common thread in both instances is the choice of leaving the foxes (Republicans and Democrats) in charge of the hen-house. The last thing I wanted was more insurance involvement in health care, and that is exactly what we got. No price-controls, no meaningful bans on rescissions (you will see), no public option. In financial reform, no caps on credit card interest rates, no sensible barriers to the size of financial institutions, no meaningful help for people in financial distress. The list could go on for pages, but I am too frustrated and too upset to continue.
If the President and his advisors have any sense left in them, they will realize that his favorability ratings have tanked, the Democrats' prospects are grim for November, and my sentiments about his presidency are shared by many, not because we are whiners, but because we thought we had elected not Anthony Robbins, but FDR. And our discontent is not due to a single factor, but to the sum of the President's actions over the two years since we celebrated the most exhilarating moment in recent political history.
If the President's goal was to appease his enemies, he is fighting a losing battle, and a mighty foolish and hopeless one. And if his desire to appease them is so overwhelming that he will go to any lengths, including insulting the intelligence of those who most believed in him, without ever throwing them a bone, he will be a one-term president, and deservedly so.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Educate Yourself, September 27, 2010 Edition
Please listen to this installment of the BBC program Business Daily. The topic is:
It is pretty appalling to listen to Steve Forbes's trite and unoriginal rhetoric. My favorite part starts about 8 minutes into the recording, when John Monks wonders why people in the United States have been taking thirty years of failed economic policies lying down. I often wonder, too.
Could ever greater concentrations of wealth in a country be not just socially divisive, but also economically inefficient?
The rich are getting richer in America at a time of high unemployment and a worn out safety net. Steve Forbes, publisher, political hopeful, and also a very rich man defends the American economic system. John Monks of the European Trades Union Confederation makes the case for a gentler, more European, form of capitalism.
It is pretty appalling to listen to Steve Forbes's trite and unoriginal rhetoric. My favorite part starts about 8 minutes into the recording, when John Monks wonders why people in the United States have been taking thirty years of failed economic policies lying down. I often wonder, too.
We All Have Dumb Friends
We all have dumb friends, people we love in spite of their lack of good judgement or good educashun. You love them, but they remain as dumb as posts. (And to the religulous among you, that should tell you something about the power of prayer, but anyway, that's another topic, for another day.) You know, friends like Christine O'Donnell, who believe that if evolution were true (for her, it is not), we'd still see monkeys evolve into humans, or that if apes evolve into humans, why are apes still around?
Well, we all have such friends. Do not make fun of them. Instead, send them to talkorigins.org, where they can find good answers to their dumb questions, instead of ridiculing them.
If they still don't get it, well, then, go ahead and make fun of them. Lovingly, that is.
Well, we all have such friends. Do not make fun of them. Instead, send them to talkorigins.org, where they can find good answers to their dumb questions, instead of ridiculing them.
If they still don't get it, well, then, go ahead and make fun of them. Lovingly, that is.
For Those Who Would Do Away With the EPA (And Other Government Agencies): Apricots
There those (mostly libertarians and Repuglycans) who believe that it is not the government job's to regulate business and things like health care, the environmnent, etc. So, for them, this is what happens to apricots when your field happens to be next to a new garbage dump.
Again, they are (supposed to be) apricots.
Again, they are (supposed to be) apricots.
For Those Who Believe In The Mythical Left Wing Media Conspiracy
This is a sad read, not an unexpected one.
"Fox ‘News’ Personalities Seen As Having Most Positive Impact In Political Debate".
In related news, "Fox ‘News’ Personalities Seen As Having Most Positive Impact In Political Debate". The political climate has changed much since the days of Eisenhower, when the marginal tax rate (the tax on the richest people) sat at 91% and no one dared called the President a socialist. Back in those days, paying a high marginal rate was considered patriotic, not confiscation. Too bad that those who pay lip service to the Greatest Generation on a daily basis forget how the greatest generation regarded taxation and patriotism.
"Fox ‘News’ Personalities Seen As Having Most Positive Impact In Political Debate".
In related news, "Fox ‘News’ Personalities Seen As Having Most Positive Impact In Political Debate". The political climate has changed much since the days of Eisenhower, when the marginal tax rate (the tax on the richest people) sat at 91% and no one dared called the President a socialist. Back in those days, paying a high marginal rate was considered patriotic, not confiscation. Too bad that those who pay lip service to the Greatest Generation on a daily basis forget how the greatest generation regarded taxation and patriotism.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Ask The Bigot!
Don't ask, don't tell? Guess, then.
(You can find Chan Lowe's original cartoon, with commentary, here.)
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Quote for Conservatives, from a Conservative
In the age of Barack Obama, many rank-and-file conservatives have been more upset about redistribution of a different sort – the kind that takes money from the prosperous and ''spreads the wealth'' (as Obama put it, in his famous confrontation with Joe the Plumber) down the income ladder.
This kind of spending can be problematic. But conservatives need to recognize that the most pernicious sort of redistribution isn't from the successful to the poor. It's from savers to speculators, from outsiders to insiders, and from the industrious middle class to the reckless, unproductive rich.
From “The Class War We Need”, by conservative New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat,
This kind of spending can be problematic. But conservatives need to recognize that the most pernicious sort of redistribution isn't from the successful to the poor. It's from savers to speculators, from outsiders to insiders, and from the industrious middle class to the reckless, unproductive rich.
From “The Class War We Need”, by conservative New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat,
David Michael Green Is One Angry Professor
"How stupid are you?", asks Prof. David Michael Green of Hofstra University.
I'll give you this: David Michael Green is one angry professor, as you can tell from his website, The Regressive Antidote. But read through his posts and, "if are not outraged, you are not paying attention." When you are done, you will ask this question: What is there NOT to be angry about?
Prof. Green's latest post is one rightfully angry rant about the State of the Union, and the question "How stupid are you?" is, for a vast number of people in this country, purely rhetorical. (Of course, followers of this blog are largely exempted, or you wouldn't be followers by now.) In any case, we won't have to wait too long to find out that the majority of the country is exactly as stupid as our dear professor fears. We will find out on the first Tuesday of November, to be exact.
In the meantime do yourself a favor, and read The Dismantling of Civilized Society. Pass it along, too, to your family, friends, and--why not?--to people for whom you suspect the answer to the opening question is "very."
Spes ultima dea, as my ancestors used to say.
I'll give you this: David Michael Green is one angry professor, as you can tell from his website, The Regressive Antidote. But read through his posts and, "if are not outraged, you are not paying attention." When you are done, you will ask this question: What is there NOT to be angry about?
Prof. Green's latest post is one rightfully angry rant about the State of the Union, and the question "How stupid are you?" is, for a vast number of people in this country, purely rhetorical. (Of course, followers of this blog are largely exempted, or you wouldn't be followers by now.) In any case, we won't have to wait too long to find out that the majority of the country is exactly as stupid as our dear professor fears. We will find out on the first Tuesday of November, to be exact.
In the meantime do yourself a favor, and read The Dismantling of Civilized Society. Pass it along, too, to your family, friends, and--why not?--to people for whom you suspect the answer to the opening question is "very."
Spes ultima dea, as my ancestors used to say.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Olbermann Dissects The Reality Behind The Republican Small Business Sham
Olbermann, the journalist that false equivalence peddlers/consumers label "the left's Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck" does a masterful job of dismantling the myth that extending Bush's tax cuts would help "small businesses" and their repeal, conversely, would help them.
Watch:
After the lengthy and enlightening introduction, Olbermann then asks tax shenanigans expert David Cay Johnston and reporter Chris Hayes of The Nation to put things in even more perspective.
Again, watch:
Watch:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
After the lengthy and enlightening introduction, Olbermann then asks tax shenanigans expert David Cay Johnston and reporter Chris Hayes of The Nation to put things in even more perspective.
Again, watch:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Prof. Shallit Bashes Doug Groothuis. So I Don't Have To.
Read here.
And in case the blogger named Miranda finds this (she replied to Prof. Shallit's post): No, civility, or alleged lack thereof, has nothing to do with Groothuis banning people. Groothuis routinely uses worse invective (ok, equally bad) towards others than I or other banned invididuals ever used against him. Only, since The Constructive Curmudgeon is his blog, he can capriciously ban people rather than accepting a challenge or engaging dissenters in debate. He is very good at finding the speck in other people's arguments while displaying an uncanny ability to ignore the log in his own.
As another blogger pointed out, calling someone a hypocrite, who is demonstrably in fact a hypocrite, is no more "invective" than calling a spade a spade.
And in case the blogger named Miranda finds this (she replied to Prof. Shallit's post): No, civility, or alleged lack thereof, has nothing to do with Groothuis banning people. Groothuis routinely uses worse invective (ok, equally bad) towards others than I or other banned invididuals ever used against him. Only, since The Constructive Curmudgeon is his blog, he can capriciously ban people rather than accepting a challenge or engaging dissenters in debate. He is very good at finding the speck in other people's arguments while displaying an uncanny ability to ignore the log in his own.
As another blogger pointed out, calling someone a hypocrite, who is demonstrably in fact a hypocrite, is no more "invective" than calling a spade a spade.
President Obama Pisses Me Off. Again. (UPDATED)
If you thought President Obama was going to appoint progressive replacements for the people that are leaving the administration. His nominee to replace Pete Orszag as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget? A guy who does not believe that deregulation is to blame for the financial crisis that crushed the world economy. I am not kidding.
Fortunately Bernie Sanders, one of the few honorable and sane senators left around, will vote against his confirmation.
**************
Update: Cenk Uygur has a very good post about Obama's love of the establishment at Huffington Post.
Fortunately Bernie Sanders, one of the few honorable and sane senators left around, will vote against his confirmation.
**************
Update: Cenk Uygur has a very good post about Obama's love of the establishment at Huffington Post.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Scattered Thoughts About President Obama and the State of the Union
Velma Hart, my spokeswoman.
This woman articulated the disappointment that many who helped Sen. Obama become President of the United States are feeling. Notice that many of the things that President Obama mentions as examples of success are greatly exaggerated. Credit cards still hold the upper hand over consumers (there is no cap on interest rates), health insurance reform has been a huge flop for those who were hoping that insurance companies would be punished for their past and present predatory behavior (instead, they have been rewarded with more customers), the economy is still hurting millions of Americans.
From the beginning, the President has let his base down, by surrounding himself with Clintonites and economic conservatives like Lawrence Summers (good f***ing riddance, by the way); he disregarded the advice of giant of economic studies, such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, and countless others who advised him to do more to stimulate the economy, to push greater banking reforms to prevent a repeat of "too big to fail", and to give more help to the middle class; he has taken single-payer and the public option off the table and put the worst Democrats in the Senate in charge of steering health care reform (later renamed health insurance reform, when it became obvious how much it fell short of reforming health care); he continued some of the most intrusive and abusive Bush policies in terms of secrecy and presidential authority; he has been lukewarm or absent in voicing his support for gay rights; he sought the cooperation of Republicans to a fault, when it was obvious Republicans had no intention of cooperating with him on anything; and, worst of all, he did not fire his chief of staff, Rahm F***ing Emanuel, when that piece of beastly excrement called progressive voters "f***ing retarded" for simply complaining that the president had let them down over, and over, and over again. So believe me, when Velma Hart says that she doesn't "feel it", she speaks for a great number of us, and much too politely for what President Obama truly deserves.
