Wednesday, September 07, 2011

FINALLY!

A video game for the rest of us!


UPDATE: KO had a point last night: It's wrong to wish death on people like Sarah Palin or Mickey Mouse Bachmann, mostly because some right wing nutcase might use it as an excuse to shoot liberals, and so I've rethought this post.


A little. I think any nutcase will find an excuse (ask Jared Loughner) so I'm still thinking about buying this game.

The Author's Right

 
 
If only we could feel it.

Two For Two

 
Looks like I was spot on again yesterday, this time over Rick Perry's firefighting funding.

Maine Is Now Whoreless

 
No. Really!

Follow Up

 
My piece yesterday was pretty timely, it appears. People are starting to get really fed up.

Dennis Miller?

 

Trig Palin Is A Liberal

 
And his own mom endorses the idea.

This Is A Bit Surprising

 
Considering the munchies and all that.

Color Me Surprised

 
Normally, I don't really get into sports stories, but this was a bit surprising. The New York Yankees and Baltimore Orioles baseball teams played a game last night that was interrupted with a four hour rain delay, ending a little after 2AM.
 
In the grand scheme of baseball, this is unusual but not unheard of. In 1986, the New York Mets and Atlanta Braves battled until nearly 5AM, no rain delay...and then the stadium had a Fourth of July fireworks display, which annoyed the neighbors.
 
What's curious to me is, today the Yankees and Orioles have a scheduled game at 1:05 this afternoon.
 
I'm shocked the players union hasn't been up in arms about this, considering that day games on Thursday are an outgrowth of a union insistence in the last collective bargaining agreement that any games on Thursday where either team has to travel X miles to their weekend series must start before 4PM, in order to provide appropriate rest to the players and give them at least 24 hours between games.

VOTE PAWLENTY!

 
Any candidate who can shoot sparks out of his butt has earned my vote!
 
Wait. What?

Shoes For Industry!

 
It looks like homeland security will stop making you take off your shoes at the airport.
 
This was one of the more ludicrous security measures taken in the wake of the September 11 attacks, and to be honest, there were few things I dreaded more about flying than unshoeing in an airport on a cold snowy winter morning.
 
Maybe the meals. Maybe.

Dire Straits

 
Think you had it rough during the recent spate of bad weather?
 
At least you won't have to live on an oil rig.

School's In. Lie Carefully

 
Welp, I think this pretty much is the swan song for News International, or at least Jim Murdoch.

Tom Crone, News Group's former legal manager, and Colin Myler, former News of the World editor, told MPs on Tuesday that Mr Murdoch was told of the email, in which a junior reporter transcribed hacked messages from Mr Taylor's voicemail, in a 15-minute meeting in 2008.

Mr Crone said Mr Murdoch had to be told of the email as it was the reason the company had to settle rather than fight Mr Taylor's claim. Mr Murdoch's authorisation was needed for that, he said.

Mr Myler told MPs it was ''inconceivable'' that Mr Murdoch was unaware that the email indicated hacking was more widespread. ''I think everybody perfectly understood the seriousness and significance of what we were discussing. There was no ambiguity about the significance of that document,'' he said.

Buh-bye! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

Meh. It's A Start

$300 billion for jobs, is what Obama seeks from Congress.
 
Or about one-fourth of what Congress has gladly handed over since the beginning of hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
You know, when we could afford frivolities like wars of choice.

Diacritical Marx

I'm often struck by how the hyperbolic loons of the right wing of this nation operate. There's a deep dissonance to much of what passes for "thinking" over there, to the point I want to quote Inigo Montoya endlessly: "You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."
 
In this case, the word is science.
 
For instance, the sciences of global climate change & evolution are suspect "theories" (blithely ignoring the textbook definition of theory, by the way) mentioned in snarling, mocking tones. Despite the fact that there is more proof, for the theory of evolution and more evidence for the theory of climate change than there is for the theory of electricity, these folks still manage to believe if they turn on a switch, the lights will go on.
 
But neither evolution nor climate change is "settled science" in their view.
 
Ahhhh, but meanwhile, in economics, lowering taxes and freeing the markets creates jobs and growth. That's science.
 
Even though every shred of evidence contradicts these theorems and consign them to the junk heap of pseudo-fact, these know-nothings will swear up and down that lowering taxes is good for you and me and getting rid of regulations makes us stronger.
 
So wholly provable science is wrong, and wholly disproven science is truth.
 

Yet some of our top university professors, winners of Nobel prizes, and central bankers who are the subjects of adoring books, still preach the hyper-efficiency of self-correcting markets. They demonize the actions of policy makers who try to intervene to help offset demand contractions (as in the Recovery Act), impose regulatory structure on key markets (financial regulatory reform), strengthen social insurance (health care reform), invest in public goods (infrastructure spending), or pursue industrial policies to better position our national economy (President Obama's clean energy agenda).

