On the Hustings

(Los Angeles Times): "California Republicans in trouble, former California Republican says"

(Des Moines Register): "In Iowa, tea party defender Ted Cruz says he knows how to unite the GOP"

(Time): "6 presidential-campaign themes Hillary Clinton is test-driving"

(Fox News): "Obamacare rollout casts cloud over 2014 Dems, despite GOP’s budget fight bruises"

(Real Clear Politics): "Florida's Crist plots political comeback as Democrat"

David Frum fantasy Ted Cruz hellscape

By Frank Moraes

You all know what I think of David Frum: he's an idiot. And people just love him! He's that most beloved of figures in the mainstream media: a "reasonable" Republican. And what did he do to get that? Oh, a few things here and there. He isn't a ranter; that's probably the most important thing. But he's also for minor forms of gun control. And after decades of being against same sex marriage he came out for it two years ago. But he's still against legalizing cannabis. He wrote, "If somebody could prove to me that marijuana was harmless or that legalization would not lead to an increase in marijuana use, I'd change my mind about marijuana legalization." So when no reasonable person anywhere can argue a point, Frum is right there to sign up. He's a special kind of follower: always last.

When it comes to economic and international policies, Frum is as bad as they get. So I'm not inclined to think that he's reasonable. Now if same sex marriage was the most important issue in the world to me, I might think differently—even though Frum came to the party pretty late. Ditto for gun control. And other than that, what exactly does he offer? He doesn't question President Obama's birth certificate? Whatever.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(CNN): "Ted Cruz's grassroots: The new Reagan Revolution"

(The Hill): "Obama says he doesn't want to hear about spending cuts"

(Bloomberg): "Obamacare website flaws imperil President’s activist agenda"

(Roll Call): "Manchin’s Obamacare mandate delay could create political peril"

(New York Times): "Immigration poses threat of another Republican rift"

Sign of the Apocalypse #76: Pinterest is worth billions

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, I get that it sort of makes sense, and New York's Kevin Roose points to some shocking stats:

• Percentage of U.S. Internet-using women that are on Pinterest: 20 percent
• Number of Pinterest business accounts: 500,000
• Sephora’s Pinterest followers spend fifteen times more that its Facebook fans.
• Pinterest accounts for 25 percent of retail referral traffic.
• Pinterest’s share of referrals is highest in home and furnishings, accounting for up to 60 percent of all social traffic.
• Pinterest shoppers are spending significantly more per checkout, averaging between $140–$180 per order compared with consistent $80 and $60 orders for Facebook and Twitter shoppers, respectively.

There are already about 70 million users. I may not be one of them, and I don't even know if I know anyone who's a user, and, as Roose points out, those users may not come from the tech and investor communities that tend to determine what's valuable and what's not, but the popularity, and possibility, of this social networking site is undeniable.

Still...

The site just raised $225 million at a valuation of $3.8 billion — making it worth fifteen times as much as the Washington Post, twice as much as the New York Times, and more than Spotify, as of its last closed funding round.

That's fucking insane -- a sign of the insanity of our time and of the apocalypse that must surely be just around the corner.

Researchers discover a future home for humanity

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, we're fucking up our own planet so badly, maybe we can move here if we don't first destroy ourselves along with it:

Astronomers may have identified one of the richest planetary systems yet.

The discovery of a seventh planet around the dwarf star KIC 11442793 could be a record, according to two separate teams of researchers.

The system bears some similarities to our own, but all seven planets orbit much closer to their host star, which lies some 2,500 light-years from Earth.

*****

The new planet is the fifth furthest from its parent star, orbiting with a period of nearly 125 days.

With a radius of 2.8 times that of the Earth, it fits into a family that now includes two roughly Earth sized worlds, three "super-Earths" and two larger bodies.

Perfect. Set the controls to Warp Factor 9.2, minimum.

Way to turn the world against you, America

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Guardian reports:

The National Security Agency monitored the phone conversations of 35 world leaders after being given the numbers by an official in another US government department, according to a classified document provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The confidential memo reveals that the NSA encourages senior officials in its "customer" departments, such the White House, State and the Pentagon, to share their "Rolodexes" so the agency can add the phone numbers of leading foreign politicians to their surveillance systems.

The document notes that one unnamed US official handed over 200 numbers, including those of the 35 world leaders, none of whom is named. These were immediately "tasked" for monitoring by the NSA.

