Skip to content

Shear those sheep!

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

I’ve commented before on the fact that there’s a lot of grifting happening on the right hand side of the political spectrum. Some of it is laid out here, and it occurs to me that there’s not much difference between the secular scammers and those working the spiritual beat. Nor is there  much separating the trusting, faithful and stupid sheep shorn by the televangelists and the sheep that line the pews at a Glenn Beck concert.

Filed in Grifters, Republicans | | Comments (0)

You’re welcome

Monday, January 7, 2013

Or, Great Minds Think Alike

Paul Krugman, this morning, on the platinum coin:

This still leaves the question of whose face goes on the coin — but that’s easy: John Boehner. Because without him and his colleagues, this wouldn’t be necessary.

(via NYTimes.com)

Yours truly this past Thursday:

It occurs to me that if they mint the coin they should put Boehner and McConnell on the obverse, and an elephant on the reverse.

(via CT Blue)

I’d like to believe he’s a reader but I’m not that deluded yet. More importantly, he says we should go with the coin.

Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music

Friday, January 4, 2013

This is getting a bit harder. I confess that I really don’t know much about newer music, except what I pick up on Colbert, and I’m running out of the old stuff. I’d appreciate any suggestions I can get (looking at you, MZ). Anyway, in rummaging through my mind’s back catalogue, I realized that I have never, so far as I can remember, put up anything by Jackie Wilson, and I found something surprisingly good.

No lip synching, and a real live performance.

Every time I wander through youtube looking for performances from the late 50s or early 60s, I check to see if there are any live performances by the great Sam Cooke. Sorry to say, still nothing.

Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Fighting crazy with crazy

Friday, January 4, 2013

This, and a number of other posts on the subject, including Paul Krugman’s here, should be required reading for every progressive who is concerned about the probability possibility that the Democrats might sell us out in two months in order to “protect the nation” from the Republican’s refusal to raise the debt limit. The Republicans have already announced their intention to hold the nation hostage again (example here ), so it’s important that, when we hear the White House or our Congressfolks telling us that they simply have no choice but to cave yet again, we all know and respond that there’s a fix every bit as legal, if every bit as cynical, as the hostage taking itself.

In a situation like this, it’s often useful, as bizarre as this may sound, to ask yourself WWGBD (What would George Bush do). He was a terrible president-the worst we’ve had- but he knew how to get what he wanted. The trouble was that what he wanted was generally bad for the country. But I have no doubt that had the Democrats threatened to take the country hostage by refusing to raise the debt limit, he would, in a minute, have threatened to mint the trillion dollar coin, and if they’d called his bluff, he would have done it. In his case, there would have been no anti-Fox network to assure us that it was all the end of the world, but really, who cares what Fox has to say? After the markets react with a resounding calm the issue would go away. If the Republicans really want to dig their own graves, they can try to impeach Obama, and drive his favorables into the stratosphere. In some other universe, this scenario will play itself out. But not in ours, I feel confident. Nonetheless, it’s important for everyone to know that it could.

I should also point out that had George Bush threatened to do what Obama will never threaten to do, the Democrats would not have called his bluff, because a) they never did, and b) they would have known he would do what he said. The Republicans have a) always called Obama’s bluffs, and b) discovered he never follows through. However, there’s always a first time, and this should be one of them.

EPILOGUE: It occurs to me that if they mint the coin they should put Boehner and McConnell on the obverse, and an elephant on the reverse. 

Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)

That was quick

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Okay, I know it was a slam dunk, but still…

Filibuster reform is in trouble, proponents warn, at the hands of a scaled-back proposal they say would enhance rather than diminish the Senate minority’s power to obstruct.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) says his proposal to force filibustering senators to occupy the floor and speak ceaselessly could be in jeopardy, thanks to a new bipartisan filibuster package that he and his ally Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) argue would do more harm than good to the cause.

“Normally the majority party has a right to determine the agenda of the Senate. They don’t have the right to pass bills. That’s up to the majority of the Senate,” Udall said on the floor Wednesday. “But then the majority leader should have the right to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate. And that has been denied over and over again by the minority party. That’s wrong.”

The dueling proposal, spearheaded by longtime Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would make it somewhat tougher for the minority to block debate on legislation but also guarantee them two amendments on bills, regardless of germaneness or relevancy to the main topic of the legislation.

