Cutting social security and medicare is off the table, but here are some ways to ease the deficit

To Congress Members:

Cutting spending during a recession is dumb, but if you're so all-fired determined to to "do something about the deficit," here's what you do (this isn't that hard to figure out, and you're not that dumb, so don't pretend you aren't beholden to oligarchic influences; you aren't fooling us anymore):

• Deep cuts to military spending ... close some of the 700 foreign military bases, quit building more and more cold war weapons systems, shut down the middle east war machine that's doing our country no good
• Not only allow the Bush tax cuts to the top 2% to expire, but reform taxes to impose much higher marginal rates on those earning over $400,000 --just like we had in the halcyon days of the 1950s (and even later, for the most part)... and impose taxes on earnings regardless of where the richies live or earn their money; if they operate in America, they pay taxes in America 
• End prohibition of marijuana and the "War on Drugs," at home and abroad--which costs a fortune and is counterproductive
• Invest in public transportation transportation, renewable energy, power grid, technology research (including automotive and energy research), and general infrastructure... these investments pay for themselves in economic development and improved trade balance (less foreign oil)• Yes, geniuses, you do sometimes have to spend money to save it later.
• Change tax and trade policy to keep jobs in America; give tax credits for retaining jobs; penalties for outsourcing
• Change tax policy to keep corporate money in America: you wanna do business here, you pay taxes here, no matter where your offices or factories are located
• Foster and encourage American industry through public relations: Buy American... what brings in revenue is a thriving real production economy
• Strengthen and finish the job of Wall Street Reform, to ensure no future bailouts; this can include new sources of revenue, including full taxes on hedge fund and derivative trading income and a reasonable financial transaction tax to not only raise some revenue, but to discourage short term trading in securities, which is destructive to the real economy (European countries do this)
• Strengthen and finish the job of health care reform: completely eliminate for-profit insurance system; all private insurers non-profit as they are in France & Germany; use public commissions to set medical (including pharmaceutical) reimbursement rates; provide for a robust public insurance option... this would do far more to cut growth in Federal health care spending than cutting medicare benefits directly

These would do more than any cuts to social security. Just eliminating the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and repaying the social security trust fund with the savings would do that. And that's a fact. And the same applies to Medicare: cut the costs, and the profits, not the benefits; and the growth in health care spending will take care of itself.  

Would these things be easy, either technically or politically, to accomplish? Of course not. But that's what we're paying you to do, so get busy!  

Hell no, YOU WILL NOT cut social security or medicare, not and keep my vote!

Forget Republicans who want to privatize and cut both Medicare and Social Security. It's the Democrats, who plan to hide behind this Republican-thinking Deficit Commission and its "package" of recommendations (forthcoming, watch for it). The stealth plan is to rip off American taxpayers who have paid through social security taxes to make social security 100% solvent till 2037. Those taxes were supposed to be for social security, not other purposes. It is a highly regressive tax, because its supposed to pay for retirement security, not general budget items. If it's been ripped off, it needs to be paid back. I SAY HELL NO. You will not cut social security or medicare, or raise the retirement age further. No more regression. We elected a Democrat to the White House to get Democratic policies, not to get Republican policies. If you do this, you have declared war on ordinary Americans, and I intend to do everything I can to defeat you; meaning anyone, Democratic or Republican, who votes to cut a program that we paid for and are continuing to pay for. This is non-negotiable.

I'm writing to all the Senators, my Congressman, and some other key Congress members.
This issue is the battle line as far as I'm concerned. DO NOT CROSS. I will not support any Democrat who votes the wrong way, or the President if he supports any bill to do this. At some point, you just gotta say, NO FURTHER. 

MFM and Europe's Promise

In response to my previous rant about the non-story of the nonmosque not at Ground Zero, and the whole media shitstorm thereabout, my not-so-farflung correspondent Pablo in L.A.. remarked: 

We need a new term for media! There is informative media like PBS, still lacking in many ways. There is BBC, world reporting. Then there is the media which keeps our population dumb!

To which I replied:
You're right about that. PBS and NPR are only slightly better, because they (usually) still take their cue from Fox and other corporate media to define what the news is, which it usually isn't; this is a perfect example. BBC and Deutsche Welle are good solid (and stolid) reporting sources, but let's face it, their main focus is Europe and the rest of the world, and they treat America as a kind of Crazy World, reporting mostly on what goes on in Crazy World Media. Even Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann talk their entire shows about these non-stories (even if it's to debunk them; it still gives them presence and a sort of authenticity by attention, even negative attention). I rely on the saner segments of Pacifica like Amy Goodman and Ian Masters to actually talk about things that matter.

Instead of Mainstream, how about Mindf**k Media? I dunno, but you're right we need a better word for it. George Lakoff, the brilliant Berkeley psycholinguist and author of the Majority Rule initiative on the November ballot (which, thanks to Mindf**k Media and corporate money will probably go down), always stresses the importance of framing and controlling the message. The superrich, who pay to get their message framed and drilled into the minds of the millions, have hired and control a whole army of real experts at this; we progressives are keystone kops in komparison.

By the way, I recommend Were you born on the Wrong Continent? by Thomas Geoghegan [pronounced "Gann," that's Gaelic for ya], and, hewing a similar line, Europe's Promise, by Steven Hill. (The latter a more comprehensive and thoroughly researched presentation). The premise of both books is that our adoption of what Hill refers to as social capitalism, the regulated humanistic free market systems of Europe, is our only hope. Frail hope, I'm afraid, because the oligarchy that has total control in this country will not let the changes necessary to get us there occur. 

The irony is painful: 65 years ago, in the wreckage of the old system that destroyed Europe, the US fostered and encouraged them to develop the social and economic system that will end up beating the pants off of us, with our hidebound and increasingly unworkable casino capital corporatist system...meanwhile leaving their people with a much better average standard of living than we can hope to achieve. This has already happened, really, but it just hasn't dawned on most Americans yet that history has already passed them by. 

And I add: 

... or that they are being lied to, and they will never share in the American Dream they see on TV, because that's now the realm reserved for the rich, and the divide between THEM and the rest of us is greater than ever, growing, and already unbridgeable forever.
 

"Ground Zero Mosque": Come off of it, already!

I find it just amazing that the corporate media is pushing and pushing this ridiculous story about the "Ground Zero Mosque," just because some asshole Republicans keep harping on it.

Earth to CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, (Forget Fox): just because opportunistic assholes want to push a non-story doesn't make it news. Why not ask these fools how, if they claim to be patriotic Americans who believe in the Constitution, they could think the President was anything but absolutely right to note that Muslims have a perfect right to open an Islamic Community Center, or Mosque, or whatever you want to call it, in Lower Manhattan, several blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center, in a goddamn former Burlington Coat Factory, for God's sake! Hallowed ground, my ass. Come off of it. This is pure political opportunism and media manipulation, so typical of the party of no, and no ideas, which is also the party of no integrity.