The greatest affront is that the President surrounded himself with the most conservative advisers he could have picked while Democrats had a large majority in both the Senate and the House, leaving us to wonder what could have been achieved if he had picked more progressive staff and if he had strong-armed worms like Max Baucus and Ben Nelson into voting for change one could believe in, or else. But not the opportunity has gone to waste. Even if he were to replace those who are departing with true progressive thinkers and public servants, they could achieve little if Congress goes Republican, as it is likely to, in the upcoming mid-terms. So maybe the plan was to talk the good talk and walk the usual middle-class-adverse walk that we have been shocked into accepting for the last 30 years. Really, when you think about it, politics have become the tool by which the rich and the powerful pour insult and injury on common folks. Who, by and large, deserve all the insult and injury poured open them, if popular support for tea-party candidates is a good yardstick of the State of the Union.
************************
Enter Mike Huckabee.
The former Governor of Arkansas, a supposed example of how compassionate Republicans can be when they try really hard, defended the practice of health insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions:
Think about that, for a moment: even the most compassionate conservative around is so blinded by his subservience to the profits of insurance companies, that he fails to understand that the job of a public servant is to find a solution to the problem, instead of accepting the status quo as the only possible answer.
Ironically, Huckabee's comments have been attacked for the lack of compassion they show to the victims of the health insurance sector. Pundits should have focused on a different aspect instead. Huckabee's comments, as heartless and disingenuous as they are, demonstrate one thing: people's health should not be left to the devices of a poorly regulated, free-rein health insurance market. The job of an insurer is to disburse as little money as possible in order to maximize profits. That involves denying as many legitimate claims as possible, or reducing the risk pool to the smallest possible size. If anyone needed any further proof that the way this country regards the relationship between health and insurance is completely insane, you should point them to Huckabee's comments.
************************
The problem is that things will unavoidably get worse for most people under Republicans. But it does not matter any more, because neither party serves the best interest of the nation or the majority its people. They are designed to serve the interest of the oligopaths (the sociopathic oligarchs that fund the politicians' elections.) Sadly, it seems that the nation's answer to the political derangement and futility is to choose more derangement and futility, in the form of ridiculous and dangerous individuals like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and now Carl Paladino and Christine O'Donnell. I guess these days all you need to put on your résumé to become a representative of the lunatic mainstream on the right is "deranged, ignorant dingbat is seeking your vote."
This woman articulated the disappointment that many who helped Sen. Obama become President of the United States are feeling. Notice that many of the things that President Obama mentions as examples of success are greatly exaggerated. Credit cards still hold the upper hand over consumers (there is no cap on interest rates), health insurance reform has been a huge flop for those who were hoping that insurance companies would be punished for their past and present predatory behavior (instead, they have been rewarded with more customers), the economy is still hurting millions of Americans.
From the beginning, the President has let his base down, by surrounding himself with Clintonites and economic conservatives like Lawrence Summers (good f***ing riddance, by the way); he disregarded the advice of giant of economic studies, such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, and countless others who advised him to do more to stimulate the economy, to push greater banking reforms to prevent a repeat of "too big to fail", and to give more help to the middle class; he has taken single-payer and the public option off the table and put the worst Democrats in the Senate in charge of steering health care reform (later renamed health insurance reform, when it became obvious how much it fell short of reforming health care); he continued some of the most intrusive and abusive Bush policies in terms of secrecy and presidential authority; he has been lukewarm or absent in voicing his support for gay rights; he sought the cooperation of Republicans to a fault, when it was obvious Republicans had no intention of cooperating with him on anything; and, worst of all, he did not fire his chief of staff, Rahm F***ing Emanuel, when that piece of beastly excrement called progressive voters "f***ing retarded" for simply complaining that the president had let them down over, and over, and over again. So believe me, when Velma Hart says that she doesn't "feel it", she speaks for a great number of us, and much too politely for what President Obama truly deserves.
The greatest affront is that the President surrounded himself with the most conservative advisers he could have picked while Democrats had a large majority in both the Senate and the House, leaving us to wonder what could have been achieved if he had picked more progressive staff and if he had strong-armed worms like Max Baucus and Ben Nelson into voting for change one could believe in, or else. But not the opportunity has gone to waste. Even if he were to replace those who are departing with true progressive thinkers and public servants, they could achieve little if Congress goes Republican, as it is likely to, in the upcoming mid-terms. So maybe the plan was to talk the good talk and walk the usual middle-class-adverse walk that we have been shocked into accepting for the last 30 years. Really, when you think about it, politics have become the tool by which the rich and the powerful pour insult and injury on common folks. Who, by and large, deserve all the insult and injury poured open them, if popular support for tea-party candidates is a good yardstick of the State of the Union.
************************
Enter Mike Huckabee.
The former Governor of Arkansas, a supposed example of how compassionate Republicans can be when they try really hard, defended the practice of health insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions:
"Look, I think that sounds terrific, but I want to ask you something from a common sense perspective. Suppose we applied that principle [to] our property insurance. And you can call your insurance agent and say, "I'd like to buy some insurance for my house." He'd say, "Tell me about your house." "Well sir, it burned down yesterday, but I'd like to insure it today." And he'll say "I'm sorry, but we can't insure it after it's already burned." Well, no preexisting conditions."
Think about that, for a moment: even the most compassionate conservative around is so blinded by his subservience to the profits of insurance companies, that he fails to understand that the job of a public servant is to find a solution to the problem, instead of accepting the status quo as the only possible answer.
Ironically, Huckabee's comments have been attacked for the lack of compassion they show to the victims of the health insurance sector. Pundits should have focused on a different aspect instead. Huckabee's comments, as heartless and disingenuous as they are, demonstrate one thing: people's health should not be left to the devices of a poorly regulated, free-rein health insurance market. The job of an insurer is to disburse as little money as possible in order to maximize profits. That involves denying as many legitimate claims as possible, or reducing the risk pool to the smallest possible size. If anyone needed any further proof that the way this country regards the relationship between health and insurance is completely insane, you should point them to Huckabee's comments.
************************
The problem is that things will unavoidably get worse for most people under Republicans. But it does not matter any more, because neither party serves the best interest of the nation or the majority its people. They are designed to serve the interest of the oligopaths (the sociopathic oligarchs that fund the politicians' elections.) Sadly, it seems that the nation's answer to the political derangement and futility is to choose more derangement and futility, in the form of ridiculous and dangerous individuals like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and now Carl Paladino and Christine O'Donnell. I guess these days all you need to put on your résumé to become a representative of the lunatic mainstream on the right is "deranged, ignorant dingbat is seeking your vote."
Saturday, September 11, 2010
On 9/11, Against Revisionism
President Bush did not keep us safe. 9/11 happened under his watch. The same goes for all the people in his administration who would like us to forget that the worst act of terrorism against the United States happened as they and their neo-con friends had been plotting to invade Iraq and to occupy the Middle East in the name of a nascent American empire, under the guise of the Project for the New American Century.
That's important to remember. Remembering is the best tribute to all who perished on 9/11 and since, in two misconceived, miscarried wars which cost this country its prosperity and the future of its middle-class.
That's important to remember. Remembering is the best tribute to all who perished on 9/11 and since, in two misconceived, miscarried wars which cost this country its prosperity and the future of its middle-class.
The Havoc Rahm Emanuel Wreaked
Cenk Uygur has a smart analysis of why Rahm Emanuel is the chief culprit for the disaster that awaits Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections.
To which I would add: Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats would not be where they are, in the electoral doldrums, if President Obama had not picked him. The president surrounded himself with centrists or Republican lite types, and we are paying the price for his timid approach to reform. He has two years to convince the people who enthusiastically supported his election that he is not the pro-corporate fraud he looked like for the first 20 months or so in office, but in the meantime prepare to suffer the consequences of the distance between the president's talk and his walk.
To which I would add: Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats would not be where they are, in the electoral doldrums, if President Obama had not picked him. The president surrounded himself with centrists or Republican lite types, and we are paying the price for his timid approach to reform. He has two years to convince the people who enthusiastically supported his election that he is not the pro-corporate fraud he looked like for the first 20 months or so in office, but in the meantime prepare to suffer the consequences of the distance between the president's talk and his walk.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Republican Hypocrisy Watch -- Episode One
Can a Republican please explain to me how it is ok for Republicans to decry President Obama's proposal to spend $50b on infrastructure projects, while at the same time pushing for $800b in tax cuts for the rich?
Trampling The Constitution
I have been absent from these parts of the world for a couple of months due to personal reasons, but this piece of news prompted me to interrupt my absence and return to blogging.
In a 6-5 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the C.I.A. (and with the Obama Administration) in a case that revolved around extraordinary rendition and that should make your stomach turn if a) you believe in human rights, b) you believe that the first duty of the President is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution", and c) you believe that when "Bush did it" it was wrong (and Obama doing the same does not make it right.)
And now that I am back expect a bunch of posts between now and Election Day, focusing in particular on hypocrisy and the Republican effort to dismantle the middle class, aided and abetted by complacent, spineless, and self-centered Democrats.
In a 6-5 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the C.I.A. (and with the Obama Administration) in a case that revolved around extraordinary rendition and that should make your stomach turn if a) you believe in human rights, b) you believe that the first duty of the President is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution", and c) you believe that when "Bush did it" it was wrong (and Obama doing the same does not make it right.)
And now that I am back expect a bunch of posts between now and Election Day, focusing in particular on hypocrisy and the Republican effort to dismantle the middle class, aided and abetted by complacent, spineless, and self-centered Democrats.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
World Cup Update 2 (Corrected)
CORRECTION: In the original post below, I used incorrect information about tie-breaking procedures. In case of a two-way tie, goal differentials and goal scored count first. If those criteria are also fully-tied, then direct matchups are used. This has specific consequences for Group H: if Switerland and Spain ended in a two-way tie, which could happen if they both tie on Frieday, Spain would advance on account of better goal differential (+1 against Switerland's 0) even if Switzerland beat Spain in the direct matchup. To me this makes no sense. Hey, blame it on FIFA!
With all teams having played 2 out of the 3 group stage matches, the only team that are sure to advance to the round of 16 are Argentina, Brazil, and the Netherlands. Mexico and Uruguay can both clinch a spot with a tie tomorrow morning, so it would be reasonable to expect a tie, which would put France and host country South Africa out of their misery. However, there is one reason for each team risking to go broke: the second qualifier from Group A would play Argentina, the team that has shown more consistency so far, and one of the 3-4 teams most highly likely to win the tournament. The first place team would play either Greece or South Korea, much more malleable opponents. (We now know that Uruguay and Mexico have advanced, in that order, even as Uruguay beat Mexico in the last group stage match.)
Argentina and South Korea have advanced from Group B. No one I know has picked South Korea, whose only trip beyond group play so far had been in the 2002 World Cup, which they co-hosted with Japan, where they reached the semifinals thanks to some very "directed" refereeing aided by the powers that be at FIFA. Nigeria blew a chance to be the first (possibly the only) African team to move on to the elimination round, even after losing the first two games.
