Good night. And good luck.
Today I was listening to All Things Considered and, as it closed and they read the interesting names of all the producers and editors and writers and engineers and others who make the show happen, I thought how respectful it is of NPR to give these folks the credit they deserve.
Turns out it was the last time. Another courtesy removed from our impoverished culture.
The rest of the story:
NPR And On-Air Credits: The End Of A Thank You by Jim Wildman (NPR)
Managing a scarce resource.
Or gouging citizens with with a hidden and regressive tax?
I'm walking on Ocean Ave this morning. A patron runs out of the Loews Hotel, heads for his car parked across the street. A meterperson (his vehicle blocking the bike path -- unnecessarily, since since no one is parked on either side of the offending car) is writing him a ticket. It's 9:02. No grace period. Just then, two cars blow through the red light at the pedestrian crossing, going fast.
What are the priorities here?
#eternaltruths
Sack dresses seem to be enjoying a revival among teenagers here on the West Coast.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
Away, Segway!
I tweeted the other day: "Why are bicycles hassled on sidewalks but Segways, usually piloted by inexperienced renters w/o a clue, can go anywhere?"
Came this reply: "I'm gonna guess because there's a law against riding a bike on the sidewalk and there aren't any laws about Segways."
Wrong guess. Beach regulations specifically prohibit motorized vehicles on the bike path -- but they're there. And the CA Vehicle Code section 407.5 defines a motorized scooter as any two-wheeled device that has handle bars, is designed to be stood or sat upon by the operator and is powered by an electric or gas motor. Drivers must be over 16 and wear proper head gear.
Children are put at the controls of Segways routinely in Santa Monica. In general, Segway riders seem to have helmets; pedestrians, skaters and cyclists they endanger, not so much.
More to the point, "Operator shall not operate motorized scooter upon sidewalk." [CVC 21235(g)].
So the real question is, why does the City of Santa Monica, whose police department is targeting bicyclists and chases other types of motor scooter off the bike path, make an exception for Segways? One reason might be as simple as class; Segways are a toy of people with money. Speaking of money, another reason might be that the City makes dough off Segway rentals. Or -- money again -- the City is afraid of a lawsuit by Segway, an aggressive national company, if Segway Inc is inconvenienced. The cops say that the city attorney has redefined Segways as wheelchairs, thus exempting them from vehicle rules, but that legal fig leaf defies common sense and common usage and was adopted only after other bike path users insisted that the motorized vehicle rule be enforced (by the way, Segway Inc. calls its scooters "personal electric balancing transportation," "robotic mobility platforms" and "Personal Transporters" -- no mention of wheelchairs).
Not to make a mountain out of a molehill (oh, heck, why not): there is little argument that police and prosecutors have discretionary authority to selectively enforce laws, to make exceptions in the interest of justice, compassion or public safety; but selective enforcement with regard to entire classes of offenders or offenses is a symptom of tyranny. A government that routinely applies arbitrary standards to the question of who can operate outside the rule of law in one area will soon find it easier to afford the same favor to friends, political allies and anyone with a pile of cash. Even where favoritism doesn't lead to corruption, it undermines respect for law. There are so many ways today in which respect for law is being undermined by selective enforcement big (banksterism, for example) and small (putting your tongue in your cheek and calling a Segway a wheelchair) that citizens must push back where they can.
Segway can make a valuable contribution to traffic gridlock. The vision of a throng of Segways ferrying commuters who have abandoned their cumbrous, polluting, gas guzzlers for the freedom and frugality of scooters is exciting. Factoring cost, size and weight, emissions, and so on, Segways are far cheaper and safer to operate than cars weighing more a ton and in most cases spewing air pollutants (even a Prius weighs 2900 lbs). The City of Santa Monica has banished bikes from sidewalks (arbitrarily, it seems to me -- Los Angeles doesn't do so, and state law doesn't require it), but once you've made the decision that bikes are unsafe on sidewalks, it makes no sense at all not to hold the faster, heavier Segways to the same standards.
quote unquote
Guy sitting next to me at a Santa Monica Starbucks wearing a Dodgers cap with a big "LA" on the front.
Another guy (American, apparently) walking out with coffee: "Cool hat, man. What's that stand for?" Not kidding.
First guy: "Los Angeles."
Coffee guy: "Oh, yeah. Cool."
quote unquote: John Stuart Mill
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." -- John Stuart Mill
quote unquote: Henry Ford
"What good is industry if it be so unskillfully managed as not to return a living to everyone concerned? No question is more important than that of wages -- most of the people of the country live on wages. The scale of their living -- the rate of their wages -- determines the prosperity of the country." -- Henry Ford, born 150 years ago today.
Arab Sprung
Liberals are barely more tolerant of democracy than conservatives. John Kerry didn't screw up in praising the Egyptian military; he spoke the truth. Democracy is okay only in so far as it delivers desired outcomes. Generals and dictators are useful for making sure electorates don't make what their betters regard as wrong choices.