Oh, sure, the surveillance state apologists will say that this is what everyone does so get over it, or that none of this would have come out if it hadn't been for the "traitor" Snowden so it's all his fault, but the fact is that the truth has gotten out and much of the rest of the world is pissed with the U.S. and rightly so. How can anyone, even a close ally like Germany, trust America?

Remember when Obama distinguished himself from Bush II by rebuilding America's standing and credibility around the world?

Yeah.

P.M. Headlines

(The Hill):"Obamacare website contractors blame Obama administration"

(New York Times): "Republicans, sensing weakness in health law rollout, switch tactics"

(Roll Call): "Reid: ‘There’s not going to be a grand bargain’"

(NBC Politics): "Safe for now? Why Sebelius is unlikely to be axed after Obamacare mess"

(The Guardian): "NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders after US official handed over contacts"

The Orcs are in trouble

By Carl 

Gee, you think the shutdown was a good idea for the GOP? I suppose you could if you think a permanent Democratic majority is a good idea:

Washington (CNN) -- In a sign of the political hangover congressional Republicans are suffering in the wake of the government shutdown, three-quarters of Americans in a new national poll say that most GOP members of Congress don't deserve to be re-elected.

A CNN/ORC International survey released Monday also found a majority saying that the Republicans' policies are too extreme. And according to the poll, Democrats have an 8-point advantage over the Republicans in an early indicator in the battle for control of Congress. But with more than a year to go until the 2014 midterm elections, there's plenty of time for these numbers to change.

Normally, numbers like this are meaningless, but here’s an interesting statistic out of the study

[N]early four in 10 saying even their own representative doesn't deserve a return ticket to Washington next year. Both figures are hovering around all-time highs in CNN polling.

See, the conventional wisdom goes that everyone hates Congress, and the people who infest it, but Congress has a 95-98% re-election rate.

Which means everyone hates everybody else’s Congresscritter. Except now, suddenly, people are waking up that the only way to clean house is to clean house.

Unfortunately, we don’t get state-by-state numbers, but the underlying data based on self-identifying political views seems to suggest that even conservatives states (PDF) are taking a very close look at their individual members of Congress with an eye towards replacing them. The question there becomes, are they thinking they should be more moderate and willing to work with Democrats and the president, or even more strident and obstinate? The jury is still out on that one, but it is safe to say that the current make-up of the House of Representatives is in play, and that the Democrats could steal enough moderate seats to claim a majority next year. 

The party that occupies the White House for a second term rarely if ever has gained seats in the Congress in the mid-term elections. It could happen next year. It has a very good chance.  

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Obamacare is not a liberal policy

By Frank Moraes

Mike Konczal has written the most insightful thing I've read this month about the problems with the Obamacare exchanges, What Kind of Problem is the ACA Rollout for Liberalism? He argues that the failure of the exchanges is not the result of liberalism; it is the result of neoliberalism. Or to put it more clearly: New Democratic ideology. We could have had an old fashioned approach to healthcare reform: a single payer health insurance system. That would have been simple. And I have had many frustrating conversations over the last two years with conservatives who complain about Obamacare and ask why we couldn't just have a single payer system. The answer, of course, is that after Fox Newsstarted shouting about "socialized medicine" these same conservatives would be absolutely positively against single payer. But I digress.

Obamacare is so annoyingly complicated because it is designed to be a kind of public-private partnership and that no one thinks will be as good at reducing costs as a single payer system would be. If we had the simple government insurance system, the exchanges would be trivial. You would log on, enter your information, and the program would spit out how much it was going to cost you. Or even better: there would be no exchanges; the correct amount of money would just be taken out of your paycheck. Instead, we have a system that interacts with multiple private insurance systems and then these have to communicate with the government to figure out how muchit will pay. And in the end, you have a totally messed up system that tells you to try back later.

Read more »

On the Hustings

(New York Post): "Spitzer planning to run again"

(WBUR): "WBUR poll shows Connolly clinging to a narrow lead"

(Roll Call): "Top GOP recruit expected to make Senate announcement soon"

(The Hill): "DCCC touts new House recruits amid post-shutdown optimism"

(New York Post): "De Blasio, Lhota trade attacks in heated debate"

Texas tech glitches

By Mustang Bobby

They’re not just for Obamacare.

