The Amazing Success of the Landing of Curiosity on Mars, August 5, 2012

The amazing success of the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity's descent and landing on Mars last night should be more prominent in our country's affairs right now: proof that, whatever our economic malaise and challenges to our educational, scientific, and technological preeminence, our nation can still produce triumphs of the sheer human drive to go out and find out what's out there.

And to those who love to knock California, and Southern California in particular, I would like to point out that one of the main parts of NASA that's producing the most amazing results for the least money (JPL) , and the most promising private enterprise space developer (SpaceX), are both located here, despite the fact that the big military contractors that did most of the development of the space technology industry back in the 50s-70s have abandoned our area. All of the Mars landers were built and guided from Pasadena, California, and this robotic space exploration is some of the most innovative and thoroughly thought-out in advance technology the world has ever seen. 

If you take a look at nasa.gov/mars and see just how complex and original in concept the landing of the compact-car sized Curiosity on Mars, 14 light-minutes away, actually was, you should feel a certain amount of awe. This thing had to work entirely on its own; in a complex and zero fudge factor series of operations, that simply could not be controlled from Earth. They actually turned off the transmitter before entry into the thin Martian atmosphere, because by the time the signal reached Earth that entry had begun, the landing ... or crash... of the vehicle had already happened. Fortunately, it was a spectacularly successful landing, and even those of us Americans who had nothing to do with this, other than contributing about half the price of a movie to the enterprise as taxpayers, should feel just a bit of pride in the sheer determination to get this done that resulted in this success. Maybe we don't usually pay a lot of attention, but this is a moment when we should. 

Why is Mars important, some may ask. You might as well ask why knowledge is important, why civilization is important. It is our essence as human beings to look over the next hill, to wonder what's over the horizon, to wonder how we might fashion tools and technology to evolve our life into something better. Exploration of space, and the answering of fundamental questions, are one of the frontiers of this essential human endeavor. We abandon that quest only if we are giving up, choosing extinction over growth. Yes, it is that basic, in my view. 

More specifically, the Mars Science Laboratory, for the first time since Viking (the other landers were heavily geared towards geology), will perform experiments that may well answer the question Was there ever life on this other Solar System World? If so, what kind of life? We now have reason to speculate (not believe just yet), that terrestrial life just might have actually originated on Mars, since it appears that Mars once had the temperate, liquid water, protective atmosphere, and protective magnetic field environment (since failed due to the planet's smaller size and distance from the sun)... that could have made the evolution of life possible. And here's the kicker... it had that environment earlier in the evolution of the Solar System than Earth did. Since life seems to have appeared on Earth almost immediately after it became possible, the conclusion that life just might have migrated here on one of the many trans-Earth orbit impact ejecta from Mars cannot be ruled out. In fact, it looks quite plausible. Curiosity will likely give us considerable information that will shed light on all these issues. 

Then, can there be any doubt that eventually, humans will travel to Mars? It has been a dream for well over a century. Only the collapse of our entire civilization could prevent it from eventually happening. So this important mission, which will help answer many important questions that need answering before human travel to Mars could be feasible, is just essential.

Congratulations to JPL, and NASA for this important milestone in human exploration.

An (I hope) reasoned comment on the whole sad, stupid Chick Fil-A controversy

Two points on the whole sad, stupid Chick Fil-A controversy. (Besides that the food looks entirely inedible; we fortunately don't have this place here, and I quickly rejected it when I encountered them in Florida not long ago).

1.  Offending your customers is stupid. The appropriate response is to not give the business your custom. (I was very saddened to see long lines of people rallying behind the hate-filled, discriminatory, and narrow-minded comments of the CEO that started all of this, but, again, the appropriate response is withholding business, or boycott).

2.  It's overreacting to try to penalize the business legally, so the mayors who said they will "block" Chick Fil-A from locating in their cities were overreaching. On the other hand, where there are city franchises or other choices of contractors for public venues, I think legislatures have every right to take the public image of a business as favorable or unfavorable to non-discrimination into account. And what Rahm Emmanuel, for instance, said, that the chain's values (as stated by its CEO; he didn't qualify his comments as speaking only for himself), were "not Chicago's values"; well, those kinds of remarks are just as protected by the First Amendment as the CEO's remarks in the first place. There was a similar reaction to the anti-health care remarks of Whole Foods' CEO (a notorious libertarian)... people have every right to say "Whole Foods values are not our city's values" in response, and to not shop there, even organize boycotts. What they probably don't have a right to do is categorically ban their stores from locating in their jurisdiction because they disagree with the stated political views of the CEO.


Why this is important is that with roughly half the country in thrall to Rightist propaganda about "excessive government control" and all of that nonsense, it's generally a good idea not to hand them an issue on a platter, so to speak. 

Lying, Cheating, Stealing Right Wingers

As usual, our favorite Right Wing Presidential campaign displays disingenuous lack of contact with reality, and outright hypocrisy. During the primary season, Romney was happy to cite the Tax Policy Center's studies as "impartial," but when the selfsame reported that his tax plan to cut tax rates by 20% (with hugely disproportionate benefit to the top half of 1% or so) would necessarily mean tax changes that amounted to a huge tax increase for 95% of Americans, his campaign just called it a "joke," but failed to produce any analysis that showed otherwise.

These people lie, cheat and steal, and expect to be congratulated for it, and handed the keys to power. I say, like hell.

Popular/Electoral Vote picture in current polls -- Focus on the Do Nothing Congress!

The popular vote/electoral vote disparity I was on about earlier this week has gotten even weirder. These early polls may not mean much, but the PollTracker weighted average is now 47.3/47.2 in favor of Romney (a dead heat), but the electoral vote, based on leads in state polling, has Obama with 310, Romney holding with 191 (270 wins).

I still say that the Congressional balance is just as important as the presidential election this year. I would like to see Obama going on a broad scale offensive, along the lines of "Republicans have blocked every attempt we've made to move forward. We can't afford to extend the Bush tax cuts for the highest wealth of the richest and corporations when our country needs important investments to recover the economy. Mr. Romney's plan increases taxes on 95% of Americans while cutting taxes even further for the richest Americans, and he has endorsed virtual elimination of Medicare in the Heartless Paul Ryan budget plan. The Affordable Care Act will ensure access to health care for the vast majority of Americans, and all the obstructionist do-nothing block-everything Republicans in Congress can come up with is over thirty pointless, futile bills to repeal this law, while passing bill after bill that will never become law to cut back on women's health care, repeal the important financial reforms we passed to prevent another financial collapse, and refusing to pass even the most basic needs like the Transportation bill. We need your support not only to keep the White House but to get rid of this Do-Nothing Congress and end the deliberate obstruction of the Republicans so the people's business can get done again!"

Mittster on the defensive

Romney: I Did Not Speak About Palestinian 'Culture’ [LINK]

(In reference to reports that Romney, in another of his many foreign tour gaffes, attributed the 2:1 difference in GDP/capita in Israel vs. the Occupied Territories to "culture" and "providence." [The actual ratio is more than 20:1; he got his facts entirely wrong, too]).

ME:  Hey, Mitt. To quote you, if you're on defense, you're losing.

Health Care Here and There (examples)

Here are a couple of examples of how differently we in America treat the provision of the essential service of health care, as compared to other, perhaps in this respect more civilized, parts of the World.

One of Mitt Romney's many gaffes of his overseas trip was to marvel publicly about how Israel manages to keep health care costs to 8% of GDP while providing its citizens with excellent care. (Compared to our 18% with 50 million uninsured and indifferent outcomes for many more). How do they do it? Mandatory, non-profit, public service-oriented and highly cost-regulated health insurance, of course. (Not exactly socialized medicine, but a lot closer to it than the Affordable Care Act that Romney demonizes every chance he gets).

Rachel Maddow reported on how NBC cut an 11 min. synchronized musical choreography routine with nurses in habits and rolling hospital beds from the Olympics opening ceremony... a paean to the National Health Service, which the British revere as a fundamental element of their civilization. Too "controversial," I guess. From what little I saw of it in a clip, it was a hoot.

LIBOR Scandal and a little reality, please

Reading in HuffPo about how Matt Taibbi called out CNBC anchor Larry Kudlow for claiming that the Big Banks' manipulation of the LIBOR interest rate was "victimless," you just gotta wonder... how could someone like Kudlow even get a job at CNBC? Claiming that massive bank fraud that resulted in enormous costs to cities, towns, and states across America when these local governments are in many cases close to bankruptcy is victimless? The guy's either too craven or too stupid to be on television, in my humble opinion.