The intellectual actions of these extreme free marketeers do not take place in a vacuum. They interact with a political structure comprised of lobbies and pseudo think-tanks to promote policies that, while wrapped in the cloak of promoting free markets, ultimately serve to redistribute growth to the top of the wealth scale. "Efficient market hypotheses" and "rational expectations"--the idea that absent government interference, market participants will make optimally efficient decisions--leads directly to supply-side tax cuts, deregulation of financial markets, the formation of financial bubbles, the acceptance of income stagnation, and disinvestment in public goods. And these measures, in turn, have delivered levels of income and wealth inequality not seen since the late 1920s, along with policy handcuffs that today have us arguing about how to reduce, rather than strengthen, regulations.

Shorter Jared Bernstein: "Braaaaaaaaaaaaaanes bad but good food."

Economics has been called "the dismal science" for good reason. It's bad science and usually gets the answer wrong (I'm aware of Carlyle's original meaning.) Economics, because it is so intertwined in the human experience, cannot make accurate predictions on its own. For example, it presupposes conditions that simply do not exist: rationality, perfect knowledge, perfect elasticity, free markets (or not.)

You can't theoretically test economics the way you can, say, physics or global environmental science. You can make limited predictions that might demonstrate some useful bits of information, but the application of that information becomes unwieldly, inaccurate, and ultimately self-defeating.

In many ways, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies first and foremost to the science of economics. Observing the phenomenon immediately voids the theoretical constructs involved.

This is not to suggest the economics has no value. For example, it's very good at helping us get a general understanding of how the world works from a commercial point of view. If you pull back the lens to a wide focus, you see a general application of principles, and they work pretty well: demand for a product does drive the price of the product up until supply catches up. Run a surplus of production and you have to lower prices to sell off the inventory.

Even socialism has value, as one of the few economic theories that tries to incorporate the human factor (it fails on other merits, to-wit the quality of that human factor. At least capitalism acknowledges greed as a motivator.) To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities, that makes a lot of sense. On a limited scale, it works rather nicely, too.

But I digress.

The simple fact is, economics has become so divorced from the real world mechanics its supposed to describe, as Bernstein points out, that we cannot rely on it to be accurate. For example, it's not unusual for a stock market to go into decline when the economy is bad. It is unusual for the market to go into decline when companies are reporting record profits and projecting decent growth into the future.

That's a disconnect. There's something manipulating either the market or the economy, or both. Bernstein points out the intransigence of the "marketeers" which explains a lot. Even gravity will be suspended if you flap your arms fast enough. The trouble is, eventually, gravity sucks.

 

Tuesday, September 06, 2011

More Moore, More

 
During the 2008 election run-up, Michael Moore was avidly pro-Obama.
 
I mention that because I am considered by many to be even more liberal than Moore (I don't own a gun, for example) and supported Hillary Clinton, a fact I get reminded of from time to time.
 
On Labor Day (in what has to be a beautiful piece of programming), one of the movie channels played Capitalism: A Love Story, which got me thinking: How does Moore feel about Obama now?
 
“I don’t understand why he’s chosen the path he’s chosen, why he did not come in fighting for the working people of this country,” Moore tells Newsweek. “He could have been a great president. He could have pulled us back from the abyss.” Instead, “he came in more as Neville Chamberlain, wanting to appease Republicans.” Moore hasn’t even decided whether he’ll vote for Obama again in 2012; he likes Jon Huntsman on the Republican side, saying “it’s crazy time over there” and Huntsman is the only “sane candidate.” “If the Republicans were smart, they would nominate [him].”
Wow. Maybe it is surprising.

Torn By A Huntsman's Pack

 
Essentially, next February is either the end of John Huntsman or the flickering ember of an insurgency campaign.
 
He's hanging his hopes on the reasonable and rational folks in New Hampshire.
 
His best strategy for the primary is to forge a coalition of people who are terrified by the prospects of losing the general election with the nomination of either Rick Perry or Mickey Mouse, I mean, Bachmann and the anti-Mitt sentiment that runs strong in states that border Massachussetts, where Romney performed most of his "wolf in liberal clothing" antics.
 
He could conceivably place a strong second and become a factor at the convention. If he wins outright, it would make the race very interesting. See, I think he's the GOP best hope against Obama, after Mitt. Beating Mitt would send a loud message to the rest of the party at such an early date.
 
He has his work cut out for him to be sure. A strong second place automatically positions him at the top of the Veep short list as someone who can win moderate votes, crucial in the general election (remember how Palin effectively moved McCain to the right when he needed to move to the center.)
 
But....I doubt he has the sand to do it.

I Bet It Gets Great Gas Mileage

 
The world's smallest motor: one molecule.

That's a LOT Of Fapping!

 
Sperm donor conceived 150 children.
 
Bet he has a blog....

