Terrorism

Planting one bomb in a public place is terrorism but sewing the land with millions of them isn't? How can this be?

[Million Bombs] [Cluster Bombs] [Lebanon] [BBC on Cluster Bombs] [Al Jazeera on Cluster Bombs]

tnb

Michelle Bachmann

It Smells Like Wingnut in the Morning | The World According to MEH

I still think someone should market Bachmann and Palin bobble-heads. They'd sell like crazy. The wingnuts would buy them. Many of the "haters" would buy them. I don't think there could never be a better named product for advertising purposes,.. "Palin bobble head" or "Bachmann bobble head". It just doesn't get any better than that. They sound like a can't-miss items to me.

I just want a small part of the profits for the idea.

tnb

Juan Cole on Libya

Obama on Libya vs. Trump, Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Gingrich and Carrot Top | Informed Comment

Health Care in the US

I know this is a couple years old and its long, about an hour, but it's a damn good show. You will learn more about health care systems around the world in this hour than you would watching five years worth of network news.

tnb

Never Better

The always good, Glenn Greenwald, at his best here. [Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com]. Including a great takedown of anyone who claims President Obama is anti-business.

Here's Glenn responding to the Kock's asertion that Obama is a "dedicated egalitarian" who has "internalized Marxist" ideas in the Kenyan socialist tradition.

Just compare that to actual facts. From The Huffington Post today:

Despite high unemployment and a largely languishing real estate market, U.S. businesses are more profitable than ever, according to federal figures released on Friday. U.S. corporate profits hit an all-time high at the end of 2010, with financial firms showing some of the biggest gains, data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis show.

Corporations reported an annualized $1.68 trillion in profit in the fourth quarter. The previous record, without being adjusted for inflation, was $1.65 trillion in the third quarter of 2006.

Many of the nation's preeminent companies have posted massive increases in profits this year. General Electric posted worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, while profits at JPMorgan Chase were up 47 percent to $4.8 billion.

Since Obama was inaugurated, the Dow Jones has increased more than 50% -- from 8,000 to more than 12,000; the wealthiest recieved a massive tax cut; the top marginal tax rate was three times less than during the Eisenhower years and substantially lower than during the Reagan years; income and wealth inequality are so vast and rising that it is easily at Third World levels; meanwhile, "the share of U.S. taxes paid by corporations has fallen from 30 percent of federal revenue in the 1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009." During this same time period, the unemployment rate has increased from 7.7% to 8.9%; millions of Americans have had their homes foreclosed; and the number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by many millions, the largest number since the statistic has been recorded. Can you smell Obama's radical egalitarianism and Marxist anti-business hatred yet?

Then there are those whom Obama has empowered. His first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is a business-revering corporatist who made close to $20 million in 3 short years as an investment banker, while his second, Bill Daley, served for years as JP Morgan's Midwest Chairman. His Treasury Secretary is undoubtedly the most loyal and dedicated servant Wall Street has ever had in that position, while Goldman Sachs officials occupy so many key positions in his administration that a former IMF and Salomon Brothers executive condemned what he called "Goldman Sachs's seeming lock on high-level U.S. Treasury jobs." Obama's former OMB Director recently left to take a multi-million-dollar position with Citigroup. From the start, Obama's economic policies were shaped by the Wall Street-revering neo-liberal Rubinites who did so much to serve corporate America during the Clinton years. Meanwhile, the President's choice to head his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness -- General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt -- heads a corporation that "despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits - including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations - [] did not owe taxes in 2010": an appointment the White House still defends.

Some of these trends pre-date Obama, but few have been retarded during his presidency, while many have accelerated. Whether one finds this state of affairs desirable or not, no rational person can describe them as the by-product of a Marxist, business-hating egalitarian. Quite the opposite. The political power of America's richest has never been greater, and the level of their responsibility and collective burden has never been less. Meanwhile, for ordinary Americans, the remaining remnants of their financial security and middle class comforts rapidly erodes. It's true that the U.S. Government has little regard for the free market: they intervene constantly in the free market on behalf of the nation's wealthiest and most powerful business interests; it's crony capitalism, corporatism: government run by corporations (or, as Dick Durbin said of the Congress in which he serves: "the banks own the place").

Sort of leaves you out of breath, eh? Glenn nailed it. Be sure to read the whole thing.

tnb

Austerity in the UK

The Street Light: The Effects of Austerity in the UK

Remember last year when the new, conservative, British leaders were cutting budgets to turn their economy around? Well, the jury's still out but so far it doesn't look like it's working so well.

Take a look at these charts of GDP growth rates and find the dates of the US Stimulus package (February 17, 2009) and the UK budget cuts (middle of 2010).

charts from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/

Of course this doesn't mean the UK budget cuts won't work out eventually but right now it doesn't look so good.

tnb

Gold vs Paper

A couple of good post on "the gold standard" vs "paper money".

MacroMania: Ron Paul's Money Illusion (Sequel)

MacroMania: Out of thin air?

I never really understood why people think gold is somehow a better currency than paper (or anything else). In the end, you can't eat gold, silver, paper, or any other currency. If you can't eat it, it's only worth whatever the current ruler says it's worth.

I guess it's just in our collective memory. It was a great currency in ancient times because it was shiny, easy to work/handle, and somewhat rare. We all grew up with the old stories about it and think it should be valuable today.

tnb

Meet the New Boss,..

Even More on [Evan]

I think this hits on one of the biggest problems with our political system.