The U.S.A. have a good chance to advance, but they will need to play better defense than they have so far. They have conceded 3 goals in 2 games, and have always had to come from behind. If they advance, they will be a tough opponent for whoever they play in the second round. England, also in group C, has a do or die match against Slovenia. Who'd have thunk? Capello's eleven need a win in the last match of group play to stay alive and move on. Germany, Serbia, and Ghana are going to play for two spots tomorrow. Australia has a fighting chance to advance, too, but what a shocker it would be if they did after their disastrous opener to Germany. My prediction is that Serbia and Germany will advance in that order, since Serbia owns the tie-breaker if those two teams end level on points. Expect two interesting match-ups in the second round. Serbia v. England and the U.S. v. Germany.
The Netherlands will clinch the first spot in Group E with a tie or a win over already eliminated Cameroon. Japan could qualify with a win or even a tie against Denmark, since it holds the advantage on goal differential. However, I believe that Denmark will prevail to advance in second place. Who either team will play in the second round is impossible to tell, because all teams in Group F are alive. Italy needs a win against Slovakia to be sure of advancing, and the way Italy have played so far does not bode well for the reigning World Champs. New Zealand, coming off their tie against Italy, shocking to many but not to the savvier football observers, could shock the world if they beat Paraguay, so far the most convincing team in the group. If everything goes as it should based on perceived team strength, Paraguay will advance in first place and Italy will take second place, to play Denmark or Japan and the Netherlands respectively. But, you have been warned: expect a shocker from this group.
Finally, the last group. Brazil and Portugal are favorites to advance in Group G. The only doubt is in which order. That makes a big difference because of the situation in Group H. Spain needs a win against Chile to advance. With a tie, they could be eliminated if Switzerland ties or beat Honduras, so far the weakest team in the group, seemingly incapable of producing any offense. Switzerland holds the tiebreaker against Spain. In my humble opinion, Spain will not beat Chile, who are a very solid team, and that will be the real shocker of the World Cup this year.
One last observation: an interesting scenario can develop in groups C and F. In group C, England and the U.S. are tied on points. If they both draw against their respective opponents, Slovenia will take first place. Which team advances between England and the U.S. will then depend on goals scored (being that both team will have an even goal differential.) Right now, the U.S. has the advantage, since it has scored 3 goals against England's lone goal. However, if England scores two goals more than the U.S., both teams will have an even goal differential and the same number of goals scored. In that case, the advancing team will be decided, literally, by a coin toss. The same thing could happen in Group F, if Italy and New Zealand tie their opponents with the same score. They would be level on points, level on goal differentials, and level on goals scored. What a sport!
With all teams having played 2 out of the 3 group stage matches, the only team that are sure to advance to the round of 16 are Argentina, Brazil, and the Netherlands. Mexico and Uruguay can both clinch a spot with a tie tomorrow morning, so it would be reasonable to expect a tie, which would put France and host country South Africa out of their misery. However, there is one reason for each team risking to go broke: the second qualifier from Group A would play Argentina, the team that has shown more consistency so far, and one of the 3-4 teams most highly likely to win the tournament. The first place team would play either Greece or South Korea, much more malleable opponents. (We now know that Uruguay and Mexico have advanced, in that order, even as Uruguay beat Mexico in the last group stage match.)
Argentina and South Korea have advanced from Group B. No one I know has picked South Korea, whose only trip beyond group play so far had been in the 2002 World Cup, which they co-hosted with Japan, where they reached the semifinals thanks to some very "directed" refereeing aided by the powers that be at FIFA. Nigeria blew a chance to be the first (possibly the only) African team to move on to the elimination round, even after losing the first two games.
The U.S.A. have a good chance to advance, but they will need to play better defense than they have so far. They have conceded 3 goals in 2 games, and have always had to come from behind. If they advance, they will be a tough opponent for whoever they play in the second round. England, also in group C, has a do or die match against Slovenia. Who'd have thunk? Capello's eleven need a win in the last match of group play to stay alive and move on. Germany, Serbia, and Ghana are going to play for two spots tomorrow. Australia has a fighting chance to advance, too, but what a shocker it would be if they did after their disastrous opener to Germany. My prediction is that Serbia and Germany will advance in that order, since Serbia owns the tie-breaker if those two teams end level on points. Expect two interesting match-ups in the second round. Serbia v. England and the U.S. v. Germany.
The Netherlands will clinch the first spot in Group E with a tie or a win over already eliminated Cameroon. Japan could qualify with a win or even a tie against Denmark, since it holds the advantage on goal differential. However, I believe that Denmark will prevail to advance in second place. Who either team will play in the second round is impossible to tell, because all teams in Group F are alive. Italy needs a win against Slovakia to be sure of advancing, and the way Italy have played so far does not bode well for the reigning World Champs. New Zealand, coming off their tie against Italy, shocking to many but not to the savvier football observers, could shock the world if they beat Paraguay, so far the most convincing team in the group. If everything goes as it should based on perceived team strength, Paraguay will advance in first place and Italy will take second place, to play Denmark or Japan and the Netherlands respectively. But, you have been warned: expect a shocker from this group.
Finally, the last group. Brazil and Portugal are favorites to advance in Group G. The only doubt is in which order. That makes a big difference because of the situation in Group H. Spain needs a win against Chile to advance. With a tie, they could be eliminated if Switzerland ties or beat Honduras, so far the weakest team in the group, seemingly incapable of producing any offense. Switzerland holds the tiebreaker against Spain. In my humble opinion, Spain will not beat Chile, who are a very solid team, and that will be the real shocker of the World Cup this year.
One last observation: an interesting scenario can develop in groups C and F. In group C, England and the U.S. are tied on points. If they both draw against their respective opponents, Slovenia will take first place. Which team advances between England and the U.S. will then depend on goals scored (being that both team will have an even goal differential.) Right now, the U.S. has the advantage, since it has scored 3 goals against England's lone goal. However, if England scores two goals more than the U.S., both teams will have an even goal differential and the same number of goals scored. In that case, the advancing team will be decided, literally, by a coin toss. The same thing could happen in Group F, if Italy and New Zealand tie their opponents with the same score. They would be level on points, level on goal differentials, and level on goals scored. What a sport!
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Al Franken, People's Hero
That, you will have to admit, is a pretty catchy headline, because pretty much everybody in the U.S. knows who Al Franken is and because the calling someone a "hero" is pretty sure to raise curiosity in readers. "Hero? What did he do?"
In sum, Al Franken gets it. He gets what it means to be an ordinary American. But not only he gets it, he cares. And he is a United States Senator. It takes someone pretty heroic, if you ask me, to sit in the same room as people like Blanche Lincoln, Max Baucus, and Jon Lieberman (not to mention any of his Republican colleagues) and not to lose one's head and either strangle them or shoot oneself in the head. Though they sit in the same chamber, and are united by a common title, they have nothing in common. Because Lincoln, Lieberman and Baucus are first and foremost interested in keeping their jobs. Sen. Franken is interested in keeping his job too, I am sure, but not for the sake of the job, but for the sake of those he was elected to represent: the people of Minnesota, yes, but also you and me.
So it is with pleasure that I am linking to the text of Franken's keynote address (PDF) at the Eighth Annual American Constitution Society National Convention, delivered only a couple of days ago. It is well worth reading, because it contains a healthy and needed reminder of what the role of the Supreme Court is, and what a good Senator can and should to to ensure that Supreme Court appointments to come offer better representation to ordinary Americans (understood as Americans who do not the money, influence, and power to appoint and or buy their own personal judge or Justice).
In sum, Al Franken gets it. He gets what it means to be an ordinary American. But not only he gets it, he cares. And he is a United States Senator. It takes someone pretty heroic, if you ask me, to sit in the same room as people like Blanche Lincoln, Max Baucus, and Jon Lieberman (not to mention any of his Republican colleagues) and not to lose one's head and either strangle them or shoot oneself in the head. Though they sit in the same chamber, and are united by a common title, they have nothing in common. Because Lincoln, Lieberman and Baucus are first and foremost interested in keeping their jobs. Sen. Franken is interested in keeping his job too, I am sure, but not for the sake of the job, but for the sake of those he was elected to represent: the people of Minnesota, yes, but also you and me.
So it is with pleasure that I am linking to the text of Franken's keynote address (PDF) at the Eighth Annual American Constitution Society National Convention, delivered only a couple of days ago. It is well worth reading, because it contains a healthy and needed reminder of what the role of the Supreme Court is, and what a good Senator can and should to to ensure that Supreme Court appointments to come offer better representation to ordinary Americans (understood as Americans who do not the money, influence, and power to appoint and or buy their own personal judge or Justice).
Thursday, June 17, 2010
World Cup Update 1
After all 32 teams have had a chance to show what they've got, or what they haven't got, there is mighty little to cheer about. Play has been disappointing in most matches. Many of the favorites have failed to impress, with a couple of exceptions, Argentina and Germany, who have had the good fortune of playing against some of the weakest teams around (South Korea and Australia).
England, France and Italy have scraped together unimpressive ties. While it was legitimate to expect that both France and Italy would fail to impress in their first game, England played rather disappointingly against the U.S.A., though Howard, the American goalkeeper, was the man of the match. Holland and Brazil did little better, managing two rather belabored wins against Denmark, a solid but unimaginative opponent, and North Korea respectively. Serbia, another team that some saw as a possible surprise, managed to lose their opener to Ghana, greatly endangering their chances to advance to the second round.
Worst of all did Spain, which also managed to lose their opener against humble Switzerland. As I said in my previous post about the World Cup, I think Spain's chances of winning the World Cup are greatly exaggerated. They can still advance, but it won't be easy, particularly if they get to the last group match having to beat Chile to advance. Even if they do, they would be up against history: no team has lost its World Cup opener and gone on to win the Cup.
African teams continue to produce mixed results, with host nation South Africa virtually eliminated after two games, Nigeria needing lots of help to stay alive after their harakiri against Greece, and Algeria beaten by Slovenia. Ivory Coast and Ghana have a fighting chance, but they former plays Brazil next, and its chances to advance are almost inextricably linked to their ability not to lose against the Brazilians. Ghana can virtually clinch a spot in the second round by beating Australia, which after seeing Australia against Germany last Sunday might induce some to think that Ghana will go on to win easily. Not so fast. The real surprise so far, aside from Switzerland's win over Spain, has been Japan's victory over Cameroon. Japan is by far the best Asian team, better than the overrated South Koreans which were helped by incredibly helpful refereeing when they reached the semis in 2002, when the co-hosted the tournament with Japan. But they play Holland next, and will have to play their defensive best to hold the Dutch scoreless, since Japan's firepower is not too awesome.
In a few minutes, France will play for its World Cup life against Mexico. If it's up les Bleus it won't be an entertaining match, but the Mexicans have all they need to pull off what would be a stunner to many. A win over France would all but oust the 2006 runner-ups, because a tie in the next match between Uruguay and Mexico would result in both teams advancing, leaving the French nation to wonder why coach Domenech was allowed to lead his team to defeat in spite of almost failing to qualify for South Africa. That would be poetic justice to the Irish, who were eliminated by France six months ago when Henry handled the ball--not once, but twice--to produce the assist which cost Ireland a chance to advance to the World Cup Finals.