“It’s a step backward rather than a step forward,” a Merkley aide said. “It doesn’t attack the core of the matter. It doesn’t include a talking filibuster. And it allows the minority to kill legislation with poison pill amendments. It keeps all the tools minority has to obstruct and then gives them another tool.”

(via TPMDC)

A few days ago I predicted the following for the coming year:

The United States Senate will make a gesture toward reforming its rules, but will do nothing meaningful. To the extent anything meaningful is proposed, it will be defeated in response to cries of unfairness from the same Republicans, including the Fox News people, who condemned filibusters when Democrats threatened to use them (and didn’t because they were intimidated).

Actually, if the bi-partisan reform (which always means it favors Republicans) comes about, I will, in a sense, be wrong, as it will make the situation even worse, since I predicted that the “reform” would be merely meaningless. But I’ll still take it, lamentably as one more easy prediction that came about. There’s always a Democrat, this time the usually good Carl Levin, who will play nice with Republicans and prevent real progress on any issue. Here’s hoping (but don’t hold your breath) that Harry Reid will back the Merkley plan.

Filed in Decline, Democrats | | Comments (0)

Declaring victory

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Back during the Vietnam War, Vermont Senator George Aiken, a Republican (back in those days there were Republicans who were perfectly sane. You can look it up.) made the following suggestion about the war: Declare victory and leave. A lot of people saw the wisdom in his suggestion, and in the end, though it was rarely mentioned, that’s pretty much what we did.

The critical thing, though, was that we left, and could feasibly pretend that the war was well and truly won. We couldn’t have engaged in that pretense had we stayed. Well, maybe we could have; we are so good at self delusion. Still, in the case of Vietnam, it would have been hard.

What, you may ask, does this have to do with anything. Well, Aiken’s formulation came to mind today as I read this article, in which we find that the White House, once again, has declared victory in a situation that can, with charity, be optimistically characterized as a draw. This is a longstanding habit with the Obamites:

The chaos on New Year’s Day in the House validated the president’s strategy to find a solution now, White House aides said.

Despite the ugly process and bruised relations, the West Wing thinks it won big.

(via POLITICO.com)

But, of course, this declared victory was in a battle. The war goes on:

But the failure to address several big issues sets up another fiscal showdown in late February, when the two-month delay in the sequester coincides with the deadline to raise the country’s $16.4 trillion debt limit

So far as I can see, other than getting half a loaf on the tax issue, all the Democrats did was kick the can down the road. At the end of March the Republicans will have two hostages, and Obama will have nothing. At that point, there will be another battle, and perhaps another declared victory, but after all those declared victories, and given the relative size of the armies, who is going to feel like they’re winning the war? The craftier Republicans are already looking forward to the next round, when they can take aim at Social Security and Medicare, knowing that Obama is fairly eager to “compromise” them away.

TOM COLE: Again, I would prefer not to raise taxes on anybody. But we protected almost every American. We did it at a higher income level than the President campaigned on. And again, frankly, we’ve denied him I think his most important piece of leverage in any negotiation going forward. So I particularly like that part. I understand unemployment extension. I prefer, you know, a more focused effort in that regard. But we do have parts of the country where that’s necessary and it’s a fair compromise. The entitlement issue, just too much to deal with I think in one piece of legislation. But again, still sequester is in front of us. The continuing resolution runs out the end of march and obviously the debt ceiling. All of those things honestly are Republican leverage not Democratic so I think there will be opportunities to deal with the spending issue next year. Honestly I expect that will be the dominant issue along with trying to overhaul the tax code going forward. So that’s usually pretty good ground for Republicans.

(via Hullabaloo: QOTD: Republican Tom Cole)

What Aiken realized is that declaring victory only works if you truly leave after you make your declaration. When you stay, as Obama must, you will inevitably fight again. And even in “winning” Obama once again demonstrated that when he draws a line in the sand, the fact that it’s in the sand, and not in concrete, is the salient point. Don’t be surprised if we hear, with the usual media amplification, a Republican meme in March that since they “compromised” in January, it’s up to Obama to “compromise” in March. And he will. He’ll get a meaningless increase in the debt ceiling (timed to run out at yet another opportune moment) and they’ll finally say yes to his offer to cut Social Security or Medicare, and then run against Democrats for doing it. He’ll declare victory yet again, and maybe he’ll be right. It may only be the rest of us who will be the big losers.