Time to get organized
The major unions should pony up a few dollars to underwrite a new organization, the Union of Unemployed Workers. The UUW would have two functions: to fight for the rights of and improved benefits for citizens who happen to be unemployed or underemployed; and to train a new generation of workers on the history of and reasons for labor organizations, so that eventually, when they return to fulltime employment in crappy jobs in the service sector, they'll be ready, willing and able to organize and join workplace unions.
It's not just Obama.
It's going to be important in 2014 -- in terms of manpower; donations; Green, Peace & Freedom and independent challenges; etc. -- to remember who is responsible for what.
Apparently, House Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi influenced Democratic members of whom we can usually expect better, such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Luis Gutierrez (IL), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Marcy Kaptur (OH), Chris Van Hollen (MD), Steve Israel (NY), Ami Bera (CA), Joaquin Castro (TX), Joe Kennedy (MA), Annie Kuster (NH), Nita Lowey (NY) and Louise Slaughter (NY), to vote to protect NSA's power. If only 12 of them had opposed the program, some spying would have been stopped.
That the vote was close is good news, however: it offers hope that opponents will be encouraged to keep fighting.
How Nancy Pelosi Saved the NSA Surveillance Program: "The obituary of Rep. Justin Amash's amendment to claw back the sweeping powers of the National Security Agency has largely been written as a victory for the White House and NSA chief Keith Alexander, who lobbied the Hill aggressively in the days and hours ahead of Wednesday's shockingly close vote. But Hill sources say most of the credit for the amendment's defeat goes to someone else: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. It's an odd turn, considering that Pelosi has been, on many occasions, a vocal surveillance critic...."
The rest of the story: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/25/how_nancy_pelosi_saved_the_nsa_surveillance_program
More on possible congressional resistance to domestic spying: Six Ways Congress May Reform NSA Snooping
Apparently, House Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi influenced Democratic members of whom we can usually expect better, such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Luis Gutierrez (IL), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Marcy Kaptur (OH), Chris Van Hollen (MD), Steve Israel (NY), Ami Bera (CA), Joaquin Castro (TX), Joe Kennedy (MA), Annie Kuster (NH), Nita Lowey (NY) and Louise Slaughter (NY), to vote to protect NSA's power. If only 12 of them had opposed the program, some spying would have been stopped.
That the vote was close is good news, however: it offers hope that opponents will be encouraged to keep fighting.
How Nancy Pelosi Saved the NSA Surveillance Program: "The obituary of Rep. Justin Amash's amendment to claw back the sweeping powers of the National Security Agency has largely been written as a victory for the White House and NSA chief Keith Alexander, who lobbied the Hill aggressively in the days and hours ahead of Wednesday's shockingly close vote. But Hill sources say most of the credit for the amendment's defeat goes to someone else: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. It's an odd turn, considering that Pelosi has been, on many occasions, a vocal surveillance critic...."
The rest of the story: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/25/how_nancy_pelosi_saved_the_nsa_surveillance_program
More on possible congressional resistance to domestic spying: Six Ways Congress May Reform NSA Snooping
1) Raise the standard for what records are considered “relevant.”
2) Require NSA analysts to obtain court approval before searching metadata.
3) Declassify Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions.
4) Change the way Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges are appointed.
5) Appoint a public advocate to argue before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
6) End phone metadata collection on constitutional grounds.
Move along. Nothing to see here,
Don't read too much into the administration's "impatience" with Pres. Karzai. Even if the combat troops are pulled out earlier than the end of next year, "advisers" will stay and you can count on billions of your dollars going to Afghanistan into the distant future, even as our own infrastructure problems continue to fester.
Billions for Kabul; nothing for Detroit.
Privacy notes from all over
A government’s first job is to protect its citizens, but it should do that job with the public's informed consent, not demand blind trust; we should thank Edward Snowden for making public the awesome extent of the NSA's surveillance of our electronic communications, because now we can have a proper debate about whether we think a ramped-up level of surveillance is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. But if we decide that we're not willing to trade some of our privacy for security, what do we do about Google and its cohort? If we decide it isn't okay for the government to invade our privacy to make us safe, why would we continue to permit Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Bing, et al to build digital dossiers on us just to sell us stuff?
Tonkin in the Desert
US intelligence now has “high confidence” that 100-150 have been killed in Syria so far by chemical weapons (aka WMDs), thus crossing POTUS' "line in the sand." Ninety-trhree thousand have been killed by other means in the course of the civil war. Surely, it's only coincidental that this finding follows on the heels of Hezbollah's arrival on the scene last week. Welcome to our latest war of choice.
Truth
"From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation and world that we leave to our children." -- President Barack Obama, 2013-05-23
quote unquote Dorothy Parker
In 1939, Dorothy Parker wrote about her social conscience in an essay called "Not Enough." Here's the opening ...