England, France and Italy have scraped together unimpressive ties. While it was legitimate to expect that both France and Italy would fail to impress in their first game, England played rather disappointingly against the U.S.A., though Howard, the American goalkeeper, was the man of the match. Holland and Brazil did little better, managing two rather belabored wins against Denmark, a solid but unimaginative opponent, and North Korea respectively. Serbia, another team that some saw as a possible surprise, managed to lose their opener to Ghana, greatly endangering their chances to advance to the second round.
Worst of all did Spain, which also managed to lose their opener against humble Switzerland. As I said in my previous post about the World Cup, I think Spain's chances of winning the World Cup are greatly exaggerated. They can still advance, but it won't be easy, particularly if they get to the last group match having to beat Chile to advance. Even if they do, they would be up against history: no team has lost its World Cup opener and gone on to win the Cup.
African teams continue to produce mixed results, with host nation South Africa virtually eliminated after two games, Nigeria needing lots of help to stay alive after their harakiri against Greece, and Algeria beaten by Slovenia. Ivory Coast and Ghana have a fighting chance, but they former plays Brazil next, and its chances to advance are almost inextricably linked to their ability not to lose against the Brazilians. Ghana can virtually clinch a spot in the second round by beating Australia, which after seeing Australia against Germany last Sunday might induce some to think that Ghana will go on to win easily. Not so fast. The real surprise so far, aside from Switzerland's win over Spain, has been Japan's victory over Cameroon. Japan is by far the best Asian team, better than the overrated South Koreans which were helped by incredibly helpful refereeing when they reached the semis in 2002, when the co-hosted the tournament with Japan. But they play Holland next, and will have to play their defensive best to hold the Dutch scoreless, since Japan's firepower is not too awesome.
In a few minutes, France will play for its World Cup life against Mexico. If it's up les Bleus it won't be an entertaining match, but the Mexicans have all they need to pull off what would be a stunner to many. A win over France would all but oust the 2006 runner-ups, because a tie in the next match between Uruguay and Mexico would result in both teams advancing, leaving the French nation to wonder why coach Domenech was allowed to lead his team to defeat in spite of almost failing to qualify for South Africa. That would be poetic justice to the Irish, who were eliminated by France six months ago when Henry handled the ball--not once, but twice--to produce the assist which cost Ireland a chance to advance to the World Cup Finals.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
World Cup Delight
Tomorrow marks the start of the XIX FIFA World Cup. With the Summer Olympics, it is the biggest sport event in the world. Starting with the South Africa v Mexico opener, 32 teams will be competing for the most prized trophy in all of sports.
I lived my first World Cup in the United States in 1994. Since then, football has come a long way in this nation, thanks mostly to a policy of spreading it across schools in America. It is known, with good reason, as the beautiful game. Its near universal appeal is due to a combination of factors: It blends individual skills with team spirit. It does not required a particular physical build (unlike, for example, American football or basketball), anyone can play it. And, above all, it requires nothing but a ball and a field to be played, not even a goal (kids use anything they find to make makeshift posts) or a proper football (I remember that growing up I didn't even need a football to play. I would just crumple an old newspaper in a ball and kick it around my grandmother's dark hallway.). This makes football the sport of choice in poor countries. This is a particular important point, because some other exciting sports, like hockey, American football, and tennis, require the investment of large sums of money over time in special gear, club memberships, lessons, etc. Football (with track and field sports being the other exception) is rather unique in being open to people of all social backgrounds.
Favorites to win include Brazil (as usual), Argentina, Spain, and England, with a few other teams right behind (Holland and Germany foremost, but do not count out the defending world champions--Italy). Personally, I think that Spain will not do as well as expected, certainly not well enough to win. Holland is long overdue and have a real chance to win, but to do so they will foreseeably have to get past Brazil, which is a tall task. Among the few other predictions I am bold enough to venture: look for Mexico to stun a theoretically better team along the way (England?). Italy is a huge question mark. If they advance, which they should in what is likely the weakest group, they become a threat for anyone on their way, especially Spain. The team is widely regarded as weak, but coach Lippi is showing a lot of confidence in the players he brought to South Africa. Do not underestimate his ability to motivate his "troops".
Until July 11, when the World Cup Final is played, count on my appearances on the blog to be scarcer than usual, and mostly football-related. I hope you share my interest but, if you don't, see you back here in a month.
I lived my first World Cup in the United States in 1994. Since then, football has come a long way in this nation, thanks mostly to a policy of spreading it across schools in America. It is known, with good reason, as the beautiful game. Its near universal appeal is due to a combination of factors: It blends individual skills with team spirit. It does not required a particular physical build (unlike, for example, American football or basketball), anyone can play it. And, above all, it requires nothing but a ball and a field to be played, not even a goal (kids use anything they find to make makeshift posts) or a proper football (I remember that growing up I didn't even need a football to play. I would just crumple an old newspaper in a ball and kick it around my grandmother's dark hallway.). This makes football the sport of choice in poor countries. This is a particular important point, because some other exciting sports, like hockey, American football, and tennis, require the investment of large sums of money over time in special gear, club memberships, lessons, etc. Football (with track and field sports being the other exception) is rather unique in being open to people of all social backgrounds.
Favorites to win include Brazil (as usual), Argentina, Spain, and England, with a few other teams right behind (Holland and Germany foremost, but do not count out the defending world champions--Italy). Personally, I think that Spain will not do as well as expected, certainly not well enough to win. Holland is long overdue and have a real chance to win, but to do so they will foreseeably have to get past Brazil, which is a tall task. Among the few other predictions I am bold enough to venture: look for Mexico to stun a theoretically better team along the way (England?). Italy is a huge question mark. If they advance, which they should in what is likely the weakest group, they become a threat for anyone on their way, especially Spain. The team is widely regarded as weak, but coach Lippi is showing a lot of confidence in the players he brought to South Africa. Do not underestimate his ability to motivate his "troops".
Until July 11, when the World Cup Final is played, count on my appearances on the blog to be scarcer than usual, and mostly football-related. I hope you share my interest but, if you don't, see you back here in a month.
Monday, June 07, 2010
The High Road Not Taken
Christians extremists like to make much of the supposed vitriol poured upon them by New Atheists (the moniker which christian extremists like to use for individuals like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.) They bemoan lack of respect for religion by these new atheists, their irrational rejection of god, and so on and so forth. They claim for themselves the high moral ground, and extol the works of like-minded people who deride atheists and, in general, all enemies of christianity.
One such work contains the following vile garbage directed at atheism: "Atheism is simply incompatible with a life well-lived (shalom)." Or, perhaps even worse, this:
The last paragraph is insulting on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin: "descent into atheism"? "precipitated by immoral indulgences" and "typically, by a broken relationship with his or her father"? "the choice of the atheist paradigm [is] motivated by non-rational factors"?
And how about this gem? "The hardening of the atheist mind-set occurs through cognitive malfunction".
You can find the above examples of atheist-directed hatred in James S. Spiegel's The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief. The above excerpts represent sufficient waiver of the obligation to read the whole work before one can declare it complete nonsense even if it were not so sanctimoniously insulting as it is. It instantly earns a place in the Daily Fuel's Hall of Eternal Shame.
There is no higher delusion in this world than the belief that a moral life can only be lived by those who believe in a very specific god who, in his infinitely puzzling wisdom, issued such edicts as "Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you" or "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you."
You know, most christians have found a way to get past these risible commands. As they fall, one by one, time will eventually win the fight against all other christian superstitions, one way or another. Until the last one finally and deservedly falls.
One such work contains the following vile garbage directed at atheism: "Atheism is simply incompatible with a life well-lived (shalom)." Or, perhaps even worse, this:
The descent into atheism is caused by a complex of moral-psychological factors, not a perceived lack of evidence for God’s existence. The atheist willfully rejects God, though this is precipitated by immoral indulgences and typically a broken relationship with his or her father. Thus, the choice of the atheist paradigm is motivated by non-rational factors, some of which are psychological and some of which are moral in nature.
The last paragraph is insulting on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin: "descent into atheism"? "precipitated by immoral indulgences" and "typically, by a broken relationship with his or her father"? "the choice of the atheist paradigm [is] motivated by non-rational factors"?
And how about this gem? "The hardening of the atheist mind-set occurs through cognitive malfunction".
You can find the above examples of atheist-directed hatred in James S. Spiegel's The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief. The above excerpts represent sufficient waiver of the obligation to read the whole work before one can declare it complete nonsense even if it were not so sanctimoniously insulting as it is. It instantly earns a place in the Daily Fuel's Hall of Eternal Shame.
There is no higher delusion in this world than the belief that a moral life can only be lived by those who believe in a very specific god who, in his infinitely puzzling wisdom, issued such edicts as "Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you" or "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you."
You know, most christians have found a way to get past these risible commands. As they fall, one by one, time will eventually win the fight against all other christian superstitions, one way or another. Until the last one finally and deservedly falls.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Shedding Light on the Path to Peace
David Michael Green of Hofstra University has an excellent, balanced article on the conflict between Israel and Palestine and how the recent, shameful attack by Israelis on a ship carrying foreign aid has the potential to be a turning point and a pivotal moment for the U.S. and the rest of the world.
It is a long article, but it is probably the most illuminating piece you are going to read on that part of the world and well-worth reading. Please do so.
It is a long article, but it is probably the most illuminating piece you are going to read on that part of the world and well-worth reading. Please do so.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
PSA: You Have The Right To Remain Silent, As Long As You Speak First.
The always interesting AdamB over at the Daily Kos remind us of today's SCOTUS ruling about Berghuis v. Thompkins. Thompkins had assumed that by refusing to answer most of the questions posed by the police officer who was questioning him about a murder he had affirmed his intent to avail himself of the right to remain silent. However
Thompkins was subsequently charged with first-degree murder.
I take no firm position on this ruling, as it may have hidden implications that may sway me one way or another. In the meantime you can read all about it at the Daily Kos.
Oh, and... if you get arrested on suspicion of a crime, remember you now need to momentarly suspend your silence in order to tell police officers that you intend to avail yourself of the right to be silent. Huh? That's right.
About 2 hours and 45 minutes into the interrogation, Helgert asked Thompkins, “Do you believe in God?” Thompkins made eye contact with Helgert and said “Yes,” as his eyes “well[ed] up with tears.” Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God?” Thompkins said “Yes.” Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Thompkins answered “Yes” and looked away. Thompkins refused to make a written confession, and the interrogation ended about 15 minutes later.
Thompkins was subsequently charged with first-degree murder.
I take no firm position on this ruling, as it may have hidden implications that may sway me one way or another. In the meantime you can read all about it at the Daily Kos.
Oh, and... if you get arrested on suspicion of a crime, remember you now need to momentarly suspend your silence in order to tell police officers that you intend to avail yourself of the right to be silent. Huh? That's right.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Only In The Land of Unfettered Greed
Robert Reich makes the case for making billionaries pay their fair share of the financial burden.
Friday, May 21, 2010
A Sentence To Keep You Awake At Night
"[O]nce President Palin appoints Ron Paul as Treasury Secretary, all bets are off."
You can find it in Paul Krugman's analysis of Wall Street Reform passed last night by the Senate. And it's not nearly as bad as the alternative. Substitute Rand for Ron, and you can rest assured you will never catch a z again.
