SighCarly

Noted golden-parachute owner Carly Fiorina is running for president. Or she has a book coming out -- no one is sure. In the meantime, she continues to prove why HP wanted her gone so badly because she knows so little about technology. Somehow, she was able to double-click MS Word and type nearly 800 of the wrong words about the menace of net neutrality.

Ms Firoina's missive has got it all: scare quotes, poor analogies, complaints of laws having too many pages, and, of course, an early mention of her running an $87-billion company. But, strangely, no mention that she was such a hapless, terrible CEO that the company threw lots of money at her to go away.

To quickly recap (and hopefully explain to Ms Fiorina) proponents of net neutrality argue that content owners (Netflix, HBO, Google, terrible bloggers) should all be equal. Internet Service Providers, or ISPs, like Verizon and Comcast, should not treat content differently. And, in turn, they should not charge for content differently. This is the crux of the argument: if ISPs create two different Internets, that could spell trouble for the innovation that Fiorina knows nothing about, because not everyone can afford to be in the alleged fast lane.

In other words, these laws prevent ISPs from throttling or blocking content in exchange for fees

Fiornia's argument that the internet will now be governed by antiquated 20th century laws is bullshit. This have been oft repeated by similarly uninformed opponents/liars of net neutrality.

"Whereas the old Internet was 'permissionless,'" she writes. "The new Internet will require bureaucratic approval for the most mind-numbing minutiae and create huge areas of uncertainty."

This is flat out wrong and shame on CNN for publishing this, even with the standard "the views and opinions are of the author's alone" claptrap.

The Internet was never "permissionless." There are lots of rules regulating the internet. Her assertion is absurd on its face. But, not as absurd as Fiorina's presidential aspirations.

Currently, even with an open internet, there is no innovation or competition. Verizon and Comcast fight tooth and nail to prevent competition. They even wink-and-dod at each for turf; a literal The Wire.

Fiorina also tries to compare the internet access between Europe and the U.S., which is hilarious because net neutrality is all but kaput in the Europe., thanks to the lobbying power of its telecoms.

Then comes the usual whining about financial regulations (some are her best friends/bankers donated mightily to her campagin), Obamacare (how dare the government not let people go bankrupt because of hospital bills), and "everything in between" (which is pretty vague even for Fiorina).

I don't pretend to know how to run a large tech company, but I do understand net neutrality; Carly Fiorina pretends she knows both.

Happy Spring Holiday

I pray for peace to us all, and a renewal of the vow that we are all equals in the eyes of the universe.

Heartland Institute: Reporters Refuse to Report Nonsense Paid for by Our Donors

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph.D., a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, took to the oil-money-soaked pages of the Heartland Institute to wax pathetic about the lack "of views of researchers skeptical of the theory humans are causing potentially catastrophic climate change" in the news.

Mr. Cohen tells us about a recent study by George Mason University called "Covering Global Warming in Dubious Times: Enviromental Reporters in the New Media Ecosystem". I assume he does not link to the study because he does not know how, but he does know that global warming is not happening.

What is dubious about these times, you ask? I'm not sure. But I guess it has to do with what year Cohen thinks it is.   

The authors of the study interviewed "nearly a dozen journalists" who regularly report on the artist formerly known as global warming and found that the journalists find it "irrelevant" to include denialists in their reporting. I pray there is a fainting couch in the Heartland Instititue's office.

As Cohem complains, news editors urge reporters to deny that there is a debate over climate change. This is because, as Cohen omits, there is no debate; 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and humans contribute it. To most reasonable people this is called "journalism," which is not what Cohen is concerned about. Cohen is concerned about The Witch Hunt.

Jay Lehr, science director at the Institute, is quoted as saying, "What is going on now is a witch hunt, proving there are no longer any supportable facts that indicate mankind has any significant role in determining climate. All that remains is to vilify those in opposition.”

Now, I may just be a blogger hopped up on nicotine and a false sense of entitlement but, it seems that Lehr is projecting. Or lying. To say that the scientific community is all out of facts about the existence of climate change that they are reduced to maligning skeptics in an article maligning writers who won't report unscientific claims seems disingenuous. And stupid.

But hey, who are you to believe? Those egg heads at NASA, or Donner Cohen and his friends in the business of causing climate change?

The Other Reason

In the history of the United States, only three Presidents have ever been elected to the office of President of the United States directly out of the US Senate.

Of those, only Barack Obama failed to complete his first term (ironically, the other two, Warren Harding and John Kennedy, were elected as their first term in the Senate was ending.)

As I was writing my most recent post about the frustrations and difficulties either Elizabeth Warren or Rand Paul would face in getting elected (and I mentioned the difficulties Barack Obama had in governing), this post sort of popped up and started coalescing.

It's easy to blame racism for the reaction Republicans have had to Barack Obama. It is undeniable that the Republican and conservative base is racist and they pressure their leaders to conform to their thinking. It is also undeniable that the Congress is, taken as the whole, a white legislation. In particular, the Republican contingent, which if memory serves has precisely three black members.

I mean, it's hard to understand a people if you never ever meet one, except in an elevator or deli. Obama has a lot working against him on the skin color front, to be sure.

But there's another aspect to the abject hatred he engenders, a layer on top of the racism that might even justify the racism in the mind of the racists: a simple truth.

Barack Obama hadn't earned his place in line.

As with so much about this remarkable and historic figure, it's hard to make comparisons. Both Harding and Kennedy failed to finish out their terms, as both died in office.

Harding, however, was under investigation in the Teapot Dome scandal and a raft of other shady dealings and people. Ironically, Harding was accused of being secretly black. These should give a sense of the level of hatred he engendered in the opposition.

Kennedy, too, had a very virulent strain of haters across the country, in large part because he was the first Catholic elected to the Presidency, echoing Obama's dilemma fifty years down the road. Indeed, in the city where he was assassinated, Kennedy was vilified and excoriated in manners that, too, would echo in Barack Obama's administrations.

But let's focus on the microcosm that is the Senate. It's a very traditional chamber, an old boy network that relishes in the fact it is the place where hot-headed measures and rants go to die (lately....? Ted Cruz puts paid to that notion). And there is a very definite pecking order. New Senators are expected to sit in the back, keep quiet and listen.