I think I knew first what side I was on when I was about five years old, at which time nobody was safe from buffaloes. It was in a brownstone house in New York, and there was a blizzard, and my rich aunt--a horrible woman then and now--had come to visit. I remember going to the window and seeing the street with the men shoveling snow; their hands were purple on their shovels, and their feet were wrapped with burlap. And my aunt, looking over her shoulder, said, "Now isn't this nice that there's this blizzard. Now all those men have work." And I knew then that it was not nice that men could work for their lives only in desperate weather, that there was no work for them in fair. That was when I became anti-fascist, at the silky tones of my rich and comfortable aunt.
I think I knew first what side I was on when I was about five years old, at which time nobody was safe from buffaloes. It was in a brownstone house in New York, and there was a blizzard, and my rich aunt--a horrible woman then and now--had come to visit. I remember going to the window and seeing the street with the men shoveling snow; their hands were purple on their shovels, and their feet were wrapped with burlap. And my aunt, looking over her shoulder, said, "Now isn't this nice that there's this blizzard. Now all those men have work." And I knew then that it was not nice that men could work for their lives only in desperate weather, that there was no work for them in fair. That was when I became anti-fascist, at the silky tones of my rich and comfortable aunt.
A story with 140 characters
Fiction on Twitter: From short short story to endless stream
It is said that Ernest Hemingway once bet that he could write a complete short story in six words. He was Twitter-ready a half century before anyone conceived of tweeting.
Last week Twitter announced that at the end of November the company will host a five-day Twitter Fiction Festival (#twitterfiction), “a virtual storytelling celebration held entirely on Twitter,” inviting creative experiments in storytelling from authors around the world.
According to Twitter, it has hosted great experiments in fiction already, from Jennifer Egan’s “Black Box” to Teju Cole’s “Small Fates” to Dan Sinker’s @mayoremanuel. And Twitter notes it has even inspired some literary criticism.
To get into the spirit of things, and without getting into the whole business of streaming and interaction as components of twitter-fiction (working within the limitations of the classic tweet, you could say), I came up with this tweet-length short short story:
On the desiccated, recalescent planet, barren at last, the desolated creature, a cockroach, grief-maddened, devoured the corpse of its mate.
Hemingway won the bet, by the way. As the story goes (and the anecdote itself may be fiction), he scribbled “For sale: baby shoes, never used” to take home the pot.
It is said that Ernest Hemingway once bet that he could write a complete short story in six words. He was Twitter-ready a half century before anyone conceived of tweeting.
Last week Twitter announced that at the end of November the company will host a five-day Twitter Fiction Festival (#twitterfiction), “a virtual storytelling celebration held entirely on Twitter,” inviting creative experiments in storytelling from authors around the world.
According to Twitter, it has hosted great experiments in fiction already, from Jennifer Egan’s “Black Box” to Teju Cole’s “Small Fates” to Dan Sinker’s @mayoremanuel. And Twitter notes it has even inspired some literary criticism.
To get into the spirit of things, and without getting into the whole business of streaming and interaction as components of twitter-fiction (working within the limitations of the classic tweet, you could say), I came up with this tweet-length short short story:
On the desiccated, recalescent planet, barren at last, the desolated creature, a cockroach, grief-maddened, devoured the corpse of its mate.
Hemingway won the bet, by the way. As the story goes (and the anecdote itself may be fiction), he scribbled “For sale: baby shoes, never used” to take home the pot.
Unintended consequence #2,475,693
If guns are outlawed, only people with 3D printers will have guns.
Brian McFadden takes on America’s D+ infrastructure
US economic progress in the 20th century was based on having first rate infrastructure. Our decline is a direct result of our failure to maintain and improve it.
Where is Eugene V. Debs when you need him?
In Kentucky, where evil clown Mitch McConnell is up for reelection, " … there is some concern that [probable candidate Ashley] Judd’s more liberal positions would cause problems for down ballot Democrats … making some some Democrats nervous … prominent local Democrats and national Democrats, including the Clintons, are working hard to find an alternative … "
The Democrats are irremediably the party of the Center (while it would be satisfying to see the backside of McConnell, a blue dog Democrat won't be much of an improvement).
The Right has a lock on the GOP.
The country needs a party of the Left.
The Democrats are irremediably the party of the Center (while it would be satisfying to see the backside of McConnell, a blue dog Democrat won't be much of an improvement).
The Right has a lock on the GOP.
The country needs a party of the Left.
"John Gabree was at The Tree House."
Really Facebook?
John Gabree doesn't even know what The Tree House is.
Fact vs Fiction
Whether or not its Satan has been made deliberately remindful of Barack Obama, I can't understand why something called the History Channel is dramatizing ooga booga from the Judeo-Christian bible. I can understand why they might want to undertake a historical look at the book's long and troubled history. But won't a dramatization likely be taken by many of the viewership's slower members to be "history"?
Back story
"Mr. Katz has had previous troubles. A veterinarian by trade, he was once accused of illegally disposing of a dead German shepherd, and another time of allegedly attacking a Chihuahua he was treating. Both times, he said, he was exonerated." -- From an article in the Times Friday about New York Republican assemblyman Stephen M. Katz's arrest for marijuana possession during a traffic stop for speeding.