Our government is "of the corporation" not "of the people".

As voters we have two parties, Rs and Ds. Over time we split about evenly among them. We'll elect Ds for a while, then Rs for while, yet nothing seems to really change. Jobs keep disappearing, wages stagnate, the elected seem as corrupt and disconnected from the people as ever. R or D, doesn't really matter, it's "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Why can't the voters force change in a democracy? Why don't our votes work? I think, as this article points out, is that the power, the real ruling power that can effect change, is determined by two different parties, corporatists, and for lack of a better term, populists. We're not allow to vote between these parties. Both of the voters parties, the Rs and Ds, are dominated by corporatists, so regardless of whether we vote R or D, we elect Corporatists. We think we voted for change but we really left the same party in power, just juggled it around a little between competing corporate interests. We're left with a government not "of the people" but "of the corpration".

Look at some of our current issues, the disappearing jobs, wage stagnation, the relaxed regulation, the bailouts, the push to smaller government which will mean more business/profits for the corporate world, all of these highlight the preference of our government for corproate interests over those of the people. Corporate interests dominate.

I don't have a clue about what to do about it. It looks to me like it's only going to get worse as corporations consolidate around the globe. The people of individual nations don't stand a chance. Corps, and their owners, will rule the world, if they don't already.

tnb

Wikileaks vs Journalism

Urgent leak investigation needed - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

I couldn't find the quote at the link given here but since Glenn Greenwald is not known for just making stuff up, I assume the AP story has been changed (sort of 1984-ish eh?). Anyway... here's the quote from Glenn....

Libyan state television showed blackened and mangled bodies that it said were victims of airstrikes in Tripoli. . . . A U.S. intelligence report on Monday, the day after coalition missiles attacked Gadhafi's Bab al-Aziziya compound in the capitol, said that a senior Gadhafi aide was told to take bodies from a morgue and place them at the scene of the bomb damage, to be displayed for visiting journalists. A senior U.S. defense official revealed the contents of the intelligence report on condition of anonymity because it was classified secret.

The last line again.....

A senior U.S. defense official revealed the contents of the intelligence report on condition of anonymity because it was classified secret.

So,.. What happen here is exactly what happened in the Wikileaks-Bradley Manning case. A member of the US military revealed military/government information, classified as secret, to a person with the ability to publish that information to the public.

So why hasn't the "senior US defense official" been arrested like Bradley Manning? Why hasn't the journalist been hounded and threatened with arrest like Julian Assange?

Why? Because the "senior US defense official" is one of the power-elites and the journalist is a "journalist to the power-elite". The rules don't apply to them. Rules are only for the working stiffs and those James-Bond-villain-looking types with those websites.

tnb

Corporate Tax

Hullabaloo: Corporations don't have Skin

I still don't see why we would have to tax corporations? They are good to have around with the jobs and all and eliminating the tax seems like a good incentive to move here. Why not eliminate corporate taxes and tax breaks and just tax the income at the personal level. Just raise the tax rates across the board on the corporate owner-investor class. It looks like a cleaner, easier way to collect it anyway.

but,.... I doubt our corporate owner-investor overlords would allow that.

Israel, Palestine and the UN

European countries want UN, not U.S., to advance Mideast peace talks - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

A couple of things.

Britain, France and Germany want the United Nations and the European Union to propose the outlines of a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state, UN diplomats said.

This will never happen. If the UN were to take over the process, the Isaeli lobby money spent buying all those US politicians, who currently control the situation, will have been wasted.

and this.

The big question mark is whether the United States would allow the Europeans and UN to take the lead in trying to resolve the standoff, and that is likely to depend on whether the Israelis give a green light, the diplomats said.

So the Israeli's must give the US a "green light". I guess this demostrates that the Israeli lobby money really does buy those US politicians.

tnb

Chinese Censorship and the word "protest"

Chinese censorware nukes any voicecall that contains the word "protest"; - Boing Boing

While US censorware just records the name, number, date and time of the call.

tnb

Pin the Crazy on the Tea Party

From [Bruce Bartlett - GOP is blowing it by pandering to the Tea Party]

The main reason is that so many of its members simply don’t know what they are talking about; they seem to think that strong opinions are a substitute for facts, research and analysis. Consequently, many Tea Party members hold views on various topics that are, frankly, nuts, and these views have been embraced by some Republican voters as well.

For example, a March 15, 2011, poll by Public Policy Polling found that 25 percent of Republicans expect that a group called ACORN is going to steal the election for Obama next year and 31 percent aren’t sure; only 43 percent of Republicans believe this is false. In point of fact, ACORN no longer even exists, and it’s doubtful that it could have stolen a local election for dog catcher even if it wanted to.

An August 27, 2010, poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates International found that 52 percent of Republicans believe that Obama sympathizes with Islamic fundamentalists and favors imposing Islamic law around the world; only 7 percent thought this was definitely untrue.

A March 24, 2010, Harris poll found that 67 percent of Republicans believe that Obama is a socialist, 61 percent think he wants to take away the right to own guns, 57 percent believe he is a Muslim, 45 percent say he was not born in the U.S. and has no right to be president, and 41 percent think he is just looking for an excuse to seize dictatorial power.

As a consequence, even solid conservatives like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) are considered dangerous liberals. And slightly less conservative Republicans such as former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman are treated as dangerous radicals. In a March 14 New York Times report, Utah Tea Party leader Jacqueline Smith said of Huntsman, “On a good day, he’s a socialist. On a bad day, he’s a communist.”