That both Cruz and Tom Cotton of Arkansas are now perceived amongst their peers as idiots speaks volumes about this system. That Rand Paul is making as many waves as he is says a lot about his chances to gain the support of his Senate peers beyond the obligatory speechifying.

In short, the Senate will not be put in a corner. And I'm sure they've had quite enough of being seen as a step on a career climber's ladder. Should the next President come out of the Senate after less than one term, there will be hell to pay.

Too, spending time in the chamber and paying your dues allows you to create a network that you can work with (altho nowadays...?). On the other hand, it creates a paper trail of legislation that you;ve voted on, along with every amendment. Thus is why you see these bizarre ads about "voting for/against abortion" when no bill about abortion was ever put in the hopper. It's usually tacked on as an amendment to another bill that either gets voted up or down.

Obama suffered a lot for this, I think, because you'll note that some of the opposition to him in the first term came from his own party (Max Baucus leaps to mind). That a Democrat would publicly flout his opposition to Obama's signal accomplishment speaks volumes to the resentment folks felt.

It will take a long time for the Senate to overcome this bias, if it ever does. Obama's skin color merely allows Senators to ignore their more insidious bias.

Reality in Politics

I love me some Paultards.

Some of what I'm going to say applies to another candidate's supporters, but I want to draw a very careful distinction between the believers in Rand Paul and the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party and liberals outside the party.

Rand Paul is cuckoo. Rand Paul will never be President, even if he somehow manages to survive the primaries. His dad, Ron, made a great if futile run and so paved some paths for Rand, but Ron didn't have the same personal baggage that Rand has. Ron had some racist and crackpot newsletters, but they were published twenty years earlier, to be sure.

Rand? Well... let's just say "Google 'Rand Paul Aqua Buddha'" and go from there. Or "disabilities". Or the "Civil Rights Act". Or "Israel". Or...

He doesn't stand a chance. Even his political organizers have pretty much given up on him and we're a year out from the first primaries.

Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, would make a fine President, and apart from that annoying "Cherokee" thing, really has no bizarre past that she'll have to spend hours explaining away. If she was to jump in the ring against Hillary (assuming she's running), I would be hard pressed to choose between the two. Both would make great Presidents. Only one would make a great candidate in an era where issues don't matter anymore, tho.

Some of her supporters, whom I'll call Warrenterrorists just to distinguish them from sober, thoughtful folks, are supporting her out of spite for Hillary. Those people are the equivalents of Paultards, I think. My comments apply to them as well.

It's wonderful to live in a world where you can hang your hopes and aspirations on other people. Rand Paul (and with the codicils mentioned above, Elizabeth Warren) represents a fantasy figure, a chimera.

Rand Paul is Tinkerbell and boys and girls, if we all just clap our hands together, clap them real hard and real loud, Paul (Warren) can win! We like him! We really want him!

We can try, but it's not going to happen, less so for Warren than for Paul. But I get the metaphor: they represent some form of purity and morality -- or at least concise thinking that can be easily digested in a bite or two -- that people gravitate to in a nation bereft of truth and lacking a common point that we can all agree upon. We don't have a focus anymore.

Truth is, we've lacked one for many decades now, ever since the Soviets folded up. The American people weren't prepared for what came next, altho we should have been, the signs were there. The war on Americans, by Americans. The class war.

We're finally just waking up now, and if Paultards and Warrenterrorists want to, they can take comfort in the fact they are on the vanguard of that awakening and awareness. Small beer, I know, but I've been there on the edge of political change and it's exciting while you're there but even more exciting to see it take root.

The truth is, I really want a Lamborghini but I'm not willing to mortgage my income until 2119 to buy one so it's a fantasy. Yes, it's a great car to drive, and I could thumb my nose at so many criticisms and concerns because, Lamborghini.

So I buy a Toyota, and bite my tongue about it not being a Lamborghini and yes my Toyota, which I will call "Hillary," has her own issues that anyone else can pick on -- it contributes to pollution, the Clintons Toyota Motor Corporation has safety and quality issues and make massive amounts of money in this corporatist world --  but at the end of the day, it was the car I could afford that was the best compromise I could find.

At the end of the day, we all have to make them. Right now, Warren is my Lamborghini. But she's not going to win the 2016 election, at least not from this far out (things change, so I keep an open mind). I would love it if she did, but she won't. And I won't mortgage my daughter's future to the Republicans to tear the party apart in a losing cause.

This won't satisfy many die-hard Warren supporters, so I'm merely going to say that the frothy support of Warren now reminds me a lot -- A LOT -- of the same starry-eyed support a young man from Chicago had at about the same point in the election cycle of 2008.

How'd that work out for ya?

I seem to recall hearing an awful lot of supporters of President Barack Obama howl in desperation about his weakness and inability to get the campaign agenda put in place (by the way, in two years, he completed more of his checklist than Reagan did in eight), about how even with a (two month long) Congressional majority in both houses he couldn't pass a major policy (um, no, he did) and how now all he does is play golf and issue executive orders that conservatives tear apart.

Let me ask you: do you think any of that would change under Rand Paul? Elizabeth Warren? Paul might get a boost from Congress, but Paul is going to lose the Senate before he's inaugurated. Warren might get a boost from that same Senate (she's played the politics of the Hill rather nicely, it seems) but....well, let's just say that "Warren is the new black" is the mantra for 2017 should she win.

And yes when Hillary wins, none of that changes, and Republicans will make it tougher for her but heres the thing: she's been there, done that, seen it for twenty five years now. And she gives back with a tuned and measured response that not only deflates the criticism, but points out its flaws and foibles to the point of embarrassing folks.

In other words, she'll silence her critics. And then get stuff done. Even the Republicans will have to work with her or be exposed as sitting in Washington for sixteen years on their hands. Weaker Boener doesn't want that to be his legacy. Neither does McConnell.

And then maybe, just maybe, we can all take a long nap. We've earned it after the 24 hour temper tantrum that is the reality of politics today.

The Liberal Line Up

In case you haven't heard, MSNBC -- which has always had some pretty shaky ratings but can usually point to one or two juicy plums in their book -- has been suffering miserably since their most recent prime time shakeup:

Amid the cable news network’s declining ratings, insiders tell TheWrap changes are coming soon and “everything is on the table”

When President Obama was reelected in 2012, MSNBC was “leaning forward” and smiling wide as Obama 2.0 propelled it to record ratings and a firm grasp on the No. 2 spot in cable news.