By the way, the assemblyman, who is a member of the chamber’s Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, voted last year against a bill that would have legalized medical pot.
By the way, the assemblyman, who is a member of the chamber’s Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, voted last year against a bill that would have legalized medical pot.
Rational but impractical
We will never have a truly representative democracy as long as 350,000 people in one state have the same voting power as 35,000,000 people in another state. Here's what the states would like if they had equal populations. Note that some states are drawn to take account of socioeconomic factors; for example, western PA and western NY are joined together because they have they have more in common with each other than with the other parts of their current states.
Fifteen or Fight!
For someone so ept at electoral politics, Barack Obama has repeatedly shown himself to be artless when it comes to the political side of governance. Over and over again the president has entered policy negotiations with low-ball proposals that set-up compromises that, in real terms, hand victory to his opponents.
Take the $9 minimum wage proposal. A person making $9 an hour will earn, before deductions, $360 a week. That's working a full week, but many retail and service jobs offer much shorter hours. Even a worker lucky enough to land two full-time jobs -- 80 hours a week -- would take home less than $720 a week after deductions. Clearly, a minimum wage of $9 is insufficient if the goal is to assure that, as the president said, no one with a full time job should have to live in poverty.
The problem with Obama's maladroit handling of negotiations with the conservatives is that he establishes benchmarks that, while they may achieve "compromise," not only don't fix the problem being addressed but make it more unlikely that a better result can be achieved in the future (think of health care reform).
As politics, $9 barely makes sense; as policy, it's ridiculous. Labor and liberals should have nothing to do with it.
Take the $9 minimum wage proposal. A person making $9 an hour will earn, before deductions, $360 a week. That's working a full week, but many retail and service jobs offer much shorter hours. Even a worker lucky enough to land two full-time jobs -- 80 hours a week -- would take home less than $720 a week after deductions. Clearly, a minimum wage of $9 is insufficient if the goal is to assure that, as the president said, no one with a full time job should have to live in poverty.
The problem with Obama's maladroit handling of negotiations with the conservatives is that he establishes benchmarks that, while they may achieve "compromise," not only don't fix the problem being addressed but make it more unlikely that a better result can be achieved in the future (think of health care reform).
As politics, $9 barely makes sense; as policy, it's ridiculous. Labor and liberals should have nothing to do with it.
Is there anyone in Congress or the White House, elected official or staff member, who would work for $9 an hour?
For someone so ept at electoral politics, President Obama has repeatedly shown himself to be artless when it comes to the political side of governance. On issue after issue, he has entered policy negotiations with low-ball proposals that set-up compromises that, in real terms, hand victory to his opponents.
Take the $9 minimum wage proposal. A person making $9 an hour will earn, before deductions, $360 a week. That's working a full 40-hour week, but many retail and service jobs offer much shorter hours. Even a worker lucky enough to land two full-time jobs -- 80 hours a week -- would take home less than $720 a week after deductions. Clearly, a minimum wage of $9 is not sufficient if the goal is to assure that, as the president said Tuesday in his address to Congress, no one with a full time job should have to live in poverty.
The problem with Obama's maladroit handling of negotiations with the conservatives is that he establishes benchmarks that, while they may achieve "compromise," not only don't fix the problem being addressed but make it less likely that a better result can be achieved in the future (think of health care reform). If a deal at all cost is your goal, $9 may make some sense; as policy, it's ridiculous.
Labor and liberals should have nothing to do with it.
Take the $9 minimum wage proposal. A person making $9 an hour will earn, before deductions, $360 a week. That's working a full 40-hour week, but many retail and service jobs offer much shorter hours. Even a worker lucky enough to land two full-time jobs -- 80 hours a week -- would take home less than $720 a week after deductions. Clearly, a minimum wage of $9 is not sufficient if the goal is to assure that, as the president said Tuesday in his address to Congress, no one with a full time job should have to live in poverty.
The problem with Obama's maladroit handling of negotiations with the conservatives is that he establishes benchmarks that, while they may achieve "compromise," not only don't fix the problem being addressed but make it less likely that a better result can be achieved in the future (think of health care reform). If a deal at all cost is your goal, $9 may make some sense; as policy, it's ridiculous.
Labor and liberals should have nothing to do with it.
Return of Medicare For All
Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.
Although Obamacare is an improvement over what existed before, it was clear from the beginning of the health care debate that the compromised plan would deliver neither truly universal nor truly affordable access to health care. The greatest fear of liberals who opposed it was that, by embedding the insurance industry in the health care infrastructure, it would prevent either of these goals from ever being achieved. As the deficiencies of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have become more recognized, however, a new opportunity has opened up for Congress to do what should have been done in the first place: establish a single-payer system.