A Texas district judge who has been voting for the past five decades was almost barred from the polls Tuesday, thanks to the state’s newly implemented, stricter voter ID law. The law kicked in on Tuesday as early voting in Texas’ November 5 election began.

As she told local channel KIII News, 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts was flagged for possible voter fraud because her driver’s license lists her maiden name as her middle name, while her voter registration form has her real middle name. This was the first time she has ever had a problem voting in 49 years. “What I have used for voter registration and for identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote,” she said.

In fairness, this isn’t a technical problem. In the matter of voter suppression that is the subtext of these laws in the name of preventing voter fraud, this is a feature, not a bug.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "Here’s how the White House just tweaked Obamacare"

(New York Times): "The United States, falling Behind"

(The Guardian): "Angela Merkel's call to Obama: are you bugging my mobile phone?"

(Norm Ornstein): "Buck stops with Obama on rocky rollout of health care plan"

(Bloomberg): "A Republican senator doubts his party can govern"

P.M. Headlines

(Gallup): "Approval of Affordable Care Act inches up"

(TPM): "Manchin working on bill to delay Obamacare individual mandate"

(Real Clear Politics): "Obama appeals to allies to stick with health law"

(Politico): "Does President Obama have chops to wrap up his trade deals?"

(New York Times): "Obama’s uncertain path amid Syria bloodshed"

Unlikely

By Carl 

There’s this whole foofaraw this week about the US intelligence community gathering 70 million private phone calls in a month. In France:

US intelligence chief James Clapper has denied reports that US spies recorded data from 70 million phone calls in France in a single 30-day period.

The director of national intelligence said the report in Le Monde newspaper contained "misleading information".

In a separate story, the newspaper said the US bugged French diplomats and used the information to sway a key UN vote.

Both reports were based on leaks from fugitive ex-US intelligence worker Edward Snowden.

This seems really unlikely and a fairly ludicrous postulate. Not that it couldn’t physically happen, but there’s a few key elements to this story that would discount it immediately in my book.

Most significant of them is this:

The document quotes America's former UN envoy Susan Rice as saying the NSA's information helped the US "keep one step ahead in the negotiations."

Admittedly, it’s not impossible that Susan Rice would be given clearance for knowledge of this supersecret spying program, but really? No administration would trust its United-frikkin’-Nations envoy with a clearance that would put her above everyone in the food chain except, perhaps, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

Read more »

Everybody must get stoned

By Mustang Bobby

A majority of Americans are in favor of legalizing marijuana.

For the first time, more than half of Americans think that marijuana usage should be made legal, according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday.

Fifty-eight percent of Americans now back legalizing marijuana. That represents an 8-point increase from the previous record of 50 percent in 2011, and a 10-point increase from November 2012, just after Colorado and Washington voted for legalization.

“With Americans’ support for legalization quadrupling since 1969, and localities on the East Coast such as Portland, Maine, considering a symbolic referendum to legalize marijuana, it is clear that interest in this drug and these issues will remain elevated in the foreseeable future,” wrote Art Swift, Gallup’s managing editor.

Stock up on Pop-Tarts and Pringles now and avoid the rush. Or feel it. Whatever, dude.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

On the Hustings

(CNN): "CNN poll: GOP & Tea Party unfavourables at an all-time high"

(Roll Call): "Democratic donors surge amid GOP slump"

(Washington Post): "McCain considering seeking reelection in 2016"

(Washington Monthly): "Bottom falls out for Cuccinelli"

(US News): "Republicans hope Obamacare glitches shape 2014 Senate races"

Stop judging Obamacare based on the glitchy rollout

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The other day, I tweeted the following:

Can all you myopic morons out there, esp. in the media, stop judging #Obamacare simply on the basis of a glitchy online rollout? #ACA
— Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) October 21, 2013

And that goes for liberals especially.

Republicans we already know are doing everything they can to try to destroy Obamacare, including shutting down the government. But when people who are generally supportive of the president and, yes, of what Obamacare is all about are piling on against it, well, it's just not helpful. Not one bit.

And so I think Joan Walsh is right:

As predictably as night follows day, on Monday the media establishment pivoted away from obsessing about GOP extremism and the party's alleged "civil war" to the "train wreck" that is, allegedly, the Affordable Care Act.

And liberals helped lead the pivot.