Filed in Obama | | Comments (0)

Report card and predictions

Monday, December 31, 2012

Well, this is going to be an extended post. At first, I thought of splitting it in two, but it’s really one subject, and really, if you have nothing better to do on New Year’s Eve than to read this (as I have nothing better to do than to write it), then you probably need a lengthy diversion. So, a look back at my predictions from last year, and a look ahead at what we can expect in 2013.

Okay, first let’s look at last year’s predictions. You can read them here, for what they’re worth, but I’m going to summarize.

As in the past, I’ll give myself a letter grade and note the degree of difficulty on a one to 10 scale.

I said that there was someone loonier than Herman Cain all set to run for the Senate. I was wrong only in the sense that once again, there was (were?–grammarians, help me here) more than one. In this category I put every candidate that had anything to say about rape, since they always seemed to find something good to say about it. Not to say they were the only loony ones, but didn’t they shine?

Grade: A+ DOD: 1

I predicted Willard would win the nomination; tepidly predicted Jindal or Rubio for VP; hopefully, but with a lack of confidence, predicted that Ron Paul would run third party; predicted Obama would win; and predicted that our side would be more enthusiastic than theirs.

I’m giving myself a B on this one, since I got the big stuff right, and only missed where I said in advance I wasn’t sure. The DOD on this one was 5.

I predicted the Republicans would retain control of the House.

Grade: A, DOD 1

I predicted the Republicans would take the senate “unless [the Republicans] nominate a slew of Christine O’Donnells”. This one is unscoreable (I claim a copyright on that word. My spell checker says it hadn’t existed before I wrote it, and who am I to argue with Microsoft?) . I think on balance I was right, but I’m way too lazy to count the precise number of crazies that led to the Republican Senate disaster. And, in some cases, the losers didn’t fit the stereotype. I don’t think Tommy Thompson is crazy-at least no more than Mitch McConnell- but he lost too.

Grade: C+, DOD 7

I predicted Elizabeth Warren would win.

Grade: A. DOD: 7

I predicted that we as a nation would do nothing to deal with our current economic crisis or prevent its recurrence. By “nothing” I meant nothing positive, so I was right.

Grade: A. DOD 0

I predicted that bankers would continue to make outsize salaries, whether the banks make money or not.

Grade: A. DOD minus 10. I mean what was I thinking . That was like predicting that we’d all continue breathing or else we’d die.

I predicted the folks at Fox would make Al Gore jokes when it got cold and that the Obama people might do something worthwhile about global warming under the radar. Here my laziness prevents me from finding links to prove I was right, but I was.

Grade: A. DOD 1

I predicted the Ipad three would be indistinguishable from the Ipad 2,but would have Siri, which was withheld from the 2 without cause. I also predicted I’d buy one. Wrong on all counts, except about Siri, assuming you think the retina display is a big deal.

Grade: F. DOD 3

I correctly predicted that someone would win the Oscars and that some famous people would die and others would misbehave. These obvious predictions were offset by my insistence on believing the Red Sox would come back, which they didn’t, but wait until next year.

GRADE: C DOD 0

On to the predictions.

Before I started to write this post, it occurred to me that making predictions was a dismal task, due to the fact that this year, at least politically, seemed to bid fair to be a tedious repeat of the last couple of years, with our betters fiddling while Rome continues to burn. When I reviewed last year’s report card, therefore, I realized that all I really had to do was reprint my 2011 predictions, and then I see here that that’s pretty much what I said last year, except, it being an election year, some election predictions were needed. However, this year those 2011 predictions seem perfectly serviceable, so I will repeat them, noting those rare instances where modifications are required. Having confessed my errors last year, I have not repeated the clunkers.

The United States Senate will make a gesture toward reforming its rules, but will do nothing meaningful. To the extent anything meaningful is proposed, it will be defeated in response to cries of unfairness from the same Republicans, including the Fox News people, who condemned filibusters when Democrats threatened to use them (and didn’t because they were intimidated).
Republicans will make unreasonable demands in exchange for increasing the debt limit, most likely cuts in programs such as Medicaid. Unlike Clinton, Obama will be unable or unwilling to make the Republicans look like petty obstructionists bent on damaging the middle class. The Republicans will get what they want, with a fig leaf for Obama, who will proclaim that the deal was great for the country, thus undercutting any Democrat who comes out against it. Obama will earn beltway credibility for “bi-partisanship”. The deal will contain the seeds of yet another such “crisis”. Pundits on the left will therefore warn that we are being set up for another betrayal, but they will be ignored.