The insurance industry will oppose single-payer with scalpels and skull saws, of course, but the fight will be somewhat fairer because the industry's reputation is even lower than that of Congress. Still, with little or no help to be expected from the White House, it promises to be a hell of a battle, one that will be won only if ordinary citizens are mobilized. You can help right
Rep. John Conyers will reintroduce national, single-payer healthcare legislation sometime this week. Before he introduces the bill, Conyers would like to have as many original cosponsors as possible. Please call your rep today and let them know you want them to cosponsor H.R. 676. Help them out by mentioning that in order to become an original cosponsor of H.R. 676 your member will need to contact Michael Darner from Rep. Conyers' office at michael.darner@mail.house.gov or 202-225-5126.
Already on board (thank them if you're in their district): Nadler, Schakowsky, Pingree, Grijalva, Ellison, Hank Johnson, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Takano, Holmes-Norton, Lofgren, Rangel, Moore, Chu, Al Green, Farr, McGovern, Welch, Clarke, Lee, Nolan, Pocan, Doyle, Engel, Gutierrez, Frederica Wilson, Cohen, Edwards, McDermott, Clay, Huffman, Roybal-Allard, Cummings, Yarmuth, George Miller, Honda, Christensen, Rush.
If you live on the liberal west side of Los Angeles, note the following absences from this list: Waxman, Hahn, Sherman and Bass (Capitol switchboard: 866-220-0044).
Resources: PNHP.org: Physicians for a National Health Program is a non-profit research and education organization of 18,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance
Healthcare-Now!: Organizing for a National Single-Payer Healthcare System
PublicCitizen: the Health Research Group of one of the country's most effective citizen's organizations
Welfare states
Red indicates states that get more than a dollar back from the federal government for every dollar paid in federal taxes.
Bailing
The reliably feckless David Brooks has this to say about the domination of the GOP by radicals:
"It's probably futile to try to change current Republicans. It's smarter to build a new wing of the Republican Party, one that can compete in the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic states, in the upper Midwest and along the West Coast. It's smarter to build a new division that is different the way the Westin is different than the Sheraton..."
"Would a coastal and Midwestern G.O.P. sit easily with the Southern and Western one? No, but majority parties are usually coalitions of the incompatible. This is really the only chance Republicans have. The question is: Who's going to build a second G.O.P.?"
Representative democracy would benefit from such a development, but here's an easier way to do it than by trying to recapture the GOP. Stragglers from the moderate wing of the Republicans, if joined by the neoliberals, now a declining and reviled minority among Democrats, would form a new centrist, corporatist, neoliberal party (the New Whigs?). The Republican Party under this scenario would continue to represent fundamentalists, reactionaries and rightist libertarians. The Democratic Party would take on its proper role as the champion of the middle and working classes. And a green party, maybe the Green Party, would carry on with an agenda focused climate change. A House with four or five parties could only function by building coalitions, making it far more likely that rational, practical and more representative political outcomes would prevail.
All parties in the legislature have an interest in reining in the executive branch. The Founders envisioned ours as a legislative democracy, and it would serve us all to return to that model. The assignment of power through winner-take-all contests has proven itself to be dangerous to democracy as well as to wise stewardship.
"It's probably futile to try to change current Republicans. It's smarter to build a new wing of the Republican Party, one that can compete in the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic states, in the upper Midwest and along the West Coast. It's smarter to build a new division that is different the way the Westin is different than the Sheraton..."
"Would a coastal and Midwestern G.O.P. sit easily with the Southern and Western one? No, but majority parties are usually coalitions of the incompatible. This is really the only chance Republicans have. The question is: Who's going to build a second G.O.P.?"
Representative democracy would benefit from such a development, but here's an easier way to do it than by trying to recapture the GOP. Stragglers from the moderate wing of the Republicans, if joined by the neoliberals, now a declining and reviled minority among Democrats, would form a new centrist, corporatist, neoliberal party (the New Whigs?). The Republican Party under this scenario would continue to represent fundamentalists, reactionaries and rightist libertarians. The Democratic Party would take on its proper role as the champion of the middle and working classes. And a green party, maybe the Green Party, would carry on with an agenda focused climate change. A House with four or five parties could only function by building coalitions, making it far more likely that rational, practical and more representative political outcomes would prevail.
All parties in the legislature have an interest in reining in the executive branch. The Founders envisioned ours as a legislative democracy, and it would serve us all to return to that model. The assignment of power through winner-take-all contests has proven itself to be dangerous to democracy as well as to wise stewardship.
Headway
Though what they do will always trump what they say, it is a sign of progress that Stonewall is in a major presidential speech in the same sentence with Selma and that climate change is acknowledged there to require action.
Oligarchy
Not to say we have a ruling class in this country, but according to Ancestry.com, Mitt Romney’s family tree connects him to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Pierce, Herbert Hoover, and George H.W. and George W. Bush.
It's all just a show, folks.
Former Ohio Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich, the House radical, has signed on as a regular contributor to Fox News, the AP reports. Fox News chairman Roger Ailes said he's "always been impressed with Kucinich's fearlessness and thoughtfulness on the issues."