This sort of rhetoric serves no useful purpose and is at best distracting. It also elevates minor differences on policy or strategy among Republicans into deep disagreements over principle. This has made it impossible for Congress to finish work on the 2011 budget, which should have been done last summer. Hard line Tea Party members keep insisting on impossibly large budget cuts despite the fact that the vast bulk of the budget is effectively off limits.

I mostly agree. The Tea-Party has some generally stupid beliefs and they will hurt the Republicans eventually but I don't think they can separated from the GOP as easily as this article believes. The Republican Party started the stupid and I'm afraid they're going to have to live with it.

Just a few years ago I considered myself a Republican. Hell, I voted for Bush Jr. the first time, but they, the Republican party, scared me away with the crap they've pulled over the last three years. Republican crap, not Tea-party crap. The key screw-ups were, Sarah Palin for VP, The lies of the campaign, and the post-election, Fox News-fed hissy-fit. Again, these were Republican actions that drove me, and I assume others, away.

I was excited about Palin at first but after listening to her a while, it was pretty obvious she's just not that sharp. The Republican leadership knew she wasn't that sharp yet they spent most of a year trying to convince the country she was qualified. They were willing to lie to the voters and put dizzy Sarah Palin that close to the controls of the country to win the election. That's about as responsible as a parent giving their sixteen year old kid a case of beer, a bag of dope, and a loaded gun, then handing them the keys to the car and telling him to go have some fun. Absolutely irresponsible. Where were the adults? And,.... they think I'm dumb enough not to see through it. They took me for a fool.

Then the lies started. I think there were more crazy lies in the last election than any other in my lifetime, the Obama is a socialist, Muslim, pals around with terrorists, no birth certificate crap. Lies that were so easy to see through that you'd have to be a complete idiot to believe them. There's just no way can I vote for someone who thinks I'm stupid enough to believe that crap. The bullshit was too deep. This was during the campaign, pre-Tea Party, so again was Republican BS not Tea-Party BS.

After the election, the Fox News fed hissy-fit started and the Tea Party was born. I've never seen so much whining from a political group in my life. The Republicans refused to give up control and threw everything they could at Obama. They put up a helluva fight. They saved their party and gave birth to the Tea Party with a propaganda-fed, scare campaign that this country hadn't seen in my lifetime. For two years, every day, 24/7, there were the Fox News talking heads, in the background, like Orwell's big-brother, creating and blasting out their "truth", just to scare people, to tear down a legitimately elected administration, to make it impossible for them to govern. It's like the Steelers, after losing the Super Bowl, went to Green Bay and beat the hell out of the Packers, took their trophy and rings just because they thought THEY should have won. I can't support anyone who refuses to play by the rules and plays this dirty.

Now they're blaming the crazy on the Tea Party when in reality the Republicans themselves were responsible. They knew Palin was an idiot. They knew Obama wasn't a socialist, Marxist, terrorist Kenyan. They could have been good sports and played by the rules. They could have been good losers, took their defeat in stride and started working on a new platform with some fresh ideas. They didn't. Instead, they threw a two year tantrum that helped create the very Tea Party that they're now trying to distance themselves from.

The Republican party is responsible. They started the crazy but it got away from them. Fox news took it way out there and created the Tea-Party which helped them in the last election but now that crazy is beginning to scare them. If it continues, it could cost them the more-sane, middle-ground voter in the next election, or even split the party, so,... they're trying to pin the crazy on the Tea-baggers and present themselves as a separate, sane group. The problem is, at this time they're not. There's about this much (hold thumb and index finger about 1/8 inch apart) difference between the Republican party and the Tea-Party. America has to take them together as a package deal.

I suppose distancing themselves from the Tea-Party could work. I'd have never guessed that voters would believe all the stupid crap of the last two years but they did. Maybe, with some crappy media on the left and the full support of Fox News, the voters will believe this crap too. The Republicans won't get my vote next time but I've learned that you can't under-estimate the stupidity of the American voter.

tnb

Tim Pawlenty

Here's a quote from Tim Pawlenty. (found on uggabugga: Pawlenty)

There is a brighter future for America. We know what we need to do: Grow jobs, limit government spending, and tackle entitlements. We need to encourage the dreamers and innovators, the small business owners, the hard workers, the brave men and women throughout this country's history that have asked for nothing more than the freedom to work hard and get ahead without government getting in the way.

This sounds like a Sarah Palin quote. If there was a "drill, baby, drill" in there, no one would know the difference.

You gotta talk the talk if you want Tea-bagger support.

tnb

Structural Unemployment?

The Angry bear on Structural Unemployment and a Corporate savings glut.

It's not structural unemployment, it's the corporate saving glut | Angry Bear

An interesting thought, in the comments, on why they're saving more now.

My contention is that corporations have permanently increased their cash reserves, because the old meme about being able to borrow when you needed to was proven not to hold in late 2008 (and to some extent earlier). The goal appears to be to be able if necessary to go some extended period with no borrowing, just in case the capital markets (commercial paper in particular) freeze up again. If you know that it could take 2 months to sell commercial paper in a frozen market then it makes sense to keep 2 more months of reserve just in case it happens again. Yes you won't get much roi on the cash, but conversly if the markets freeze up you won't have to file chapter 11 if you can't borrow what you need to stay solvent.

In one sense then its a return to the older way of doing business since the go-go version of the market of minimal cash was proven be potentially unstable.

tnb

Guns and butter.

On Libya.