Relenting on Target Boycott, and why

August 17, 2010

Target Guest Relations

Attn: Crystal

P. O. Box 9350

MS 1A-X

Minneapolis, MN 55440-9350

Re: Target Political Contributions

Dear “Crystal:”

I recently wrote to protest Target's political contributions, in particular with regard to the contribution to MN Forward, which ended up supporting a far-right bigot running for Minnesota's governor.

While I still believe strongly that corporations are not people, but rather public trusts, and should not presume to make personal political choices which frequently do not coincide with the wishes either of their shareholders or their customers, I appreciate the respectful reply and the fact that Target has apologized for this particular contribution and attempted to do outreach to the community to ensure that its activities are concordant with its reputation for corporate “good citizenship,” such as this principle is in this country.

Anyway, the purpose of this letter is to let you know that I am relenting on my stated intention to boycott Target, and am advising my friends and acquaintances that I believe Target's response to the public outrage over this issue was a reasonable attempt to listen to the voices of those who were offended, and to try to be responsive to their legitimate complaints, including even modifying the company's political conduct going forward. Target has not announced the policy I would like to see all American companies adopt: to voluntarily not make political contributions with corporate funds at all; but it has taken what I see as reasonable steps towards conciliation, which I believe deserve to be recognized.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

David Studhalter

published on The Gyromantic Informicon http://studhalter.blogspot.com

Social Security "Fix"

It's just not true that social security is bankrupt. This is a Republican myth. I won't even waste words proving this; it's been discussed at length elsewhere.

But if the administration is now so concerned about the federal budget, and the inability to steal enough from the social security tax in the future to pay for other things, the solution is really simple.

• Increase the cap on income for FICA and Medicare taxes to ... no cap. (All income taxed, including unearned income). 

• Make the tax progressive, with higher rates for those earning over some amount that represents the borderland between the "working middle class" and the upper middle class... say for now around $125,000 for individuals; $200,000 for couples.

Working people are getting really, really tired of having to shoulder every cost and provide for all the production in this country, with so little of the profit. 

E-mail to the White House: Don't even think about adopting Republican positions on Social Security

Now hear this. I have supported the President consistently despite quite a number of disappointments; public option, weak financial reform, weak jobs bill, the useless war in Afghanistan.

But if Krugman is right and an administration commission is going to call for benefit cuts and raising the retirement age for social security... buying into Republican myths and Republican thinking... and if the President goes along with this claptrap...that will be it. I will oppose the president as just a Republican light; and strive my damndest to get a real progressive elected next time. We are your base, Mr. President, and, unlike the Republicans, we want you to succeed. But if you adopt their policies, you will lose our support.

...A non-professional left progressive supporter of the President... so far.

Rein in the General

The New York Times is reporting that Gen. David Petraeus "began a campaign on Sunday to convince an increasingly skeptical public that the American-led coalition can still succeed here despite months of setbacks, saying he had not come to  Afghanistan to preside over a 'graceful exit.'" Now, this may be the administration's policy, for all I know (as someone who sees no real national interest in prosecuting this absurdly expensive and ineffective war, I hope not). But why, I ask myself, does the media not even question why a general is making policy comments? It is not, never has been, and never should be, the role of the military to set policy. This is not a question of military strategy. It is a question of American foreign policy.

Increasingly, these military leaders seem to think they are wiser than their bosses, and that they are free to state their views and try to "campaign" for policies that may, or may not, be the policies of their civilian commanders.

This must stop. Petraeus should be fired if he is not speaking with the explicit authorization of the President; and if he is, then Obama should say so, and should have said it first. This makes America look divided against itself, and ultimately undermines the very ability to project power that is the purpose of the military.

I favor an end to the war in Afghanistan, as quickly as is feasible; but even more importantly I think the civilian government must tell the generals to keep their traps shut unless called upon.

Get Low

Just saw Get Low, a production clearly guided into existence by its star, Robert Duvall; also starring Sissy Spacek and Bill Murray.

Hats off, an instant classic. Please don't miss this movie if you care anything about current cinema in America. 

We must demand Fair Access for All to the Internet ("Net Neutrality")

President Obama made so-called "net neutrality," better called "fair access to the internet," one of the touchstones of his campaign. But, as with many other things, the follow-through has been weak. Please write to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and the White House and tell them Don't leave "net neutrality" to Google and Verizon, that's like the Fox in charge of the Hen House. Please reverse Bush Administration policies, as the President has promised, to effectively regulate the internet to ensure equal access for all.



Chairman Genachowski's Contact Information
Room: 8-B201  •  Phone: 202.418.1000  •  E-mailFederal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554

Contact with Alien Civilizations

I just read a long and serious, but unfortunately rather tedious and repetitive book by Michael A. G. Michaud: Contact with Alien Civilizations: Our Hopes and Fears about Encountering Extraterrestrials.

Many people, otherwise very intelligent and with broad philosophical perspectives on the world, life, and nature, are unreasonably, even irrationally, dismissive of this entire subject. This book, unfortunately, however, although it purports to go beyond the usual discussion of SETI (the search aspect), to discuss the likely implications of either communication or direct contact with intelligent aliens, really adds nothing new to the conversation.

The fact is that in all the evidence of the long history of life on Earth there's no proof  (at least that we've found so far) that anything was left behind that credibly indicates visitation by technological intelligent aliens to our planet at any time in the past. Also, despite some looking, we haven't found any evidence of alien technologies "out there" (either in the form of signals or indirect evidence, such as unusual radiation signatures from astronomical objects indicating technological origin). The search for any of these types of evidence (or for artifacts in the solar system other than on Earth), has been far from exhaustive. I think the case for spending at least some modest resources on all of these is pretty solid, but until there is unequivocal proof that humans are not effectively alone in this part of the universe (because if intelligent aliens are too far away, they effectively don't exist, for us), this subject just runs out of steam. It remains an endeavor of knowledge that lacks proof of the existence of its subject matter.

Current Buzz about prospect of Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities

Both the original article by neocon Jeff Goldberg in The Atlantic (on the likelihood that Bibi Netanyahu will order a strike on Iran by next Spring), and Steve Clemons's commentary on it in The Washington Note (contains internal link to The Atlantic article), are "must reads."  

 

I think there is another side to this; I rather doubt that the national security apparatus in Israel is quite as unanimous as all this. There are huge downsides for Israel if it were to do this, and the fact is that both Tzipi Livni (opposition candidate for Israeli PM in last election) and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak have denied the proposition that Iran as currently constituted is an "existential threat" to Israel. Goldberg's article seems premised on the supposition that this is a nearly unanimous view in Israel.

I also am deeply suspicious of Goldberg's motivations. There is a strong intellectual current, left over from the heady days of neocon primacy in the Bush II First Term, that seeks to create a climate in American policy thinking that is unexaminedly pro-Israel, and that unthinkingly buys into the paradigm that Iran must be countered and defeated. To his credit, Goldberg does analyze the very significant potential negative consequences of what he's saying is a very real prospect. But the whole analysis makes assumptions about continued American military hegemony in the area that no longer make sense. I believe, instead, our interests are best served by exploring every avenue to find enough common ground to create a new way forward for our relations with Iran, in conjunction with our relations with Russia and China, which so far, along with Iran itself, have only had to sit back and watch our policy in the region implode, to their benefit. We have effectively lost sight of the crucial test for foreign policy for any nation: it must act not in the interests of factions or other nations, but in the interests of its own people. Rushing headlong into support of an Israeli war against Iran is clearly not in our nation's interests.