Over two years later, the network has fallen backwards. January ratings revealed double-digit declines compared with January, 2014 in all ratings measurements. During the day, MSNBC was down 20 percent in viewers and 37 percent in the advertising-coveted 25-54 demo. In primetime, it fell 23 percent in viewers and 39 percent in demo.

The Whistle In the Wind

Poor Jon Chait.

He had the audacity to question whether the right of free speech comes with a responsibility on the part of both the speaker and the listener, and got hammered for it. In other words, he took on "political correctness" and in what may be one of the grandest moments of self-reinforcing demonstration, got spanked by the very movement he sought to critique.

First, let me say this: the First Amendment is the one nearest and dearest to my heart, and in particular, the right to speak my mind freely. It's what allows me to maintain this blog, and allows you to read it. Voltaire was credited* with once saying, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is what the First Amendment should embody. 

Second, Chait's article, the examples he raises within it, and the backlash he's received from the posting have nothing to do with free speech as you and I understand it. Our right to free speech is a contract between ourselves and our government, as it should be. In exchange for freely allowing us to speak our minds, the government is asking us to frame that speech with moderation, respect and tolerance; in other words, to self-govern. Self-government goes directly to the heart of the nation. 

Even John Stuart Mill agreed that free will is fine, in moderation. He deplored the act of imposing your will on someone else. The famous example he raised was doing harm to yourself, which is fine, so long as you harm no one around you -- including harm by omission, such as the case of not saving a drowning child, or failing to pay your taxes. (This is why -- despite the fact that #JeSuisCharlie -- I have a problem with Charlie Hebdo, but I digress.) 

Mill even goes so far as to postulate that a nation of barbarians does not deserve freedom, that despotism may be the only legitimate form of governance for a people like that. 

In short, Mill argues that every freedom comes with a responsibility: the greater the freedom, the greater the responsibility. To speech in particular, Mill points out that it needs to be unfettered, because even in the most objectionable idea lies a kernel of truth. 

It may not be the kernel of truth that the speaker intends, to be sure, but there is a truth in every viewpoint. For instance, if I say "I hate Brussels sprouts," the truth may not be that Brussels sprouts are horrible disgusting vile things that make me retch, but that I've never had them properly prepared. You can extrapolate from there the kinds of free speech that can come up and what truths they may contain.

Note then that this comes under the banner of responsibility. The individual speaking his mind needs to keep in his thoughts that he is addressing people who may not agree with him, and so needs to exercise some self-governance. For instance, instead of saying "I hate Brussels sprouts," I could say, "I dislike..." or "They leave a bad taste in my mouth." The speaker, keeping in mind he may cause damage to someone, needs to be circumspect in his words.

Here's the tricky part: in a "polite society," there is also a responsibility on the part of the listener to something objectionable, and here's where Chait is onto something. 

Since every opinion contains a kernel of truth and therefore has equal right to be spoken, every opinion has to be weighed on its merits and sifted through for the truth it contains. This implies a duty on behalf of the listener to stop, breathe, and think. To ask questions. 

If, after that, there is still a vehement disagreement, then it's a difference of opinion. This doe snot mean that one opinion is better than the other, but that truths have been revealed and it's up to us to decide the truths on their merits. 

Let's beat the dead horse of Brussels sprouts: you make the case that they are nutritious, full of fibre and vitamins, and when properly prepared, can be quite tasty (not in my book, that;s for damned sure). I make the case that all that's fine, but if I can't eat them, how will I benefit?

We may not come to an agreement, but society as a while now has a body of evidence upon which to make judgements for the greater good. Perhaps the majority will influence eating habits by encouraging the sale of Brussels sprouts, thus showing me to be the loser in the argument.

It won't change my opinion. Take it one step further: suppose now society decides that anyone who doesn't like Brussels sprouts is to be made to conform? Or, they exercise what Mill called "the tyranny of the majority"? 

Here's where Mill raises an interesting point: it's one thing for a majority to socially suppress an unpopular opinion, but it becomes a real problem when that majority resorts to the laws and government as a strong-arm tactic to suppress an unpopular opinion. 

We're seeing this more and more in America and that scares me a little. How many states have passed laws banning abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade? Or have tried to codify Creationism into the education curricula? 

It's one thing for university students to petition to ban Bill Maher or Ayaan Hirsi Ali from speaking on campus, it's quite another for a community to ban hoodies. 

Chait raises the spectre of this in his article, wight he example of Hannah Rosin:

Two and a half years ago, Hanna Rosin, a liberal journalist and longtime friend, wrote a book called The End of Men, which argued that a confluence of social and economic changes left women in a better position going forward than men, who were struggling to adapt to a new postindustrial order. Rosin, a self-identified feminist, has found herself unexpectedly assailed by feminist critics, who found her message of long-term female empowerment complacent and insufficiently concerned with the continuing reality of sexism. One Twitter hashtag, “#RIPpatriarchy,” became a label for critics to lampoon her thesis. Every new continuing demonstration of gender discrimination — a survey showing Americans still prefer male bosses; a person noticing a man on the subway occupying a seat and a half — would be tweeted out along with a mocking #RIPpatriarchy.

Her response since then has been to avoid committing a provocation, especially on Twitter. “If you tweet something straight­forwardly feminist, you immediately get a wave of love and favorites, but if you tweet something in a cranky feminist mode then the opposite happens,” she told me. “The price is too high; you feel like there might be banishment waiting for you.” Social media, where swarms of jeering critics can materialize in an instant, paradoxically creates this feeling of isolation. “You do immediately get the sense that it’s one against millions, even though it’s not.” Subjects of these massed attacks often describe an impulse to withdraw.

It is kind of brutal that a mass of dissenters descended on Rosin and effectively silenced her. Goodness knows, there have been plenty of times I've risked friendships for my feelings and opinions, no matter how carefully and sensitively I've phrased and expressed them, and I confess a certain clumsiness in both those arenas when faced with ignorance. 

And Amanda Marcotte's article (linked to above) points out that, indeed, there is a need on the left for a vigorous debate on unpopular opinions and not an immediate silencing and, more important, censoring of dissenters. 

