The Reaction

I see what you do here

noreply@blogger.com (Carl) — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:28:00 +0000

By Carl

OK, so I'm half-asleep, and I notice this little item on Memeorandum this morning, and nearly spit out my coffee:

As President Obama heads to Copenhagen next week for global warming talks, there's one simple step Americans back home can take to help out: Stop "going green." Just stop it. No more compact fluorescent light bulbs. No more green wedding planning. No more organic toothpicks for holiday hors d'oeuvres.

December should be national Green-Free Month.

My first reaction is, "Mike Tidwell must have had a stroke or something," because he's been pretty much at the forefront of the battle over Louisiana wetlands preservation since I can remember.

Plus, and worse, I see that Ann Althouse has linked to this piece, which means that there's a whole shitbag full of ignorance about to pop out of the right-wing blogosphere.

Uh oh, says I...another environmental expert has been gotten to, and paid off. This can't be good.

Imagine my relief, then, when I read on...

Instead of continuing our faddish and counterproductive emphasis on small, voluntary actions, we should follow the example of Americans during past moral crises and work toward large-scale change. The country's last real moral and social revolution was set in motion by the civil rights movement. And in the 1960s, civil rights activists didn't ask bigoted Southern governors and sheriffs to consider "10 Ways to Go Integrated" at their convenience. [...]

For eight years, George W. Bush promoted voluntary action as the nation's primary response to global warming -- and for eight years, aggregate greenhouse gas emissions remained unchanged. Even today, only 10 percent of our household light bulbs are compact fluorescents. Hybrids account for only 2.5 percent of U.S. auto sales. One can almost imagine the big energy companies secretly applauding each time we distract ourselves from the big picture with a hectoring list of "5 Easy Ways to Green Your Office."

As America joins the rest of the world in finally fighting global warming, we need to bring our battle plan up to scale. If you believe that astronauts have been to the moon and that the world is not flat, then you probably believe the satellite photos showing the Greenland ice sheet in full-on meltdown. Much of Manhattan and the Eastern Shore of Maryland may join the Atlantic Ocean in our lifetimes. Entire Pacific island nations will disappear. Hurricanes will bring untold destruction. Rising sea levels and crippling droughts will decimate crops and cause widespread famine. People will go hungry, and people will die.

*WHEW* THAT'S the Mike Tidwell I've read and learned to respect!

And he's right. The problem is big, way too big, to be solved by people making individual choices.

They help, to be sure, but unless you're like me and have made an absolute commitment to minimizing your carbon footprint, the sum total will only be large drops in the bucket.

And keep in mind, I'm as left as they come without a hammer-and-sickle shoulder patch! And there's still plenty of "carbon fat" that I need to whittle away at in my life.

The evidence with respect to climate change is undeniable, despite the last-gasp efforts of the right wing to take what amounts to a first reading of a play as evidence of a conspiracy on the part of climatologists to deny the truth.

Tidwell's point about civil rights is even dated and almost obsolete. Hell, we've had government intervention in making a mass exodus to a new technology this. fucking. year. already! No one on the right breathed word one about conspiracies and interventions there, threatening to have the FCC chairmen jailed.

If we can do this because the frikkin' broadcast airwaves were effectively polluted and overheated, then we cannot deny, cannot ignore, and cannot delay, government intervention on our own lives. Period. End of discussion.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind

Medicare for more

noreply@blogger.com (creature) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:33:00 +0000

By Creature

That's the healthcare idea being floated today as the demise of the public option continues. Bringing down the eligibility age to 55 sounds like a great idea. And, because it sounds like a good idea, one that liberals could rally behind, it will surely die.

Update: I didn't mean to channel Atrios, but I sort of did.

Life is not a Rolex - a Rolex is not alive

noreply@blogger.com (Capt. Fogg) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:02:00 +0000

By Capt. Fogg

"Comprehensible to the intelligent, to the world at large, needing interpretation"

-Pindar-
___________________________

Ah, Pastor Rick Warren -- not quite smart enough to realize that his arguments have long since been steamrollered by better minds or just smart enough to realize that enough people are ignorant of it for him to make a living by peddling delusion? That is the question.

Put Rick on the list of people deeply disturbed by a sign on a bus saying belief in invisible magic spirits isn't necessary if you want to be good to your fellow humans. In fact he's been in terror of disbelief for a long time, resorting often to such idiocies as the idea that Atheists must be wrong because they're angry, that Atheists are responsible for most of the worlds wars and atrocities including being responsible for the Spanish Inquisition. I have to admit, even I didn't expect that.

No, it's ridiculous not to believe in magic and the supernatural and forces and places for which there is no evidence other than the failure to understand nature. You see, if Pastor Warren is walking down a mountain and finds a rock - that could be accidental, but if he finds a Rolex, it's "design."