You can find it in Paul Krugman's analysis of Wall Street Reform passed last night by the Senate. And it's not nearly as bad as the alternative. Substitute Rand for Ron, and you can rest assured you will never catch a z again.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
You're Gonna Hear About It Anyway, So Here's The Real Story
The NY Times has recently reported that Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal, who is in the running to fill the Senate seat which will be vacated by Sen. Christopher Dodd at the end of his term, has lied about his service record, as evidenced by a video clip from 2008 in which Blumenthal said "We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam." When confronted with the excerpt from the video, Blumenthal said he "misspoke."
Nevertheless, news anchors and pundits from all over the political spectrum went on to accuse Blumenthal of intentionally lying and declared his campaign all but finished. Too bad, for Blumenthal and for us, that the NY Times had gotten it wrong and that none of the unprofessional figures that amplified the original report bothered to check its accuracy. Kos at the Daily Kos has more.
Nevertheless, news anchors and pundits from all over the political spectrum went on to accuse Blumenthal of intentionally lying and declared his campaign all but finished. Too bad, for Blumenthal and for us, that the NY Times had gotten it wrong and that none of the unprofessional figures that amplified the original report bothered to check its accuracy. Kos at the Daily Kos has more.
If The Real Thing Looks Like A Parody...
Then comedians are in trouble, right? Wrong. Watch.
(via TPM Live Wire)
(via Huffington Post)
Notice how the parody only took some minor re-writing. But then again, as a good friend of mine would say, parodying Alabama is as hard as "shooting at a little boy on the crapper."
(via TPM Live Wire)
(via Huffington Post)
Notice how the parody only took some minor re-writing. But then again, as a good friend of mine would say, parodying Alabama is as hard as "shooting at a little boy on the crapper."
Monday, May 17, 2010
You Can Dismiss Tea Partiers As Crazy, But You Cannot Dismiss Their Number
Recently I attended an Organizing for America strategy session. I came away underwhelmed from the experience, though it is always nice to see people mobilizing for a cause they believe in, whatever that might be.
Before the session started, an older gentleman in attendance dismissed the number of tea-partiers around the nation, saying that viewers and readers get an overinflated sense of how many tea-partiers there are because it is in the news media's interest to create controversies where none exist. An older woman immediately offered her support for the gentleman's theory. Perhaps. But, if they have been paying attention, about one week later Sen. Bennett (R-UT), an incumbent once considered a safe bet for re-election in November, was ousted by Republican voters in one of the most shocking results of this primary season. He finished third during the recent Utah Republican convention, failing to earn a place on the ballot for the upcoming Utah Republican primaries. In interview with NPR, Sen. Bennett said that "[t]he normal turnout for caucuses in Utah is between 25 and 35,000. This time we had 75,000, and [activists in the Tea Party movement] swamped all of the normal kinds of political structures." You do the math.
Add to that the news that Rand Paul (yes, Ron Paul's son, who is a fan of Ayn Rand, though he denies that his nickname is due to his fondness for the works of the Objectivist philosopher) is all but sure to kick his Republican opponent's butt in the Kentucky Republican primary, in spite of (or perhaps precisely because of) his wacky and less than commendable ideas, like repealing the American with Disabilities Act.
I am no pundit, so I don't know if the rise of the Tea Party will ultimately spell success or defeat for Conservatives in November, but while criticizing the logic and foundation of tea-partiers is fair game, as well as an exercise of civic responsibility, dismissing their numbers as inflated may be foolish.
Before the session started, an older gentleman in attendance dismissed the number of tea-partiers around the nation, saying that viewers and readers get an overinflated sense of how many tea-partiers there are because it is in the news media's interest to create controversies where none exist. An older woman immediately offered her support for the gentleman's theory. Perhaps. But, if they have been paying attention, about one week later Sen. Bennett (R-UT), an incumbent once considered a safe bet for re-election in November, was ousted by Republican voters in one of the most shocking results of this primary season. He finished third during the recent Utah Republican convention, failing to earn a place on the ballot for the upcoming Utah Republican primaries. In interview with NPR, Sen. Bennett said that "[t]he normal turnout for caucuses in Utah is between 25 and 35,000. This time we had 75,000, and [activists in the Tea Party movement] swamped all of the normal kinds of political structures." You do the math.
Add to that the news that Rand Paul (yes, Ron Paul's son, who is a fan of Ayn Rand, though he denies that his nickname is due to his fondness for the works of the Objectivist philosopher) is all but sure to kick his Republican opponent's butt in the Kentucky Republican primary, in spite of (or perhaps precisely because of) his wacky and less than commendable ideas, like repealing the American with Disabilities Act.
I am no pundit, so I don't know if the rise of the Tea Party will ultimately spell success or defeat for Conservatives in November, but while criticizing the logic and foundation of tea-partiers is fair game, as well as an exercise of civic responsibility, dismissing their numbers as inflated may be foolish.
Too Crooked To Exist
Read this post from Think Progress: Transocean to give shareholders $1 billion while trying to cap its responsibility for Gulf spill at $27 million. . If it does not get your blood boiling, nothing will.
Now I ask you: Why does this not the top news in all newspapers, newscasts, and over the Internet?
What I find particularly insulting and infuriating is that for years we have had to listen to the mouthpieces of the Conservative establishman rail against "entitlements", which, in their irritating jargon, means things like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment benefits, public education, anything that serves the interest of the lower- and middle-class ans interferes with the right of corporations and their executives to amass ungseemly amounts of money. It seems to me that, more and more, the consensus view is that the only true entitlements to be protected are the unfettered profits of the corporations that have corrupted the political process to the point of making a mockery of what the Founding Fathers might have had in mind when they gave birth to this briefly fair, once great country.
In this land that lies prostrate at the feet of its true god, Mammon, the only thing which never comes up for discussion is the matter of why corporations should be able to continue reaping profits born of corruption, malfeasance and a worship of profit that could not be less patriotic if it tried. When the preferred way of protecting corporate wealth is to lay off workers, to shield the corporation agains legitimate lawsuits, to bribe politicians into submission, to game the system at every juncture, where is all the fucking rage that should bring these thieves to their knees and back to earth? Why don't we start rising against corporate entitlements?
A corporation fighting to cap damages against itself while at the same time rushing to distribute its ill-gotten gains on its sharholders should not be allowed to exist. Call it Too Crooked To Exist. May it burn itself to the bottom of the ocean, along with its damned fucking rigs.
Now I ask you: Why does this not the top news in all newspapers, newscasts, and over the Internet?
What I find particularly insulting and infuriating is that for years we have had to listen to the mouthpieces of the Conservative establishman rail against "entitlements", which, in their irritating jargon, means things like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment benefits, public education, anything that serves the interest of the lower- and middle-class ans interferes with the right of corporations and their executives to amass ungseemly amounts of money. It seems to me that, more and more, the consensus view is that the only true entitlements to be protected are the unfettered profits of the corporations that have corrupted the political process to the point of making a mockery of what the Founding Fathers might have had in mind when they gave birth to this briefly fair, once great country.
In this land that lies prostrate at the feet of its true god, Mammon, the only thing which never comes up for discussion is the matter of why corporations should be able to continue reaping profits born of corruption, malfeasance and a worship of profit that could not be less patriotic if it tried. When the preferred way of protecting corporate wealth is to lay off workers, to shield the corporation agains legitimate lawsuits, to bribe politicians into submission, to game the system at every juncture, where is all the fucking rage that should bring these thieves to their knees and back to earth? Why don't we start rising against corporate entitlements?
A corporation fighting to cap damages against itself while at the same time rushing to distribute its ill-gotten gains on its sharholders should not be allowed to exist. Call it Too Crooked To Exist. May it burn itself to the bottom of the ocean, along with its damned fucking rigs.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Genius is B(l)ack!
One of my favorite comedians/satirists returned to the Daily Show last night. This is a classic piece of satire, if I ever heard one.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Back in Black - Glenn Beck's Nazi Tourette's | ||||
| ||||
Ballot Initiative to Ban Red-Light Cameras in Colorado
Few things in my daily life aggravate me as much as red-light cameras (another one being cops sitting mid-downhill with their radar guns). In fact, red-light cameras aggravate me so much that I am thinking of starting a drive to change Colorado law. No, I have not been a victim of one of these safety-killing, revenue-generating traps (yet), but the way they are set up it's just a matter of time.
If you have any experience in driving ballot initiatives and would be interested in starting the process to run a referendum banning the use of red-light cameras in Colorado, please post a comment in reply to this post. Fifteen states have already banned the use of red-light cameras.
In the meantime, for the next few weekends, I plan to go out with a stopwatch to measure the yellow-light interval of various traffic lights, some equipped with red-light cameras, some without. I think I have already detected a difference of about one second between the two types (with the red-light camera equipped traffic signals being shorter.) If your idea of a fun weekend can withstand lowered expectations and you would like to help out, drop me a line using the comment feature.
If you have any experience in driving ballot initiatives and would be interested in starting the process to run a referendum banning the use of red-light cameras in Colorado, please post a comment in reply to this post. Fifteen states have already banned the use of red-light cameras.
In the meantime, for the next few weekends, I plan to go out with a stopwatch to measure the yellow-light interval of various traffic lights, some equipped with red-light cameras, some without. I think I have already detected a difference of about one second between the two types (with the red-light camera equipped traffic signals being shorter.) If your idea of a fun weekend can withstand lowered expectations and you would like to help out, drop me a line using the comment feature.
Friday, May 07, 2010
A Ridiculous, Scary Map of The Union
"It's time for reform advocates to wake up" says Linda Bergthold, a health policy consultant and researcher who writes for the Huffington Post. Why? Because if you think the battle for health care in this country was over when President Obama signed health care reform into law, you need to come to terms with reality.
Read Ms. Bergthold's post, and you'll understand why you need to wake up.
Read Ms. Bergthold's post, and you'll understand why you need to wake up.
While We're On the Subject of JC... (see previous post)
I just came across a provocative little post by a former "rabid anti-Christian, very suddenly convert." His name is John Shore, and he makes some interesting points about the many ways in which Christians fail at being Christians.
Here are a couple of my favorite failures:
3) Too quick to believe that we know what God really means by what he says in the Bible.
5) Too invasive of others generally. It is my personal, humble opinion that anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and role of either.
You can read the rest of Shore's post here.
Here are a couple of my favorite failures:
3) Too quick to believe that we know what God really means by what he says in the Bible.
5) Too invasive of others generally. It is my personal, humble opinion that anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and role of either.
You can read the rest of Shore's post here.
Use the RC to Turn Off JC
If this is true, and it appears to be, Comedy Central will soon become the favorite target of Evangelical Christians all around the world: It appears that the comedy cable channel is developing a cartoon with Jesus Christ as its protagonist.
According to CNN, the series "would be about JC (Jesus Christ) wanting to escape his father's enormous shadow and to live life in NYC as a regular guy. A lot has changed in 2000 years and he is the ultimate fish out of water. Meanwhile his all-powerful yet apathetic father would rather be playing video games than listening to JC recount his life in the city. JC is a playful take on religion and society with a sprinkle of dumb.”
You can always count on the good people at Comedy Central to poke fun at what draws fun-poking upon itself.
You don't need me to tell you what the reaction of Christians would be if the cartoon should reach "pilot" status and later even develop into a full-fledged series, but I will gladly tell you anyway. Accusations that Comedy Central is desecrating religion and defaming the good character of Jesus and the followers of the various cults created in his name will be levelled, regardless of the fact that Christians, Catholics and Evangelicals first and foremost among them, are perfectly capable of giving their religion a bad name all by themselves.