It is easy to claim the mantle of victim when you read or hear something that offends you. I say I support Israel, but that Netanyahu is the wrong man for her leader, and suddenly I'm pro-Palestinian. Rather than judge the merits of that statement, people will read what they want to into it (that statement is an accurate reflection of my feelings, I should note), ignoring the fact that Netanyahu may have annoyed me for other reasons, like his attempt to grandstand in Congress this year or his signal disapproval of our President and his encouragement of conservatives' attempts to degrade and debase President Obama. 

All I'm saying is to keep a civil tongue and a civil ear. And to listen, really hard, for the whistle in the wind. 



* it was actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall, which is why you never see this rendered in French.

The Cowardice of Extremism

The radical Islam movement shares some things in common with the radical Reactionaries in America. Among them is the promotion of fear as a way to both unify and discipline those who would nominally identify superficially with their cause.

To-wit, let me bring in Juan Cole:

The Cowardice of Mortality

A couple of studies floated to the surface last year in the debate about ammosexuality that I found interesting, not so much for what they concluded -- we all sort of knew this stuff instinctually -- but for the implicit underlying meaning when you put two and two together.

A Year Gone to Pot

This past year has been one of so many developments in American culture that it would be hard to pick any one thing as a signal event in the course of our nation.

From the full implementation of the surprisingly effective Obamacare to the grand jury decisions in New York and Ferguson, MO, with stopovers at the broad expansion of marriage equality and Ebola outbreaks both in Africa and here, there's a lot to mull over, a lot that will move forward with us into the new year and beyond.

For all the world, it looked like it would be a horrible year for President Obama, despite the success of the ACA. The 2014 mid-term elections were a disaster (sort of. More in a few.) and it looked like an earnest effort to impeach him might gain traction in the House next year, backed by a newly-minted Republican Senate. Democrats and Progressives seemed as tho their work was cut out for them.

And then Obama -- finally -- flexed a little muscle. From immigration reform to the renewal of relations with Cuba, Obama single-handedly salvaged a terrible year and turned it into one of the most successful years of any President in history. Abe Lincoln might have had a more successful year in 1865 if he hadn't been assassinated in April.

We saw the darling of conservatives, Vladimir Putin, be revealed as a thug just ahead of the 2014 Winter Olympics in his home nation -- which probably didn't diminish him in the eyes of the folks who brought you PNAC.  (Now thankfully dormant) We saw the rise of that creation of George W. Bush, ISIS, in Syria and Iraq, the suspension of talks between Israel and the Palestinians, Boko Haram kidnap and terrorize women up and down the continent of Africa, a coup in Thailand, a World Cup in Brazil complete with protests over the wasteful spending, three passenger airliners disappear over the southern seas, and the deaths of icons like Robin Williams and Lauren Bacall. Stephen Colbert ended his Comedy Central show.

And that barely scratches the surface.

For my money, the story that will affect America long after the confetti is swept up tonight is, well, pot. Two states implemented the legal recreational use of the drug, and many more signaled they would allow at least medical marijuana (including New York State). Quietly, the Federal government has agreed to allow Native American tribes to grow marijuana on their reservations, and the spending bill passed earlier this month blocks federal funds from being used to prosecute citizens who legally use pot (i.e. for medicinal purposes under their state laws, as well as recreational use). This despite the fact that the same bill tries to overturn a referendum that sought to legalize use in the DC area.

Maine is now set to become the third state to legalize marijuana, and Vermont has already begun a statewide dialogue on it. As we saw with marriage equality, the cascade begins shortly after a handful of states give it a go.

So why do I think this is the story that will have legs long after all the others?

Think about the economics of pot as an illegal drug. I don't mean drug cartels and all that. I mean, prisons.

Specifically, prisons and the populations of non-white males incarcerated for merely smoking a joint as a third strike offense. Think of how many of these men and women will no go free, but more, think about the numbers of them that will be protected going forward from having a criminal record due to overzealous policing -- yet another side effect of illegal pot.

There are kids out there who won't see the inside of a jail cell, have their lives ruined by a criminal record, and forced to work menial jobs because of a criminal record (never mind the drug testing that goes along with employment nowadays). Who can stay in school and get an education. Get a good job and support a family. Improve their lot in life the way conservatives always demand they do: working for a better life.

The economic benefits that will accrue to America from that are nearly unimaginable: the rise of a larger middle class of blacks and Latinos is a big one. Access to mortgages for houses and student loans means a more involved minority community. More minorities teaching classes in school and policing their own communities means more respect for both professions. More involvement and more respect means a bigger voice in the political process, and that means fewer successful attempts at abrogating democracy will be made by old white men.

Pot is not a cure-all for all of society's ills, no. For one thing, DUIs under pot are increasing and its hard to develop tests that determine a legal limit for ingesting grass. That's a problem that will have to be sorted out, one of many.

But it occurs to me that the influx of "new citizens" welcomed into society rather than shunned can't help but be a net good.

Thought Experiment

You work for the only business of any substance in town. You make a nice income.

Your boss decides he needs to build a spite fence around a store all the way across town because it threatens his supply of some widget he needs to keep the company going, and he's afraid, terrified, if the price of that widget rises, he'll have to work harder to keep prices in check. Also, employees of another store have been seen shopping in his store, and those guys play rough. He tells you that you have to take a pay cut, because he and his friends will need to spend a lot of money building this defense and putting up a new security system around the shop, and his friends don't work cheap.

Do you agree quietly, or do you argue and protest that you need the money to put your kid through college?

Now, let's say that same boss comes to you and tells you that the janitor, George, is in deep trouble: his family can't afford food or medical care, his wife works two jobs, as does George, but they still can't make ends meet. He tells you that he needs to slice a tiny fraction of everyone's salary to help him stay at this job, because he works hard.

Do you agree quietly, or do you argue and protest that you need the money to put your kid through college?

This is 21st Century America, in a nutshell.

Something to Think About

When you want to think about the stranglehold corporations have on the US economy and her government, ponder this chain of events:

1) In 1896, Henry Ford develops his first automobile engine, the quadricycle, designed to run primarily on ethanol.

1) In 1897, Rudolph Diesel wins a patent in Germany (he was not the first, but he appears to have been the fastest to the office) for the eponymous Diesel engine, designed to run on peanut and other biologic oils. He demonstrated this engine at the 1900 Paris Exposition, winning a prize for the most important innovation at that fair.