[Gin And Tacos: Bang for the Buck]

[Economists View: Guns or Jobs]

I just don't understand how anyone can think that bombing people on the other side of the world is better for the US than improving our health care, education, infrastructure, creating jobs, etc. I just don't get it.

Many years ago, I had a left-wing, radical friend who said he liked to read the Economist to see what "The Other Side" thought about issues. Well,......

Economist: Guns and Butter

They tell us we can't afford to pay teachers, then they spend money on Bombs? Hell, even those at the Economist don't get it?

tnb

Congress in Action

Political Irony › Congress in Action

"Five minutes after voting to cut off federal funding for NPR, the House of Representatives voted to continue funding the War in Afghanistan.

How much will defunding NPR help reduce the deficit? Lemme see, according to the CBO, it will save, hmmm, absolutely nothing. How long did Congress spend debating a measly $5 million in funding for NPR? (A one minute ad during the Super Bowl costs more than that. And the government spends more than that on NASCAR.) How much time did Republican politicians spend working on this? I wouldn’t be surprised if it cost far more than $5 million just in Congressional salaries.

Not to mention that this was entirely political theater, since Obama will undoubtably veto the bill if it gets to his desk.

How much does the Afghanistan war cost us? Ten Billion Dollars. Per Month. That’s 24,000 times as much money as the federal government spends on NPR. If we could have reduced spending in Afghanistan by 0.005% we would have saved more money.

After these votes, your elected Representatives flew home for yet another vacation. If you see one of them, let them know what you think."

And,.. those tomahawk missles we're firing at Libya cost between $500,000 and $750,000 each. Trade you ten of those for some NPR funding.

tnb

More on Climate Change in America « Modeled Behavior

More on Climate Change in America «  Modeled Behavior

tnb

Middle East

We seem to care a lot about Libya. [Libya]

Not so much about Yemen and Bahrain [Yemen] [Bahrain] [Bahrain] [Bahrain]

and,.. the rest of the middle east is a mess.

A blast in [Iraq]

[Saudi Arabia] is buying them off.

[Israel] is building more settlements.

Oh, There's also the [Ivory Coast]

And in [Pakistan], we qualify as the bad guys.

Washington ruined your washing Machine.

WSJ: Sam Kazman: How Washington Ruined Your Washing Machine

What a crappy article by Sam Kazman. This is an agenda-driven, hit piece, just designed to pile-on and promote the Tea-Bagger, "Government screws up everything it does" crap. What a crappy media we have.

The opening line.

"In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13 were "excellent" and five were "very good." By 2007, though, not one was excellent and seven out of 21 were "fair" or "poor." This month came the death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders as "often mediocre or worse."

Of course some or even most top loaders were rated "very good" or "excellent" in the 90s, they were all we had to compare and were the peak of the technology for the time. There were good cars in the 60s too but even the best from that time wouldn't rate very good against today's models. We've progressed, cars and washings machines are both better today. In washing machines, the current front loaders are much better than the old 1996 top loaders, they clean your clothes as well but do it more efficiently in terms of detergent, water and electricity use. They are also, generally easier on your clothes.

So top loaders don't work as well under the new efficiency rules, so what, front loaders work better.

According to EnergyStar.gov, Energy Star-rated washing machines use about 30 percent less energy and 50 percent less water than non-qualified machines. Replacing a 10-year-old washer with a new Energy Star machine, they say, can save the average person about $135 per year on utility bills. [Consumer Research]

Using a newer washer with a high speed spin cycle (top or front loaders) will also cut your dryer use dramatically. When I replaced my washer, dryer use was cut about 40%. So not only am I saving money with the washer, I'm also saving even more electricity running the dryer less and the decreased use should make it last a little longer.

A couple links and some personal thoughts on today's washers:  [Link 1]  [Link 2]

A washing machine as an Investment?

I would argue that one of the the best under-$1000 investments today is to replace your old top loader with a new front load washing machine (or even new top loader) with a high speed spin cycle. Putting 1,000$ in the bank (at about 1%) will make you 10$ a year at today's rates. Replacing an old top loader with a high-speed spin front loader should save you 130$ or more in electricity, water and detergent savings. Savings could be even more with a large family.

Consumers Beware.

Consumers have to be careful when buying today's machines. Appliance salesmen seem to be directly related to used-car salesmen, politicians, and Wall Street journal writers. They are going to dance around the truth and some are not above lying to you to make a sale.

DO some research. You don't have to have every feature or the fastest spin cycle. A spin cycle around 700-900rpm is OK. The "Washer Stands" they want to sell you at about $150 to 200$ each seem like a rip-off to me.

Skip the dryer. Most people like to see a matching washer and dryer but you don't need a new dryer to reap the savings. Most of today's dryers are only slightly more efficient than older models. The washer is the key unit. Its high speed spin cycle gets so much water out of clothes that even an old dryer will run less, lasting longer, cutting your electricity bill all the while.

You can spend over $2,000 on a new washer and dryer but you don't have too. I bought a new washer, skipped the dryer and the stand, for only for $600 and was saving about 15$ a month on my electric bill immediately (YMMV).

I don't expect the new machine to last as long as an old 1985 top loader. they are more complicated, with more electronics and seem lighter and more cheaply made today. Of course this isn't the government's fault, it's the manufacturers, in their search for profits they cut costs to the bone making everything cheaper and lighter weight.