Sound advice
Don't gamble; take all your savings and buy some good stock and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don't go up, don't buy it. -- Will Rogers
Guns don't kill people; people who are ticked off kill people
Places, people, situations, other than public schools, that would benefit from more guns: the DMV; rude waiters; tardy Warner Cable installers; anyone who quotes Faux News; digital media wannabes on cell phones in public spaces; Jehovah's Witnesses at the door; bicyclists on the sidewalk; Segways; Republicans; the DNC; texters -- in traffic, on the sidewalk, bicycling; drivers faking disabilities to park for free; dog walkers without plastic bags; tiny, fidgety "service" dogs in restaurants...
Water, water everywhere...
I'd bet the word I use most often in political discussions is "infrastructure." Along with education, it was infrastructure that gave us our biggest advantage over economic rivals in the 20th century. Natural resources are abundant in North America, of course, but it was government infrastructure spending in the form of railroads, electric grids, highways, port facilities, and so on (and a work force trained and educated in publicly financed schools) that enabled us to convert resources into wealth. Forty years of feckless leadership has squandered this advantage; a succession of Democratic and Republican regimes has presided over the transfer of public wealth into private hands, leaving virtually nothing to spend on the commons.
The penalty for allowing our government to devolve into kleptocracy is coming due, however.
Take water as an example. Even though it is more important to life than any other factor, we treat it with about as much consciousness as goldfish in a bowl. Even now, with two-thirds of the country in severe drought, with aquifers, lakes, reservoirs and rivers drying up -- even the Mississippi is close to being unnavigable for lack of water -- we routinely waste unconscionable quantities of H2O. And the crumbling infrastructure is making a bad situation worse. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, we "lose" 1.7 trillion gallons of water each year -- enough to supply 68 million people -- to aging, leaky pipes (650 water mains burst on the average day). As the population grows and the supply of water declines, we will be forced to make changes in everything from agriculture to personal hygiene. And security planners say international tensions caused by water disputes will be a further burden on our ability to be the World's Policeman. Upgrading our water infrastructure will cost a bundle, at least $1 trillion, probably a lot more, but the costs of not doing anything -- in disease, productivity, unrest, and so on, are sure to be far greater. If we fail to act, and access to clean water dries up, we won't last much longer than goldfish flopping next to a broken bowl.
As with all our infrastructure problems, we have to resources to set this right, but doing so would require two seemingly impossible changes in our politics: we would need to raise taxes significantly and we would have to reorient our national priorities away from militarism and corporate welfare and toward spending for the common good. Neither of these outcomes is possible unless there is a radical updating of our political system to make it more democratic. Constitution 2.0 is long past due.
The penalty for allowing our government to devolve into kleptocracy is coming due, however.
Take water as an example. Even though it is more important to life than any other factor, we treat it with about as much consciousness as goldfish in a bowl. Even now, with two-thirds of the country in severe drought, with aquifers, lakes, reservoirs and rivers drying up -- even the Mississippi is close to being unnavigable for lack of water -- we routinely waste unconscionable quantities of H2O. And the crumbling infrastructure is making a bad situation worse. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, we "lose" 1.7 trillion gallons of water each year -- enough to supply 68 million people -- to aging, leaky pipes (650 water mains burst on the average day). As the population grows and the supply of water declines, we will be forced to make changes in everything from agriculture to personal hygiene. And security planners say international tensions caused by water disputes will be a further burden on our ability to be the World's Policeman. Upgrading our water infrastructure will cost a bundle, at least $1 trillion, probably a lot more, but the costs of not doing anything -- in disease, productivity, unrest, and so on, are sure to be far greater. If we fail to act, and access to clean water dries up, we won't last much longer than goldfish flopping next to a broken bowl.
As with all our infrastructure problems, we have to resources to set this right, but doing so would require two seemingly impossible changes in our politics: we would need to raise taxes significantly and we would have to reorient our national priorities away from militarism and corporate welfare and toward spending for the common good. Neither of these outcomes is possible unless there is a radical updating of our political system to make it more democratic. Constitution 2.0 is long past due.
Tax Fraud
The primary justification for the negotiations b/t the WH and the GOP was the need to reduce the federal budget. However, the CBO estimates the budgetary impact of the fiscal-cliff deal will be that the debt will be nearly $4 trillion higher over the next ten years as compared with current policy.
The Hill: “The extension of lower tax rates for a bulk of the nation’s taxpayers and the addition of a permanent patch to the alternative minimum tax would add roughly $3.6 trillion to the deficit over the next decade… Other individual, business, and energy tax extenders would add another $76 billion.
“The extension of unemployment benefits would cost roughly $30 billion, and the so-called ‘doc fix’ would tally another $25 billion through fiscal 2022… the budget agreement will lead to an overall increase in spending of about $330 billion.”
The Hill: “The extension of lower tax rates for a bulk of the nation’s taxpayers and the addition of a permanent patch to the alternative minimum tax would add roughly $3.6 trillion to the deficit over the next decade… Other individual, business, and energy tax extenders would add another $76 billion.