2) In 1898, a Russian firm, Branobel, secures a patent to produce a diesel engine that will run on unrefined crude oil.

3) In 1899, Krupp and Sulzer acquire the license to manufacture Diesel's engines, and begin introducing transport vehicles from cargo ships and submarines, to trains and trucks via sublicensees.

4) In 1908, Henry Ford introduces the Model T. It originally used an advanced quadricycle engine.

5) In 1913, Rudolph Diesel dies under very mysterious circumstances while sailing across the English Channel. His body is recovered days later by fishermen. He exhibited, according to witnesses, no signs of undue stress or depression, altho the last entry in his diary was a drawing of a cross.

6) One year later, Standard Oil unveils a petroleum-based diesel fuel and begins immediately mass producing it in response to demand created by World War I and the enormous vehicles that had to be moved around. That same year, the "Free Alcohol" bill, passed by Congress in 1906, is amended, encouraging the development of ethanol-based engines.

7) From 1893 forward, John D Rockefeller, the head honcho of Standard Oil, donates $350,000 to the Anti-Saloon League to help get Prohibition passed, thus prevented the manufacture of ethanol. The first Diesel-type engines were designed in 1892 (remember, Rudy was not the first, just the fastest to the patent office). Standard Oil, breaking with industry tradition, does not dump gasoline into rivers after refining crude oil. He uses it to power his machinery. He understands that it's almost pure profit.

8) The Volstead Act is passed by Congress, along with what will be the Eighteenth Amendment creating Prohibition, on October 28, 1919. Prohibition is ratified on January 16, 1920, an astoundingly quick turnaround. All mass production of alcohol, including the non-potable ethanol, ceases in the United States.

9) Henry Ford removes the ethanol (and kerosene) components from his car engines in the 1932 model year by introducing the V8 Flathead engine. 

10) Prohibition is repealed on December 5, 1933. The Eighteenth Amendment is the only Amendment repealed entirely in the Constitution.

What two names leap off the page at you, time and again? Would you call this a timeline of fuel or of a feud?

Quick Update

I realize it's been a while...a very lonnnng while...since I've written an actual piece for this blog. I've been distracted with a project that I'm working on that requires a lot more attention than I thought it would. Please accept my apologies, but once things are in place, it should be a very exciting time for us all.

I hate coding HTML...

I'm Both Proud and Pleased to Announce the Launch of....

Radio212! For YOU, the Viewer!

#CrimingWhileWhite

As you may know, one of the responses on social media like Twitter and Facebook to the tragic grand jury decisions in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases, as well as to the countless stories of police abuse of power specifically against black men and boys, is for white people to contrast the treatment by cops.

The theme is for a white person to post their worst crime that they got away with, then attach the hashtag #CrimingWhileWhite.

For blacks, a similar trope of #AliveWhileBlack calls for a person to post the most dangerous encounter with either the cops or a white person that they survived.

It seems sophomoric, particularly as most of the white folks end up posting things like shoplifting or driving while drunk, even getting pulled over by the cops and being sent on their way with just a ticket or worse, a warning.

As I was writing mine up (which was a little harder to figure out. I ended up settling on smuggling Cuban cigars into the States, altho there was all that public sex,) the realization of the power of this hashtag meme hit me:

See, I could smoke a joint in public. I could walk around stoned or drunk out of my gourd. I could steal a Playboy from a newsstand, or smuggle a cigar in my coat, or duck down an alley because I really had to pee, and I could do all this in front of the cops and you know what? I'd never be suspected of committing any kind of crime, and moreover, never even be subject to arrest much less a potential date with death.

My brothers and sisters of colors can't say that, they don't have that guarantee that even if they "behave themselves" -- which I'm betting they hear as "Be good little darkies," because how patronizing is it for white folks to tell black folks how to live? -- that even if they are model citizens and speak slowly and carefully and in modulated tones to a cop, they won't be arrested. They won't be thrown into a chokehold.

There's no guarantee they won't be shot. If the African American or Latino version of me ducks down an alley and a cop sees him, the cop isn't thinking that the guy just needs to pee really badly, and he's going to follow that Carl, and bad things are going to happen.

If a cop sees me standing there, back to the street, legs wide, he's going to assume I'm taking a leak and turn away, because the devil you don't know. If he sees the darker version of me, he's going to look down and see if there's something worth investigating, and even if he decides there's nothing more than an urgent call of nature, he may still decide to primp his statistics and arrest the guy.

If I'm driving too fast, the cop will pull me over and while he won't be completely relaxed until he's reached my car and ascertained I'm just a moron -- and yes, I've had cops yell at me to remain in my vehicle or keep my hands in view -- if this happens to the minority Me, he's not even going to relax once he's got my license and registration in hand.

It's a stunning realization once you start to put it in perspective, this imbalance in treatment by law enforcement officers. And here's the thing that I really want to stress: these are not random cops who are deciding to let me go while harassing a black man or Latino. In some instances, they really are all but KKK members (I know, I've dealt with a few NYPD brass who with a straight face will call black and Latinos "thugs and gang-bangers.") In most instances, these are the good guys who swear they aren't racist but who have had an institutional racism drummed into their heads from day one that a dark skinned man is scary and even subhuman.

The worst part is, they're right, they aren't really racist until they are out on the streets "To protect and serve". They forget the second part of that and are overzealous in the first. And that has to stop. And that's going to take all of us to read those hashtags and realize we have to link arms and stand up.

Bernie Sanders Speaks Truth. Sort Of.

I love Bernie Sanders. I want to have his babby. 

However, I think he needs to step back from this. His agenda is too easily co-opted by moderates and conservatives. It's a nice counterculture statement of values, to be sure, but in the current environment completely unworkable. 

I've been thinking about Ferguson and the rioting and protests across the country.  

And then I found this quote from MLK, Jr: 

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride towards freedom is not the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than justice

When people riot for politics, when people organize for politics, they inevitably have either been subdued (Occupy) or placated (the Rodney King outrage) by some sop tossed towards them to make it a little less painful to be subdued.  

And then I remember that the Boston Tea Party was not regarded highly by colonial Americans. Indeed, until we achieved independence, the entire Revolution dangled on a thread in terms of public support. But it succeeded because it was outrageous to think it would.  

I love Bernie Sanders. I don't think he's right on this, at least with this current nation.