So government didn't ruin your old washing machine, they forced it to get better. The manufacturer did make it cheaper so it probably won't last as long, and you can't necessarily believe their advertisng, and the salesman may lie to you about features and savings to get you to buy the model he makes the most commission on, and........

wow, tell me again how the private, free-market is always better than government?

Anyway, Sam Kazman shouldn't be allowed to write any more washing machine articles.

tnb

Links

Gin And Tacos - Company Town

Political Irony - Cutting Budgets

Government: High End vs Low End

more stuff tomorrow

tnb

Pharyngula vs Newt

Pharyngula vs Newt

I think I understand, though — it doesn't matter what you do, all that matters is what you say. The Republicans support a version of marriage that rests on tradition, authority, and masculine dominance, and everything they do props up one leg of the tripod or the other. Public piety reinforces religious tradition; the insistence that there is one true form of marriage, between a man and a woman, which represents a legal and social commitment is part of the authoritarian impulse; and of course, if a man steps out of the matrimonial bounds, it's an expression of machismo and patriotism and entitlement.

(newt) There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate. And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn't trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing it. I found that I felt compelled to seek God's forgiveness.

Gingrich was cheating on his wife, but it's OK — because he also tells us that it was wrong and inexcusable, and then he wraps it all up in God and country to make excuses for it. Hypocrisy is acceptable as long as the right words are said to reinforce the public face of propriety.

Pharyngula wins.

The real power of religion. It allows believers to do anything they like and no matter how wrong it is, it's OK, because they're covered by their god. The rules apply to everyone else.

Thank god I'm an Atheist.

tnb

More on Evan

Glenn Greenwald on Evan Bayh

Yglesias on Evan Bayh

I was probably a little hard on the guy here [TNB on Evan Bayh].

He may be a helluva guy. Maybe he was forced into politics by his family and hated every minute of it. Maybe he didn't want to be the poster child for our crappy, political-elite class. Maybe he doesn't like being American royalty, but,.... he cashed the checks, played the part and now it looks like he's taken his position at the club so I think the labels fit.

tnb

Truth in Advertising

[No More Mister Nice Blog points out some propaganda.]

You can't believe anything you see in today's politics. You have to assume it's a lie until you can prove different.

tnb

Pharyngula: On Religion

Pharyngula: Calvinball No More.

Religion has had a couple of millennia to make a case for its fundamental concepts: the existence of the supernatural, the existence of deities, the effectiveness of priestly intermediaries, etc. It has failed. It does not provide support in the form of evidence or logical consistency; it also fails to show any pragmatic utility. Religion never does what it claims to do. At what point do we learn from experience and simply reject the whole worthless mess out of hand? The abstract possibility that the god-wallopers will finally come up with a tiny scrap of evidence for their outrageous beliefs in the coming eon is not enough to win it credibility as a reasonable contender, either; you might just as well speculate that archaeologists could unearth artifacts from Middle Earth, or astronomers observing a galaxy far, far away will discover The Force. There is no cause to expect fictions and fantasies to manifest themselves as actual realities.

Religion plays Calvinball. There are no rules except what they make up as they go. You might think that maybe you ought to concede that they could get a score of 13 and beat your 12…but they are already convinced that their Q trumps your puny pair of digits. And if they get a score of Oatmeal-Sofa, they'll announce victory. Heck, if they somehow end up in the realm of numbers with you and get a 7, they'll declare that they win because they've got a Mersenne prime and we don't. Or because it's like a golf score. The mistake is to play the game in the expectation that the other side has the same respect for evidence that we do, or that evidence even matters.

well said

tnb

Truth In Advertising

Man, those Republicans are doing some crazy stuff.

[Crazy Stuff 1]

[Crazy Stuff 2]

[Crazy Stuff 3]

I wonder how many votes they'd have pulled if they'd revealed their real plans?

tnb

More on Mitch

No More Mister Nice Blog thinks Mitch isn't crazy enough to win the Republican nomination.

I think he's plenty crazy but is just acting sane. [Mitch]

tnb

Evan

[Ezra on Evan] [Even more on Evan]

Evan Bayh's the poster child for the American power elite. From a powerful family. Chosen and elected because he had the name. Never, ever had to work for a living. Bought and paid for by big money hidden in his wife's director positions. He was an Indiana Senator but he didn't really represent Indiana. He didn't live here. His kids didn't go to school here. Indiana Senator was just his given position. A job given him by his powerful owners. He didn't really stand for anything, He didn't represent anything. He was just doing his job for his owners. He did very little in government, an undistinguished career, but he did become rich and powerful. Now he'll take his place in another powerful position, recruiting and enriching the next generation of powerful, political elites. He's moved from the owned to an owner.

Evan Bayh, Duke of Indiana, Earl of Wellpoint. Indiana will not miss you.

tnb

Our Rulers

From one of my favorite humor sites: Political Irony › Using the Budget Crisis for Political Gain

Using the Budget Crisis for Political Gain

Just in case there is any doubt about what is really going on in Wisconsin, here’s a quote from Republican Scott Fitzgerald, who is the majority leader of the Wisconsin Senate:

If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.

With corporations now able to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, just about the only powerful organizations able to counter this tsunami of corporate money are unions. Corporations historically give twice as much money to Republicans, while unions give more money to Democrats. Is it any surprise that the Republicans are declaring all-out war on unions?

UPDATE: Speaking of Wisconsin, see this. Protestors go to the house of one of the State Senators who voted to strip collective bargaining rights from public employees, and get told by his soon-to-be-ex wife that he doesn’t live there any more — he’s living with his 25 year old mistress who happens to be a right-wing lobbyist. But the trip wasn’t all in vain, his former maid signs the recall petition against him.