With that in mind, although in America it is hard for a president to say this and mean it (and especially, to be able to back it up), I think the President needs to make crystal clear to Netanyahu: you unilaterally attack Iran and you will destroy the relationship between Israel and the United States, including continued military or financial assistance. We simply will not support you in this, period, and you will end our alliance with you if you do it. 

See also Fred Kaplan in Slate commenting on Goldberg's article.

And a serious critique of Goldberg and his whole anlaysis and his credibility, by Glenn Greenwald.  

Amateur pianists: Janáček: V Mlhách

Check out this youtube of Mikhail Rudy playing the first two movements of V Mlhách ("In the Mist") by Leoš Janáček. 

Theses pieces are a good bit harder than I realized when I heard a bit of one of them on Pandora, but I think they're really marvelous, and I love the way this poster puts up the music.

This is an example of something I've found really valuable and wondeful on Youtube. I am an amateur pianist of very modest accomplishments, and if I'm thinking of dabbling in a particular piece of music, it's very helpful to hear (and even see) someone else playing it. I've found that even some rather obscure intermediate and early advanced piano repertoire is easily located in multiple instances on youtube. The same is true for people trying to learn other instruments or for vocal music, both classical and other styles. This is a really great resource, and yet another example of how the internet has transformed our lives in both minor and major ways.

My letter to Target's CEO

Mr. Gregg W. Steinhafel, CEO

Target Corporation

1000 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55403     •     Fax:        612-696-5400

Dear Mr. Steinhafel:

I am writing to you with regret, and even some sadness. I have been a customer of Target for nearly thirty years, and have come to rely on my local store as a source of good value on many products that my household needs. My family and I have consistently spent several hundred dollars each year there for many years. I realize that the amount of money my family has spent and would continue to spend at Target is a tiny, almost insignificant blip on your balance sheets, but I would ask you to recognize that there are millions of people like me. People who believe in America, who believe in the idea of America, that each individual person has the same voice as every other, and that our system of laws should be so restrained as to preserve these principles.

I, like millions of Americans, was and am deeply dismayed by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case earlier this year, which allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence political campaigns, including candidates for elective office and ballot propositions, and, still worse, to freely and anonymously funnel corporate funds through front groups, such as “MN FORWARD” and various chambers of commerce, political action committees, etc. We believe that this is literally inimical to our democracy; it dilutes the voice of individuals. It is, to be blunt, unpatriotic and un-American. Corporations are not people; when they, with their asymmetrically huge resources, are permitted to dominate politics, representative democracy is in peril. The very survival of our nation as a republic is in peril.

Having recently learned that Target Corporation has seen fit to contribute corporate funds to an organization that in turn supports a far-right wing candidate in Minnesota, I am outraged. Not merely because the candidate, a certain Mr. Tom Emmer, is a hate-filled bigot who has stated publicly that he favors the execution of gay citizens, although that is, of course, very deeply troubling in its own right. But also, on general principle. I have read just today that you, as Target CEO, apologized for this particular contribution, for which I applaud you. However, it is not enough. There must be a commitment not to engage in political contributions of corporate funds. Corporations, which are by nature public trusts, should not presume to make what amount to personal political choices. Yes, for the moment, you have the legal right to do this. But I, as a customer, have the right to say, No! If you do this, you will forego my custom. I will not do business with you.

I am appealing to you. Target should set an example. It is not too late to undo the damage, and regain the goodwill of your customers who oppose this kind of activity. Corporations, until such time as the law is changed to a more rational basis, should voluntarily forego contributing corporate funds to political movements, whether in support of candidates, legislative agendas, or ballot propositions. Regardless of ideology or party. And so I ask you to commit to permanently and completely refraining from this activity, as an organization, for the good of our Republic. And to say so forcefully, and publicly.

And so, as I said, with regret, I am letting you know that unless, or, more hopefully, until, Target Corporation commits to not contributing corporate funds to organizations or individuals to support individual political candidates, political agendas, or ballot propositions, I will not shop at Target or its affiliates, and I will let everyone I know know why I am not doing so, and ask them to join me in this boycott of Target.

The favor of a response will be much appreciated.

Sincerely,

                                                                                          David Studhalter

♦♦
In truth, something like this e-mail, apart from the specifics that triggered this particular response, could and probably should be sent to most large US corporations. I really believe that the principle that corporations, as public trusts, should not be making personal-type political choices with their corporate funds, needs to be adopted, if not enshrined in law, then voluntarily; and if it takes public pressure to get them to do it, I'm ready to do my bit to apply that pressure. 

Today's e-mail to the White House

The President just MUST take a strong stand against extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 1-2%. This is absolutely critical. A speech on the subject is desperately needed. The President needs to summon Kent Conrad and Stenny Hoyer and any other wavering Congressional Dems and say, this is critical, it's what defines us: we stand opposed to special privileges for the very rich and FOR Main Street; you're not a Democrat if you don't stand with us, and we will not support any Democrat who doesn't vote with us on this and other key economic democracy issues.

It's HIGH TIME for the President to show some real backbone on this issue, and to USE his communication skills to explain to the people why the Republicans are trying to hoodwink them on this, as well as on the estate tax.

Another point, the WH needs to take credit for the end of the "BUSH BAILOUT" (TARP) in Fin. Reform, because polls show most Americans DO NOT KNOW that the TARP Bailout was enacted under Bush.

My note to the white house

The president needs to make clear to all Congressional Democrats that Democrats must stand FOR the people and AGAINST the special interests that stand in their way. And that means NO EXTENSION of plutocratic Bush Tax Cuts that benefit only the very rich, while at the same time continuing the MIDDLE CLASS tax cuts that were part of the stimulus.

Republinomics 101

As exemplified by John Boehner, the Republican "plan" to create jobs is just plain idiotic. Except that in reality, it is no such thing. The real Republican plan is much simpler: help the richest 1% keep theirs, and to everyone else: Go to Hell, except we pretend we didn't really mean that by lying and prevaricating.

Time for Bold Action

I am so fed up with hearing from Republicans and some Democrats that we have to stop spending so much, that the deficit is dragging us down, etc. etc. This is just so much balderdash, and so completely ignorant of the lessons of history. Look, folks: we’ve been down that road before. What we need is just the opposite: bold programs to engage the energy of our people to overcome the economic setbacks we’ve experienced, and solve the technological problems that face us as a civilization, all at the same time.

Here’s an example of the kind of nonsense that’s floating around out there, from a widely circulated right wing e-mail that depicts Obama as Norman Rockwell painting his self-portrait (except the image he’s painting is Jesus’):

“These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.”