Fab Jive, Freddie

 
Freddie Mercury would have turned 65 yesterday. If you haven't seen the Google Doodle commemorating this, hurry.

Ripe For A Gaffe

 
As sad as it is to say in a race for Senate, I fully expect the Wisconsin race to replace retiring Democratic Senator Herb Kohl to come down to whether the Republicans can keep their mouths shut about Tammy Baldwin's sexual orientation. One nasty gaffe, and a close race will explode.

M-I-C...See You Real Soon! K-E-Y...Why?

 
Because it was a crappy idea from the get-go and obviously, Ed Rollins couldn't get a raise.

Between His Rock And A Hot Place

 
While I'm reluctant to gloat much, because people's lives and homes are on the line, the schadenfreude is a little sweet. Here's to the photo op of Rick Perry, hat in hand, heading up the White House driveway.

A New Hope?

 
 
If Obama's finally ready to hold the GOP feet to the fires, something he has shown great reluctance to do in the past, then maybe we can start moving forward here.

Personally...

 

The Lost Decade

 
I'm going to make a concerted effort to get my 9/11 rants out of the way early this week. The tragedy still has too much emotion tied up in it for me to want to dwell until the last minute, when my maudlin streak will rear its ugly head.
 
You know what has me most upset heading into this ten year memorial?
 
What could have been.
 
I've written often over the past seven years...has it really only been seven years?...of my frustration of a nation on the precipice of a new century, a budget surplus and the hope of a brand new age of progress. Yes, we were in the middle of a recession, but it was a relatively mild one, a shake out of the fat in the dot-com boom. We've come back strong from those kinds of recessions before.
 
And yes, we had a moron for President, but morons generally don't do that much damage to a nation in four (or worst case, eight) years. There's inter- and intraparty squabbling, and factions form, and politicians jockey for positions. Bush certainly looked like he'd be a one-term President, lost in the office, popularity dangling in the 40s in not even his first full year in office (and that's without the albatross Obama entered office with.)
 
We'd have a debt of closer to $10 trillion now, instead of $14 trillion. There would have been no wars to speak of (as far as we can tell. Bush foreign policy was more focused on Russia and China.) The tax cuts probably would have passed, at least the first round, but there's no guarantee rounds two and three, the really economically devastating ones, would have been anything but a non-starter. Remember the attempt to privatize Social Security.
 
But 9/11 happened. It's hard to say what else we might have saved. To be sure, however, there are plenty of things we would not have.
 
We wouldn't have Alan Greenspan artificially surpressing interest rates, and Bush encouraging already debt-laden middle Americans from loading up on even more debt in an effort to be patriotic.
 
One reason I believe the stimulus package of $780 billion should have been primarily for mortgage holders is that it would be akin to a veteran's benefit: after all, we shopped and mortgaged to the hilt because our President asked us to, insisting we were an "ownership society."
 
We wouldn't have been bullied and cowed into submission by a government that believed to dissent is to commit treason, even if we could see the emperor had no clothes. There'd be no PATRIOT Act. Torture would be a thing for television programs, and at the end of the day, there'd be no using the protagonist as an argument to legtimize what we all know to be illegal, immoral, and sinful behavior.
 
We wouldn't have the logical end of thirty years of raping the American worker, stripping him and her of union representation against goliaths and behemoths that can stomp a mudhole in our own government. After all, the stimulus package had zero accountability, precisely because that was the term bankstahs dictated to Congress and President Bush. We wouldn't have jobs just folded up in the dead of night and exported, not to Mexico or Central America (which might make sense, if you're fighting an immigration battle,) but to India and Asia and China.
 
All because this quarter's profit was pennies less than last quarter's and woebetide the company that doesn't pay attention to the software that can pick up that nuance and short the stock and make it crash!
 
We wouldn't have Glenn Beck, the modern-day Father Coughlin hate-mongerer, railing about them. Sarah Palin would be sitting on someone's lap, taking dictation. Michele Bachmann would be trying to cure her husband of teh gay.
 
We'd be a better nation. A more secure nation, not just physically but psychically. We wouldn't see bogeymen behind every beard and under every turban. A mosque at Ground Zero wouldn't even catch the blink of an eye in the national attention span. We wouldn't have endless terror scares coinciding with the re-election of a President who was terrified of his own shadow.
 
You know what has me most hopeful heading into this ten year memorial?
 
What still may come to pass.
 
See, there was some good to come out of 9/11 and while I would not thank Al Qaeda from bringing it out in the mix, we ought to acknowledge the wake-up call we got.
 
I think the foremost good to have come out of the past decade is this: the politics of fear, so amplified and echoed, has been shown to be a hollow barrel after all. Eight years into the Bush administration and no succuessful terror attack was even attempted in the US. One could claim that was the outgrowth of the policies of Bush the Younger, but the American people saw through this and disagree, firmly.
 