And now, kids, speaking of unbelievable bank fraud, how many of you have heard of Carl Levin's investigation (which should have been done by the regulators, who were asleep at the switch as usual), of the truly incredible fraud and outright criminal conduct being carried out by Super Global Big Bank HSBC, some of it right here in America? If HSBC were an individual or small company, there would be 30 FBI agents at the door, drawn guns, prosecutions, convictions, huge fines, and long prison terms for what they did. (It's a big story in England: see Daily Mail). But, as usual, this Super Bank is too big to fail, too big to regulate, and too big to tolerate. Of course, the American media barely reports on this.

We need a new era of Trust Busting. We need new laws to break up big banks and replace them with investment banks where the owners are investing their own money and commercial banks that are regulated to prevent this kind of fraud, and limited in size.

Some sobering thoughts on the presidential election

I have to take note of an unpleasant fact. I've been commenting, along with many in the Progressive Universe, about how Romney seems to be amazingly politically inept, how not releasing the tax returns makes him look like he has something to hide.

But, we have to remember, this election is going to be determined by the movable vote; the people who know little and care less about policy or politics, and who are easily swayed by propaganda. People who have definite knowledge on policy and are politically aware and active have already long since made up their minds, and will not be changing their votes. We (these people) are not the targets of campaign messaging. In the queer logic of electioneering, we are essential but we don't really matter: we don't play a significant role in determining the outcome.

The relatively ignorant, unconcerned, uninformed, and persuadable people, who do determine the outcome, for the most part, see commercials but pay no attention to "coverage."

And the fact remains that the polls are a dead heat, and have actually moved the WRONG WAY in the last ten days or so, in several key swing states.

My thought that Romney's campaign was "collapsing," was probably wishful thinking. We have to remember that the Rightists have 1) tons of money; 2) really efficient and effective propagandists working for them.

So we just have to beat them at their own game, with the resources we are able to muster.

Romney's Tax Returns: What the hell?

I find it just amazing that Slick Willard Romney didn't have a plan in place for the inevitable demand that he pony up his tax returns for at least the last decade. This stonewalling is positively Nixonesque, given the level of disclosure that has become the norm in American politics. But the merits of the right of the American people to know about the financial status of a presidential candidate aside, the political ineptitude here is really remarkable. Given what even members of his own party are saying, you have to wonder at this point if Romney can even go forward as the presumptive nominee. Is it conceivable that his candidacy will simply collapse? It's hard to imagine, but it's also hard to imagine how he thinks he can go forward with a campaign that says, "I don't care what you the people think; I'm not telling you this stuff that every presidential candidate tells you."

Electoral College Politics, these early days

Looking at electoral maps, such as the one on Huffington Post, it looks like the Obama campaign needs to focus on

Michigan
Florida
Virginia
Iowa
all of which are toss ups

and, to shore up losable current leads
Ohio
Pennsylvania

which are must-wins

and
Coloradowhich is a sure-would-be-nice-to-have

Some other states where he's currently winning, like Wisconsin and Minnesota are probably less critical, but nonetheless worth campaigning in.

The numbers show that if Obama can carry Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania he will almost certainly win the election. Without Michigan he'd have to carry a couple of the other current toss-ups to be assured of victory, or just Florida would do it. Of course the experts in the campaign have gamed every possible scenario and will focus spending like a laser as the campaign unfolds (as will the Rightists, of course, but at this point, their job will be more problematical, which is music to my ears to be able to say. What isn't music to my ears is that they will probably have at least 50% more money than us to spend).

Unfortunately for those of us who live in the far west, (Calif., Oregon, Washington and even Nevada), both campaigns will probably ignore us entirely (even though California alone is about 12.5% of the nation), because we are going blue, almost no matter what. (Which is a good thing).

My Ban on the Boy Scouts

LA Times: "Boy Scouts, after review, reaffirms ban on gays." Here.  And I reaffirm my ban on contributing to any organization that supports bigots, including the United Way, which funnels money to the Boy Scouts. I get a lot of pressure at work to contribute to the United Way, and I say, nope. Not until they sever all ties with this outfit. I contribute to the charities I support directly.

I also think that schools and public parks should advise the Boy Scouts that their refusal to comply with reasonable accommodation to all people makes them ineligible to use public property for any activities (and the same should apply to churches that insist on a right to discrimination that would be illegal in any public accommodation context).

It's time we stopped tolerating intolerance.

John Sununu's insulting and stupid remark

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I found Romney "surrogate" John Sununu's deprecating remarks, to the effect that the president needs to "learn how to be an American," in response to Pres. Obama's thoughtful and correct defense of public infrastructure as a major factor in the success of the American economy (duh!), to be despicable, insulting, stupid, arrogant, and condescending. In that order. What a jerk. 

I am more than old enough to remember when no rational person would even imagine disagreeing with this obvious truth, still less making insulting remarks about the sitting president of the United States over it. 

Mitt on the Defensive

No question about it; it's early days, and it's impossible to predict what may come up that could turn the presidential race on its head. But based on what's going on right now, it's hard not to see Obama as doing a much better job than Romney in connecting with ordinary voters.

Ian Masters was interviewing James Kloppenburg yesterday on this subject, and Kloppenburg remarked that we should expect the Romney campaign to come out with a major offensive to try to counter a very, very bad week last week. But today we get "Hey, Kerry's wife didn't release her tax returns and McCain only released two years!"  (Not true: McCain in '04 released 23 years of tax returns; and Teresa Heinz Kerry did release some tax information in '04, but the point is how lame this sounds, and how the more he complains about having to release more information, the more he creates the suspicion that he really does have something to hide).

Something else Kloppenburg said rings true: different context, but this is starting to sound like the shrill denials Nixon gave on Watergate. And even Romney has himself said on more than one occasion, if you're defending, you're losing. 

We can't get overconfident, but all this is good news for Team Democratic and Team Obama, no doubt about it.

I hope Obama campaign REJECTS advice to soft-pedal criticism of LIAR Romney

I really, really disagree with former PA governor Ed Rendell's comment that the "Bain attacks" of the Obama campaign have gone "too far." I think they haven't gone far enough. Romney is a serial liar and a vulture capitalist of the worst sort, and the American people need to be reminded of that over and over, because the Right intends to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to bamboozle the public into believing this shark is a nice guy who will act in their interests when (heaven forfend!) he gets into office.

Earth to "moderate" Dems like Bill Clinton, Cory Booker, and Ed Rendell: this approach is working, the polls prove it, and we have to do what it takes to win this year.

I'd like to see the Obama campaign hire Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, a plain-spoken Virginian, who was on Rachel Maddow last night calling Eric Cantor exactly what he is . . . "a bought and paid for crook." Video here. This is what we need... people who aren't afraid to tell it like it is and penetrate the Right wing framing and speak directly to the people.
 

Slick Willard

Seems so typical of a schoolyard bully type, which is what Romney is. Caught red-handed lying on his resumé, in effect (i.e., filing totally contradictory SEC filings and FEC financial disclosure statements about his tenure at Vulture Capital firm Bain 1999-2002), Romney spouts campaign ads saying, essentially, I know you are but What am I? 

What a completely dishonest piece of crap Slick Willard "Mitt" Romney is turning out to be.

I find it very interesting that on the day all this came out (with articles in Boston Globe and Wa Po, and wall to wall coverage on MSNBC and progressive radio), nary a damn word on the CBS Evening News. The idea that the "mainstream media" has a liberal bias in this country is as Alice-in-Wonderland upside down as Serial Falsifier Slick Willard calling Obama a liar!

Higgs Boson coulda... shoulda... been an American discovery

This piece in the LA Times points out the peevishness of some American scientists at the July 4 announcement of the (now seemingly inevitable) discovery of the Higgs Boson. But the real point, to me, not to see politics in everything...except when it's there, damnit.... is that but for Rightist shortsightedness in canceling the Superconducting Supercollider, this would have been an American discovery.

This is an element of Right Wing obstructionism and nihilism that often isn't remarked on. Their vision of our society is so elitist, so constricted, so anti-Education, anti-Research, so anti-Public everything, that they have succeeded in dulling our edge in science and technology. The fact that America no longer has the capability of launching manned space vehicles, and the cancellation of such missions as the Terrestrial Planet Finder, as well as the disgraceful state of American public science policy, are all testaments to the backwardness of those who control the pursestrings.

This whole sorry picture is another, rarely mentioned, reason why more forward thinking (i.e., progresssive) leaders are sorely needed in this country.