Thanks

I know, I've been one poor correspondent, and I've been too too hard to find, but that doesn't mean you ain't been on my mind...

2014 was a tough year for everyone. I feel grateful and fortunate that I skated past a lot of crap but what I did endure was enough for two years.

I'm still not working but I have enough to live on. I haven't really pursued a job but then I've been working on other projects around my world.

I'm grateful to the Smithsonian for using seven of my photographs this year. I'm grateful to the Ocean Conservancy for using one to promote sustainable fisheries. I'm grateful to my old employer for being more than fair with me on my way out the door, and for the friends I made while in his employ.

I'm grateful for my health and my extended family, which grew a little this year in the Old Country. I'm grateful for those closest to me who helped me bridge the gap from miserable job to the quietude of self-employment. I'm grateful for the opportunity to have stopped out and gotten some of the kruft out of my personal life: you know, the kipple that builds up because you get home from a job too tired to fix this, paint that, build the other.

I'm grateful for the advice I've been gifted with and the motivations put in front of me. We all need a carrot or a stick and I'm pleased to say that I've eaten more carrots than splinters.

And finally, I'm grateful for you, gentle reader. Often, I'll see echoes of something I've written in some of the strangest places and I know that, while I have a tiny readership, you are influential. I feel good about you and about this blog.

Thank you, all. And Happy Thanksgiving.

Why Dems Lose Midterms

The preliminary numbers are in, and voter turnout was at a record low nationwide.

Conventional wisdom says that each party, Republican and Democrat, can count on roughly 45% of the vote, no matter what. The last ten percent is what you need to win an election.

First, I think the percentages have expanded a bit. I think Dems and Republicans can regularly count, other things being equal, on about 47, maybe 48% in every election.

So if 100% of the voting population (let's call it 200,000,000 just to make this easy) shows up, Republicans and Democrats can count on....carry the one...94,000,000 votes each. The battle for power then takes place over 12,000,000 votes.

If 50% of the population votes, the battle is over 6 million. If 40%, then 5 million, and so on.

As I said, that's conventional wisdom and with other things being equal. And those may hold true, given recent evidence, in Presidential elections.

After all, Democrats have won the past three Presidential vacancies on popular vote, with Al Gore capturing more votes than President Bush in 2000. Mind you, only 50-60% of the eligible population has bothered voting in those elections, as well as 1996, 2004, and 2012.

So you'd think midterms would just be Presidential elections writ small: in a 40% population, the battle should be over 5 million votes and races should be pretty close. But it's not.

You see, the drop off in population is assumed to be equal for both sides: the excuses transcend party affiliation -- too busy, family commitments, it's just the "local races".

That's pretty simplistic thinking, however. For one thing, Republicans tends to skew older, which means more are retired and living off Social Security with plenty of time on their hands. They aren't struggling to make a mortgage payment or to get the kids to and from school on time. Voting is, in fact, a small vacation from the day-to-day drudgery of listening to right wing talk radio all day.

In 2010, the voting demographics were such that roughly 65% of the voters were over 45. In 2014, that rate was also 65%. But in 2012, the rate was down to 54%, with young adult voters, between 29 and 45, grasping a 3-5% larger share of the vote. Young voters, 18-29, saw a spike in 2012 to almost 20%, up from the low teens in off-years.

Let's crunch numbers just a bit more: the percentage of older voters who voted Democratic versus Republican was essentially unchanged from 2010 to 2014. Republicans actually lost voters below 45 (about a percent net drop), particularly voters with families and children who may be supporting elderly parents...you know, the ones voting Republican?

What does all this mean? Simply put, it means that despite the Democrats excellent GOTV messaging and efforts, despite the social media presence that Democrats have, Republicans were simply able to move more voters to the polls from their base than Democrats were.

This suggests to me that conventional wisdom falls apart in midterm elections, that it's not about persuading uncommitted voters but in persuading your base to get riled up enough to vote.

Yes, riled up. This is the key to Republican victory and yes, it's a goddamn cynical way to run a campaign, but think about it for a moment.

The last six years has been about tarring and feathering Barack Obama, minimizing his accomplishments while maximizing any potential "scandals" into full blown crises.

Birth certificate. Benghazi. ISIS. Ebola. The Grand Deal on the budget blowing up and creating the shutdown (yes, that's on Boehner, but facts don't matter here, only perception), Sandy Hook and the subsequent ineffectiveness to pass gun control legislation somehow proving simultaneously that Tyrant Obama was coming for your guns but was still a weak leader (again, facts and perceptions don't match), the IRS "scandal" (again, Republicans tasked the IRS with the investigation, then triggered the trap), the NSA tapping phones.

And of course, Obamacare coming to take your Medicare away.

I want you to think about Yelp for a moment. Or YouTube. Or even your local paper. Who comments most on these sites? Who writes those Letters to the Editor?

Angry people. More correctly, frightened people.

Fear and anger motivate people more than persuasion and coaxing. The Democrats are starting to see that -- think about all those DNC emails you had streaming into your mailbox constantly, pleading for funds because OMG! We're going out of business! -- but we don't play that game particularly well.

It's hard to play a game of fear when you have the solutions in place already.

Too, this game is going to start showing diminishing returns for Republicans as well: angry white people are dying off, which is why you're seeing them make real attempts to reach out to minorities like Mia Love, literally a token attempt to make nice with the African American community. And women.

(Side note: did you ever imagine these five words appearing side by side in a sentence? "Black woman Republican from Utah"?)

They've done this before, of course, trotting out their "diversity platform" at the 2012 national convention, only to have the cameras turn to a predominantly...ok, ALL white audience. It sees like they rounded up every dark face in the hall, including janitors and ticket takers, and stood them up in front of the John Birch Society.

But I digress: it should be chilling to the DNC, the DCCC and the DSCC that Mia Love won her election this time around (it was her second try). She's young, attractive and precisely the kind of figurehead Republicans need to bring some youth to the party. She's in Utah, which will negate some of her opportunities to appear on camera regularly but she'll be pushed hard by the party to bring a fresh face to the image.

We may not have a lock on minority youth going forward, one of our base stanchions.

Democrats have four years to come up with a better plan than "We don't apologize for the amazing things we've accomplished, but please don't punish us for them!" The DCCC and DSCC in particular have to come up with leadership that's going to investigate thoroughly how to motivate our base, because our base disappears on us in between Presidential elections.