Else, John McCain would be President now. Simply put, the US was shown to be a terrified little child, led by terrifying children. We were The Lord of the Flies writ large.
 
It is this focus of the people now that has me most hopeful for our future, for as much as I rail against the tyranny of the idiocracy, I see a slow (painfully slow) evolution in the American mindset.
 
9/11 woke the people up to the hubris of American society, of American culture, of American hegemony. Our belief that oceans protected us from harm was stripped away not by an ICBM, but by a Boeing 757 (or 767).
 
We were woken by the quintessential American transportation: the transcontinental flight that anyone of us could have been on that morning. 
 
If we could be attacked so savagely with such ease and familiarity, my thinking goes, then the very fabric of our society, the glue that holds this culture together, has to come under question. How could it not? It's not unlike finding your son or daughter smoking out of the nickle bag you hid in the back of your fetish porn collection. Clearly, you're going to wonder how things got that out of control. 
 
We questioned the need for war, even as we stood up as the patriots we were demanded to be and supported the troops. We saw the horrors that war did to our economy, masked as it was for the eight years of Bush by being placed off-budget, like how jobs were not being created, yet enormous wealth was trickling upwards. It had to bother us on some level that companies were snapping each other up like potato chips, yet each of us saw no raises or bonuses for ten years. Meanwhile, our taxes would go up, while those on the rich kept slipping lower.
 
And when the neutron bomb that was the mortgage crisis exploded, the anger that had been bubbling up since 9/11 finally was directed to the proper parties: the businessmen and cronies who had taken from us our God-given destiny of freedom and happiness. Remember how the American people flooded Congress when the first stimulus package failed in a late-night vote?
 
We elected Barack Obama, arguably the least-likely President since Harry Truman. He spoke of hope and change, and we responded to this. That's not a coincidence, even if in application neither has truly come to pass in a recognizable form (I won't debate the merits of Obama here expect to say that, on the whole, he's done a really good job, all things considered. It's this last condition that concerns me.)
 
In short, we've begun to reject the old schools of thought: the free markets will provide (they structurally cannot), lower taxes create an economy (they don't), Republicans are strong on defense (who got Osma bin Laden again, while the other guy fiddled?).
 
Indeed, even the old shibboleths, like the first rule of Socialism is you can't talk about Socialism, have gone out the window, slowly.
 
Yes, there is a significant percentage of yahoos and asshats and failed PoliSci assprofs who profess the end of socialism and progressivism, but they are winnowing out. We hear them only because they have megaphones, and the American people are rolling up their windows.
 
Fret not, my friends, my readers. This is a time for hope. This is a time for optimism.
 
This is a time for America.

Friday, September 02, 2011

Nobody Asked Me, But...

 
1) Apologies for my absence yesterday. I was under medical treatment for tennis elbow. I got it playing softball after an earlier bout of it from bike riding. I think God's trying to tell me to take up tennis.
 
2) The Zadroga Bill for injuries and illnesses suffered by Ground Zero first responders passed by Congress...after much arm-twisting by Obama and even Jon Stewart... made an exception for coverage for cancers until a scientific study was completed. I'm not sure if this is sufficient, but...
 
3) It was a maganimous gesture made by President Obama, rescheduling perhaps his single most important address to Congress of his administration so they could hold the tee ball game that is a GOP debate. The NFL should reschedule the Thursday night season opener one hour later. It's in the midwest, which is one hour behind DC anyway, and IT'S JUST A FUCKING FOOTBALL GAME!
 
4) But keep in mind "No presidential request for a joint session had ever been turned down."
 
5) Jonathan Allen needs an enema to clear his sinuses.
 
6) A pain in the ass is dead.
 
7) It's about fucking time. By the way, believe it or not, this suggestion comes from a Bush administration official, Glenn Hubbard:
Hubbard is proposing with colleagues Christopher Mayer and Alan Boyce a national refinancing of mortgage debt for the estimated 37 million federally guaranteed loans Americans have with government mortgage issuers like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The issuers would send borrowers an application to refinance at current low mortgage rates; the borrowers would have to be current or become so for at least three months; no down payment would be required; and the government would guarantee the new loans just as it chose in 2008 to guarantee the existing ones, meaning taxpayers would not be taking on any new risk.

A national refinancing effort could slow the number of foreclosures by making mortgage payments more manageable for borrowers who can stay in their homes if they get a few thousand dollars a year in interest savings. It might also stimulate consumer spending — Hubbard estimates $50 billion to $70 billion worth — as homeowners wouldn't feel quite so pinched. "A national refinancing would be like a large, permanent tax cut which would have a very big effect on the economy," says Hubbard, who has briefed the Obama Administration since he introduced the idea.

8) Please. Get involved.

9) Maybe Mother Nature is trying to tell us something.

10) Finally...this story appears to be serious.