“The extension of unemployment benefits would cost roughly $30 billion, and the so-called ‘doc fix’ would tally another $25 billion through fiscal 2022… the budget agreement will lead to an overall increase in spending of about $330 billion.”
Worse is yet to come
In the opening volley of his campaign to unseat John Boehner as Speaker, "House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) came out against the fiscal cliff deal passed by the Senate, according to Republican members in attendance at a closed-door meeting of the House GOP conference Tuesday afternoon." If you think you hated Boehner as Speaker....
Maybe we should stop electing Democrats to the White House and start electing democrats.
It looks like the new deal (an expression I am using ironically) will define -- absurdly -- "middle class" as any family making up to $450,000/yr or individual bringing in $400,000. The median household income is about $50,000/yr. Four out of five U.S. families make less than $100,000/yr. Fewer than 1% earn more than $450,000/yr. We've got to stop electing Democrats to the White House and start electing democrats.
On not knowing when to hold 'em
"I think the president made a huge mistake by negotiating over what he'd previously said was non-negotiable (namely, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000). Then the White House compounded that mistake by sending Biden to 'close' the deal when Harry Reid appeared to give up on it. As a practical matter, this signaled to Republicans that the White House wouldn't walk away from the bargaining table, allowing the GOP to keep extracting concessions into the absolute final hours before the deadline." -- Noam Scheiber
"Anyone looking at these negotiations, especially given Obama's previous behavior, can't help but reach one main conclusion: whenever the president says that there's an issue on which he absolutely, positively won't give ground, you can count on him, you know, giving way -- and soon, too. The idea that you should only make promises and threats you intend to make good on doesn't seem to be one that this particular president can grasp." -- Paul Krugman
"Anyone looking at these negotiations, especially given Obama's previous behavior, can't help but reach one main conclusion: whenever the president says that there's an issue on which he absolutely, positively won't give ground, you can count on him, you know, giving way -- and soon, too. The idea that you should only make promises and threats you intend to make good on doesn't seem to be one that this particular president can grasp." -- Paul Krugman
The chalk conspiracy
Well, sure. You give kids chalk and pretty soon they've become artists.
Chalk: the doorway art supply.
Texas DPS Troopers arrested Santa Claus after he handed out chalk to children at Tuba Christmas this afternoon. Asked to add to 'Santa's Christmas Wish List', children wrote messages like "joy and peace."
More photos.
Chalk: the doorway art supply.
More photos.
Law-Abiding Citizens Have Nothing to Fear from Reasonable Gun Control Regulations
A system of registration and insurance would protect everyone from effects of gun violence.
A risk of the current gun control squabble is that people with a history of mental illness will be scapegoated ("Guns don't kill people. People with mental illness kill people."). But as is demonstrated by comparing the nearly simultaneous knife attack on school children in China with Connecticut's tragedy, guns do kill people; other weapons less so.
Alas, a prohibition of assault weapons and bullets will probably work as well as any prohibition; in this case, as gun advocates warn, it is likely to mean that the only persons in possession of assault weapons will be criminals (and the police, but that's an argument for another day). How much better -- instead of creating special classes of citizens or another highly profitable traffic in contraband -- to make firearms themselves the target of reform. The licensing of automobiles provides a model (although in contrast gun control, since we're starting virtually from scratch, offers an opportunity to create a national system instead of relying on a hodgepodge of state regulations):
1) People who wish to shoot would be required to take a course in firearm care, handling and safety (similar to Drivers' Ed). They would need to show proof that they had fulfilled course requirements and to pass a test.
2) People with no record of violent crime who wish to own a gun, like those who seek to own a car, would be required to register the weapon and show proof that the weapon is insured: if the gun causes injury in the commission of a crime or through accident or negligence, the victims will be compensated, even if through theft or loss the registered owner no longer possesses or controls the weapon.
3) A national database would track firearms. If you buy a car, truck or motorcycle, that vehicle's record of involvement in accidents, recalls, etc., is easily available to you by a simple check of the VIN. Gun manufacturers would enter the serial numbers of new guns into the database and that number would be reported each time the weapon changed hands as it moved through distribution channels to owners. Gun manufacturers and distributors would carry insurance on weapons under their nominal control. Except for a small additional cost in fees and insurance spread across the industry and the entire 40% of the population that is armed, this system would be no more onerous than auto registration and insurance (the reason to insure weapons instead of users is to guarantee that no matter what the particular situation a victim of gun violence will be compensated). A portion of registration fees or insurance charges would need to be set aside for persons injured by non-registered firearms.
A system of this sort would go a considerable way toward making guns safer -- by separating the criminal population more clearly from the mass of lawful guns owners; by lessening the likelihood of accidents; and by reducing the impact of gun misuse on victims by the application of personal injury liability insurance to firearms -- without creating new populations of second-class citizens (for example, by using such squishy notions as a "history" of "mental illness").
A risk of the current gun control squabble is that people with a history of mental illness will be scapegoated ("Guns don't kill people. People with mental illness kill people."). But as is demonstrated by comparing the nearly simultaneous knife attack on school children in China with Connecticut's tragedy, guns do kill people; other weapons less so.