2012. . . the stakes could hardly be higher

It's become conventional in this country to say of every presidential election that "this is the most important election of our lifetime," etc. But this time, I really think it's true. Look at what's at stake. The Republicans have evolved into a truly extremist political party, which advocates the dismantlement of essential Federal programs that have given us a stable and functional society for decades, in favor of a system of oligarchy that would make the gilded age of the end of the 19th century look benign by comparison. They stand for further tax cuts to the richest, more "deregulation" that would essentially legalize financial fraud permanently (completely ignoring what caused the current Depression), intrusive social legislation that would change the character of our society, erosion of the separation of church and state, calamitous inaction and damage to environmental progress.... the list is virtually endless. No rational and informed person can be completely unaware of these issues.

I'm not rich, but I just went to barackobama.com and contributed another $200 to the presidential campaign (again), and it's my intention to give targeted support to Congressional races where it looks like there are prospects to take back Republican held seats, or where support is needed to ensure retention by reasonably Progressive Democrats (unfortunately not all are). Republicans are pulling out all the stops; people like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson are contributing tens of millions to their campaigns, which under the new legalized bribery regime (thanks to the Rightist majority on the Supreme Court), is now legal.

I urge my farflung correspondents to take this election seriously and do what they can to ensure the Republicans' defeat, both legislatively and in the presidential race.

To my retiree friends, who have time... I urge you to get involved in making calls or doing whatever you can to help out in this election, on whatever level.

The stakes are high... we have to win this one. ○DS

• PRAGMATIC PROGRESSIVE FOR OBAMA 2012 •

NY Times on the Science and Scientists of Climate Change

This important NY Times piece makes reference to some of the actual details of the science, as well as the frustrations of the scientists who've been working in the field, with respect to the hard evidence that human-caused climate change is occurring and indeed accelerating.

We are long past the point where there is a legitimate "split of opinion" on what the evidence may mean, or that a plausible case for "cyclic climate change" can be made. In fact, we are probably past the point where political solutions are even feasible. The only way for the human race to avoid serious detrimental consequences from climate change in this century now probably revolves around the development of mitigation technologies, coupled with accelerated technological development leading to near cessation of the use of fossil fuels for energy within the first half of the century, driven not by politics but by technology. Will this happen? I wouldn't bet against it, but it will take some major paradigm shifts.

Why Roberts joined the Centrist Four

This is apparently what CBS news reporter Jan Crawford learned from anonymous court insiders about CJ Roberts's reasoning in leading a unique majority to uphold the ACA.

Some informed observers outside the court flatly reject the idea that Roberts buckled to liberal pressure, or was stared down by the president. They instead believe that Roberts realized the historical consequences of a ruling striking down the landmark health care law. There was no doctrinal background for the Court to fall back on - nothing in prior Supreme Court cases - to say the individual mandate crossed a constitutional line. The case raised entirely new issues of power. Never before had Congress tried to force Americans to buy a private product; as a result, never before had the court ruled Congress lacked that power. It was completely uncharted waters.
To strike down the mandate as exceeding the Commerce Clause, the court would have to craft a new theory, which could have opened it up to criticism that it reached out to declare the president’ health care law unconstitutional.
Roberts was willing to draw that line, but in a way that decided future cases, and not the massive health care case.

To me, this seems much more plausible and likely than any of the Right Wing conspiracy theories as to why they were "betrayed," or the assumption that Roberts was concerned about the "legitimacy" of the court, although that factor, in my opinion, should have been in the forefront of his mind, and perhaps it was; we can't really know.

Of course, allowing the Right to frame health care as a "product," rather than as an essential service in the provision of which government has been intimately involved for many many decades, is part of the problem; and in this regard I believe the government and the government's lawyers have done a poor job of defending the law both before the court and in the court of public opinion. Our party leaders, and especially the president himself, need to do a much better job of explaining how the act benefits most Americans, and in reframing the whole debate in terms of progressive moral stances, rather than Rightist economic ones.

Hell no! to Transpacific Trade Partnership that would benefit only Multinational Corporations, at the expense of public interest!

Tradewatch.org has published leaked details of the improperly secret terms of a proposed “Transpacific Trade Partnership” which is apparently supported by Corporatist politicians of both parties. This proposed agreement is directly contrary to Obama’s promises in the 2008 campaign and is totally unacceptable to the American people. It would amount to a forfeiture of public sovereignty in favor of Multinational Corporate interests. Please see tradewatch.org and get ready for a big fight to defeat this monstrosity. 

Some comments on the prevalence of habitable planets in the universe

The SETI institute (seti.org) has a series of fascinating talks, some of which focus on planet formation, and the likelihood and likely form of habitable planets in our Galaxy. I highly recommend them. (Many are on YouTube). This is a serious and very rapidly developing area of scientific investigation, and if you’re one of those people whose eyes glaze over when it comes to anything involving the wider universe and life beyond Earth, well, too bad for you, and I suggest you read something else. Bye. For the rest of you: it's really very interesting.

A quick summary of what I’ve gleaned lately, mostly from this source: planetary disks last about 1 million years on average; not much more, after the formation of a star, which generally takes place in starforming regions, which is a whole topic unto itself that I won't go into here. The disks of gas and dust from which planets form are ubiquitous (i.e., planets are very common), BUT, the region where the so-called habitable zone will later be located (i.e., for a sun-like Star the region of the disc centered around 150 million km from the star; or for any star the concentric region where at reasonable atmospheric pressures water can remain liquid) — is, during this planet forming phase, VERY HOT (~500K) throughout the planetary formation process, which effectively precludes the solidification of either rock or water. Since both of these are obviously necessary for the formation of terrestrial planets, what that means is that rocky planets with water on their surfaces do not form in situ. Instead, terrestrial planets (like Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) invariably form from accretion through collisions of rocky and/or icy bodies that have migrated from further out in the protostar system. It also means that planetary systems just like the Sun’s, with only rocky planets in the inner region and only gas planets in the outer region, contrary to what was once believed, are probably relatively rare. It's just luck of the draw, since many of the processes involved are essentially random. What sometimes happens, as we now know, is that large gas giants migrate inwards, but when they don't, something somewhat like what happened here, i.e., the migration of rocky and/or watery bodies further inward, is likely. In fact, the mathematics of turbulence and other physical effects mean that proto-planets always move around in the disk during the formation stage; and, on average, on the order of one planetary-mass object per star is actually ejected from the system entirely, (which, tangentially, means that there are approximately as many so-called "rogue planets" in any given galaxy as there are stars).

Probably equally likely as the suite of terrestrial planets in the inner system that we have here in the Solar System, is a Neptune-sized planet in that area. Such a Neptune-sized planet could easily have a large moon, which, all things being favorable, could be habitable. Another possibility in the inner systems of typical stars would be the presence of a so-called Super-Earth. This is a class of planet which does not exist in the Solar System, but which is believed to be quite common in the universe at large. The definition usually given is a planet between approximately 1 and 10 Earth masses. (Not large enough to retain hydrogen, which would make them Neptunes, or, if you prefer, Neptunoids). These planets, especially in the upper range of this class are likely to be uninhabitable, often with very thick CO₂ atmospheres that would result in serious greenhouse heating. However, planets like this could exist in the habitable zone, and could have companion planets (or large moons) somewhat after the fashion of the Earth and the Moon, where the smaller planet in a binary planet pair could be habitable (with or without other, smaller, moons en suite). One reason that these binary planets, or large planets with slightly less-large moons, are especially interesting, is that they could conceivably exist in orbit around red dwarfs, which, as we know, are by far the most common type of star, consisting of roughly 90% of all stars in the universe. Although a single planet in close orbit around red dwarf, i.e. close enough to have liquid water, would probably be rotationally stopped with respect to the star, which would cause all kinds of problems, a planet sized moon of a super Earth or Neptunoid planet in close orbit around red dwarf, could have a day night cycle, and could conceivably sustain complex life. Given the prevalence of red dwarf stars, it may turn out that life-bearing worlds are actually typically this type of object, and single planets in orbit around larger stars like the sun, i.e., like Earth, may be less common.