The latter prediction is sort of an all purpose prediction. It applies to the fiscal “cliff” farce as well as the coming debt limit farce. However, I’m wrong in advance about Obama getting beltway credibility for bi-partisanship. Just as the parties are always equally responsible for Republican caused deadlock, Obama, despite his eagerness to compromise, is never given credit (or blame) for that willingness. Like the Democrats generally, he is always a stumbling block as intransigent as any Republican. Oh-oh, even as I’m writing this, I see I’m right in advance about him caving to unreasonable demands, although to give Obama his due, Krugman says the cave is not as bad as we’ve come to expect, though as Krugman also points out, the seeds of a new crisis, and another cave-in, have been sown.

Obama will propose cuts to social security. In this context, the term “cut” includes, but is not necessarily limited to, direct cuts in present benefits, raising the retirement age, or changing the way benefit amounts are determined so that, over time, the real value of benefits declines. Republicans will go along with his suggestions, and then successfully accuse Democrats of trying to destroy Social Security. Economists who know what they are talking about will point out that there is no economic need to cut Social Security, and that lifting the payroll tax limit, a relatively painless step, would assure benefits far into the future (assuming, of course, that we avoid economic or environmental collapse). These economists will be ignored, due to the fact that they have been right about economic issues in the past, thus disqualifying them from any participation in the national discourse.

Okay, he’s already done this, but he’ll do it again, when the time is ripe. Oh, and look, the Republicans are already circling like buzzards. 

Republicans will demand cuts in all manner of public programs (over and above those they extort in exchange for increasing the debt limit). They will do so on the grounds that the deficit is out of control. Many Democrats will join the chorus. No one within the Beltway will note that the programs being attacked involve sums that are insignificant in comparison to the amount given to the rich by way of the tax cuts the Republicans extorted in 2010.

Actually, there’s a reasonably good chance I’ll be wrong on this one so far as Congressional Democrats are concerned. They may actually have absorbed some lessons from the last few years. As to the rest of the prediction, it’s really a no-brainer. When do the Republicans not demand cuts in social programs? But then, I may be wrong about that too. If they can’t find Democrats to give them cover, they may not want to go it alone.

The media will continue to portray the Republican party as the party of fiscal responsibility and the parties will continue to be equally responsible for the stalemate in Washington.

Congress will do nothing about global warming. In fact, the entire country will continue to pretend that nothing is happening, even while we suffer through one of the hottest summers on record.

Okay, I have to alter the global warming thing a bit. The country appears to be waking up, but the politicians continue to slumber. Oh, wait, Obama mentioned global warming in his victory speech. Who knows, maybe he’ll mention it in his inaugural address. That should cement his legacy.

China will open up an even bigger lead in green technology.

Unemployment will remain high. Republicans will blame Obama, while continuing to prevent him from doing anything about it.

I should note here that I am not necessarily predicting that Obama and/or the Democrats will actually attempt to do anything significant about unemployment; only that if they do, the Republicans will block it and then blame Democrats for doing nothing.

I made some other predictions on non-political issues, which also appear likely to come true.

The Ipad will be updated, and I will find a reason why I absolutely need one, but Lon Seidman will get one first.

Okay, I actually skipped the last two Ipads, but the battery on my Ipad 2 is getting weak, so I actually may have a reason. As to Lon, I have faith in him, and by the way congrats to Lon and his wife on the other new addition to their family expected next year.

Lindsey Lohan, whoever she may be, will continue to self destruct, but people will cease to care, as some other celebrity will blaze new trails of tabloid documented self destruction.

I have no idea if Lindsey Lohan is still alive, but if she is, then I stand by this prediction, unless I was right the last time, in which case I guess I’m wrong now.

I will work my way through all of this century’s episodes of Dr. Who.

Done and done, but I’m ready for the new ones as soon as they come out.

Depressing on the political front, isn’t it? At least I have the new Ipad to look forward to.

Finally, I end with my summation from last year:

As to the messy and bizarre little details, we will have to await events. Of this we can be certain. The decline continues; not to be abated in this electoral cycle, absent a truly extraordinary miracle. The world gets warmer, the people get poorer, and the barbarians are at the gates, in the form of an unholy alliance of the plutocrats and the theocrats. I’ll leave the rest to Randy:

The end of an empire is messy at best
And this empire is ending
Like all the rest
Like the Spanish Armada adrift on the sea
We’re adrift in the land of the brave
And the home of the free

No, wait. I can’t leave it there. I’m under strict orders (or was last year, and I think the directive still holds) from a certain someone not to be a cranky old man. So forget about what Randy has to say, and forget about all my dire premonitions. Take a bit of the advice from Monty Python that I’ve repeated so often:

Some things in life are bad
 They can really make you mad
 Other things just make you swear and curse.
 When you’re chewing on life’s gristle
 Don’t grumble, give a whistle
 And this’ll help things turn out for the best… 
And…always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the light side of life…

To anyone who’s made it this far, Happy New Year!

Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (0)

A better way to a better House

Saturday, December 29, 2012

A David Roberts (drgrist) tweet directed me to this article, which I thought I would pass along. I believe I’ve made similar suggestions in this blog (I know I’ve verbalized them), but for the life of me I can’t find the posts. Here’s the gist of it:

Executive summary: The lack of fairness and accountability in Congressional elections is drawing welcome attention. Democrats in the 2012 elections won only 46% of House seats despite winning more votes than Republicans .More than three out of five races were won by landslide margins of at least 20%, women remain deeply under-represented and the number of centrist and independent legislators declined again.

But most analysts overlook the real problem: the 1967 law mandating that states elect U.S. House Members in single-member district, winner-take-all elections. A lack of voter choice, the distortion between voter intent and outcome, and the reduction of centrist legislators has relatively little to do with the redistricting process of 2011 compared with the very fact of districting itself. The fundamental cause of partisan bias in the House is that Democrats are relatively concentrated in urban areas, and the fundamental cause of the lack of voter choice in most elections is that most areas of the country have a clear partisan lean. Gerrymandering is problematic, but is not the root of our electoral dysfunction.

Confronting the reality that winner-take-all rules are at the heart of the problems with our elections points us to the only reform solution: the adoption of fair voting systems. These American forms of proportional representation are based on voting for candidates in larger districts with more than one representative. By allowing like-minded voters who make up 20% of the vote to elect at least one of five seats, those seats will reliably represent the left, center and right of every district – resulting in a truly representative Congress.

(via FairVote.org)

There are numerous ways to set this up. Here in Connecticut, with five representatives, the parties could run slates of candidates. If, say, the Democrats got 60% of the vote, they would get 3 Congresspersons. We’d be net losers here, but overall, we’d be net winners. Running slates, rather than individuals, would tend to make personal negative advertising more difficult. People would be voting the party, not the candidates. More than likely this would make races more issue oriented. It would be a little like getting rid of the electoral college; the parties would have to appeal to the entire electorate, not simply to a favored slice. This system would also make a vote for a minor party meaningful. If a party could garner some meaningful percentage of the vote, it would win a seat at the table.

I had forgotten that, as the article points out, at-large districts were banned by Congressional enactment in the 60s. Connecticut was one of the states with an at large district. Simply legalizing them would probably be enough to allow states to implement a proportional system, but it wouldn’t work unless it was done everywhere. I imagine states like Wyoming would have to have mini-congessmen, with each getting to cast a fraction of a vote.

The sad fact is that this country is rapidly becoming ungovernable. The Founders were smart guys, but they weren’t perfect, nor did they anticipate scientific gerrymandering. The out of proportion influence of the small states has always made our claim that we are a democracy ring somewhat hollow, but recent developments make them farcical.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music-a bit topical

Friday, December 28, 2012

Seems apropos, given the way in which the fiscal ~~cliff~~ bump has been negotiated in Washington.

I guess Obama can relate to what Sir Paul has to say. On the other hand, let us all give thanks for crazy tea party types. Were they not around, Boehner might just say “yes” when Obama does. Instead, he says “no”, which has so far preserved us from the wrecking ball being applied to Social Security or Medicare.

It does seem odd, doesn’t it, that the same people that have been warning us for years that our deficit is out of control, and that we must control it at all costs, including adopting European style austerity, are panicked at the thought that in a few days austerity will be instituted, and deficit cutting measures imposed. The real problem, of course, is that their own oxen are being gored, at least to a limited extent, and they aren’t used to that.

Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Hard bargaining

Friday, December 28, 2012

This doesn’t excuse Obama’s eagerness to screw social security recipients; there are other ways to cut costs, but it may explain it a bit.

Kent Conrad, the budget chairman on the Senate side, and a putative Democrat, suggests compromising with Boehner by giving him more than he’s asked for.

Philosophically, I don’t believe in them, but there are 100 senators and 435 Congress critters, and there are about 500 good arguments for term limits among them.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)