Again, it's easily comprehensible to the rare intelligent American that Rolex's do not occur in nature, nor are they alive and self reproducing; but things like living cells and viruses can indeed result from natural processes which is liberally illustrated by evidence and that Warren is trotting out this mawkish and moronic argument only because, as I said, there are enough congenitally and willfully stupid people out there to be blind to his festival of fatuous fallacies. It's not an argument at all really, it's just a bad analogy and an attempt to shift the burden of proof as Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker illustrates with greater patience and a good deal more skill than I have.

Warren doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist, he says in an attempt to make science and evidence and logic and knowledge a false equivalent of ignorance and the will to believe. Again, if you're intelligent, nobody has to explain it to you any more than I would have to explain why, contrary to his ~~lies~~ belief, same sex marriage is not just like pedophilia and neither Tomas de Torquemada nor the Holy Office at the Vatican were atheists.

But almost everybody believes in the supernatural he says, bringing the ad populum fallacy up to bat. "The actual number of secularists in the world is actually quite small outside of Europe and Manhattan," he continues, adding an appeal to people who find an educated populace threatening. The place for Secular Humanists is North Korea, whines Warren. It's called "poisoning the well" for anyone interested and yes, it's in any book of popular fallacies. That he doesn't tell us that the place for blind faith in religious authority is in the Taliban, isn't surprising, but it is telling.

Of course if the future of the world is not secularism but as he reminds us: pluralism, a certainty that certainly lacks support as we see beliefs declining as education ( and intelligence) increases, it's hard to understand that we should accept a multiplicity of religions but not Secular Humanism. What then does Humanism lack that theistic religion has? Authority. It's rather hard to base a tyranny or any system of arbitrary authority on it and that, dear reader, is what Rick Warren is all about and that's why he's afraid and that's why he has to make fun of your freedom.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

A day in the life of Ivan Cornysovitch

noreply@blogger.com (Capt. Fogg) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:45:00 +0000

By Capt. Fogg

I guess Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is trying to cornhole us again. I imagine that he woke up early one morning and realized there was another absurd, extreme, preposterous, shameful, ridiculous and grotesque simile he hadn't used yet to vilify any health care reform that doesn't appeal to the corporate overlords he serves. We've already heard about 'death panels' and how extending the program that Cornyn benefits from to the rest of us, is just like Pol Pot's Killing fields and Hitler's death camps. Somehow he'd overlooked Stalin's Gulag Archipelago and it's important we hear about it right away.

You see, the problem is that the Democrats aren't accepting "input" from the Republicans although it's pretty clear that the only "input" he or they have offered is to drop the damn subject. Still it's hard to understand why Tex himself isn't trying to escape from that death camp of Federal Employee insurance that just might kill him at any time now.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Just a baby

noreply@blogger.com (Capt. Fogg) — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:57:00 +0000

By Capt. Fogg

Why is Fox News so damned afraid of secular Humanism? They're not of course; they're afraid of failing ratings and growing irrelevance, so they tell me once again and right on schedule that I'm at war with my favorite holiday because I'm not at war with my freedom -- and yours. If you think that virtue is its own reward or that doing the right thing by others whether or not you're rewarded for it is by definition the right thing: in fact, if you believe in freedom of thought, perhaps you're at war with Christmas too.

Last year, the American Humanist Association ran an ad asking "Why believe in a God?" They did it again this year with No God ...No Problem signs on city buses and the point of the slogan Be Good for Goodness Sake although certainly not out of line with most religious teachings, can according to the slimy logic of Bill O'Reilly, not only be a direct slander against God, but worse; an attack on the poor, helpless, little baby Jesus.

"How do you sell Atheism by running down a baby"

asks lyin' Bill so glibly that he can hope that the right people won't notice that being a good person, having compassionate and kindly humanist values, isn't likely to run down anyone's baby.

Blindingly blond and botoxed Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson grinned in frightening fashion during last Thursday's "Culture Warriors" episode although the 85 year old O'Reilly couldn't seem to remember which was who. Perhaps the beauty pageant grins were as sewn on as they looked or perhaps the grotesque lengths Fox has gone to demonstrate the dangers of freedom simply amused them, but Grinning Gretchen opined that

"This is a direct and deliberate smear against Christianity. Do you think they would do this ad in July?"

Well, St. Swithyn's day seems hardly worth the effort and after all, December is in some vague and fact-free fashion "the most sacred month" Easter notwithstanding. There's little of ritually sacred nature in July that needs to be forced down the throats of heretics, while December contains other holidays of other religions and the birthdays, of Horus, Mithra, Constantine's favorite Sol Invictus and other Jesus predecessors -- but never mind. She managed to sneak in the proposition that not being Christian, not loudly professing faith that Jesus was born coincidentally on the same day as the Roman and Persian gods he replaced and not in April as their Gospels state, is an attack on our established State Religion.