As economic principles, these are just plain false (not to mention mind-numbingly stupid). Of course, they sound good, in the way that slick propaganda phrases always do, but it isn’t the way the world works. An economy in a deflationary phase can only recover by increasing the amount of money in the hands of working people and the unemployed, who will spend it. This increases commerce and employment, and brings about job growth and recovery. Incentivizing hoarding by the wealthy, combined with spending cuts by government during severe recession such as was tried in 1930-31 by Hoover, and again, against better advice, in 1936 by Roosevelt, are the surest way to turn recession into Depression (the Depression was much improved by 1935, but the 1936 fiscal tightening policies brought it roaring back). Republicans' favored economic policies would be like a volte face, just as we were clear of the cliff and inching away, they would have us turn around and leap right off of it.

These are tried and true principles, which have helped America prosper in good times and bad for eighty years, and which we seem to be forgetting right when we need them most.

The Obama administration doesn’t entirely get it either. You hear some of this same fiscal restraint mantra even from them. And Bernanke keeps worrying about inflation. He’s supposed to be the great student of the Depression, but his policies aren’t noticeably different from that eminent psychotic Alan Greenspan. What we need is stimulus, and jobs, jobs, jobs. Nothing else will bring about recovery. Inflation is not the problem right now; in fact, as Paul Krugman has pointed out, we are actually facing a significant risk of a deflationary spiral.

The only thing that really ended the Depression of the 1930s was World War II, during which the floodgates of national debt were opened wide and the survival of civilization was used as a justification for a level of debt not seen since that time (proportionally), and which lasted a good many years after the war ended. If we really wanted to pull the US economy out of deep recession and bring about real growth so that 10 years out we would have near full employment and have turned the balance of revenue vs. obligations around, we should undertake the “moral equivalent of war.” This is a phrase that got Jimmy Carter nothing but ridicule when he used it, but actually was a good idea then and is an even better idea now.

We need to make huge public investments, and yes, with borrowed money, to build a renewable energy infrastructure to move away from a fossil fuel based energy economy. We need to invest in solar thermal power plants, ocean thermal energy and materials production, crash fusion energy research programs, crash exotic biofuel and biomaterials research and development, nonfossil transportation energy systems research and development… using the national laboratories and Depression era jobs programs as models, including facilities with thousands of employees... plus pushing and developing to the hilt the already existing solar, wind, and biofuel technologies... all with borrowed money.... as soon as possible in a truly massive way, and make the government the employer of millions of people to do it. And none of this fraudulent “clean coal” nonsense, or conventional nuclear energy, which isn’t worth it, because it’s never paid for itself, when even a fraction of the costs of waste disposal are taken into account.

Equally essential, as well, we need to abandon the military adventures which have already cost us trillions of dollars since 2001, and which are simply not yielding any appreciable benefit to either our national security or our economy (apart from a select group of contractors; the program I’m outlining would far more than offset that, and give us far more bang for the buck both economically and in terms of America’s reputation in the world).

If we actually did these things, and really reformed our financial industry so it was no longer a parasite, and reformed the tax code to raise taxes substantially on the very rich and impose windfall profits taxes on financial and energy companies... and (and this is essential) abandoned the “globalization” paradigm that encourages corporate interests to export jobs and race to the bottom in terms of productive labor in America... we could be looking at 1954 all over again in 10 years’ time: the dawn of an era of prosperity, with, yes, a big national debt (then it was the residual war debt), but with the means to partly grow out of it, and, (to be honest), partly inflate it away. This is the way governments have always handled big residual debt.

I think this is actually possible, but it would require the kind of real, positive leadership that isn't just oriented towards greed and preserving the wealth of them that's already got it; the kind of leadership we haven’t seen in this country, since John F. Kennedy. Regrettably, I don’t see this kind of leadership on the horizon. Where are you, great leaders, in your country’s hour of need? Step forward!

Reducing Corporate Influence on Politics

Well, this is embarrassing. I wrote this comment on the implications of corporate control of elections, based on reports last night that showed Prop 16 and 17 had passed; but I now see that late returns, many from Northern California, have tipped the balance and both propositions lost. So, chalk one up for you can't fool all the people all the time. Much of what I had to say here is applicable anyway.
♦♦♦

No time just now for a lengthy comment, but I just wanted to say a few things about yesterday's election, especially to Californians, but also to folks living beyond our Golden Border. This isn't a left/right issue; it's a question of whether the people will rule or whether elections will be simply bought and sold. Representative Democracy or Elite Plutocracy •• the choice is that stark.


The passage yesterday of two wish-list bought-and-paid-for corporate initiatives here (one to ensure the perpetuation of the iron grip of monopoly by the State's largest investor-owned utility, PG&E, and the other a carefully crafted rate hike scheme by one of the state's largest auto insurers, Mercury Ins. Gp.) serve to illustrate two things, in my mind:


1.  The unfettered access to political influence now granted corporations in our political system nationwide, particularly in the wake of Citizens United v. F.E.C., is a catastrophe. We need to amend the constitution or get judges on the Supreme Court who will reverse this. We need to pass public campaign financing, and, as soon as the court's rulings will permit, severely limit if not eliminate the power of corporations to influence electoral politics.


2.  Unless No. 1 can be accomplished pretty neatly and quickly, the initiative process in California, hallowed progressive reform though it was, is now doing more harm than good and we need to consider amending the State Constitution to eliminate it... how about conditionally eliminating it, until such time as prohibitions on corporate financing of elections can be enforced?


Both of these propositions passed due to incredibly deceptive and mendacious corporate advertising blanketing the airwaves for weeks and weeks. PG&E, for example, outspent opponents to Prop. 16 by 511 to 1. In the face of this kind of power of money, rational discussion of the issues is completely lost in the cloud of misinformation and mendacious propaganda.


As another kind of example, the wonderfully simple initiative proposal put forth by George Lakoff, to eliminate 2/3 public and legislative supermajority vote requirements for budget and tax matters (which is quite literally crippling governance in this state), has likely failed (for the November ballot), for lack of corporate and party establishment support.


Not entirely relevant to the above, except that the PG&E ballot initiative (Prop 16) was falsely advertised as a "power to the people" law when in fact it requires one of these 2/3 supermajorities whenever a local jurisdiction wants to challenge its monopoly, here's my utopian proposal for an Initiative Constitutional Amendment:

Sec. 1.  No election, and no vote of the legislature, or of any other legislative body in this state, shall require more than a simple majority vote for passage. All provisions of the constitution and laws of this state to the contrary are repealed by this provision with immediate effect, with simple majority voting requirements deemed substituted for the supermajority votes specified in such provisions. Neither the legislature nor the electorate shall make any law which shall require more than a simple majority vote for passage in any election or vote of the legislature or other legislative body in this state.

Sec. 2.  [Definition of "legislative body"]

Call it the "Restore Majority Rule Initiative." Of course, my expansion of Lakoff's idea to all laws governing all lawmaking bodies stands no chance of ever passing, because the vast power of corporate wealth would and will stand in opposition. The status quo benefits them, so why would they cede power back to the electorate?