This is not to suggest that actual gas giants are not also common in the habitable zones of protostar systems. Such gas giants (that is, comparable to Jupiter or Saturn, although some of them are actually much larger than Jupiter), in the habitable zone, are perhaps even more likely to have habitable moons. Thus, this kind of planetary body (i.e. an approximately Earth-sized moon orbiting a gas giant), could be even more common, especially in low-mass star systems (Class M and K; red and orange dwarfs), where the habitable zone is rather narrow and close to the star. (Just as red dwarfs (Class M) are the most common stars, the next larger class, K dwarfs, are more common than larger stars, and so on). Imagine a Saturn in orbit around Epsilon Indi or other orange dwarf, with a moon just enough bigger than Titan to retain an earthlike atmosphere and oceans. Such a world could easily resemble Earth. And even in orbit around a M dwarf, such a large gas planet's moon could have liquid water and a day/night cycle making the whole planet habitable, if rather different from our world, since red light is, after all, red light, and will give rise to a significantly different biosphere than ours, almost by definition.

So we may someday learn that more living worlds are actually moons of larger planets than are major planets of their stars in their own right (like Earth), across the board.   

Progressive Message to Obama Campaign: Get with a strong pro-1% Narrative or We Will Lose This

I agree with Les Leopold, who has an interesting interview with Ian Masters on ianmasters.com for June 7. He outlines what I think of as an essential progressive message to the Obama campaign. Forget about "progressive disappointment" that we didn't get perfect health care, etc. The issue is, what do we have to do now to win this damn election and move forward. Because that's far from a sure thing. Let me try to state it succinctly.

You are going to lose this if you don’t come up with a stronger narrative right away.

The Republicans’ narrative is strong. The fact that it is entirely false doesn’t matter — it will work if we don’t come up with our own strong messaging.

The propagandists for the Plutocrat party say the deficit was caused by Obama’s spending (false), that it’s what caused the Depression (false), & that lower taxes for the wealthy and lax enforcement of financial, labor, and environmental laws and regulation will help ease unemployment (false). But all of this seems to make sense to a lot of people, and they are buying it. Romney is winning the message war, and if this isn’t reversed, not only will he likely win in November. But even if Obama manages to win, there will be virtually no coattail effect and we will have gridlock and default de facto austerity, regardless, which will be a total disaster for the vast majority of Americans.

The narrative must be simple, and it must involve a drastic change of focus, and the abandonment of any attempt to be, as Jamie Galbraith puts it, the party of both the predators and the prey. The Democratic party must abandon the 1%; forget about wooing them for financial support. The president should carefully study the speeches of Franklin Roosevelt, especially from 1936. He must come out forcefully for the 99% and against the financial and corporate elites.

These should be the points:

• Wall Street Caused this Great Recession, and it must pay for getting us out of it.

(Elimination of carried interest, significant increase in taxes on wealthiest, modest transaction tax; regulations to end derivatives fraud and rein in excesses).

• The richest must pay their fair share.  

(Ditto).

• We must invest in America now, in order to restore prosperity.

(Austerity does not work and will not end the Depression.... see Paul Krugman on this issue).

• We must reform Financial Regulation and Taxes on finance and the biggest corporations to create jobs and ensure basic security, medical care, and education for our people.

(Tax and anti-fraud enforcement and regulation means more revenue and greater financial stability, Republicans want to make fraud in the financial sector business as usual, which means bigger deficits and more instability = bubbles and crashes). 

• The Republicans are lying to the American people: what they propose will mean more for the richest, less for everyone else. What we want is honest, clean government that enforces the law and makes everyone play by the rules.
• We are asking for your outrage: take to the streets to show you demand change, and vote for the president and for Democrats at all levels, who will enact it.

It doesn’t need to be more complicated than that, but it needs to be hammered home again and again, consistently, without muddling, without equivocation, and without retreat.

Otherwise, I fear the situation is dire, and we will see things get a whole lot worse in this country long before they get any better.

Obama Campaing shouldn't say "myth," they should call deliberate lies just that: DELIBERATE LIES.

Take this as an example. When the Obama campaign says "the President's supposed "spending binge" is nothing but a myth, repeatedly debunked by independent fact checkers," I think they're pulling the punch.

What they should say is "the claim by the nominee of the Republican party that President Obama has engaged in a spending binge is a deliberate lie, pure and simple, repeatedly debunked by objective and independent fact checkers... in fact, the truth is the exact opposite of Mr. Romney's false statement. Don't be fooled by these lies, which Mitt Romney has repeatedly shown a willingness to engage in."

My version is not only more accurate, it calls out the absolute immorality of the Republicans. This should be Obama's theme: clean, good government, old fashioned American values, enforcement of the law, government for the people, not for the benefit of elite fraudsters. And portray the Republicans, and Romney in particular, as in league with the fraudsters who wrecked our economy and are trying to go right back to the same old practices, and as willing, even eager, to lie to the American people at every turn in order to keep hold on power. Portray them as representing unethical and harmful practices at the expense of ethical business and the peoples' interests. It's an especially easy argument to make right now, because it's entirely true.

Illustration of why constitutional amendment to provide for direct popular election of president is so crucial

This article is a perfect illustration of why one of the 10 points in Steven Hill's plan to repair American democracy, i.e., direct election of the president, is so crucial. It appears perfectly possible that rather than holding a referendum based on the Peoples' policy choices and candidate preference, there will be an all out money-driven battle for the votes of a tiny minority in a small number of relatively low-population states in 2012. Clearly, it is past time to reform this particular aspect of the Constitution of our country.

I will have further comments on Hill's proposals in a forthcoming post.

Gary Sick on Iran (again)

As usual, Gary Sick's comments on the situation with Iran and the just-started negotiations with the US, are well worth a look: http://garysick.tumblr.com/

Obama as Conservative Democrat, and Progressives

This article from Alternet is very well informed and presents a coherent short analysis of just why Progressives are so uhappy with Pres. Obama, but, more importantly, what we can do to try to shape the course of future policy... which will depend on his re-election.

Habitable Worlds circling Red Dwarfs?

Here's an interesting short article (with very cool artist's conception and internal links) about the possibility of the existence of many, many habitable worlds orbiting red dwarfs (the most common type of star in the universe). 

The conventional wisdom has generally been that such worlds would be unlikely, mainly for two reasons: 1) they would have to be too close the star to be able to rotate with respect to it, in order to receive enough sunlight for habitable temperature (in other words they would tend to be stopped, with one face always to their sun, just as the moon is with respect to Earth); and 2) Red dwarfs flare all the time, and stellar flares are roughly the same dimensions no matter what the size of the star (no problem for a sunlike star over 100 million km from the planet, but a big problem for an "earthlike" planet only 4 or 5 million km from a tiny star; the flare could double the star's brightness and singe the planet). (Another objection is that photosynthesis is presumably a nearly universal process, and it only seems to work, chemically, with pigments like chlorophyll that maximize utilization of light well above the frequency of red light, but it can't be ruled out that there are other solutions to that particular biological puzzle; we only know about the optima for a planet with a yellow-star spectrum because that's where we live).

I don't see that recent developments really answer these potential objections, but it's interesting to see that astronomers are giving serious consideration to this, and actually collecting real data.

[Probably the first and only time I'll ever link to Fox News] .

Outlaw baseless derivatives now!

Here's another Slate article I agree with totally. It explains why speculation in derivatives that don't involve insurable interest or ownership of an underlying asset should be illegal.

Keith Olbermann

Although I have frequently admired Keith Olbermann's commentaries, I have to say that it's readily apparent that he has let his monumental ego get in the way of his responsibility to his viewers. (See this.) He seems to think that because Current TV is something of a shoestring operation, it's entirely the fault of the network that he was unrealistic in his demands and proved immensely difficult to get along with. This is the case, according to all accounts. I'm not sure what Olbermann thinks his future prospects are, but having been fired from both MSNBC and Current, I think it more than likely that his career as a talk show commentator is over.

Workers' right to organize should be a constitutional right

This piece in Slate presents the arguments for why the right of workers to organize should be a constitutional right. I completely agree with this, and believe that such a reform is long overdue.

What if Israel bombed Iran? (Sick)

Gary Sick writes a hypothetical piece  [ici] about what would actually happen if the lunatics in charge of Israel were to use their 'special relationship' with the Azeris (who would presumably let them land and refuel on return flights)... and actually proceed with the self-destructive impulse to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.

Personally, were I the president of the United States, I would tell Netanyahu that if they are crazy enough to try something like this, we will not cooperate in any way, we will denounce it while the planes are still in the air, and we will not assist in anything, not even rescue operations. And, oh, by the way, your military cooperation pact and aid pact with us is over forever.

I realize this is not the way it would go, but that would be my advice to Pres. Obama. To do this would make the entire situation in the great arc of disruption from Egypt to Islamabad infinitely worse for everyone. 
 