Alas, a prohibition of assault weapons and bullets will probably work as well as any prohibition; in this case, as gun advocates warn, it is likely to mean that the only persons in possession of assault weapons will be criminals (and the police, but that's an argument for another day). How much better -- instead of creating special classes of citizens or another highly profitable traffic in contraband -- to make firearms themselves the target of reform. The licensing of automobiles provides a model (although in contrast gun control, since we're starting virtually from scratch, offers an opportunity to create a national system instead of relying on a hodgepodge of state regulations):
1) People who wish to shoot would be required to take a course in firearm care, handling and safety (similar to Drivers' Ed). They would need to show proof that they had fulfilled course requirements and to pass a test.
2) People with no record of violent crime who wish to own a gun, like those who seek to own a car, would be required to register the weapon and show proof that the weapon is insured: if the gun causes injury in the commission of a crime or through accident or negligence, the victims will be compensated, even if through theft or loss the registered owner no longer possesses or controls the weapon.
3) A national database would track firearms. If you buy a car, truck or motorcycle, that vehicle's record of involvement in accidents, recalls, etc., is easily available to you by a simple check of the VIN. Gun manufacturers would enter the serial numbers of new guns into the database and that number would be reported each time the weapon changed hands as it moved through distribution channels to owners. Gun manufacturers and distributors would carry insurance on weapons under their nominal control. Except for a small additional cost in fees and insurance spread across the industry and the entire 40% of the population that is armed, this system would be no more onerous than auto registration and insurance (the reason to insure weapons instead of users is to guarantee that no matter what the particular situation a victim of gun violence will be compensated). A portion of registration fees or insurance charges would need to be set aside for persons injured by non-registered firearms.
A system of this sort would go a considerable way toward making guns safer -- by separating the criminal population more clearly from the mass of lawful guns owners; by lessening the likelihood of accidents; and by reducing the impact of gun misuse on victims by the application of personal injury liability insurance to firearms -- without creating new populations of second-class citizens (for example, by using such squishy notions as a "history" of "mental illness").
Holiday or Holy Day
Although the Third Street business district is only a quasi-governmental organization, the space at Wilshire and Third is clearly public property. How does the daily lighting of a menorah during Hanukkah on public property not violate the Establishment Clause when the chicken-wire nativity jails that were finally barred from Ocean Park obviously do? Doesn't it trivialize Judaism to excuse the lighting of menorot by setting the tradition on a secular par with decorating Christmas trees? Dressing evergreens is a rite picked up from pre-Christian Central Europe and has no religious symbolism whatsoever. It's true that nativity scenes are a clearer First Amendment violation, having no existence independent of Christian mythology, whereas the menorah (or at least the graphic representation of a particular historical menorah) has been given a secular role by being adopted by Israel as a symbol of the Jewish people, but as Israel has evolved toward theocracy the identification of the menorah with the State of Israel raises questions of its own. Anyway, sticking to the question of separation of church and state, shouldn't the menorah be on private property every bit as much as the creche?
Whats' right is right
I never liked safety net.
And entitlement is worse. An entitlement, a concept in law, is a right granted by statute or contract. Of course, right wing polemicists can give a negative spin to any word -- look what they've done to liberal" and socialist -- but by sounding privileged, entitlement makes their job particularly easy.
A better word is sitting in front of us: Right.
Let's drop entitlement. From now on, it's right all the way.
Right to Medicare. Right to Social Security. Right to unemployment insurance. Because underneath the rhetoric, it is the deeper sense of right that is really being addressed. Right as opposed to wrong. The right to a dignified old age. The right to medical care. The right to a roof over your head and a sufficiency of food on the table.
So no more entitlements.
It's rights from now on.
And entitlement is worse. An entitlement, a concept in law, is a right granted by statute or contract. Of course, right wing polemicists can give a negative spin to any word -- look what they've done to liberal" and socialist -- but by sounding privileged, entitlement makes their job particularly easy.
A better word is sitting in front of us: Right.
Let's drop entitlement. From now on, it's right all the way.
Right to Medicare. Right to Social Security. Right to unemployment insurance. Because underneath the rhetoric, it is the deeper sense of right that is really being addressed. Right as opposed to wrong. The right to a dignified old age. The right to medical care. The right to a roof over your head and a sufficiency of food on the table.
So no more entitlements.
It's rights from now on.
Where is Horatio Alger when you need him?
The Economist ranks US 16th best place to be be born: above us on the list are nothing but socialist hellholes with confiscatory taxes.
This administration brought to you by...
"If Obama does give in to the money [to privatize the inauguration], he should have to take the oath of office in a suit and tie emblazoned – like a NASCAR driver – with the logos of his sponsoring corporations." -- Jim Hightower
A cup too far?
Over the weekend, Starbucks introduced the first $7.00 cup of coffee (a grande Costa Rica Finca Palmilera - $40 for an 8 oz bag).
Too much?
Too much?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