Republican Logic: bailout and apologize to BP, but nothing for real people

The sheer lack of logical consistency in Republican policy positions is just unbelievable. They oppose Stimulus, because it "costs too much" (having spent trillions on their President's unnecessary wars and bailing out Wall Street as a result of idiotic deregulation they supported and their gurus like Greenspan and Friedman provided intellectual underpinnings for; and ignoring the well-known process, well-nigh inevitable after the crash, that if you don't get the economy working again it spirals downward; and ignoring the fact that thanks to their voodoo economics tax cuts for the rich, a trillion dollar surplus was turned into a 2 trillion dollar deficit under their president's watch).

But now, rather than hold BP, a foreign corporation, accountable for the promises it made in obtaining a permit to perform deepwater drilling it now appears it had no real ability to perform safely, they want the American taxpayers to pay the bill.

This makes no sense, even according to their own mean-spirited and proven-unworkable policy theories. It only makes sense if you disregard their fibs and look to their real policy: support crony capitalism at all costs, no matter how much it harms the interests of the nation and the people.

And yet, about half the electorate buys this crap.

I just don't get it.  
♦♦
Since I wrote this, we've had even more ridiculous comments from Congresspersons Bachmann and Barton. Sheesh

Comments to White House on President's Speech

I sent the following to the White House in response to the President's speech last week:

There seems to be a widespread view that the part of the President’s speech relating to “accelerating” the changeover to nonfossil fuels and renewable energy was short on specifics. One could imagine the President, echoing John F. Kennedy, having said something like “before this decade is out, I am committed to ensuring that at least half of America’s electric power will be generated from renewable sources, and at least 25% of the motor fuels used in this country will come from biomass, not oil.” (That would be extremely ambitious… but that’s what the people are yearning for… real commitment to something that will be a mission to make our country secure from foreign oil, and reduce the detrimental impact of fossil fuel use, with the added benefit of creating millions of Green Jobs).

It’s not too late… the President needs to follow up on this speech… and soon… with ambitious and concrete proposals, for R&D into biomass, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, Ocean Thermal, local energy generation, biofuels, synfuels, and putting the electric grid in place to where the new power sources are… all of which will be a huge commitment. Emphasis: not just research, but we will build what works, and quickly, because our nation’s future depends on it. It needs to be a teaching moment, where the President informs the American people about what is possible, and what he intends that we will do.

Then, speak directly to the American people and ASK for their support. Most people WANT to support the President, but they need to have something real and concrete to latch on to.

This will work, but the President has to be very determined and really mean it, and he needs to say it soon, forcefully, and repeatedly.

Rachel Maddow for President

I gotta say, I wish Rachel Maddow were President. Or at least that he would hire her as chief speechwriter, and follow her advice. (And mean it).

Here's her version of what the President should have said the other night.

Californians: N O on 16, 17

I've been a bit preoccupied lately, and haven't had a chance to comment on some of the very anti-democratic and destructive initiatives on the California primary ballot. PLEASE look into, especially, Prop. 16 and Prop. 17, both of which are corporate power-grabs.

NO on 16. Requires undemocratic 2/3 vote for decentralization of power sources in California... a naked power grab by P G & E and Southern California Edison to hold on to their monopolies by creating yet another supermajority provision to prevent majority rule in California. VOTE NO.

NO on 17. Interferes with rational regulation of insurance to increase profits... virtually singlehandedly bought and paid for by Mercury Insurance. VOTE NO.

Please see Courage Campaign's Progressive Voter Guide here.

O'Reilly compares gays to terrorists...well, not exactly

There's a bit of an uproar in the LGBT activist community about Dumbo O'Reilly's offensive comments [link] about a French McDonald's gay-friendly ad, which his show aired along with his dumb (and a little offensive) remarks. Supposedly equating gay people with terrorists. Well, not really. It was his lame attempt at humor, combined with his general contempt for everyone not like him. But that's nothing new and hardly surprising.

But to me, the real story is how sweet and positive the ad itself is. O'Reilly says they'll never run one like it here... gotta wonder why not? It would go a long way towards fostering a positive image of tolerance and welcoming.

Their message: venez comme vous êtes....applies even if vous êtes homosexuel. In France, this doesn't even raise an eyebrow, as it shouldn't.

Shame on you, Bill Clinton

The very idea that Bill Clinton is attacking unions in an ad supporting DINO ("Democrat in Name Only") Blanche Lincoln makes me want to retch. Link.

Generally, national politicians should stay out of local and state primary races (and Bill doesn't live in Arkansas)...after all, the people of the jurisdiction should be the ones who decide who their representatives will be. The big exception to this I would propose is where a candidate is a fraud or traitor to the principles of the majority of the party. In this case, that's Lincoln, who is in the pocket of Wall Street, was instrumental in killing the public option, has consistently voted against Democratic principles and has misrepresented her positions. It isn't her opponent Halter, who is a pretty straight line Centrist Democrat. So there's no plausible excuse for Clinton to be attacking unions in support of Lincoln in a primary. National leaders should support Halter, a real Democrat, not Lincoln, who isn't one. The fact that unions, who are a bulwark of progressive politics in this country, have taken this stance should tell Clinton something: Real Democrats are supporting Halter.

Dialog on the "flotilla" incident and implications in region

I had the following exchange with a colleague who is more inclined to see Israel's side in various affairs than I am. I post this because I think it shows an interesting dialog on policy, where both sides have goodwill but just don't see the same reality in the news reports.

Me:
You and I see Israel/Palestine issues and US/Israel issues rather differently, but I appreciate that we can discuss these issues with mutual respect.

Anyway, I haven't had time to immerse myself in the whole Turkish blockade-running ship boarding incident (a better description that "flotilla" I think), but the International consensus seems to be that the video you referred to was, at minimum, "decontextualized" by the IDF. The ship was, after all, boarded in international waters, so I think it's fair to say, at least, that the breakout of violence can't just be blamed on those on board based on an edited video without investigation.

I'm sure there's questionable conduct on both sides, as usual. Yigal Arens, who, unlike his father Moshe, believes that the siege of Gaza is wrong, and is in favor of an aggressive pursuit of a territorial settlement, had some very interesting comments on Ian Masters' The Daily Briefiing yesterday.

Whatever your view of what happened, and who's right and who's wrong, I think it's pretty clear this was not a foreign policy win for Israel.

If anything good may come of it, it's at least conceivable that it could cause a shift in the complete bogdown of the so-called "peace process," whatever that's supposed to mean (more like "stalemate process").

Your view that Hamas and Hezb'ollah are going to launch a two front war this year is definitely not on most commenters' radar screens. I'd be curious what you're reading that makes you think this. If it's true, it shows that the leadership of both organizations are among the stupidest political leaders on the face of the Earth. (Not an ideological judgment, but a strategic one. There's just no way such action could benefit them in even the medium-range future). Still, without more information, I just don't see it. 