Obama favorable rating up

It was widely reported a couple of weeks ago that "due to gas prices," one poll was showing Pres. Obama's favorability rating way down... to 41%. It looks like that poll was an outlier, and probably completely inaccurate even at the time. According to this piece in Salon, which is mostly about Romney's predicament, Obama's favorable rating is now above 50, and for the first time in a long time, higher than his unfavorable rating. Some polls have Obama leading Romney by 11 points.

None of this is much of a predictor of anything, this early, especially with the huge uncertainties of the stability of the recovery (better this year, so far), and the wild card that is the irrational Israeli policy towards Iran and what an Israeli attack could do to global stability; but it certainly doesn't indicate that the Republican propaganda is as effective as they would like it to be.

Koch Bros. BOYCOTT list

I am so pissed off at the Koch Brothers, and their obnoxious oligarch act, that I have personally resolved to avoid doing business with their company, Koch Industries. Here's a list (from this, which also contains a handy .pdf fact sheet)... of Koch brands to boycott: 

Invista: Lycra Coolmax Tactel SolarMax Polarguard Dacron Thermolite Comforel Antron Carpet Fiber Stainmaster Carpet Cordura

Georgia-Pacific: VanityFair AngelSoft Quilted Northern Sparkle Brawny MardiGras Dixie DensArmorPlus Platinum Plywood ToughRock

International Brands: Demak Up KittenSoft Lotus Moltonel Tenderly Nouvelle Recycling Okay Colhogar Delica Inversoft Tutto

I found that I already wasn't using all but Vanity Fair  (napkins), which I sometimes bought (not knowing they were a Koch product). No more. 

Moral Shame on our Society

This morning, as I was walking in to work, I came upon an obviously both physically and mentally disabled woman, maybe about 65 years old, who was muttering to herself and shuffling along in slippers and what looked like filthy pajamas. This was on a street in downtown Los Angeles. It made me think, and hardly for the first time, that people on the Right in this country, who oppose even the most minimal basic social programs, are truly ignoring a moral dilemma of significant proportions. The fact that people like this woman live on the streets, where they are likely to die from lack of care in a relatively short time, is truly shameful and is a horrific indictment of the state of our society. There is just no way around this moral judgment. There can be no argument but that it would be feasible, even relatively easy, for our society to provide adequately for people like this, yet we fail to do so. That this is the case redounds to our shame.

SCOTUS on HCR

Although I choose to believe that John Dean is right that the Supreme Court is actually quite unlikely to overturn the Healthcare Reform Act, I can't help but perceive that this is a problem of the Democrats' own making. Had the party, along with the large majority of Americans, enacted single-payer, what has been termed "Medicare for all," there would be no question of constitutionality, and I believe Americans would be supporting that law today by an overwhelming majority.

Iain Banks: Subliming

Look to Windward has a two-page essay embedded in one of its chapters on what happens to mature sophontic civilizations (or sometimes to individuals), which he refers to as "Subliming" (with capital-S, just as non-biological intelligences are "Minds" with a capital-M).  He takes as a given (for purposes of the fiction) that there is an already existent "plane" where intelligent beings can exist as pure energy, and that one-way once-and-for-all (more or less) transference to this alternate existence is (again, more or less) inevitable for even entire civilizations. It's kind of like heaven, but not, and it's real, not pie in the sky spiritual.(Although the practical difference may be hard to pin down). One interesting aside he makes: when any particular civilization undertakes the perfectly possible (in the fiction, again) act of creating a "pure-AI," without "metalogical" (i.e., culturally derived) attributes, such an unbiased "Mind" invariably and essentially immediately Sublimes; thus, as a practical matter, Minds always have some of the cultural biases and attributes of the physical civilization that created them originally, even when they actually design and construct themselves. Anyway, if you haven't read this particular Culture novel, it's a bit of a mixed bag but there are good things in it.

I find that in surveying the novels of the Culture on iainbanks.net, (The Algebraist being not counted as Culture, although I gather there's nothing in it that specifically rules out being part of the same universe)... the only one I haven't read is Inversions, which I suppose I will now proceed to read. I tried to read it once, but, as has occasionally happened to me with Banks, I just couldn't get into it. When I finally do read them, I haven't regretted any of them.

He has a new non-SF book coming out, called Stonemouth. It will be some kind of thriller. I haven't read much of his non-SF, but some of it is quite highly thought of in England; here, hardly a blip.

Diplomacy Working in Iran ?

Gary Sick sees signs the Obama administration diplomatic tack on Iran may be working.

Hey, I'll take any good news, and this guy does know what he's talking about, so let's hope he's right.

Message to the White House: Support Bernie Sanders's push to control oil speculation

This is my message to the White House today:

I believe it's extremely important that the president get behind an effort by certain senators, including Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar, to require the Commodity Futures Exchange Commission to control unwarranted speculation in the oil markets. Responsible agencies, including the St. Louis Fed and even Goldman Sachs itself have acknowledged that a significant part of the run-up in gas prices is due not to supply and demand, but to rampant speculation, amounting to approximately 80% of futures contracts, in the oil futures markets. The president needs to declare a national emergency for this strategic resource, and demand that the Congress force position limits and other controls on speculation. Control of gasoline prices could well mean the difference between a continued recovery and prolonged recession, and failure to take decisive action could easily be a threat to the president's reelection. It is time that the president recognize that the "Masters of the universe" on Wall Street are not going to support him this time around, and that his best political course is to side, clearly and definitively with that 99%. Taking a tough stand publicly on gasoline prices and the unwarranted speculation that is driving them up, when supply and demand are actually favorable to lower prices, is the most important way that the president can do just that right now.

Recent Red Meat Scare: complete nonsense

Gary Taubes (here) did a blog post critiquing of the kind of pseudoscience that lay behind the recent "Red Meat Scare" articles in the L.A. Times and New York Times, but I thought it was worthwhile to post the conclusions from Zoe Harcombe's detailed critique of the studies involved (cited by Taubes), just to emphasize that this scary press storm is, well, pretty much complete nonsense.

From this.

here are numerous key problems with this study – I’ll share seven:
1) This study can at best suggest an observed relationship, or association. To make allegations about causation and risk is ignorant and erroneous.
2) The numbers are very small. The overall risk of dying was not even one person in a hundred over a 28 year study. If the death rate is very small, a possible slightly higher death rate in certain circumstances is still very small. It does not warrant a scare-tactic, 13% greater risk of dying headline – this is ‘science’ at its worst.
3) Several other critical variables showed correlation with death rates – lack of activity, low cholesterol, BMI, smoking, diabetes, calorie intake and alcohol intake. These have not been excluded to isolate meat consumption alone. The raw data actually shows deaths rates falling with increased meat consumption up to the third or fourth quintile – and this is before all the other variables have been allowed for. This would suggest that meat consumption has a protective effect while weight, alcohol, calorie intake, lack of exercise and so on are all taking their toll.
4) Several other critical variables were not measured, which would logically correlate with certain meat consumption. Unprocessed meat inexplicably included sandwiches, curries, hamburgers (which come in buns) – has the correlation with bread, margarine, white rice, egg fried rice, poppadoms, burger buns, ketchup, relish or even fizzy drinks been correlated with the death rates? Indeed, Frank Hu, one of the authors of this meat study, is also quoted in today’s paper saying that one soft drink a day raises the risk of heart attacks.  It doesn’t of course – it is association at best, just as the meat article is – but one does wonder if that harmful soft drink was the one that just happened to be consumed with the hamburger or the bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich ‘meal deal’?!
5) Hamburgers and pork sandwiches or lamb curries have been included as unprocessed meat. This is not a study of what real food devotees would consider unprocessed meat therefore. May I suggest that a study of consumers of grass fed ruminants would not deliver the desired headline? The lamb and beef grazing in the fields around me in Wales could not be further in health benefits from the hamburgers in buns and hot dogs in white rolls in fast food America.
6) We are all going to die. We have 100% risk of it in fact. We are not going to increase this risk by 13% or 20% if we have a hamburger and certainly not if we have a grass fed nutrient rich steak. This is headline grabbing egotistical academics doing their worst.
7) As I always consider conflict of interest, it would be remiss of me to end without noting that one of the authors (if not more) is known to be vegetarian and speaks at vegetarian conferences[ii] and the invited ‘peer’ review of the article has been done by none other than the man who claims the credit for having turned ex-President Clinton into a vegan – Dean Ornish.[iii]
All of this nonsense has given me an appetite, so I’m off to get my complete protein and essential fats plus the full range of B vitamins, ample fat soluble vitamins and lashings of iron, phosphorus, magnesium and zinc – also known as grass fed steak!