I think we're safe in 2016 so long as our candidate is a good one, a woman preferably (women really let us down in 2014) because that would energize the base the way Barack Obama did in 2008 (and in truth, Hillary would have, too). There's a lot of energy out there for a woman President and we ought to take advantage of that. We'll pick up a lot of Republican Senate seats that were captured in the 2010 midterms (see? There it is again) by Republicans who drove angry voters to the polls.

Senators like Ayotte (NH), Rubio (FL) and Toomey (PA) are in the sights, of course, as well as Kirk (IL) and Johnson (WI) who may end up getting beaten by Russ Feingold in a rematch. Even John McCain's seat is in play as the Latino population of Arizona has reached a point where they will be players in voting. There are 12 seats the Republicans are vulnerable in right now, and they have to defend an additional 13. Democrats only hold ten or so seats in that cycle, so they have cash to burn.

It's 2018 that becomes a challenge, mostly because (and its early, I know) Dems have an awful lot of seats in play -- 20 -- five of which could be deemed toss ups right now along with two Republican seats. Many of those seats were won in Obama's re-election landslide.

So how to get Democrats to the polls? There's the rub.

That issue could conceivably take care of itself over the next two years. Republicans have a knack for overdoing things -- remember privatizing Social Security? Bush's political capital? -- and driving our voters to the polls for us, and 2014 saw the election of a fresh crop of batshit insane Republicans, some of whom are even now Senators (a body that for the most part had remained immune to the Teabaggers, save Ted Cruz and maybe Rand Paul).

But that's not going to last until 2018, particularly if 2016 absolves Republicans of owning the mess they will create until then.

We don't do anger well. And we don't have bogeymen. Republicans have those people -- altho they seem to be open to making them our people now. Or they have those other people. Or terrorists. Or liberals. We don't do fear well either.

We do hypocrisy well but that doesn't drive people to get out and vote unless its such undeniable hypocrisy that you can't ignore it. That was 2006. Republicans were going to lose seats anyway as always happens in the midterms for the party in the White House, but they lost them in such massive fashion you'd think Dems would rule forever. That was in large part because of scandal after scandal after scandal bringing down Republicans left and right.

One thing I think might work is, rather than running from our record, getting out there and drumming it like a rented bass drum. We do good work, and one complaint that seems to stick in the electorate is "Both sides do it!"

Both sides work for the corporatocracy (partly true but reversible for the Dems). Both sides are corrupt (definitely true). Both sides try to hurt the little guy.

Demonstrably false but if we don't talk about the issues, about the work on the issues, Democrats will continue to lose the narrative.

Two Years' Vacation

A couple of points to be made about last night's midterm elections.

1) The election map last night was singularly antithetical to Democrats. To put it in terms conservatives understand, we were playing in their ballpark.  Of the seats in play last night, an aggregate 46% voted for Barack Obama in 2012. Many of the seats the Democrats defended (and lost) last night were taken in the 2008 Obamaslide and naturally reverted back to better reflect the redness of the underlying midterm electorate. Which brings me to point 2.

2) In 2016, the map reverses. That election, before we even know who the candidates are, will see at least five or six seats that conservatives picked up in the 2010 reactionary midterm elections go blue again. Having 52 only (literally, only) seats now guarantees a minority status by 2017 as most of the states where Republicans gained seats in 2010 were carried -- and in big numbers, including Florida, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Illinois -- by Obama in 2012. Democrats will only be defending 10 seats, while Republicans will defend 24, meaning resources and money are stretched thin in a year that will see a) a Presidential election suck up more resources and b) a larger turnout which always...always...means Democratic victories. Which brings me to point 3.

3) Voter turnout in midterm elections usually lag turnout in Presidential elections by about twenty percent nationwide. While numbers are far from final, preliminary data suggests that trend probably continued in 2014. That Democrats were competitive in states like North Carolina with such low voter turnout means that Republicans are far from dominant. They're dominant in the way an NBA player would be against the girls' junior varsity captain: they sort of had everything set up the right way this time around.

So the watchwords for the next two years are "filibuster" and "veto". Expect a lot of right wing whining about both, and about Obama's golf game.

What? You thought they didn't read the maps? This is why they made such a big issue about it this year, to set up the next two years. In fact, Obama demonstrated to me a singular vision in avoiding the campaign trail. In 2016, he can look like a kingmaker.

The conservative strategy of nickel-and-diming the President succeeded to a degree. It was not as successful as they believe but it was more successful than it should have been. Democrats should have been out in front of him, taking the heat off him, especially these last two years. They weren't. This could not have but contributed to his lack of enthusiasm for them.

Now, back to filibusters and vetoes. First, understand that McConnell will do nothing about them. He can't. Not because he doesn't want to (altho he might not) and not because his base doesn't want him to (they do) but because without a Republican President, there's no point in changing a rule you'll benefit from two years down the road.

But suppose he does decide to trigger the nuke. Obama vetoes any bill that comes up the pipe. It goes back for an overturn. It might pass the House, but the Senate requires a 2/3 majority, too. 67 votes is simply not happening.

The likely outcome? A government shutdown over Obamacare. Again. Because shutdowns worked soooooo well the last two times for Republicans. They'll become an even more distant smear on the rearview mirror of America.

The other area of concern is the Supreme Court. Ginsburg is feeling her age, and its long been rumored she wants too retire. Likewise, Breyer. Here I think cooler heads will prevail and as long as the President doesn't want to upset the ideological apple cart (and John Roberts appears comfortable with the other eight justices, and I suspect he'll have some sway here), he and McConnell can horse trade.

Keep in mind, then, that the 2016 election looms large in the Court, and Scalia and Kennedy are both 78. I doubt they want to see 85 in chambers.

The takeaway from last night's election, however, is something I've hinted at and discussed in broad strokes but something America should contemplate as the far larger flaw in our process: turnout.

Nate Silver called last night's election the least important election in decades, and he's probably right at a national level. But as John Oliver noted, legislation is not being done at the Federal level at all. It's being left to the state and local governments, and this is where the money of the Kochs and Adelsons has been the most pernicious (remember gerrymandering? ALEC? Those are happening in state and municipals leges all around the country).