Colleague:

Dave, check out the actual video.  Activists? Upon arrival with clearly visualized paint ball guns the mob attacks to kill. We stop ships in int waters all the time.  If it was an aide mission, boats could have docked as asked so cargo could be inspected first as is done all the time.  Israel is at war.  Blockade has legitimate purpose.  I see no issue there.  Organizng turkish group has tie with muslim brotherhood.  After 6k rockets fired at them since gaza withdrawal, I can imagine suspicion of boats unchecked making deliveries. Reality is that This was a pr war event that israel blindly walked in to.  The people on that boat were clearly and expressly determined to deliver as planned or succeed in martydom.  Very clever as   paving way for hostilities I forsee soon. The pr war is just as important as fighting war.  I'm sure the lebanese christian community beleagured as it is, is not fooled by any of this.  classic hezbo. Tactic.

Here is the real issue.  Whether the us is engaged in ME peace process or not, I don't think it makes any difference.  What israel does or not does not make a diff. Either.  We are dealing with proxy forces. Period.  So long as political ambitions of syria and iran dictate otherwise, the palistinian will continue to be used as cards by their arab brethren who only stand to loose leverage should peace break out.

God forbid there should be peace.  To what external enemy would these barbaric regimes look to in order to keep their own people confortably distracted and preoccupied?  Would the masses with free time to consider their own "civil" institutions soon question the religio-political yoke of islam that has trapped 50% of their population under burkas, out of classrooms, and socially retarded. Oh no.  This civilization is 50-75 years from being ready for peace.  Everything else is a side show and let the reality of demographics plod on.

Me:
Apparently we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see it this way, and I am only concerned about US interests, which I don't see as congruent with Israel's. It's in our interests to disengage from this regional conflict, and the best way to do that is to try to foster (broker is too strong a term), a 2 state negotiated settlement. There is precedent. The peace with Egypt has lasted 30 years, and Jimmy Carter is the only US president to have ever actually brokered a peace deal in the Middle East.

If Israel is at war, it's her war, not ours, and in my view if that's the case, it's to a large extent Israel's choice in the matter. You can interpret history differently, but I reject the Neocon analysis outright, and believe that continued occupation and population transfers into occupied territories are illegal. (It's the world consensus view, although of course some don't agree). Israel is in a difficult position. It wants to be a first world country in a region that just isn't; but if you want to be a first world country you have to sign on to the norms of International Law. Sure, the other powers didn't get where they are in that regime, but that's the way it is.

I pretty much favor walking away from continued US involvement Middle East if a settlement can't be induced through diplomacy. The risks outweigh the potential benefits, to this country. I think our differing views are in part based  on a different analysis of whose interests are important. To me, the risks in the region outweigh the benefits, and the US would be better off trying to pressure a negotiated settlement, then disengaging from the entire region as much as possible, including economically (by developing alternative energy resources). Not least because those of us in this country who want to defuse the Forever-War party and reduce the military sector of the economy have to think longterm about changing the entire dynamic in that part of the world vis-a-vis the US. What happens between Israel and the other regional powers is their problem, unless nuclear weapons are used, in which case all bets are off and whoever is dumb enough to have used them will be responsible for destabilizing the world totally at the worst possible moment in history; very possibly a fatal outcome for the human race. But I can't see current US policy as making that less likely.

I still don't see where you conclude that a two front war is likely. (I don't see where it's in Iran's or Syria's (which are pretty much identical) interests anyway; the status quo is to their benefit).

Tough Times for Israeli People

Unfortunately for Israel's people (as opposed to their government, which I pretty much deplore), perception is reality, at least in terms of the fact that perception influences real world circumstances. I readily acknowledge that there are two sides to the argument over whether Israel's actions in the so-called Flotilla incident were rational or justifiable; certainly they were badly executed. (I also deplore the Siege of Gaza as a completely unjustifiable policy, but that's a separate issue). In any case, the fact is, Israel is losing the last remnants of goodwill and cooperation in the region, and even the relationship with the United States is probably more strained than at any time in quite a few years.

Here's the Jerusalem Post piece noting that Israel is losing its prime regional ally, Turkey:
(link)

And a comment by Josh Marshall:
(link)

(follow the link to Gideon Levy's column in Ha'aretz as well)

Rand Paul and the 14th Amendment

First, Fake Libertarian Rightist Nutcase Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul opposes public accommodation civil rights, an issue settled in this country almost 50 years ago. Now, it turns out, he's against a key provision of the 14th amendment, too (although it's not clear he even realizes it's part of the constitution). Why not just chuck the whole deal and restore the British Monarchy here in America? Maybe this lefty radical independence thing wasn't such a good idea. 

OTEC now!

My late father, a rocket scientist (literally) and chemical engineer, I recall was rather negative about the prospects for OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) technology. This technology basically uses giant ammonia refrigerator-in-reverse technology to generate electricity in subtropical and tropical waters. A great deal of research was done on this in the 1970s, but Pres. Reagan killed it. Now, it appears, thanks, ironically enough, to significant advances in floating platform technology from the offshore oil industry, Lockheed Martin and the DOD have taken enough of an interest in it to develop a pilot plant in Hawaii, which should be online by 2014.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion  Lockheed Martin also has a website on OTEC.

The feasibility is now thought to be "near-economic" meaning that some subsidy will be required to develop the technology further, then it should be pay-go. It only works in subtropical waters (warm surface, freezing at depth), which is found all over the world from +20 to -20 deg. lat. Notably, the subsidies to build even large 100 MW plants would be significantly less than the subsidies contemplated to build new nuclear plants, especially if you consider the ultimate costs of waste disposal and liability caps for any accidents. OTEC is pretty benign: you could have platform accidents, but nothing comparable to oil spills, and certainly nothing comparable to the environmental depradation of a Chernobyl, is remotely possible. If something goes wrong, you could have a local explosion (as in any power plant or refinery), but the longterm effect would just be that the plant stops working and has to be repaired.

This could mean totally nonpolluting power plants for tropical island countries now reliant on expensive imported diesel, plus countries like Indonesia and India, even Northern Australia, Mexico, Central America, Africa, Brazil, Thailand, Vietnam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, even a post-oil Arabia, etc., could have near offshore power plants that don't use any fuel. It's possible it could be made to work off(f Florida and Texas, because the Gulf of Mexico is warmer further north than most places in the world. (The West Coast of the Americas, which have cold currents, are less suitable).

But the other great potential is factory platforms that don't even need to be near land. These could manufacture hydrogen or Ammonia, to be used as fuel, or even making carbon based fuels out of atmospheric CO2 (which is net CO2 neutral, of course); Ammonia to be used as fertilizer, or, by bringing in raw materials, any number of products, including even smelting aluminum, out on the surface of the sea, and using what amounts to solar power.

It seems to me that the Obama administration is in danger of missing a huge opportunity to use the current environmental disaster as a teachable moment, and a moment in which the opportunity to seize the initiative and sell to the American people the concept that we need to make not modest but HUGE investments, and immediately, to develop this and other "off oil now" technologies, for the energy and environmental security of our country.

Why Oil should pay for its true costs

I think the issue of legislation, now apparently killed in the Senate thanks to AK Sen. Murkowski, of making oil producers assume all liability for the costs of oil spills, really boils down to Econ 101. This isn't rocket science. 