In the meantime, I volunteer to teach Christians in churches and rec halls around the country how they can use their remote controls to change channel or to turn off their TV sets altogether. It would be much easier if we all learned to use technology to our advantage, instead of using it as a means of curtailing other people's freedoms.
According to CNN, the series "would be about JC (Jesus Christ) wanting to escape his father's enormous shadow and to live life in NYC as a regular guy. A lot has changed in 2000 years and he is the ultimate fish out of water. Meanwhile his all-powerful yet apathetic father would rather be playing video games than listening to JC recount his life in the city. JC is a playful take on religion and society with a sprinkle of dumb.”
You can always count on the good people at Comedy Central to poke fun at what draws fun-poking upon itself.
You don't need me to tell you what the reaction of Christians would be if the cartoon should reach "pilot" status and later even develop into a full-fledged series, but I will gladly tell you anyway. Accusations that Comedy Central is desecrating religion and defaming the good character of Jesus and the followers of the various cults created in his name will be levelled, regardless of the fact that Christians, Catholics and Evangelicals first and foremost among them, are perfectly capable of giving their religion a bad name all by themselves.
In the meantime, I volunteer to teach Christians in churches and rec halls around the country how they can use their remote controls to change channel or to turn off their TV sets altogether. It would be much easier if we all learned to use technology to our advantage, instead of using it as a means of curtailing other people's freedoms.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Happy National Day of... Prayer?!?
PZ Myers tells the President of the USA to "get stuffed." He is right, of course, about the fact that the National Day of Prayer is an obvious trespass of the line that separates church and state, and that all Presidents who endorse and participate in such proclamations are "pandering, unprincipled hack[s]."
Thankfully, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin ruled (PDF reader required) that the federal law mandating a National Day of Prayer violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Look for this case to make it all the way to the Supreme Court, which--by the way--has shown to be almost completely spineless on matters of separation of church and state (in its current conservative embodiment).
Thankfully, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin ruled (PDF reader required) that the federal law mandating a National Day of Prayer violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Look for this case to make it all the way to the Supreme Court, which--by the way--has shown to be almost completely spineless on matters of separation of church and state (in its current conservative embodiment).
What On Earth Is Going On?
First Glenn Beck defends the Times Square bomber (saying Mirandizing him was the right thing to do, when Sen. McCain said Mirandizing him was wrong), then O'Reilly says that criticizing the Obama Administration for its response to the Deep Horizon oil spill is insane... I know!
You have to see it to believe it.
You have to see it to believe it.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
The Perfect Name for The Red Nation
A while ago, in my infinite wisdom and farsightedness, I penned a post called Let Them Idiots Secede. It became relevant lately when Professor David Michael Green wrote a post to the same effect.
Now I came across a post by Kos at the Daily Kos which contains the following sentence, which I immediately declare a classic and which contains the ultimate suggestion for the name of secession nation: "Whenever Dumbfuckistan is finally founded (I still say in the Texas panhandle/western Oklahoma), the Politico needs to become its paper of record. Benen has more."
Dumbfuckistan it is!
Now I came across a post by Kos at the Daily Kos which contains the following sentence, which I immediately declare a classic and which contains the ultimate suggestion for the name of secession nation: "Whenever Dumbfuckistan is finally founded (I still say in the Texas panhandle/western Oklahoma), the Politico needs to become its paper of record. Benen has more."
Dumbfuckistan it is!
When The Private Sector Is Not Only Inept But Dangerous
Meteor Blades at the Daily Kos raises an issue that is sure to make conservative skins crawl: nationalizing energy.
Conservatives always tell us, no amount of contrary evidence notwithstanding, that the private sector can do a better job than the government, that collection of screw-ups that brought you Medicaid, Medicare, public education, public roads, and so on.
The recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and beyond serves as a painful reminder that private sector can be just as inept, and as dangerous or more, as the government is alleged to be. But there are nations, for example in Norway or France, that run things better than the United States, from an environmental safety point of view. The dirty little secret that conservatives don't want you to find out about is that the energy sector of those two countries is, for the most part, nationalized.
Conservatives always tell us, no amount of contrary evidence notwithstanding, that the private sector can do a better job than the government, that collection of screw-ups that brought you Medicaid, Medicare, public education, public roads, and so on.
The recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and beyond serves as a painful reminder that private sector can be just as inept, and as dangerous or more, as the government is alleged to be. But there are nations, for example in Norway or France, that run things better than the United States, from an environmental safety point of view. The dirty little secret that conservatives don't want you to find out about is that the energy sector of those two countries is, for the most part, nationalized.
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Plutocrats v Us
You would think that, in a democracy that equates gargantuan wealth with free speech (see Citizens United v. FEC), the plutocrats who buy amounts of free speech you and I cannot even dream of would not try to hide their identity but would proudly associate their identity with the causes they support. Not so, reports Think Progress.
These gutless children of Mammon want to protect their right to buy the outcomes of democracy while at the same time preserving their anonimity, alleging that a "chilling effect on the First Amendment" would ensue were they forced by law to disclose their identity when pouring disgusting amounts of money into the political process. Last I checked, the First Amendment protects people's right to speak freely from govermental interference, but it does not come with an attached clause granting the speaker anonimity.
If these disgusting plutocrats want to defend their plutonomy with the wealth they have (often obscenely) accumulated, they should at least have the guts to show their faces in public.
Why, just this week Justice Scalia, one of my least favorite Supreme Court Justices in history, said that "democracy's not for babies", in Doe v. Reed, adding that "for the first century of our existence, even voting was public -- you either did it raising your hand or by voice, or later, you had a ballot that was very visibly red or blue so that people knew which party you were voting for" and that "running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage. And the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate, or to take part in the legislative process."
So, it would seem, the First Amendement would not provide plutocrats the right to be shielded from public scrutiny or even denunciation. Even according to Justice Scalia.
This is just the type of issue that you would expect all Americans, including tea-partiers and libertartians, Republicans and Democrats, should take an active interest in. Everyone should write Congress to support the DISCLOSE Act of 2010, to increase the level of transparency of an increasingly muddy democratic process.
Start getting involved, contact your local, state, and federal representatives, and make visits to The Sunlight Foundation and Open Secrets a civic routine in your weekly meanderings on the web.
These gutless children of Mammon want to protect their right to buy the outcomes of democracy while at the same time preserving their anonimity, alleging that a "chilling effect on the First Amendment" would ensue were they forced by law to disclose their identity when pouring disgusting amounts of money into the political process. Last I checked, the First Amendment protects people's right to speak freely from govermental interference, but it does not come with an attached clause granting the speaker anonimity.
If these disgusting plutocrats want to defend their plutonomy with the wealth they have (often obscenely) accumulated, they should at least have the guts to show their faces in public.
Why, just this week Justice Scalia, one of my least favorite Supreme Court Justices in history, said that "democracy's not for babies", in Doe v. Reed, adding that "for the first century of our existence, even voting was public -- you either did it raising your hand or by voice, or later, you had a ballot that was very visibly red or blue so that people knew which party you were voting for" and that "running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage. And the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate, or to take part in the legislative process."
So, it would seem, the First Amendement would not provide plutocrats the right to be shielded from public scrutiny or even denunciation. Even according to Justice Scalia.
This is just the type of issue that you would expect all Americans, including tea-partiers and libertartians, Republicans and Democrats, should take an active interest in. Everyone should write Congress to support the DISCLOSE Act of 2010, to increase the level of transparency of an increasingly muddy democratic process.
Start getting involved, contact your local, state, and federal representatives, and make visits to The Sunlight Foundation and Open Secrets a civic routine in your weekly meanderings on the web.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Halliburton, Disaster Maker
As if their disastrous involvement in the "war against terrah" wasn't enough, Halliburton is also involved in the "war against Terra", given their possible involvement in the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, in the wake of a similar explosion off the coast of Australia last year. But hey, let's continue giving them government contracts.
Lunatic Drudge
Jason Linkins of The Huffington Post explains what Hurricane Katrina and "Obama's Katrina" have in common. Exactly nothing.
Spill, Baby, Spill!
This one goes out to the idiotic and pernicious "Baby Drillers", like Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Sean Hannity, Steve "Douchy" Doocy and all the idiots that ever uttered the Repuglycan mantra with a smirk on their face.
(video via mediamatters.org)
Unfortunately, as Stephen Colbert pointed out with classic wit in last night's episode of the report, others have gotten on board the offshore drilling juggernaut of idiocy.
(video via mediamatters.org)
Unfortunately, as Stephen Colbert pointed out with classic wit in last night's episode of the report, others have gotten on board the offshore drilling juggernaut of idiocy.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Wind Farm & Oil Spill | ||||
| ||||
Christopher Monckton, Lord Crockofshit, Global Warming Denier
I gladly link to this post, A Christopher Monckton Reality Check, because quite a few people, including--alas--some close to me, have bought into some of the despicable and disingenuous rhetoric propagated by the likes of "oh Lord" Monckton.
Christopher Monckton is a hack, a shill for the worst element of the energy industry, he talks out of his ass, and is a dangerous participant to the global warming/climate change debate.
If you are thinking of reading anything he published, or watching anything he is in, do yourself a favor: do a one-eighty and read Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, which--incidentally--covers some of the fake controversy instigated by our Lord Crockofshit.
Christopher Monckton is a hack, a shill for the worst element of the energy industry, he talks out of his ass, and is a dangerous participant to the global warming/climate change debate.
If you are thinking of reading anything he published, or watching anything he is in, do yourself a favor: do a one-eighty and read Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, which--incidentally--covers some of the fake controversy instigated by our Lord Crockofshit.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
The Supreme Cross
Adam B at the Daily Kos has a very interesting post about Salazar v. Buono, a case that has been heard by the Supreme Court recently, concerning an unofficial memorial to the Veterans of WWI in the form of a cross somewhere in the Mojave Desert.
It is a very interesting read, with some excellent highlights of what various Justices have written in their opinions.
It is a very interesting read, with some excellent highlights of what various Justices have written in their opinions.
Nine Myths About The Deficit That You Cannot Afford to Believe
The excellent New Deal 2.0 has a post you must read about 9 commonly used (and, alas, believed) myths about the deficit.
Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?
That is the question that the father of American psychopharmacology, Jonathan Cole, asked in a paper by the same name that focused on the real effectiveness and dangers posed by meds prescribed for psychiatric illnesses.
Now award-winning Boston Globe investigative reporter Robert Whitaker reprises the question in a book titled Anatomy of an Epidemic, which looks at 50 years of studies on the effectiveness of psychodrugs.
Now award-winning Boston Globe investigative reporter Robert Whitaker reprises the question in a book titled Anatomy of an Epidemic, which looks at 50 years of studies on the effectiveness of psychodrugs.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Insane Comparisons
People who seriously compare Fox News and MSNBC are nuts.
People who say Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are liberal equivalent to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Back are nuts AND ignorant.
On another note, Bill Moyers is an intellectal giant, a fantastic journalist, a fantastic person, and an example to follow. After this Friday, he will be dearly missed.
People who say Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are liberal equivalent to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Back are nuts AND ignorant.