You see, it doesn't matter that there's gridlock at the top. That is precisely what the Kochs of the world want. Right now they are enjoying tremendous financial rewards given to them by the political party stupid enough to sell the birthright of a nation to them. They have lower taxes, a nonexistent regulatory body, and the ability to buy and trade people. Literally, buy and sell people.

The only way to stop them, the only way to take back our country, is to turn up and vote. Why else do you think the Kochs (NB. By "Kochs" I now expand the term to mean billionaires bent on destroying America) and their minions are putting up roadblocks to voting? It's the only way, the only way, they can maintain their hegemony long enough to siphon the nation dry and move on before they die.

As the saying goes, if the 99% voted, it wouldn't matter what the 1% wanted.

Here's why: the corporatists can count on about a third of the vote to go their way, without any persuasion needed and a third of the vote to go against them as unpersuadable. In an off year, that's roughly 60 million of 90 million votes in aggregate they don't have to buy (I know the percentage split slightly differs in minions/opponents but in aggregate, its about the same).

Now imagine if 240 million people suddenly showed up to vote. Now you're talking about persuading not an additional 30 million but 80 million. and now you have to not only advertise on the local news shows and FOX but on sports networks and prime time television as many more of these don't vote because they work a couple of jobs and raise families and study for classes. You have to make a real effort and the cost/benefit ratio gets skewed against you.

There's only so much campaign money to go around, no matter how many billions you have banked.

And the other benefit of a 99% turnout: politicians wouldn't be able to pander to their base and expect them to lift the wagon over the tougher waters. They wouldn't be able to blame those people for our ills because  those people can and will actually punish them at the polls now. They wouldn't be able to smear another candidate for hoaxed behavior because, guess what? We'd be talking about the issues that matter and any politician who tried to deflect the conversation would find themselves quickly losing ground. 60% of the voting population is turned off because of "politics as usual" but if those 60% voted, it would no longer be politics as usual.

This is something liberals need to focus on: not the GOTV every two years or so, but a long term commitment to persuading people that its in their best interest to vote early and vote often, at least in the course of their lifetimes.

See, we win when they vote. It's as simple as that.

The Real Ebola Epidemic

Let's look at some facts.

1) The current Ebola outbreak began last December in southern Guinea, when a 2 year old boy contracted the disease, likely from a fruit bat or perhaps consuming bushmeat (monkey), altho no one can be certain. Since December 2013, 5,000 people have died from the disease, nearly all of them in west Africa.

2) On March 24, 2014, Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières, or MSF) opened up a treatment facility in Guinea. At that point, 59 people had died, and a further 30 or so had contracted the disease. Shortly after, MSF began soliciting volunteer healthcare professionals to work in their ever-expanding facilities. Generally, a volunteer will serve about 8 weeks on a tour. This means that dozens if not hundreds of people have been to the hot zone and returned without incident.

3) Indeed, the first case of Ebola appearing on American soil was Dr. Kent Brantly, followed quickly by Nancy Writebol, both contracting the disease in Liberia this fall, both treated and recovered. Since then, three other Americans have been evacuated to the States and have recovered. None infected anyone else. This includes the freelance photographer Ashoka Mukpo, who worked closely with an NBC news crew that included Dr, Nancy Snyderman (more about her later).

4) The first death from Ebola on US soil occurred in the case of Thomas Eric Duncan.  Not only was his case fatal (and mishandled all around) but he managed to infect two nurses caring for him: Nina Pham and Amber Vinson. Both have recovered.

5) A fourth diagnosed case of Ebola on American soil (Duncan, Pham and Vinson being the first three) occurred this past weekend when Dr. Craig Spencer returned from Guinea and became ill, but not before appearing in public, taking public transportation and engaging in some social activities, including bowling. He may even have sweated a little.

And now we get to the real epidemic over Ebola. You'll notice that for the better part of a year, doctors and nurses had traveled to and from the outbreak with nary a peep from anyone.

And then came Ken Brantly, and it seemed as tho spontaneously our own hot zone had sprung up. Despite the fact that evacuation protocols for a known Ebola case had been put into motion, despite the fact that we've handled worse epidemic outbreaks on American soil (hantavirus springs to mind) and contained diseases, the handwringing fem the diaper-clad set began, fomented in large part by the true epidemic of 2014, FOX News.

The fact that Dr. Nancy Snyderman, upon learning that her cameraman, Mukpo, had contracted the disease promised to self-quarantine for 21 days and then very publicly breaking her own promise, didn't help. FOX, sensing a chance to get a leg up on a competitor, made hay while the sun shined on Dr. Snyderman.

Turning the heat on the panic up a lot. You see, Snyderman returned in early October, just days after the Duncan case was blared around the headlines, including his transmission to Nina Pham.

Never mind that Snyderman didn't contract the disease. Never mind that Duncan didn't infect his family, with whom he shared close contact for the better part of a week. We now had a transmitted case of Ebola on American soil and a celebrity doctor flouting her own rules (and to be sure, perhaps she shouldn't have made a promise she wasn't going to keep.)

The panic that these two incidents created should have been a wake up call to MSF to alter their guidelines for returning volunteers to be acutely aware of the very real epidemic of panic that had been whipped up in the States. By all accounts, for instance, Dr. Spencer followed the guidelines existing at the time for monitoring, except that he rationalized a sluggish feeling as jet lag as opposed to getting to a hospital or doctor immediately.

That he then took a very public form of transportation -- the NYC subway -- and engaged in some socializing after two months in the bush made his case almost automatically a scare headline.

And we Americans will panic at the drop of a hat. Just ask any ammosexual: after six years of Obama's presidency, they still have all their guns (and many more) but swear they will be taken away.

We really are children. Colleges have revoked acceptances of African students, Syracuse University barred an appearance by a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer who had returned -- three weeks earlier and Ebola free -- from the region, and Harvard has imposed stern limits on students and faculty from traveling to West Africa. A school in Cleveland was shut down and disinfected after it was learned a staffer was on the same flight as nurse Vinson. Parents in Mississippi, which suffers from a far worse epidemic of ignorance, threatened to keep their kids out of school after it was discovered the principal had traveled to Zambia, 3,000 miles from the nearest Ebola outbreak.  A Maine teacher was put on 21 day paid leave just for visiting Dallas for a conference.

And then there's this...

Panic will kill more Americans than this disease. Mark my words.