Don't get me wrong: The problems with Healthcare.gov are real, and disturbing, and must be fixed asap. (Think Progress has a dispassionate assessment here.) But excuse me if I believe the president knows that without my telling him. It's like watching the 21st century version of the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council, and I feel the way I did back then: On the one hand, yes, it's important for Democrats to acknowledge when government screws up, and to fix it.

On the other hand, when liberals rush conscientiously to do that, they only encourage the completely unbalanced and unhinged coverage of whatever the problem may be.

Again, no one is denying the obvious problems with the online rollout. But we're talking about glitchiness mostly impacting just one aspect of the rollout, not about anything having specifically to do with Obamacare (which isn't as good as single payer but is far better than what preceded it). And that's rather more important, is it not? The glitches will get fixed. Sooner rather than later, probably. And then millions and millions of Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions, will finally have access to affordable health care.

So, really, just stop the hyperventilating sensationalism about the rollout. It's not fucking helping.

Legalize marijuana, say Americans

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And I'm right there with them.

Gallup:

For marijuana advocates, the last 12 months have been a period of unprecedented success as Washington and Colorado became the first states to legalize recreational use of marijuana. And now for the first time, a clear majority of Americans (58%) say the drug should be legalized. This is in sharp contrast to the time Gallup first asked the question in 1969, when only 12% favored legalization.

Public support for legalization more than doubled in the 1970s, growing to 28%. It then plateaued during the 1980s and 1990s before inching steadily higher since 2000, reaching 50% in 2011.

A sizable percentage of Americans (38%) this year admitted to having tried the drug, which may be a contributing factor to greater acceptance.

Success at the ballot box in the past year in Colorado and Washington may have increased Americans' tolerance for marijuana legalization. Support for legalization has jumped 10 percentage points since last November and the legal momentum shows no sign of abating. Last week, California's second-highest elected official, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, said that pot should be legal in the Golden State, and advocates of legalization are poised to introduce a statewide referendum in 2014 to legalize the drug.

 Come on, people. If for no other reason, do it for Willie Nelson. He deserves it.

Why the Tea Party loves Rand Paul

By Frank Moraes 

Last night I read a bit of Parker and Barreto's Change They Can't Believe In. It looks at the Tea Party movement from a political science standpoint. It is a dense book and I've only read a small amount of it. But the base conclusion is that what makes the Tea Party movement distinct is a shared racial animosity -- specifically toward President Obama. This isn't to say that all Tea Party members are racist. But what distinguishes the group from a conservative who does not associate himself with it is racism. 

This conclusion is freeing. I've long felt that the base of Republican appeal was racism. A very large percentage of those who vote Republican do so not because of the policies that politicians talk about, but rather because it is understood they favor policies that will do the "right" thing, "Screw the darkies!" And look at who is in the Tea Party. Mostly it is older white people who directly benefit from the two most costly government programs: Social Security and Medicare. So clearly they aren't for small government except in the sense that they define it as ending programs for the poor, who they see as our darker-skinned neighbours.

The conclusion also explains something that has long bothered me. Why is Rand Paul a star of the Tea Party? After all, he's an isolationist who wants to gut the military. Most people in the Tea Party are freakishly pro-military. They want a strong military, a strong dollar, and a strong rendition of "You're a Grand Ol' Flag" at all sporting events! But again: that's true of all conservatives. So in that regard, Rand Paul is outside the mainstream of conservatism, including the Tea Party. So why is he a Tea Party favorite? 

Read more »

McAuliffe surges to 17-point lead over Cuccinelli in Virginia gubernatorial race

By Michael J.W. Stickings and Richard K. Barry

MJWS:

The Cooch

Rasmussen:

Democrat Terry McAuliffe has jumped to a 17-point lead over Republican Ken Cuccinelli in the Virginia gubernatorial race following the federal government shutdown that hit Northern Virginia hard and Hillary Clinton’s weekend visit to the state.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Virginia Voters finds McAuliffe with 50% support to Cuccinelli’s 33%. Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis is a distant third with eight percent (8%) of the vote.

Let me be clear about this: Republican-friendly (and, indeed, solidly pro-Republican) polling firm Rasmussen has the Democrat ahead by a whopping 17 points.

Rasmussen may be deeply biased and often badly wrong, but the bias and wrongness is usually tilted in the Republicans' favor. So this is pretty significant.

In any event, I've said it before and I'll say it again. People really like blow jobs. Or, at the very least, it's dangerous politically to come out against them.

And of course it's also dangerous to be a right-wing extremist in a state that is rapidly turning blue.