"Do you think they would do it against Allah on Ramadan? I don't think so! No."

said Lyin' Bill in turn and nicely adding the subliminal hint that the growing secularism of the Western world is actually to be laid at the feet of our Islamic President.

"Why does the American Humanist Society want us to be 'good for goodness sake'? Why do they loathe the baby Jesus? He's just a baby."

What a marvelous way to heap fallacy upon fiction upon fraud and turn it into a call to battle. Is it really offensive to anyone's religion to recommend that in doing good unto others, one should not do it for reasons of prestige or self elevation - or that being a good person without doing it from fear of a vengeful son of a god is not really good?

Allowing people to believe or doubt or disbelieve anything they like can only be offensive to a religion that seeks only to convert and control and not to improve mankind. That's just the kind of religion and perhaps the kind of politics O'Reilly and his attendant familiars would be advocating if they really were advocating anything rather than fabricating reasons for rage in those whose mental capabilities don't extend to debunking a train of logic leading from "we don't have to believe in your god to be good" to "Why do they loathe the baby Jesus? He's just a baby."

The real questions of course are about why the two-bit Torquemada clones at Fox News loathe people who aren't fundamentalist Christian Conservatives, why lying and bearing false witness in the service of a myth is not loathsome while freedom of thought is an offense to the "baby Jesus."

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Truth in Comics

noreply@blogger.com (creature) — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:00:00 +0000

By Creature

If it's Sunday, it's Truth in Comics.

In-Flight Safety

mjwstickings@yahoo.ca (Michael J.W. Stickings) — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 04:29:00 +0000

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In-Flight Safety isn't all that well-known outside Canadian indie rock circles, but they deserve to have a much wider audience than they have now.

Based in Halifax, Nova Scotia -- which endears them to me, given my deep ties to the Maritimes -- they've released two full-length albums so far, The Coast is Clear (2006) and the very fine We are an Empire, My Dear (2009). They sound a lot like Coldplay at times (which, from me, is a compliment), and I encourage you to get to know them.

Here are videos for "Actors" and "Model Homes," both off We are an Empire. The former is my favourite IFS song. For more, see their YouTube channel.)

Happy Birthday, Carl!

mjwstickings@yahoo.ca (Michael J.W. Stickings) — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 03:04:00 +0000

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Okay, one day late.

Carl, one of the mainstays of this blog (and one of my favourite bloggers period, which is why I'm so happy to have him blog here, as well as to have him on our editorial staff), turned 52 yesterday.

A very happy birthday from all of us at The Reaction.

-- Michael

'Tis the season

noreply@blogger.com (Capt. Fogg) — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:01:00 +0000

By Capt. Fogg

Yes, they're still pushing the "Obama is a Muslim" thing and one of the reasons must be that a central theme of the last presidential contest was that he was not only "the most liberal senator in American History," but a Marxist, a concept that is getting harder and harder to pin on our rather deliberate, frustratingly centrist and sometimes rather too conservative president. After all, an absurd claim is harder to counter and outrageous fabrications draw followings in inverse proportion to evidentiary support.

Legalizing 'Drugs' or prostitution are out of the question as a spur to the economy said President Obama to a student in Allentown Pennsylvania yesterday. Regardless of his reasons for the statement, it's not the opinion of a "far left socialist radical" trying to make us just like European Socialists. Better to rave about conspiracies to pass a Kenyan off as a native born American because the evidence is, that Obama is at best a centrist on social issues like allowing gays to serve in the military and no more of a Marxist than anyone at Goldman Sachs.

If only the knuckle draggers behind the Muslim libel wouldn't try to give evidence for it! The idiot mayor of some two-bit suburb of Memphis is blogging that the President's speech on Tuesday announcing 30,000 extra troops to fight Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan deliberately was scheduled to preempt that night's broadcast of A Charlie Brown Christmas , with its "Christian message" because as a Muslim, he hates our holiday "traditions." After all, Jesus himself watched the program as a child, didn't he? That's not of course, even contorted logic, it's bullshit. I would love to ask Mayor Russell Wiseman if Franklin Roosevelt was a closet Shinto supporter for choosing the Christmas season to ask Congress to declare war on Japan.

"Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch 'The Charlie Brown Christmas Special' and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation [sic] about it....w...hen the answer should simply be 'yes'...."

said the ironically named Wiseman. Sorry, Russ, the answer is none of your damned business and none of the Government's business as concerns what any of us think about God, Christmas, Charlie Brown, the Son of God or the Son of Sam. The question is whether we consider you as a traitor for giving aid and comfort to the Taliban by calling Obama one of them, or for misrepresenting the Constitution and advocating that we replace it with your infantile and ignorant beliefs.