IBM not going the way of old AT&T, Kodak

While the now-defunct old AT&T (in the same way as the old California based BofA is defunct, being merely the name of the predator that devoured it) ...was defeated by its failure to modernize its old communications paradigm and networks, and Kodak has waned to a bankrupt ghost of its former self, the same has not happened to IBM. True, it isn't the giant it once was, and has abandoned a number of consumer and business products, but, unlike AT&T that dumped Bell Labs, IBM has maintained its cutting edge research and looks to be a full participant in some of the coming information technological revolutions. See this.

My contact to the White House about gas prices

I am writing to emphasize my belief that it is of great importance for the president to get out in front on the issue of gas prices. It is obvious to anyone who studies the matter that gasoline prices have increased due to illicit and unwarranted speculation in commodities markets, together with the effect of unwarranted war mongering by the neocons in Washington. The fact that the neocons are complicit with a foreign government, namely Israel, is probably not politically useful, but somehow the issue needs to be framed to make clear to the American people that gasoline prices are being manipulated and those doing the manipulating are not acting in America's interests. Furthermore, it needs to be made clear that the administration is not to blame. This is a difficult issue to frame, but successfully framing it may make the difference between reelection and disaster. I urge the president to formulate a speech, complete with charts and graphs in the manner of Ross Perot, in order to get out in front of this issue. I believe this is truly vital. Thank you.

FURTHER COMMENT also sent today: 

I wrote earlier today urging the president to get out in front of the issue of gas prices, by pointing out how prices are not the result of supply and demand, but the result of illicit speculation, largely by big financial institutions, in oil prices, and by unwarranted and unhelpful warmongering by Neocon types (with the complicity of the Israeli government). But what I should have stressed, and would like to point out again now, is that the president needs to make VEILED THREATS, just as he did previously on this same issue. Although the anti-speculation regulations under DODD FRANK are indeed inadequate, that should not stop the president from saying that his administration will urge Congress to investigate improper and unwarranted commodity speculation, which puts huge profits in the hands of the Wealth Extracting Financial Institutions at the expense of ordinary Americans. By doing this, the president will make clear that he IS doing something on behalf of the interests of ordinary people, and against the interests of the big finance speculators whose only goal is to enrich themselves at the expense of those who can't afford it, and to the detriment of our nation and its economy as a whole. The president needs to call them out on this.

Thank you. 

Transforming society to a sustainable future

I admit to being more or less a big-government Progressive. Unlike libertarians, the extreme example of which would be Ayn Rand, and her many followers including Alan Greenspan, I believe that over the past century or more government regulation in the area of health, building, environment, etc. has been overwhelmingly a force for good. But having said that, I also recognize that government is inherently inefficient at certain types of development. The development of the X-15 and manned orbital space flight was extremely expensive and inefficient organized by government, with aerospace industries which were incentivized, if anything, to maximize costs. But, had these developments not taken place, the subsequent independent entrepreneurs who achieved the same thing, thirty years later, for two orders of magnitude lower cost, could not have done so. (This technology has still not proved itself to be economically viable, but that's another issue).

So, it seems to me, the only practical ideology is one which recognizes that government has an essential role to play in setting the standards of society: safe buildings, security, medical care and decent level of housing, etc., and which is prepared to finance research and development when the kind of "bang for the buck" that government can force to happen is needed, but which then is more than willing to allow private entrepreneurial activity to actually do the development (and re-development). This private development works best not on a subsidy contract basis, but on the basis of seed money or even just intelligent regulation that allows private actors to develop technologies and businesses that meet the needs of people, while disincentivizing enterprises that merely extract and concentrate wealth. I think this sort of recognition of overlapping but not congruent spheres or magisteria, is the only basis for a sound system of government.

America has a serious structural problem in its governance. Our constitution and the forms of government, at all levels, while they are the descendants of what have become historical models of how to institute checks and balances and protections against domination of public policy by vested interests, have almost entirely failed in actually protecting the society from control by oligarchs whose interests are directly inimical to not only the interests, but the stated beliefs and intentions of the majority of citizens. Our politics has been nearly completely hijacked by the power of money, and the ideological tenor of our elected representatives is far more regressive, and specifically, shaped by the dictates of moneyed interests, than that of most citizens. This is just a fact.

But the solutions to our problems are not, I believe, primarily, the re-institution of "Big Government." What we need is responsive government, which recognizes its function as serving the needs of the people as a whole, is not beholden to special interests, and which functions to shape the economy and direction of the society to prevent the excessive concentration of wealth and power in the hands of people whose advantages are, when really examined, invariably the result of unwise policy.

But at the same time government must encourage creativity, cost-effective and advanced technology development shaped not by a desire to concentrate wealth but to solve the problems of the society. Government should foster, but not dictate, new ideas, and entrepreneurship, while ensuring that the essential interests of the people are protected. We face huge technological challenges in the coming decades: how to ensure sufficient clean water, how to grow enough food for an expected world population of 9 billion at peak, how to create an energy and transportation economy that utilizes only renewable energy sources, how to restore a more localized manufacturing capability that efficiently provides goods and services, how to husband and obtain the needed resources to make a high-tech economy work in a sustainable way. Government has a role to play to ensure that new technology brings not only wealth for a few, but a viable economic system, for our country, with jobs and wealth creation here, as well as in cooperation with other countries. These things are not going to be solved entirely or even primarily by government programs, on the model of rocketry research and development after World War II that led to the "military industrial complex" which is now more of a millstone than an aid to our future development. Government will have a role to set the agenda, direct resources to projects that are shown to work (maybe through "prize" competitions), fund university and laboratory research, etc., but a lot of this needs to be done more on the model of the Stanford and U. of Illinois technological DIYers who gave us, in the original seed R&D, workable personal computing and the public dimension of the internet. (Building, it is true, on military research; again the government has a role, but ordinary people also have to be given the incentive and freedom to work out what actually works for people).  Government needs to encourage solutions, while setting, through public policy, some of the goals: more efficient agriculture that isn't reliant on petrochemicals, energy produced from renewable sources, smart rail and automotive transportation that doesn't require oil, manufacturing that utilizes emerging technologies and which produces jobs as well as stuff, etc. For example, we need to protect individuals' rights to their labor and intellectual property, but there is no advantage to society in giving a Monsanto a monopoly forever on a type of seed that is found to produce more with less land and resources. There have to be intelligent and dynamic regulations to ensure rationality and public interest.

In this, government needs to be responsive, not compulsive. Our society is greatly distracted by frivolity and nonsense these days, in which category I would include no only the Kardashians and celeberity idolization, but things such as most of the TSA security for airline passengers, which just doesn't make sense. We spend billions on "security" and "intelligence" that accomplishes almost nothing. (I'm not saying there is no role for security and intelligence, but these areas need to be openly scrutinized with an eye towards getting only what we need for the least possible expenditure of resources. Plus, if we were to spend more of our resources working on moving towards a post-oil public-focused world economy, I actually believe that many of our security problems would gradually disappear). We need to foster and encourage a steadily emerging new spirit of We Can Do It. Kids need to be encouraged, and incentivized, to think about solutions to problems, to spend time tinkering with technology, and go into math, science and engineering; fields which will be the necessary springboards for a renewal of our economy and national spirit. The goals of our public education should be informed by values: people working together can solve problems, for the benefit of people. Not selfishness, but a sense of synergistic development that benefits all. This should be the goal of public policy, and the ethos of our public education.

There is already a movement emerging to find solutions to problems without recourse to government. If we, through movements like Occupy and the general frustration that the majority now feel with the way our government is controlled by a small fantastically wealthy elite, can bring about a change in government: make it more responsive, resist and defeat the myths and structures that make it possible for certain oligarchs to virtually own it, ensure that it functions to regulate and encourage positive development rather than protect the interests of wealth-extractors, then a new paradigm of public and private cooperation can emerge.