Not to mention to be tied to a deeply corrupt and unpopular governor.

Virginia can't be rid of The Cooch soon enough.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(CNN Politics): "HHS chief: President didn't know of Obamacare website woes beforehand"

(Politico): "Liz Cheney: John McCain a 'liberal Republican'"

(The Hill): "Will Ryan cut a deal?"

(USA Today): "White House fires Twitter critic"

(CNN Money): "How sick are Europe's banks? Wait and see"

P.M. Headlines

(USA Today): "U.S. gains 148,000 jobs; jobless rate, 7.2%"

(New York Times): "The health site’s chaotic debut"

(Gallup Politics): "For first time, Americans favour legalizing marijuana"

(Roll Call): "Did the shutdown help the immigration cause?"

(Raw Story): "Maine governor says 47 percent of state’s residents choose not to work"

Not wrong

By Carl

Jonathan Chait is not wrong.

Writing in this week’s New York Magazine, he posits the following:

Pragmatic conservatives warned their tea-party brethren that shutting down the government would not harm Obamacare and would instead harm the Republican Party. And lo, both halves of the prophecy have now come to pass. New polls by CNN and the Washington Post measure the damage. Both polls show Democrats taking an 8-point lead in the generic ballot for Congress — a result that, if it held up, would likely depose the Republican majority. The election is a year away, and everybody expects the damage to subside. But deeper reputation damage can be detected. CNN asks voters if they consider each party “too extreme” or “generally mainstream.” By a 52 percent to 42 percent margin, they deem the Democrats generally mainstream. By a 56 percent to 37 percent margin, they call Republicans too extreme. The shutdown may not have been an act of suicide — there’s plenty of time to recover — but it was surely a suicidal gesture.

In the wake of the debacle, reporters and mortified Republican pragmatists alike have attempted to reconstruct the erroneous thinking that led the GOP to undertake a doomed strategy. There certainly were elements of legitimate miscalculation at play. (The simplest and least appreciated is that many of them initially believed shutting down the government would halt Obamacare, and by the time they learned otherwise, they had already printed up the T-shirts.)

In the most important ways, though, the tea party’s strategy was not a strategy at all. On the surface, demanding an end to Obamacare in return for reopening the federal government was an insane negotiating strategy. Attempting to analyze these demands in strategic terms misses the point. It’s not a plan to achieve a defined legislative end. It’s a demonstration of dissent from a political faction that has no chance of winning through regular political channels. The problem they are attempting to solve in each case is not “how do we achieve this policy objective?” but “how can we express our outrage?”

Read more »

Steve Lonegan blames government shutdown for defeat

By Richard K. Barry

It's good to have things to blame. It's a lot easier than saying that you lost because "the people" liked your opponent more than you. It's rare that a defeated politician stands at the microphone on election night to say, "I lost because the voters made a rational decision that they would rather be led by my esteemed opponent."

New Jersey GOP Senate candidate Steve Lonegan certainly wasn't about to say that. What he did say was that he lost because of the government shutdown in Washington, which, everyone agrees, was largely blamed on Republicans.

"There is no doubt in my mind or in the minds of any of my campaign staff that the shutdown cost me the election," Lonegan told the Star-Ledger in a "post-mortem interview" Monday. "If I had known it was going to happen and that it was going to be handled so badly in Washington, I wouldn't have run for the Senate."

Lonegan added that his internal polling showed him "gaining fast" with "enormous" momentum before the shutdown.

Lonegan, who issued a statement on Oct. 10 supporting House Republicans on the shutdown, blamed GOP lawmakers in Washington who "fumbled" strategy and were unable to capitalize on problems with the rollout of President Obama's health insurance exchange website.

No doubt there was some tightening in the race over the final two weeks, and that the shutdown didn't help Lonegan, but Booker ended up winning by 11 points, which is a healthy margin.

Fact is that in politics, nobody really cares why you think you lost. In any case, I don't think this was the reason.

On the Hustings

(USA Today): "Poll: Nearly half say replace everyone in Congress"

(BuzzFeed Politics): "Republican mega-donors quietly celebrate Chris Christie’s marriage surrender"

(Roll Call): "The most important election of 2014"

(The Hill): "DNC hits GOP presidential hopefuls with robocalls on possibility of future shutdown"

(New York Times): "Tim Griffin of Arkansas will not seek third congressional term"

Jeb Bush blows it for 2016

By Mustang Bobby

The former Florida governor has some advice for his fellow Republicans.