On another note, Bill Moyers is an intellectal giant, a fantastic journalist, a fantastic person, and an example to follow. After this Friday, he will be dearly missed.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Robert Reich's Brief and Crystal Clear Suggestions for WSR
Robert Reich is a redoubtable source of simple to understand, direct and excellent commentary on all things financial and economic. One of his latest posts summarizes the necessary steps to right the American financial ship.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Republicans Do The Only Thing They Do Well... Again
Republicans do only one thing well: they vote in block. Never mind their complete lack of (good) ideas to solve the nation's problems,
When Bush was president, they steamrolled over Democrats to enact some of the most regressive policies in the nation's history, their stated goal being the piecemeal dismantling of New Deal and Great Society Policies.
Now that Mr. Obama is President, they vote in block against anything, literally anything, the President supports.
Take for example Wall Street Reform: You would think that no politician would dare vote to block reform aimed at reining in one of the two most unpopular industries at this point in history, i.e. the banking industry (the insurance industry being the other). But no, even this time Republicans were steadfast in their resolve to block the President's agenda, no matter what.
The only thing more disgusting than Repuglycans voting unanimously to prevent Wall Street reform from even coming to the floor of the Senate for debate is the Democrat who joined them: Ben Nelson, already a thorn in the President's side during the health care reform debate. That is why it is really important to elect true progressives to Congress, and not career politicians who only have their own best interest in mind, instead of the nation's.
On a related note, you might want to read The Cover-Up, posted on baselinescenario.com, written by James Kwak, co-author with Simon Johnson of the book 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. Read it, and read it to the end. Focus particularly on the last paragraph, and then ask yourself: Whose bidding are Republicans doing when they vote uninanimously to stop Wall Street reform from being debated on the floor of the Senate? Ours? Think again.
One last thought: While the Republicans who are working to stop regulatory reform are despicable, because they always do the bidding of the powerful and the wealthy while filling their mouths with words like freedom, free-market, the will of the American people, etc, too many Democrats are now squeaky-clean when it comes to their ties to the banking industry and its mindless deregulation.
In fact, as former New York Governor Spitzer suggested over a year ago, the problems that have beset our financial industry (and have had such disastrous domino effects on the lives of many people, here and around the world) could have been prevented by good people willing to use existing regulations (which also raises the question of why President Obama picked Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers to fill in important posts rather than people like Elizabeth Warren, William K. Black and Paul Krugman, for example).
In other words, no laws will ever do the job unless there are principled individuals willing to enforce them. So the current regulatory impulse may be driven more by a desire to shield political accomplices from blame than by a serious desire to fix the system.
When Bush was president, they steamrolled over Democrats to enact some of the most regressive policies in the nation's history, their stated goal being the piecemeal dismantling of New Deal and Great Society Policies.
Now that Mr. Obama is President, they vote in block against anything, literally anything, the President supports.
Take for example Wall Street Reform: You would think that no politician would dare vote to block reform aimed at reining in one of the two most unpopular industries at this point in history, i.e. the banking industry (the insurance industry being the other). But no, even this time Republicans were steadfast in their resolve to block the President's agenda, no matter what.
The only thing more disgusting than Repuglycans voting unanimously to prevent Wall Street reform from even coming to the floor of the Senate for debate is the Democrat who joined them: Ben Nelson, already a thorn in the President's side during the health care reform debate. That is why it is really important to elect true progressives to Congress, and not career politicians who only have their own best interest in mind, instead of the nation's.
On a related note, you might want to read The Cover-Up, posted on baselinescenario.com, written by James Kwak, co-author with Simon Johnson of the book 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. Read it, and read it to the end. Focus particularly on the last paragraph, and then ask yourself: Whose bidding are Republicans doing when they vote uninanimously to stop Wall Street reform from being debated on the floor of the Senate? Ours? Think again.
One last thought: While the Republicans who are working to stop regulatory reform are despicable, because they always do the bidding of the powerful and the wealthy while filling their mouths with words like freedom, free-market, the will of the American people, etc, too many Democrats are now squeaky-clean when it comes to their ties to the banking industry and its mindless deregulation.
In fact, as former New York Governor Spitzer suggested over a year ago, the problems that have beset our financial industry (and have had such disastrous domino effects on the lives of many people, here and around the world) could have been prevented by good people willing to use existing regulations (which also raises the question of why President Obama picked Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers to fill in important posts rather than people like Elizabeth Warren, William K. Black and Paul Krugman, for example).
In other words, no laws will ever do the job unless there are principled individuals willing to enforce them. So the current regulatory impulse may be driven more by a desire to shield political accomplices from blame than by a serious desire to fix the system.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
A Secession To End All Regression
Good Sunday to all!
A while ago, I wrote a post titled Let Them Idiots Secede. I do not bring it up to apologize for it. To the contrary: I just found out that David Michael Green of Hofstra University recently wrote a similar piece that comes to the same conclusion.
I feel vindicated.
A while ago, I wrote a post titled Let Them Idiots Secede. I do not bring it up to apologize for it. To the contrary: I just found out that David Michael Green of Hofstra University recently wrote a similar piece that comes to the same conclusion.
I feel vindicated.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Will Black on the Journal
Last night Bill Moyers had Will Black on the Journal.
Black is professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missoury, Kansas City, and author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry. He is an expert on banking fraud, having being the director of litigation of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), senior vice president and general counsel of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and senior deputy chief counsel, Office of Thrift Supervision. He was deputy director of the National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement.
In the wake of the recent SEC decision to file charges against Goldman Sachs for fraud in structuring and marketing of CDO (collateralized debt obligations) tied to subprime mortgages, Black was the right man for Moyers to invite to the Journal to explain to Americans (at least those who care) what happened, how it happened, and how it could have been prevented. Watch the video here.
While talking about the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision, Black offered this suggestion:
Simple, imaginative, effective. Pure genius.
The fact that Black is not working for the Obama Administration, and that Tim Geithner and Larry Summers are, says a lot about the President's real priorities when it comes to taking on powerful interests and white collar crime.
Black is professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missoury, Kansas City, and author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry. He is an expert on banking fraud, having being the director of litigation of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), senior vice president and general counsel of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and senior deputy chief counsel, Office of Thrift Supervision. He was deputy director of the National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement.
In the wake of the recent SEC decision to file charges against Goldman Sachs for fraud in structuring and marketing of CDO (collateralized debt obligations) tied to subprime mortgages, Black was the right man for Moyers to invite to the Journal to explain to Americans (at least those who care) what happened, how it happened, and how it could have been prevented. Watch the video here.
While talking about the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision, Black offered this suggestion:
[I]f corporations are going to be just like people, let me tell you my criminologist hat. Then let's use the three strike laws against them. Three strike laws, you go to prison for life, if you have three felonies. How many of these major corporations would still be allowed to exist, if we were to use the three strike laws, given what they've been convicted of in the past?
And in most states, they remove your civil rights when you're convicted of a felony. Well, let's take away their right to make political contributions that they're found guilty of a violation.
Simple, imaginative, effective. Pure genius.
The fact that Black is not working for the Obama Administration, and that Tim Geithner and Larry Summers are, says a lot about the President's real priorities when it comes to taking on powerful interests and white collar crime.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Jerry Coyne Explains Evolution
Over at The Nation, Jerry Coyne writes:
Thus begins Coyne's compelling defense of evolution in his review of Richard Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth against Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini's What Darwin Got Wrong.
Must read.
Imagine for a moment that a large proportion of Americans--let's say half--rejected the "germ theory" of infectious disease. Maladies like swine flu, malaria and AIDS aren't caused by micro-organisms, they claim, but by the displeasure of gods, whom they propitiate by praying, consulting shamans and sacrificing goats. Now, you'd surely find this a national disgrace, for those people would be utterly, unequivocally wrong. Although it's called germ theory, the idea that infections are spread by small creatures is also a fact, supported by mountains of evidence. You don't get malaria unless you carry a specific protozoan parasite. We know how it causes the disease, and we see that when you kill it with drugs, the disease goes away. How, we'd ask, could people ignore all this evidence in favor of baseless superstition?
But that's fiction, right? Well, not entirely, for it applies precisely to another "theory" that is also a fact: the theory of evolution.
Thus begins Coyne's compelling defense of evolution in his review of Richard Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth against Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini's What Darwin Got Wrong.
Must read.
Truly a National Shame
Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a cruel and stupid bill that may very well be struck down as unconstitutional even by the currently conservative Supreme Court. As President Obama rightly said today, "failure to act responsibly at the Federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others." In other words, the Administration and Congress need to come up with reasonable and equitable laws to prevent the freaks that live in the nation's woodwork to usurp federal powers and come up with insane laws like the one Gov. Brewer signed today. Amen.
The debate leading up to today's signing ceremony has been accompanies by some of the most insensitive, stupid and racist remarks in memory, such as Rep. Bilbray (R-CA) saying that illegal immigrants can be identified "just by looking at their clothes."
And, as Kos at the Daily Kos says, it will lead to an explosion of lawsuits.
But while Kos anticipates that "that within a year, virtually every town and county in the state will be getting sued by xenophobic teabaggers" (because, as Kos explains, the law "allows residents to sue their municipalities if they believe local cops aren't doing enough to target and jail undocumented immigrants"), I hope that there will be a torrent of lawsuits by Hispanic citizens whose Fourth Amendment rights (against illegal searches) and Fourteenth Amendment rights (equal protection) will undoubtedly be violated when overzealous law enforcement agents ask them for proof of citizenship. In a country where there there is no federal law mandating that individuals are required to provide proof of citizenship, as Mark Evans of TucsonCitizen.com notes, it will be interesting to see how Arizona's law enforcement agencies go about trying to enforce an unenforceable law. You know someone royally f***ed things up when Gov. Huckabee is the voice of reason on the right.
For an analysis of the many ways in which Arizona SB-1070 is a gigantic discriminatory cockup, read the ACLU of Arizona's section by section take-down of the bill. (PDF reader required).
The debate leading up to today's signing ceremony has been accompanies by some of the most insensitive, stupid and racist remarks in memory, such as Rep. Bilbray (R-CA) saying that illegal immigrants can be identified "just by looking at their clothes."
And, as Kos at the Daily Kos says, it will lead to an explosion of lawsuits.
But while Kos anticipates that "that within a year, virtually every town and county in the state will be getting sued by xenophobic teabaggers" (because, as Kos explains, the law "allows residents to sue their municipalities if they believe local cops aren't doing enough to target and jail undocumented immigrants"), I hope that there will be a torrent of lawsuits by Hispanic citizens whose Fourth Amendment rights (against illegal searches) and Fourteenth Amendment rights (equal protection) will undoubtedly be violated when overzealous law enforcement agents ask them for proof of citizenship. In a country where there there is no federal law mandating that individuals are required to provide proof of citizenship, as Mark Evans of TucsonCitizen.com notes, it will be interesting to see how Arizona's law enforcement agencies go about trying to enforce an unenforceable law. You know someone royally f***ed things up when Gov. Huckabee is the voice of reason on the right.
For an analysis of the many ways in which Arizona SB-1070 is a gigantic discriminatory cockup, read the ACLU of Arizona's section by section take-down of the bill. (PDF reader required).
Understanding Climate Change
In honor of Earth Day, I have dug up a few interesting sources on the impact of energy use and the planet that supports our life. Take a gander.