I heard an estimate that if just the cost of environmental impacts (not including climate change impacts)... now assumed by the taxpayers were borne by oil producers, the cost per gallon of gasoline (and proportional costs for other petroleum products) would go up by about 29¢

I think it's a fair statement, as well, that a significant part of the military expenditures in the U.S., devoted to "security" in the "strategic region" of the Persian Gulf, is another hidden cost of petroleum, not borne by the producers or passed on to the consumers. There are other costs in terms of human rights violations in Nigeria and Myanmar, and the giant unknown of the costs of pouring so much carbon into the atmosphere, etc. The whole picture consists of one in which a significant part of the real costs of continued petroleum production are being borne by taxpayers, not just in the U.S. but in other countries, but especially in the U.S.

One has to ask, if these costs were imposed at the pump, as taxes, or as costs actually borne by the producers and thus passed on to consumers, would that not make the cost of renewable sources of energy more competitive... "level the playing field," as right-wingers like to say? If we actually knew the real cost, present and future, of continuing to recklessly consume petroleum (as if there were no tomorrow), I think we would be switching to other forms of transportation energy very quickly.


And much the same analysis would apply to the continued use of coal to generate electricity as well.


Of course, it takes time to transition to other means; and there have to be economic incentives for the R&D to be done to make the technological breakthroughs necessary to make things like microbial biofuels work, but as long as oil and coal are kept artificially cheap, it will remain very difficult for these things to happen. And time is ticking away, while the world's environmental crisis caused by the continued rampant burning of fossil fuels gets worse every day.

GOP to push health care repeal as top issue for Kagan, huh?

GOP to push health care repeal as top issue for Kagan -- headline in HuffPo [link].

You have absolutely gotta be kidding me. The utter cluelessness of these people is just unbelievable.

More Optimistic View: Let's hope Spitzer is right about Kagan

Having already delivered the somewhat naysaying view on Supreme Court nominee Kagan from what Howard Dean likes to call the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party," let me also say that I sincerely hope that Eliot Spitzer is right when he says that the new nominee, who will in all likelihood be confirmed despite the most despicable shenanigans the Republicans are capable of, "will be able to get the Fifth Vote."

If that turns out to be the case, I will admit to having been wrong to express disdain at her lack of a progressive track record.

Kagan not particularly progressive?

President Obama has followed form here, and selected someone who is an institutional game-player rather than a principled progressive to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. This, unfortunately, says more about the character of the President, and not in a good way, than it does about Ms. Kagan. See Glenn Greenwald's piece.

*

Cameron to become PM

Hmm. I thought I was doing a slightly better than average job (for an American), of following the British elections.. hell, I watched Jon Stewart's Clustershag to 10 Downing sequences religiously... but I have to admit I was surprised by the news that Cameron of the Tories is becoming PM, having reached a deal with the Liberal Democrats.

I suppose purely from the point of view of stability, this is good news for Europe, but of course I'm never happy to see conservatives take power.

Financial Reform Plugging Along

I am delighted that Bernie Sanders' Audit the Fed amendment passed, 96-0, although it did take some watering down to get it done. Now, even though the Sherrod Brown amendment to actually bust up the biggest banks didn't pass, I gather there's at least decent prospect of including the so-called Volcker Rule in the bill. For anyone who isn't familiar, here's an explanation.

End Filibuster ♦ Majority Rule in America !

I signed the petition here to end the Senate's archaic filibuster rule, which is allowing the minority to virtually paralyze governance in this country. This isn't a minor matter. Our country needs to move forward with reforms in key areas -- climate, financial reform, immigration reform, jobs bill, further health care reform, renewable energy, trade policy, labor organizing reform, incentivizing production over extraction, tax reform.... but none of these things can be done properly under the current paralyzing system.

*

Euro Weakness not all bad news, and even an opportunity for U.S.

As a colleague and I were discussing yesterday, to some extent, the world economy is a zero-sum game; and to that extent, the fact that Europe is in the midst of a monetary/fiscal crisis is not all bad news for the U.S. Krugman recently wrote quite seriously about the possible collapse of the euro, whereas less than a year ago various econopundits were speculating that the emerging markets, especially the oil producers with gigantic sovereign funds, were likely to dump the dollar and adopt the euro as the de facto world currency. Maybe not, after all.

Since we as a nation have to much too great an extent abandoned actually producing anything in favor of gambling and living on the Big Credit Card, the fact that everyone worldwide will probably continue to want dollars and dollar-based securities will at least give us room to maneuver. But if we're smart, we'll change our wicked ways, and soon, if we don't want to have to live through a generation of economic decline.

To my mind, this means rethinking the whole paradigm of "globalization" and "free trade," not to some kind of reactionary isolationism, but to a really thought-through policy that high priority on American jobs, American production, American energy independence, and a sane global environmental policy in which America is a leading partner; with opportunities for America's superrich to dominate the world financial system, and American military hegemony (as opposed to rational protection of genuine American security interests)... not priorities at all.

Sam Harris in Huffpo: Towards a Science of Morality?

I will confess forthrightly that I haven't yet read all of this. One does have to get up and go to work. But I think this is a vital topic. Personally, I found the unwillingness of a rational scientific worldview to be really, truly clear on ethics one of the reasons I had to look to religion (Buddhism) to inform my worldview (another being the scientific bias against the validity of subjective experience of mind as a basis for truth about mind, but that's another topic). Somehow, our secular worldview, which, despite all, still dominates serious thought in our culture, has to come to terms with the Problem of Ethics. This appears to be a thoughtful and interesting take, as is Robert Wright's Evolution of God.

Right Wing Extremist Birthers take on the law, the law wins

The sheer racism of these events is all but palpable.

Make the Fed Accountable

I agree with this piece by Eliot Spitzer entirely.

Extraterrestrial Ethics, and why we might want to spend our time worrying about our own world for now

In this NYT essay today, Robert Wright discusses the issue of whether we can expect extraterrestrials to have ethics (in light of Stephen Hawking's comment on his TV series to the effect that things didn't go so well for the Native Americans when a technically superior society showed up). This whole discussion is rather old hat among those who've pondered these issues for the past 50 years or so, but I'll throw in my 2 cents anyway.

First, the point is really moot, because there's no plausible scenario in which it would ever make economic sense for one sentient species to try to exploit another across interstellar distances. See this post, which should illustrate why this is so.

Second, and for some of the same reasons as are discussed in that post, the chances are that even communication with xenosophonts (to use a coined word I rather like), even assuming that it is a near certainty that they exist in large numbers scattered throughout the universe, will never be practical. At least, not unless we learn some completely unknown technologies to overcome the limitations of the speed of light, which limits not just transportation but communication as well. Some people love to point at the rapid technological progress in the last 200 or so years, but one thing it'd be well not to overlook is that progress in science normally proceeds through refinement and expansion into new areas of understanding, not through discovery that old ideas were wrong. For example, Newtonian gravitational theory isn't wrong, it's a special case of general relativity that happens to work perfectly well for almost all purposes. Similarly, we may learn all kinds of exotic new things, but we're not likely to find out that, oh, wow, the speed of light isn't a natural physical limit to the translation of particles in space, after all.