During an interview for “This Week,” former Republican Florida Gov. Jeb Bush encouraged the GOP to come up with an alternative and show some restraint if their aim was to repeal the president’s signature healthcare law.

“I think the best way to repeal Obamacare is to have an alternative; we never hear the alternative…we could do this in a much lower cost with improved quality based on our principles, free market principles…and two, show how Obamacare, flawed to its core, doesn’t work,” Bush said.

“So have a little bit of self-restraint. It might actually be a politically — a better approach to see the massive dysfunction,” he said, after being asked by ABC’s Jonathan Karl what his message would be for Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who is vowing to do everything he can to repeal Obamacare.

Telling the current crop of Republicans to “have a little bit of self-restraint” is like acting a sugar-bombed eight year old to sit quietly and read The Odyssey, so if Mr. Bush has any thoughts about running for president in 2016, this kind of advice isn’t going to go over too well with the gang that wants to secede and impeach because Bo the dog took a crap on the South Lawn.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Entitlement programs by many other names would be sweeter

By Richard K. Barry

I don't know where the term "entitlement programs" comes from, but it certainly helps shape the budget debate in the Republican's favour. As we all know from common usage, people who feel 'entitled' are surely not people who are deserving of our assistance. They are spoiled takers who can never get enough. What's the problem with asking these ne'er-do-wells to take a little less? Why, it's no problem at all.

From this point on, I propose that we call entitlement programs "just society programs." At least when people talk about cuts in these terms, they will have to contemplate the fact that they will be making society less fair.

That may not slow many of the Tea Partiers down, but it will make me feel better. 

A.M. Headlines

(USA Today): "Big insurers avoid many state health exchanges"

(Jon Favreau): "The Tea Party, not Democrats or Republicans, is the problem"

(Washington Post): "Poll: Major damage to GOP after shutdown, and broad dissatisfaction with government"

(New Republics): There's a new political story line—and it's good for Republicans

better to be two warring tribes than a single reviled one."

(CNN): "Report: U.S. intercepts French phone calls on a 'massive scale'"

Listening to Now: The Allman Brothers Band - "Jessica"

By Richard K. Barry

One of the all-time best songs. 

P.M. Headlines

(Bloomberg): "Obama seeks to reassure France’s Hollande about spying"

(Reuters): "NJ Gov. Christie drops gay marriage case, risking some Republican ire"

(Politico): "Obama on ACA website: 'No excuse for these problems'"

(Greg Sargent): "As Obamacare runs into problems, Americans still want to give it a chance"

(CNN Politics): "Cruz: Senate Republicans are 'single-most damaging thing' for the GOP in 2014"

A novel come to life

By carl

If you ask 100 people to name a book about a modern dystopian society, 100 of them would probably talk about 1984, the George Orwell novel about centralized government dominating a nation so much that “Big Brother is Watching You”.

Those folks are sheeple. The book that really reveals our modern century dystopia far better is by a near-contemporary and predecessor of Orwell named Aldous Huxley: Brave New World.

Although the books deal with the degradation of the individual, they come at it from different approaches and different causes. Let me let Neil Postman handle this bit:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Postman added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.

Read more »

Not as seen on TV

By Mustang Bobby

Marco Rubio has a lot to learn about the intertubes.

Mr. Rubio expressed disappointment in his fellow Republicans for not “uniting” in the fight to defund Obamacare.

He criticized the Affordable Care Act’s rocky start, blaming the Obama administration for hiding the fact that not many Americans are signing up for the health care exchanges because of glitches on the website.

“Setting up a website where people can go online and buy something is not that complicated,” he said. “People do this every day.”

Mr. Rubio and the other talking heads are amazed that the Obama administration, which was so tech-savy during the campaigns, is having such a hard time with the healthcare site. But just because there’s an ad on TV at 3:30 in the morning telling you that setting up your own business website is free and easy doesn’t mean that you can set one up to run the healthcare exchanges. There’s a huge difference. For one thing, a campaign isn’t a government-run operation and it can be done by the best and the brightest, not the lowest bidder weaving their way through the federal procurement and vendor process. Second, it’s not just “buying something.” As Jamie at C&L explains, it’s more than just a website.