Our elites are some damned nice people.

tnb

NPR and the Hidden Camera

[NPR chief executive quits over hidden camera video - CBS News]

[FireDogLake: NPR]

We're going to see more of this citizen-with-a-camera, gotcha-journalism-take downs. Since the corporate media has basically jumped into bed with the political elite and given-up its watchdog responsibilities, someone should hold our overlord's feet to the fire.

For now, the right is the dominate player. Every time a right winger catches a lefty doing something, the media plays it up and the left capitulates. The left tries, like the Walker-Koch interview, but has yet to get the same results. The reason for the right's domination?

1. They are not above faking it, editing the tape or changing the "facts" to make their point. Hell, the right has a whole god-damned "news" organization that specializes in blasting made up shit 24/7. So far we've seen little indication the left will do that.

2. The right has the killer instinct. They go for the jugular. They don't just want to win, they want to destroy the left. In the mass media, the right has Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, Savage, Hannity, Maklin and more, all calling for blood. The left has Maddow with the facts, The Daily Show and the Colbert Report with the humor but these leave the listener smirking at how stupid these people are and not with them wanting to "take there country back". The right has O'keefe and Breitbart making shit up to destroy the left while the left's best O'Keefe-type effort to date, the Walker-Koch call, seemed to be in fun, a joke. Sure they were trying to make a kill but the caper had a Bart Simpson air to it and left most snickering about how stupid Walker appeared.

3. The right has balls. A right-winger would never quit if they were caught in a video sting. They'd fight back, scream that they did nothing wrong and that the liberal media was out to get them. They'd change the subject, ignore it, make shit up, anything they could to win. By contrast the mainstream left is one pansy-assed group that just quits at the first sign of trouble. How many on the left have resigned? It's no wonder the right is driving the debate, its working. The right has balls. The left, well, not so much.

I guess the real point is that the right is playing to win. They see this as a war and they'll do whatever it takes to win. A no-holds barred, take no prisoners, there-are-no-rules-in-war approach is their method. The left is still playing the game by the more civilized rules of thirty years ago. Those rules don't apply and won't work today.

This is changing though. The left is beginning to play the right's game. It started with Olbermann and Maddow. The Daily Show And Colbert help. Left wing blogs have gotten more organized and better at catching and revealing the bullshit. They are also starting to use some of the right's uglier methods like fake calls. The Ed Shultz show has a right winger rage to it. Ed has balls. I've seen some lefty blogs recently with data slanted in a Fox news style. The fake stings will come. The left has to play the game as defined by the right if it has a chance to win.

The left will get there but I'm not sure we'll like the resulting politics. The right's current methods are borderline uncivilized and if the left follows their lead our political discourse is going to be very nasty. Maybe as bad as America has seen in generations.

I'm not sure what can be done though. Political intensity increased on the left in the Reagan years. Then on the right during the Clinton administration. It reached a new peak on the left with the "Stolen Election" crap during Bush-Gore. Then even more during the Bush wars and economic collapse. Both parties are responsible but the right took it to the crazy level by throwing a phony, propaganda-backed, hissy-fit when the no-birth-certificate-Kenyan-Muslim-socialist-Marxist was elected and stole their country. They chose to not accept the results of the game played under the old rules so they created their own rules. The left has little choice, either play the new game or be run over by it.

Maybe at some point the people will see the crazy and back off a bit. Maybe the Tea-Party will fade as they begin to enter nursing homes. Maybe the mass media will start doing its job and point out, or at least ignore, the Fox/conservative news hallucinations and the O'Keefe type hit jobs. Maybe our politics will go back to playing by a more civilized set of rules. I'm not holding my breath though.

tnb

Corporate Taxes

Some Back of the Envelope Nerdery on Corporate Taxes «  Modeled Behavior

I'm not against cutting or even killing corporate taxes but I see a couple of problems. I think their elimination would add to our already increasing wealth and income inequality and though there would be an economic gain initially, I don't think the gains would be that great in the long run.

The increased profits generated by the tax breaks would be shared by the owners, the workers, and the consumers but it's the owners than stand to reap the most. These same owners, our current political and corporate elite, already control most of the country's wealth and take the most of income so cutting the corporate taxes rate will just allow them to take more. This can be easily offset by increasing taxes on the rich but we know how that goes. So,.. cutting corporate taxes, without additional taxes on the wealthy, will mean the rich get richer while the rest of us wait for the trickle-down.

There would be an initial economic boost as companies move into the US to take advantage of the low (or zero) rates but it seems a temporary gain. Eventually others countries would follow with their own tax breaks, leading to a global race to the bottom of no corporate taxes anywhere. I think we already see some of this in the US as localities compete against each other, bending-over-backwards with tax breaks to lure companies into their areas. At some point, when the coporate tax rates have bottomed out around the globe we'll be back to competing on labor prices alone and we're not going to win that race.

Still, cutting corporate taxes to zero and taxing at the individual level seems like a better way to go, cleaner, simpler, no double taxation. We just need to make it fair.

tnb

Terrorism

The Rude Pundit on Terrorism.

The Rude Pundit

"The thing about terrorists is that there's ones you support and there's ones you don't."

Also, see: [Terrorists] and [Terrorists ?]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I guess those in power get to pick which definition to use.

tnb

Tony Auth Editorial Cartoon, March 11, 2011 on GoComics.com

Found here: Tony Auth Editorial Cartoon, March 11, 2011 on GoComics.com

Conservatives vs Evolution

Digby has some comments on a Ballon Juice post of leading conservatives thoughts on evolution and intelligent design.