I think this is the only viable way forward, but it will require that people power, the willingness to get involved and demand change, come to the fore. We saw, in Wisconsin last year and in the Occupy movement, that there is a level of dissatisfaction, comparable to what existed just prior to the Civil Rights movement or the Vietnam Anti-War movement, that may be about to take off. If this energy can be channeled, internally, by the hopes and desires of its own people, to demand changes that enable not a big "Old Left" "new new deal" transformation, but a transformation of government to one that actually listens to the people, responds to new ideas, ensures public interest and basic welfare, and encourages people to get involved in direct, to a great extent private, efforts to solve the problems we face in transforming our society into a sustainable one, then we just might be able to not only survive, but flourish in the twenty-first century. It's going to be up to us, as a people, to make this happen.
○DS

• PRAGMATIC PROGRESSIVE FOR OBAMA 2012 •

Data collection by google, etc.

I take quite a different view regarding online privacy of search engines and e-mail programs like google and gmail and its competitors than most people of a progressive bent. I actually take somewhat seriously the fact that a sort of meta-informational world system, of as yet unknown form, is in the process of emerging. We need to accept, I think, that what we do in a relatively public way, such as what we buy, what we are interested in and read, and what we say in public spaces, will be partially tabulated and utilized as significant data. Obviously we need safeguards to ensure that people who could take advantage, or governments, cannot individually identify information, but there is an implicit bargain which is the entire raison d'être of google and such; they find out about us, and direct advertising to us, in exchange for free services. I find this an acceptable bargain, with the understanding that if someone, including the government (without due process and probable cause) asks for or otherwise seeks to obtain identity-specific information about an individual, the privacy policy (and the law) need to protect that information from disclosure. In other words, statistics, stripped of identifying information, or use of data to steer commerce, yes, but use of data to gain specific information about people, no. This may not always be an easy tightrope to negotiate, but it seems to me the proposed alternative, of draconian restriction of the flow of information from users of the information superhighway to purveyors of commerce, would undesirably stifle what is likely to be the main commercial intercourse in the future just as it is really starting to develop.

Obama playing grown-up on Iran

Seems Pres. Obama is doing a pretty good job of playing the grown-up in the room on the Iran warmongering fever among the Republican presidential zoo.

U.S., Europe offer to restart Iran nuclear talks

Hopefully this initiative will blunt the war fever being ginned up by the man I've come to regard as evil, Benjamin Netanyahu. I can't be more convinced that pushing for war with Iran is horrible policy for the U.S., the World, and for Israel. Israel's security would be greatly degraded by the outbreak of yet another war in the Middle East. How is it that seemingly rational people cannot see what is before their eyes?

Robert Wright: Netanyahu affront on Iran

Please read Robert Wright's latest piece in the Altantic: "Netanyahu's Latest Affront to Obama".

2d Message to the White House today: get out in front on the Iran War Fever

Here's my second message to the White House today:

The President needs to cut off all the war hysteria on Iran at the pass. He needs to clearly state what his military and intelligence leaders have said: that there is no evidence that Iran has committed to building a nuclear weapon, and he needs to reassure the American people that we act in OUR interests, and will not allow our foreign policy to be dictated by Israel or anyone else. We will continue to seek a negotiated resolution to issues and suspect actions of the Iranians having to do with their nuclear program, but the White House will make decisions on the basis of facts, not on the basis of propaganda, or a drumbeat of war fever cooked up by vested interests.

I believe that the American people overwhelmingly DO NOT WANT another war in the Middle East, and if the President, as he is quite capable of doing, frames this issue correctly, the people overall will support him and it will inure to his benefit in seeking re-election.

First Message to White House: Get out in Front on Gas Prices

Here is the first of two messages I sent to the White House today:

Although the CFEC has failed to rein in the rampant speculation which is obviously the real cause of the spike in Gasoline prices (when domestic demand is actually LOW), the President can and should announce that his administration will investigate the unwarranted speculation going on in these markets. As Michael Greenberger has said, this would be like turning on a light; the cockroaches will go scurrying. The 1%er speculators, like the Koch Bros., who are responsible for this intentional harm to ordinary working Americans, don't want to take even a slight risk of going to jail.

The President already knows this tactic will work, because he said the same thing a year ago, and it was, in fact, the threat of investigation which drove gasoline prices down the LAST time they went over $4/gal.

The President can also urge Senate leaders to hold conspicuous public hearings on this issue.

High gas prices are a danger to our recovery, and a danger to the President's re-election chances, and it's vital that he get out in front of this issue immediately.

Thank you.

Still a Buddhist

I have strayed away, in the last couple of years, from what had been a fairly intensive involvement in training in Tibetan-origin Buddhist doctrine and practice. The program I had been involved in just became too much for me to deal with; and, in truth, especially after the passage of some time; I've come to realize that I really wasn't accepting some of the truth claims being made. The practices, in the form of training the mind to correspond to Buddhist values, I still regard as wholly admirable and undoubtedly the most worthwhile of any possible human endeavor, but some of the more peripheral doctrine I never really quite accepted and still do not.

Looking back on one of the very earliest posts on this blog, however, Why I am a Buddhist (2004) [link], I find myself still in accord with all of it, and hoping to find the time and energy to put into practice the core Buddhist "Way of Life" to the best of my ability and capacity as I go through the rest of my life.
----------------------------------------------
UPDATE, 2014. I find nothing in this 2012 post that I don't still hold to, except perhaps that I would not describe the parts of the Buddhist tradition I was studying (based on Gelugpa, or Kadampa, through Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's so-called "New Kadampa Tradition," which I now find to be both soteriological and supernatural, (and thus, to my hopelessly literalist mentality unbelievable), as "peripheral." Actually, they are quite important to that tradition, and to its sincere practitioners. And I certainly respect and wish nothing but success for them. But for me, the ethics, the mental practice, the discipline of developing the Brahma Viharas and of focusing your mind on the well-being of others; these things are innately good and supported by reason. This is Buddhism as philosophy, not religion, and there I hope to dwell and practice for the rest of my days.

Breitbart dead

I cannot pretend for a second to mourn the death of the odious Andrew Breitbart. If consciousness (in whatever form) survives death (an open question, I'd maintain), then I wish for him a better existence. His prior existence among us sucked.

Two important messages Pres. Obama needs to drive home

A couple of quick points it seems to me are issues the President needs to drive home right now, and take action on in the near-term.

1.  Responsible economists are nearly unanimous that the current spike in oil/gasoline prices is not primarily caused by normal supply & demand, but by unwarranted speculation in the commodities markets. Thanks to a turncoat Democrat on the CFEC, the Dodd Frank regulations were not really implemented. Still, the President can announce (and then carry out) investigations of illegal and "unwarranted" speculation. Michael Greenberger has said that doing this would be like turning on a light... the cockroaches will scurry away. (Listen to this --audio). It's also vital for the president to make clear that gas prices are the result of "1%ers" run amok, not the result of fundamental economic problems. This issue could be a big problem for the economy and Democratic electoral prospects if not dealt with quickly and decisively.

2.  Christine Fair, who is one of the world's leading experts on South Asia, has made clear that U.S. policy in Afghanistan has become completely untenable. (Listen here). The President seems to get this, but he's dragging this out. He probably calculates that the Republicans would criticize a "cut and run" policy. It would have been better if the Administration had executed an accelerated withdrawal last year, as many Progressives urged, but it's still not too late. It would have to be framed as "we've tried to help the Afghan Security forces to build up the capacity to defend themselves, but this is a two-way street, and the U.S. cannot accept responsibility for the corrupt government there forever." U.S. interests simply are not served by continued slow bloodletting in Afghanistan. Pres. Obama should get his top military leaders to get out in front and call for accelerated disengagement, then go on TV and promise an end to the war in Afghanistan sooner rather than later. 

Bob Kerrey

I'm no big fan of former Sen. Bob Kerrey, but if he can retain the DINO Ben Nelson's seat for the Democratic party, I'm happy to see him decide to run for his old seat (Nebraska) again. (As has been rumored and was officially announced today).

Controversy over Pres. of Fish & Game Commission and the shooting of a cougar in Idaho

Here's how I see this controversy. (See this for details). If Daniel Richards were responsible for a Commission to Combat Child Abuse and posted his picture on a website touting his recent adventures (legal and on his own dime) with underaged prostitutes in Bangkok, the governor would be well within his powers to demand his resignation for conduct which was contradictory to and inconsistent with his legal charge. I see going to another jurisdiction and gloating over conduct which would be a serious crime in California, and the prohibition of which it is specifically the responsibility of the agency for which he is charged with oversight to enforce, is comparable. Gavin Newsom is right and when Governor Brown takes up the issue, he should publicly demand that Richards resign immediately.

If we can't hold appointed commissioners to higher standards than mere technical legality of their conduct, we need to enact some regulations that give the governor the power to require compliance with California's legal and ethical regime everywhere as a condition for continued tenure in office.