Read more »

On the Hustings

(CNN Politics): "GOP, Boehner take shutdown hit in new CNN poll"

(Roll Call): "Reid: GOP will lose House if government shuts down again"

(The Hill): "Bill Clinton to campaign with Terry McAuliffe"

(Richmond Times Dispatch): "Our choice for governor in 2013: none of the above"

(Newark Star-Ledger): "The Star-Ledger endorsement: Christie for governor"

What I think of George W. Bush

By Frank Moraes

After mistakenly believing that George Bush Jr had created prettified versions of the Abu Ghraib torture photos, I have reflected on why I could believe that he would do such things. Part of it is that I have a very low opinion of Bush. He's a trust fund kid who skated through life into the White House. And the world is a far worse place for it. But that's not really the main issue. I wouldn't, for example, think the same thing of Dick Cheney who I dislike even more.

In my mind, if not in reality, Bush is still the cheerleader at Yale—a deeply unserious guy. Look at his paintings: he signs them "43." To me this says that being president wasn't about much other than the title. It reminds me of Primary Colors where Jack Stanton says, "You know as well as I do, that plenty of people playing this game, they don't think that way. They're willing to sell their souls, crawl through sewers, lie to people, divide them, play on their worst fears for nothing! Just for the prize." That's Bush. But of course, he didn't have to crawl through the sewers.

Throughout the time that he was in office, he seemed to think it was all a joke. When he was serious, it was more like he was playing the part of the serious president—although maybe that's all that any of them do. There was his response to the famous presidential daily briefing, "All right. You've covered your ass, now." There was his golf course moment, "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive." There was, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." But most of all, he was generally cavalier about the job generally.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Contractors see weeks of work on health site"

(CBS News): "Obamacare's rocky start: Hiccup or sure sign of failure?"

(ABC News): "Jeb Bush to GOP: ‘Have a little bit of self-restraint,’ offer alternative to achieve Obamacare repeal"

(Wall Street Journal): "Budget discord simmers among Democrats"

(Bloomberg): "Record JPMorgan settlement wouldn’t deter some investors"

P.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "The shutdown-showdown postmortem: What changed in Washington and what didn’t"

(Reuters): "Obama to call healthcare website glitches 'unacceptable' as fix sought"

(New York Times): "Lobbyists ready for a new fight on U.S. spending"

(CNN): "Cruz to CNN: ‘I don’t work for the party bosses in Washington’"

(Spiegel Online): "Fresh leak on US spying: NSA accessed Mexican president's email"

Listening to Now: Thelonious Monk - Bolivar Blues

By Richard K. Barry



(Cross-posted at Sixties Soup.)

On the Hustings

(New York Times): "Fiscal crisis sounds the charge in G.O.P.’s ‘civil war’"

(The Hill): "Jeb Bush urges Cruz to show 'self-restraint'"

(Roll Call): "Riser, McAllister advance to runoff in Louisiana House special election"

(ABC News): "NJ's Booker to face adjustments as US senator"

(Real Clear Politics): "The electoral aftermath of the shutdown"

The Tea Party and the Mafia

By Richard K. Barry

Upon considering what has been going on in Washington with the so-called civil war between Tea Party radicals and more mainstream Republicans, a thought has occurred to me. It's more of an analogy really. 

Consider this as reported by Bloomberg:

“We are going to get engaged,” said Scott Reed, senior political strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “The need is now more than ever to elect people who understand the free market and not silliness.” The chamber spent $35.7 million on federal elections in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based group that tracks campaign spending.

The point I would make is that the relationship of big-business conservatism to the Tea Party is a little like the relationship of the Mafia to elements within it that draw too much attention. The "free market system" as it runs, runs best for those who already have most of the money. Shutting the government down and the debt ceiling fight only disrupts the relatively smooth functioning that allows those who have to get more. Similarly, the Mafia never likes actions that drew attention to it and disrupt the business-as-usual grind that make its success possible. 

When the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the goal should be to elect people who "understand the free market and not silliness," by silliness they mean anything that disrupts the rules of a game already rigged to ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get screwed. 

A.M. Headlines

(USA Today): "Time running out for immigration reform"

(ABC New): "For Obama, a frustrating health care rollout"

(Ezra Klein): "Klein: Cruz put GOP in position to be broken"

(Pew Research): "Trust in government nears record low, but most federal agencies are viewed favourably"

(Politico): "Scott Walker knocks Mitt Romney in book"