Hullabaloo

It's fun to see them squirm to avoid the question but what's really interesting to me is that anyone gives a damn what Tucker Carlson thinks about anything.

tnb

Real Americans

From No More Mister Nice Blog

tnb

America, a Welfare Nation.

Government Transfer Payments in the US: It's All About Health Care | Angry Bear

The Angry bear sheds some light on a recent article making the rounds.

tnb

Health care: We're not "The Best"

Americans have higher rates of most chronic diseases than same-age counterparts in England

"Researchers announced today in the American Journal of Epidemiology that despite the high level of spending on healthcare in the United States compared to England, Americans experience higher rates of chronic disease and markers of disease than their English counterparts at all ages.. Why health status differs so dramatically in these two countries, which share much in terms of history and culture, is a mystery."

Chart from [Wikipedia]


So once again,... our health care is not "the best in the world". Yet we still pay a whole lot more.

Tell me again how private business is always more efficient than government.

tnb

Out of thin Air?

MacroMania: Out of thin air?

A good post on "the gold standard" vs "paper money".

Speculators Gone Wild?

More on speculation driving oil prices from the Economist's View: Speculators Gone Wild?

Another $20 billion ?

Israel may ask U.S. for $20 billion more in security aid, Barak says - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Damn, those Israelis aren't shy.

"It might be wise to invest another $20 billion to upgrade the security of Israel for the next generation or so," he said, adding: "A strong, responsible Israel can become a stabilizer in such a turbulent region."

Israel doesn't need any more US taxpayer money. They have been the strongest nation in the region for 50 years and really haven't been much of a stabilizer, in fact, many would say they are responsible for the turbulence in the region. Maybe they should put a little more emphasis on the "responsible" part of "a strong, responsible Israel".


tnb

Turning a Blind Eye to the Obvious

A nice chart here.

Would every Fox News wathers/Tea-Bagger please take a look at this chart. The critical area is after the bottom of the early 1970s. Now think about who was president during each period of increasing deficits and each period of decreasing deficits.

tnb





Found here: Turning a Blind Eye to the Obvious - NYTimes.com

Strange life signs found on meteorites: NASA scientist | Reuters

The comments about this story tell a lot about the followers of these websites.

Strange life signs found on meteorites: NASA scientist | Reuters

Alien Life in Meteorites: 'Remarkable Achievement' or 'Garbage'? | Fox News

I don't think those Fox readers really like science.

tnb

How Popular is your Country?

Found here: Israel grouped with Iran, North Korea as world's least popular countries - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

tnb

Good Idea. Ain't Gonna Happen.

The Reaction: How about a real government for the people?

The Right will never go for this. They treat that Constitution like it's a religious document. Ain't gonna be no changes.

tnb

Mitch Daniels

Nate Silver of [fivethirtyeight] created the following chart that shows Mitch Daniels to the left of Mitt Romney. I don't really agree with this.

Romney, more moderate, must show right-wing crazy to capture the loony, evangelical side of the republicans. Mitch is a right-wing, evangelical loon [link] so he can show a more moderate side.

In essence, Romney is a moderate who plays a right winger on TV. Mitch is a right-winger who plays a moderate on TV.

tnb

Enemies - part 2

This said [Enemies]. I do think the Tea-Baggers are the group most exploited today, generally being led by the nose by The Propaganda Network to support things against their best interest.

Political Irony › It’s a Tea Party World

Enemies

Daily Kos: Why it's okay to hate union workers

It's always easier to unite or control when there's a good enemy around. As I look back through my life (born in the US in 1960), I see there have been a lot of enemies.

My early days saw the communists, the godless rock and rollers, the dope-smokin', dirty, long-haired hippies, and the various civil rights groups as the enemy. Eventually, as those groups gained power, new villains emerged, the Cops, the hippie-hating, union thug, the Nixonian government, and though still mostly in power, the middle-aged, Archie-Bunker-like, white male were seen as the bad guys.

My adult years have seen an explosion of villains. The religious right, the godless atheists, unions, Asians, Hispanics, brown people, white people, Muslims, Reagan, the Clintons, welfare mothers, bankers, big government, big business, the liberal media, conservative talk radio, conservative Fox News, big-oil, the EPA, science, our education system, abortionists, anti-abortionists, terrorists, war-mongers, teachers, public workers and more have all been seen as villains by someone over the last thirty years.

There are a lot of enemies out there today. Maybe there always have been but I think our bi-polar political system and multi-faceted media environment make it very easy to create bad-guys today. Every group has a reason and an outlet to create their own bad guy. For every Tea-bagger being exploited by the conservative elites, there is some Anti-Tea-Bagger being exploited by the liberal elites. We all are haters and the hated to some degree.

I don't really think this is a good thing. In good economic times, its' probably not too big of a deal, we argue around the edges and life goes on with maybe a little isolated violence. In bad economic times, who knows, it could get away from us.

tnb

Whimsley: On the Media on The Social Media

Blogs and Bullets: Breaking Down Social Media - Whimsley

tnb

Wisconsin Workers

I guess its "Support the Wisconsin Unions" day here at TNB.

20 lies (and counting) told by Gov. Walker « Russ' Filtered News

tnb

Wisconsin Pension Plans

This, [Boston Globe: Myths About Unions], made me want to learn a little about Wisconsin's public employee's retirement plans.