I find his defense, the usual bait and switch, particularly egregious, incidentally. He says what the "real problem" is is budget cuts to his agency. That's rich. Coming from a Republican; someone whose party and its obstructionist legislators are directly and exclusively responsible for the budget mess our state is in. It's just unbelievable. This guy's gotta go. 

Santorum preaches biblical basis for climate change denial

And speaking of the poisonous effect of sanctimonious religiosity, see this on Rick Santorum's truly obnoxious preachiness on the supposed biblical basis for climate change denial (read: anti-rational idiocy; it's all the same).

Franklin Graham's not sure the president isn't a Muslim.

Today, one reads (see TPM) that Billy Graham's idiot son Franklin "can't be sure" Obama isn't a Muslim because his administration has given "Islam a free pass."

Sheesh. I'm starting to agree with the late Christopher Hitchens: Religion poisons everything. (Except I have to qualify the use of the word "religion" to mean the religiosity and sanctimoniousness of people so sure of their unfounded and unprovable beliefs that they think it's a fine idea to slander others and force their moronic views down others' throats).

Must Read: Ari Berman from tomdispatch: it's not 1% -- it's .000063%

See this (cross-posted to Huffpo).

We have to face the fact, now, that we are living in the most inegalitarian oligarchy in the history of the human race. That's not the same thing as saying it's the worst government, which it clearly isn't, but the fact that the smallest elite with the most unequal wealth and power now runs this country, compared to any other political entity that has ever existed, is just that, a fact. And in my view, it is a contradiction that we simply cannot live with and must change.

(See this, if you doubt this statement). 

Obama Budget: Theater but a step in the right direction

Although it's only possible to be happy about the Obama budget by comparison to the outrageously destructive policies of the other party, and one has to acknowledge that it is primarily a political document, part and parcel of ongoing political theater, intended to portray the Righticans in an unfavorable light with zero expectation that it will ever actually be reflected in policy, I still have to acknowledge that it represents a notable improvement in the policy positions of the Obama administration, and will likely help him consolidate his Progressive Democratic base.

For a discussion of some of the details, I recommend Ian Masters's interview with Thomas Ferguson on ianmasters.com ;  mp3 file; link here. Ferguson is on the board of the Institute For New Economic Thinking and a contributing editor to The Nation. Masters and he discuss "what is not an austerity budget, but one that calls for more taxes on the rich and therefore has no hope of Republican support, but yet might persuade American voters that it is the path back to economic health."

A Critique of Sam Harris's comments on torture and "collateral damage"

I have a lot of respect for Sam Harris, and his attack on irrational religious belief in general (The End of Faith, 2004). I don’t entirely agree with all of his points. For example, I think he is a bit too doctrinaire in condemning (I'm paraphrasing here) the enabling effect of “liberal” Christianity, in particular, as having the effect of giving a pass to irrational beliefs that are actually practiced and cause harm by more fundamentalist Christians. (He argues that, essentially, all of Islam is fundamentalist, which is also arguably an exaggeration).

Still, his arguments are well reasoned and very well written. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to consider the position and moral value (or otherwise) of religious faith in a world where the necessity of rational policy decisions is becoming more and more critical, to the point even of being a question of survival of our civilization.

He makes one argument, however, that I genuinely abhor, namely a claim that equates, in terms of ethics, “collateral damage” in warfare with torture. He argues that collateral damage is much more ethically problematic than is generally acknowledged; but that there are situations where it is the ethical choice. He then argues that, at least as a thought experiment (the “ticking time bomb” type situation), there are circumstances where torture may be ethically justifiable. (Not that it should be legal, but that it could, in extreme cases, be moral). Much has already been written about this (see his own response here), so my comments here are no doubt not original (especially since it’s been eight years since this book appeared). Nonetheless, here goes:

I think any equation of collateral damage in war with torture is simply fallacious. Harris himself elsewhere talks about “perfect weapons,” and the fact that they don’t exist; collateral damage is the intentionally invoked probability of death and suffering being caused to innocents which necessarily results from waging even “just war.” So far, so good. But there is no specific intent to harm; every effort is made to avoid harming anyone other than so-called legitimate targets, and there is an at least tacitly acknowledged responsibility to strive, continually, to make weapons ever more perfect, so that danger and harm to noncombatants is minimized, or, better, eliminated. These are the moral imperatives of those who would attempt “just war.”

Torture is entirely different. Even the most evil person, taken prisoner, is not only no longer a combatant, he is not even in the theater of war. He is in custody. Prisoners, who are by definition under the control of their captors and no longer capable of waging warfare in return,  in a civilized society, are treated not under the rules of engagement with combatants, but under legal process. I hold as an absolute tenet that under such circumstances, it is never justified to use torture. Not only because it creates a slippery slope where unchecked state power is likely to lead to all manner of hideous, and increasingly terrible, consequences, with more and more people falling into categories of prisoners for whom torture is deemed justified, but because centuries of terrible experience has proven, once and for all, that torture does not work; that its results are uniformly unreliable and indeed useless.

So, on this point, I think Sam Harris is flatly and entirely wrong.

Nonetheless, much of what he has to say in The End of Faith and the more recent The Moral Landscape  and Lying is very well thought through, original, and highly probative.

Message to White House on Contraception "compromise"

Very skillful statecraft in creating a "compromise" on the phony issue of contraception coverage, ginned up by Republicans as a wedge. It stole the thunder of the religious freedom argument while maintaining the fundamental principle that women need to have this coverage available.

The president needs to continue to make the interests of ordinary working Americans his main focus, and to devise strategies not only to win reelection, but to build a coalition for a new legislative agenda, and a strategy, including winning the Senate and persuading its Democratic leadership to force a rules change to end the supermajority requirement to pass legislation, to actually get a progressive agenda enacted.

This "compromise" and the president's recent commitment to prosecuting Wall Street Crooks, and the strengthened "deal" on mortgage fraud (while far from perfect), are all steps in the right direction which will help the President to consolidate his "Pragmatic Progressive" base. (Of which I consider myself to be a part).

Obama's end run on contraception

Although I find it a bit galling that any accommodation to misogynistic religious institutions is politically expedient, I have to acknowledge that the Administration's defusing of the ginned up (and largely phony) contraception insurance controversy was pretty clever. As I understand it, they said, OK religiously affiliated employers, we won't mandate that you be required to include no additional cost contraception in your health care plans for your employees. Instead, as part of the regulation of health insurance itself, we will require the insurers to do an end run around you and offer the same benefit directly to your employees. (Which they're plenty happy to do, since it's an established fact that providing contraception benefits saves insurers a ton of money... both abortion and childbirth care cost far more).

Sam Harris takes on the Fireplace delusion

Sam Harris (author of The End of Faith, Lying, and The Moral Landscape) takes on the the Fireplace delusion, partly as an analogy for rationalist critiques of the truth claims of religions. But what he's saying here is actually quite true, even though contrary to most peoples' cherished beliefs. This is one uncompromising rationalist, this Sam Harris.

Rightican Division good for Obama

I can see no reasonable conclusion other than that the insistence of the Fringe of the Rightican party on avoiding a seemingly mainstream candidate like Willard Romney, can only redound to the advantage of Obama. (Witness recent surge for Big Senate Race Loser Santorum last night).

Prop. 8 Decision ... might NOT go to Supreme Court?

The L.A. Times is reporting speculation amongst legal scholars that today's 9th Circuit decision in Perry v. Brown, very narrowly finding California's Prop. 8 to be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, may NOT end up being accepted for review by the Supreme Court. The decision (which I've read), is pretty clearly directed to Justice Kennedy, who was the author of the 1994 Supreme Court decision Evans v. Romer finding unconstitutional a Colorado law prohibiting local jurisdictions from enacting anti-gay-discrimination statutes. Kennedy is widely seen as the likely deciding tie-breaking vote should this case, or any "Gay Marriage" case, come before the High Court.

Today's decision is intentionally narrowly based on the specific procedural and legal posture of the Initiative Constitutional Amendment and context of pre-existing law in California, and will not have wide-ranging effects on other states' laws. The Supreme Court, the thinking goes, may well take a pass on this one, allowing this case to stand as the law in California, while waiting for a more general-question case on whether or not the 14th amendment is violated by gay marriage bans, in general.

NYT Op-ed the Voice of Sanity on Iran

This op-ed in the NYT on the shape of a possible negotiated detente with Iran strikes me as the Voice of Sanity. Listening, Barack? Hilary?