I wouldn't say rapid interstellar communication or travel are definitely impossible, but those who plead extraordinarily for these hypothetical future breakthroughs have the burden, at least, of explaining what kinds of breakthroughs might make that possible. Wormholes? Well, maybe, but so far the existence of such things is pure speculation.

So, for now anyway, I'd say that whether extraterrestrials will be getting in touch soon, and whether they'll be naughty or nice, should be the least of our concerns, because the chances of that being an issue we actually have to deal with are pretty well zero.

What Cloture Vote on Financial Reform Means

To my mind, today's 57-41 cloture vote on financial reform, in which the Republicans voted in lockstep to refuse to allow debate, illustrates three things:


1. The Party of "Hell no, no deal" has proven itself yet again to be completely out of touch with not only the interests, but in this case the overwhelmingly stated position, of the vast majority of Americans.


2.  The cloture rules of the Senate have proven yet again to be a MAJOR IMPEDIMENT to the functioning of representative government in this country, demonstrating once again that they must be changed to majority rule.


3.  Ben Nelson has proven yet again that he is not a Democrat in any meaningful sense of the word.

Palin says Obama not doing enough about ... the Volcano!?? Whaa?

Say whaa? This has just got to be a put-on.

And another e-mail to the White House on the use of Fireside Chats

I have several times suggested that the president use FIRESIDE CHATS to convey his proposals and purposes to the American people... with purchased airtime if necessary; most recently on the subject of financial reform, where there is a great opportunity to steal some of the thunder from the mendacious tea partiers to channel some of the righteous anger of the people towards Wall Street to support reform and Democrats in general.

The President is missing a great opportunity if he fails to do this. And they should actually BE, and be called, fireside chats, from the residence, with the president speaking directly to the people. The link with FDR and the reforms of that era will be powerful and could turn around the whole attitude of those who voted for the President but who have felt somewhat left out since then. 

My e-mail to Whitehouse.gov today

If the Mendacious Party of No Deal (again) decides to mount a filibuster of financial reform:

1.  The President should appeal to his supporters for contributions to buy airtime for a series of fireside chats to explain to the people exactly what these mendacious crooks in the GOP caucus are doing; as well as ads explaining what financial reform is for and showing the Republicans talking out of both sides of their mouths as usual ... use that idiot Brown's asking a reporter what he should oppose in the bill... (these should've been already made, but there's still time).

2.  Sen. Reid should be urged to MAKE THEM ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER while the above ads and fireside chats are going on.

Time to get serious and take bold action. It's the only way the righteous anger of the American people can be channeled into Democratic votes this mid-term.

David Studhalter

Time for Fireside Chats

A lot of people are cowed these days by the complexity of CDO's and CDS's and all manner of other crooked swindling that has been going on in Wall Street the last few years. But it isn't really all that complicated. Credit Default Swaps are like the kind of insurance the British Parliament realized in the Napoleonic era had to be outlawed: you can't insure cargo you don't own then tell the French where the ships will be so they can sink them. That's exactly what Credit Default Swaps are: bets (insurance) on equity the bettor doesn't own, that the underlying instruments will fail. A typical example is to bet on trash tranches of collateralized debt obligations based on subprime mortgages. The bettors don't need to even own the debt obligations, which is why the failures of mortgages are multiplied many times over in the crash. To add to that obvious "moral hazard," the bettor then urges sales of collateralized debt obligations which they are betting against to unsuspecting suckers, and lobby Washington, especially the mendacious Party of No, not to do anything about it. It amounts to a gigantic Casino System.

Another way of looking at it would be if you could go around town and pick out all the houses that looked like they were standing empty and could go up like a torch with just a thrown match, and buy fire insurance on them, even though you didn't own them. Then collect on risk you never owned in the first place. In the uberrimae fidei (utmost good faith) world of real insurance, of course, that is illegal, but in the high flying world of Wall Street, it's considered brilliant, and worthy of multimillion dollar bonuses.

These abuses simply must be curbed, and now, because they will lead to another meltdown, sooner rather than later, if they're not.

President Obama needs to study up on this stuff, get straight in his mind exactly how he wants to reform the system to that Wall Street is no longer a casino designed to extract wealth rather than create it, then embark on a series of fireside chat-like communiqués to the American people, to explain to them just how certain practices in Wall Street caused the worst recession since the 1930's, what the Democrats intend to do about it, and exactly how it is that the Mendacious Party is opposing their best interests in favor of the interests of an elite few who've been gaming the system for years.

I just have to believe that if people would only have the opportunity to hear a clear, simple explanation of how it is that the Rebpulicans are not on their side, but are siding with the very crooks who caused this mess, there would be a groundswell of support, beyond even what there already is, to fix these problems, and the political losers would be Congressional and Senate Republicans.

Supreme Court Musings

And, speaking of center right (see below), when John Paul Stevens was appointed by (Center Right) president Gerald Ford, he represented a mainstream Center Right position. As John Dean commented last week on Ian Masters' excellent radio program Daily Briefing (go to kpfk.org / audio archives to download), it's just amazing that Stevens is now being commented on as the "most liberal member of the court," as he's leaving. His positions have hardly changed. But the court is now dominated by four right wing extremists, with one very conservative "swing vote" (Kennedy), balanced against four Centrists. This rightward tilt of the court is a terrible weight on our society, which I hope President Obama takes very, very seriously. He can't change the balance of the court very much to the left in replacing Stevens, but he sure could make things worse by not nominating an at least reasonably progressive person, preferably not from the Circuit Court of Appeals. It's time to restore the tradition of having policy-minded politicians on the court, not only former judges. And the choice fo this president should be someone who strongly opposes the recent trends towards right wing judicial activism which this court has demonstrated. 

By the way, hope and pray, friends, that the president never appoints his friend Cass Sunnstein, who thought Alito was "fine," and who has defended Bush torture policies repeatedly, to any judicial office. Sunnstein has been practically lobbying for a supreme court nomination, and he would be an awful, awful choice. 

Crist not lunatic enough for GOP?

You just gotta wonder, if Charlie Crist, in Florida, who is at best a Centrist/Conservative, is fighting for his political life and possibly about to be kicked off the GOP ticket because he's not lunatic right wing enough for what the Republican party has become, can the two party system survive? How can the US have an Ultraright party that appeals to maybe 30% of the people, and a Center Right Party that virtually no one is happy with, and that's it? And, yes, seriously, the Democratic Party is, by and large, Center Right, by any reasonable assessment that takes politics in other developed countries into account. Maybe even not-so-center Right. If you don't think so, you're kidding yourself, and ignoring facts.

Sarah Palin 2012?

It will surprise none of the (2 or 3) regular readers of this blog that I am a bit skeptical of political prognostication, particularly when its more than a few months out. Chis Bowers of Open Left has given his reasons for predicting that Sarah Palin will be the Republican nominee in 2012. While I don't give any credence to any speculation on who will be the Lying Hypocrite Party nominee, I sincerely hope Bowers is right. Because as many idiots and unhinged folks as there are in this country, I truly believe that the American people will never elect Sarah Palin to national office.