I found a couple of documents

A study of Wisconsin plans from 2006

A Wisconsin Government publication

Their pensions don't seem out of line with those in the rest of the states.

tnb

Political Irony

Here are a couple found on one my favorite sites. [Political Irony]

Government Waste by the newly elected Haters-of-Big-Government

Banking while driving

tnb

Palling around with Terrorists

Apparently some of our leader/elites have been seen palling around with known terrorist groups.

Here's the current news item.

Ex-Officials Say They Were Paid To Attend Pro-MEK Events | TPMMuckraker

Here are a few others other links about this.

[Link1] [Link2] [Link3]

It's a good thing they're rich and powerful, otherwise they might be prosecuted for providing support to this group (see link below)

A federal judge in Brooklyn has upheld a terrorism prosecution against a U.S. citizen working for a group violently opposed to the Iranian government.

tnb

The Daily Show

John Stewart on Teachers vs Wall Street.

The Left don't need no stinkin' talk-radio.

The Daily Show - Crisis in the Dairyland - For Richer and Poorer
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Capitalist's Paradox - Umair Haque - Harvard Business Review

Interesting post here: The Capitalist's Paradox - Umair Haque - Harvard Business Review

So perhaps, if you're one of the people formerly known as the masters of the universe, you should be quaking a little bit in your tasseled loafers. Perhaps it's time to ask: "Is the final, real-world outcome of all the hard work the very talented people in our organization do a positive, lasting outcome — or does it tend to backfire? Do our outcomes say: "We're creating a radically better future, in human terms — because yesterday's best isn't good enough"? Or do they say: "Here you go. Want fries with that McFuture?"

so,.. does what you do make the world better?

tnb

Terrorism - War

Official: Suspect in Deadly U.S. Airmen Shooting Wanted Revenge for Afghanistan - FoxNews.com

"Prosecutor Rainer Griesbaum told reporters that 21-year-old Arid Uka from Kosovo said he went to the airport with the intent to shoot “as revenge for the American mission in Afghanistan.”

The US war in the middle east, planting the seeds of future terrorism.

But,... They hate us for our freedoms.

tnb

They Hate us for our freedoms

A good line from Eschaton here:

Horrible things happen in war, which is why we shouldn't have stupid fucking wars. We'll never get there, but I'll know that actual serious people are in charge when we seriously question just whether the proper response to a bunch of guys flying planes into buildings was a large invasion and decade-long occupation of a country none of them were actually from.

About this.

NATO has apologized and U.S. General David Petraeus has promised a full investigation into the killing Tuesday of nine Afghan boys. The kids, between the ages of nine and 15, were misidentified by NATO helicopters.

[NATO has apologized]

But hey,... "They hate us for our freedoms"

tnb

Colbert Nails One

Mitch Daniels

Mitch is trying hard to be seen as a sane, fiscally responsible, realistic republican while not alienating the Tea-Baggers. So how's he doing?

On Spending.

Mitch was Bush's Budget Director when the administration was running up huge deficits. Here's a clip.

Mitch Daniels Would Prefer We Forget About His Time as Bush Budget Director | Video Cafe

This probably won't hurt him with the Tea-Baggers. Though they hate deficits, the Tea-Baggers really only care about them when there's a "D" in the Fox News graphic. I think most would be willing to overlook deficits if their man is in office. This could cause him some trouble with independents. I think many independents are beginning to see the republican hypocisy on deficits.

On Health care, Medicare, and Social Security

Mitch on Health care

Though the "death panel" aspect was a rallying cry for tea-baggers against the current administration, again, it probably won't hurt Daniels. It'll be spun or ignored and again there's no "D" in the Fox News graphic. This could help him with independents as it at least shows a willingness to consider reality. Something few other republican hopefuls have.

On religion

Mitch Daniels - On religion

(Mitch...) "atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth."

He's either a fanatic or playing to the fanatics. Either way, this comment was stupid and will cost him independent votes. The right-wingers will love it though.

On His Experience/Abilities

His estimate of the cost of the middle eastern wars (50 to 60 billion [Mitch Daniels: Projecting the cost of Middle East war]) was so far off (over 1,000 billion so far) it makes him look like an amatuer. Can anyone trust anything he says on anything? Does he know what the hell he's talking about? This will hurt him with independents but again I think the tea-baggers will forgive him.

Overall, I think he's doing the best job of any of the main republican players at sounding sane. I think, right now, he's the best chance the Republicans have. The Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, Bolton types are too polarizing and probably can't get the middle ground. Pawlenty is too wishy-washy and doesn't excite the crazies. Romney doesn't excite the crazies either and really seems like yesterday's candidate. Daniels will do all right with the wingnuts and though he's probably not their favorite, he's crazier than Pawlenty and Romney and,... the wingnuts sure as hell are not going to vote for the marxist-kenyan. He's also probably the best shot the Republicans have at capturing the middle ground. If cooler conservative heads prevail, I think Daniels is the guy.

Of course, it's early, some fresh republican face could appear, Bill O'Reilly might decide to run but for now I think Daniels has the best shot. It's going to be an interesting cycle

tnb

Interesting Links

An interesting post [Responding] on an interesting site [Cheap Talk]

Another Interesting article [iPhone, Global Trade and exchange rates]

tnb

The Propaganda Network

Fox News caught again. At Hullabaloo



Talking about the Wisconsin Labor riots while showing violent protest clips with palm trees in the background.

tnb