- The Greenhouse Effect for Kids (from the EPA website)
- Energy Explained (from the US Department of Energy)
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- De Smog Blog
- Climate Crisis, a fascinating look at the way certain nations are threatened by climate change, by the sadly about to disappear "Now on PBS". (The last episode of this brilliant investigative journalism series is scheduled to air next Friday).
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Correcting Ignorance and Deceit
The Christocratic blogosphere is abuzz with misinformation regarding a case which will be heard by the Supreme Court tomorrow. The case is Christian Legal Society v Martinez and concerns the right of public institutions to deny certain forms of support to ANY group or association of individuals that engage in discrimination that clashes with the institution's non-discrimination policy.
If you want to get past the misinformation that the pseudo-Christian loonies are peddling to anyone who will swallow it, you can read the post I published yesterday by clicking this link; or, better yet, you can read this lucid analysis by Gabriel Arana on the American Prospect's website.
If you want to get past the misinformation that the pseudo-Christian loonies are peddling to anyone who will swallow it, you can read the post I published yesterday by clicking this link; or, better yet, you can read this lucid analysis by Gabriel Arana on the American Prospect's website.
Sunday Reading/Watching
Sundays are good days to kick back, relax, and enjoy a selection of good writings from the week that was. Here are few.
Devilstower, from the Daily Kos, has an astute analysis of the difference between real libertarians and conservatives who are ashamed of calling themselves Republicans so they hide behind the libertarian label.
Yasha Levine's article, The Roots of Stalin in the Tea Party Movement, analyzes the link between the Kock family fortune, which is the biggest single funder of activities of the Tea Party movement, and the old USSR, and takes a look at the ways in which the Kock family amassed its fortune.
On PBS, I just found a gem of a program called Justice with Michael Sandel. It is a series of lectures that you can view online about "the right thing to do" in a series of circumstances and different topics.
Devilstower, from the Daily Kos, has an astute analysis of the difference between real libertarians and conservatives who are ashamed of calling themselves Republicans so they hide behind the libertarian label.
Yasha Levine's article, The Roots of Stalin in the Tea Party Movement, analyzes the link between the Kock family fortune, which is the biggest single funder of activities of the Tea Party movement, and the old USSR, and takes a look at the ways in which the Kock family amassed its fortune.
On PBS, I just found a gem of a program called Justice with Michael Sandel. It is a series of lectures that you can view online about "the right thing to do" in a series of circumstances and different topics.
The Sky Is (Not) Falling
Mr. Groothuis of The Constructive Curmudgeon can always be counted on to make unnecessarily inflammatory statements; like this one:
"On April 19, The Supreme Court will decide whether campus Christian groups, such as Navigators and InterVarsity, can exist as official groups when in light of the fact that they require certain beliefs and behaviors of their members. This is another choice between liberty and tyranny."
It's not that I don't believe what Mr. Groothuis says, it's that I have learned not to trust him. So I went and checked the facts of the case and--not surprisingly--liberty and tyranny live only in Chicken Little Curmudgeon's head.
The scare-mongering post on the Curmudgeon's blog refers to Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which will be heard by the Supreme Court next Monday. The gist of the case (as I understand it) is this: Can a public institution refuse to officially recognize an organization that prevents those who do not share its religious and moral values from becoming voting members? More specifically, in the case at hand, can Hastings College of Law, a publicly-funded school, deny the use of its funds, official logo, and other privileges to an entity, specifically Christian Legal Society, which practices discrimination as a requirement for membership (a student club, for example)?
It is important to note that lack of official recognition does not equate the prohibition to exist or to operate on school grounds, or to communicate via certain channels provided by the institution.
If you are interested in the facts of the case, and the implication of the possible rulings I recommend that you click on the preceding links. I also recommend that you read Prof. Volokh's detailed considerations on the case, expressed in various posts of his. Then you can decide for yourself if Mr. Groothuis is right in suggesting that CLS v Martinez is a choice between tyranny and liberty. I don't, and I offer this piece of advice to the tragicomical Curmudgeon:
When a party is sure of the force of its reasoning and of the legal validity of its viewpoint it does not need to resort to hyperbole and fear to secure support for its position.
A choice between tyranny and liberty? Only in Chicken Little's Curmudgeon mind.
"On April 19, The Supreme Court will decide whether campus Christian groups, such as Navigators and InterVarsity, can exist as official groups when in light of the fact that they require certain beliefs and behaviors of their members. This is another choice between liberty and tyranny."
It's not that I don't believe what Mr. Groothuis says, it's that I have learned not to trust him. So I went and checked the facts of the case and--not surprisingly--liberty and tyranny live only in Chicken Little Curmudgeon's head.
The scare-mongering post on the Curmudgeon's blog refers to Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which will be heard by the Supreme Court next Monday. The gist of the case (as I understand it) is this: Can a public institution refuse to officially recognize an organization that prevents those who do not share its religious and moral values from becoming voting members? More specifically, in the case at hand, can Hastings College of Law, a publicly-funded school, deny the use of its funds, official logo, and other privileges to an entity, specifically Christian Legal Society, which practices discrimination as a requirement for membership (a student club, for example)?
It is important to note that lack of official recognition does not equate the prohibition to exist or to operate on school grounds, or to communicate via certain channels provided by the institution.
If you are interested in the facts of the case, and the implication of the possible rulings I recommend that you click on the preceding links. I also recommend that you read Prof. Volokh's detailed considerations on the case, expressed in various posts of his. Then you can decide for yourself if Mr. Groothuis is right in suggesting that CLS v Martinez is a choice between tyranny and liberty. I don't, and I offer this piece of advice to the tragicomical Curmudgeon:
When a party is sure of the force of its reasoning and of the legal validity of its viewpoint it does not need to resort to hyperbole and fear to secure support for its position.
A choice between tyranny and liberty? Only in Chicken Little's Curmudgeon mind.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Read To Believe
No comment necessary.
Corporate Front Group Funded By Coal Industry Scorns Widow Of Mine Disaster: ‘Everyone Wants Free Money'
Limbaugh: Volcanic eruption in Iceland is God’s reaction to health care’s passage.
One can only hope that karma will do its job.
Corporate Front Group Funded By Coal Industry Scorns Widow Of Mine Disaster: ‘Everyone Wants Free Money'
Limbaugh: Volcanic eruption in Iceland is God’s reaction to health care’s passage.
One can only hope that karma will do its job.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Tax Day Has Come And Gone, Unlike Ignoramuses, Rich Opportunists and Liars
I filed my taxes. Finally. At the very last possible minute, like the procrastinator I am.
It's never a happy process, and I can't say I love the idea of parting from money I worked so hard to earn, particularly when the money I pay to the federal government buys so little of what I need most (like guaranteed basic health care, commercial free and impartial TV and radio programming, affordable higher education, rational, affordable and efficient public transportation, and so forth) and so much of what I loathe (ginormous "defense" spending, corporate welfare, bailouts to those who almost totally bankrupted us, handouts to states represented and inhabited by a majority of idiots who spend their lives condemning federal handouts, etc.) The good news is that the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress are (too timidly) reversing some of these policies. The bad news is that the asylum is still run to a large degree by the inmates (lobbyists and their political butlers.)
Nevertheless, I am not one of the wingnuts and/or liars who would have you believe that the Federal Income Tax has gone up this year for most Americans, when in fact the opposite is true.
It's never a happy process, and I can't say I love the idea of parting from money I worked so hard to earn, particularly when the money I pay to the federal government buys so little of what I need most (like guaranteed basic health care, commercial free and impartial TV and radio programming, affordable higher education, rational, affordable and efficient public transportation, and so forth) and so much of what I loathe (ginormous "defense" spending, corporate welfare, bailouts to those who almost totally bankrupted us, handouts to states represented and inhabited by a majority of idiots who spend their lives condemning federal handouts, etc.) The good news is that the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress are (too timidly) reversing some of these policies. The bad news is that the asylum is still run to a large degree by the inmates (lobbyists and their political butlers.)
Nevertheless, I am not one of the wingnuts and/or liars who would have you believe that the Federal Income Tax has gone up this year for most Americans, when in fact the opposite is true.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Monday, April 05, 2010
A Lesson In Civics
From the pages of the Daily Kos: Running After Happy. It is a rare lesson in civics and what the Founding Fathers might have wanted for the United States, had they had more of a say in the current state of things than the conservative pundits who hijacked their thoughts.
I made a similar point, not too long ago, in the context of the health care reform struggle. It is not nearly as eloquently as exmearden on the Daily Kos, but certainly as heartfelt.
I made a similar point, not too long ago, in the context of the health care reform struggle. It is not nearly as eloquently as exmearden on the Daily Kos, but certainly as heartfelt.
Friday, April 02, 2010
A Stroke of (Repuglycan) Genius
Dr. Jack Cassell, a Florida urologist, has posted the following sign on the door of his practice: "If you voted for Obama ... seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your health care begin right now, not in four years."
Congressman Grayson (D-FL), often too quick to bash Repuglycans, wasted no time to bash the good doctor for being a sore loser, and a cruel one at that.
Actually, I wished all doctors who harbor the same feelings against "Obamacare" would be as explicit as Dr. Cassell. In fact, I wish all corporations were so blatantly idiotic. Then we could take our money elsewhere, instead of unwittingly fattening the idiots' wallets.
Congressman Grayson (D-FL), often too quick to bash Repuglycans, wasted no time to bash the good doctor for being a sore loser, and a cruel one at that.
Actually, I wished all doctors who harbor the same feelings against "Obamacare" would be as explicit as Dr. Cassell. In fact, I wish all corporations were so blatantly idiotic. Then we could take our money elsewhere, instead of unwittingly fattening the idiots' wallets.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Obama's Not A Socialist. And The Heritage Foundation Lies About HCR.
Tea partiers and Repuglycans like to attack the President by accusing him of being a Socialist. As any proud Socialist will tell you, you have to be pretty ignorant or intentionally deceitful to make that claim.
Also, surprise surprise, the Heritage Foundation keeps spreading disinformation. According to an HF spokesman, the United States is a right-of-center country and Obama's health care reform is a massive takeover of one sixth of the economy. (How could that be, when there is no public option and the best Demo-chrytes could come up with is an individual mandate to buy health insurance?)
The Heritage Foundation would also have you believe that President Obama's claim that the health care reform bill that he just signed into law incorporates ideas from the Heritage Foundation is false. Unfortunately for the Heritage Foundation, you are entitled to your own opinion, not to your own facts. Why, as recently as 2003 Stuart Butler, Ph.D, laid out many of the ideas that have now become law, including the individual mandate that HF now rails against, in Congressional testimony.
Also, surprise surprise, the Heritage Foundation keeps spreading disinformation. According to an HF spokesman, the United States is a right-of-center country and Obama's health care reform is a massive takeover of one sixth of the economy. (How could that be, when there is no public option and the best Demo-chrytes could come up with is an individual mandate to buy health insurance?)
The Heritage Foundation would also have you believe that President Obama's claim that the health care reform bill that he just signed into law incorporates ideas from the Heritage Foundation is false. Unfortunately for the Heritage Foundation, you are entitled to your own opinion, not to your own facts. Why, as recently as 2003 Stuart Butler, Ph.D, laid out many of the ideas that have now become law, including the individual mandate that HF now rails against, in Congressional testimony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)