If this is Conservative thought in America then all our asylums are filled with Republicans.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Rudy Giuliani to be security consultant for 2016 Rio Olympics

mjwstickings@yahoo.ca (Michael J.W. Stickings) — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:30:00 +0000

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to the Daily News, Rudy Giuliani has signed on as a "security consultant" for the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro:

"He's going to help us in day-to-day security and, especially, with an eye toward... the Olympic Games," said Sergio Cabral, the governor of the state of Rio de Janeiro, after eating lunch with Giuliani [on Thursday].

This reminded me of a post by Suzy Khimm I read at TNR's The Plank a while ago: "Could the Olympics Mean More Misery for Rio's Poor?"

The answer, clearly, is yes:

Security crackdowns in Rio de Janeiro have often amounted to police raids on the sprawling shantytowns, home to a third of the city's population, where drug traffickers have ensconced themselves. The resulting gun battles have killed scores of innocent bystanders -- predominately poor and working-class residents of the favelas -- thus contributing to the stunning 2,069 murders that happened in Rio last year. Yes, the traffickers themselves are ruthless, exerting a mafia-like control over the shantytowns they occupy and burning buses full of civilians to retaliate against police pushback. But Brazilian police have fed the cycle of violence by acting outside the law, committing extrajudicial killings and massacres that human rights groups and the U.N. itself have denounced. (Off-duty police officers have even taken to forming their own gang-like militias, which now control some 15 percent of Rio's slums.) It's a legacy of Brazil's oft-forgotten military dictatorship, whose worst atrocities were often carried out by the country's division of "military police" and who were never held accountable for their crimes. As a result, certain divisions of the military police have continued to act with impunity in an otherwise burgeoning democracy -- and the favela crackdowns bring out their worst instincts.

Such police "occupations" -- as Brazilian authorities call them -- have continued under Rio's new mayor, Eduardo Paes, a centrist elected on a law-and-order platform. Having clinched the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics, Paes will likely have carte blanche to do what he wants on the security front.

Any surprise Rudy took the job? Aside from the money for him and his firm, Giuliani Security & Safety, he'll fit right in, what with his preference for police crackdowns at the expense of the poor and other undesirables. At least he was held accountable in New York -- or at least what he did was generally known. (It's true that crime rates dropped during Giuliani's terms as mayor, but it's not clear that they did so because of Giuliani -- rates were dropping nationally already. Regardless, with the police unleashed, Giuliani certainly put security before civil rights, and he'll bring that to Rio.) There'll be no such transparency in Rio, where he'll be able to get away with advocating however much brutality he likes.

More misery for Rio's poor? You betcha.

And with Rudy there, what with his penchant for fascist thuggery, it'll only be worse.

Mad McCain

mjwstickings@yahoo.ca (Michael J.W. Stickings) — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 05:51:00 +0000

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Appearing on Don Imus's radio show yesterday, failed Republican presidential nominee John McCain said that, with respect to the economy, he's "madder than [he's] ever been," much like those at the tea parties.

From the sounds of it, I'd say McCain is losing it -- or, rather, continuing to lose it, yet another reminder of how irresponsible he was to pick Palin as his running mate. Imagine McCain going mad and her taking over. Yes, go ahead and imagine it.

Even if he's not losing it, though, who cares what McCain thinks about anything at this point? Yes, the media still love him, but what does he offer these days that is even remotely constructive?

Social tolerance and immigration

noreply@blogger.com (Capt. Fogg) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:59:00 +0000

By Capt. Fogg

It's an ethical dilemma that I don't find easy to solve. Are the Swiss wrong to forbid the building of mosques? Are Londoners only being racist or xenophobic in opposing the Abby Mills Mosque or are they legitimately protecting themselves from the strife, turmoil, noise and sometimes the violence said to be growing in formerly calm, ecumenical and liberal countries? Is the curtailment of religious freedom justified in some cases? Yes, in the U.S., we have to fight for the idea that the free exercise of Christianity does not convey the right to push non-Christians around, but just how far do our own laws concerning religious freedom extend and how far should we let them extend?

Like many people, I'm uneasy when a Swiss party leader calls for the banning of Muslim and Jewish cemeteries and we all know the horrible history of sectarian strife in Europe such measures evoke. Yet I see how the liberal Netherlands has to deal with what appears to many of them as a growing population opposed to the secular, liberal and highly permissive culture they are so proud of and I can sympathize. By sympathizing however, with people whose hard-won freedom is put in jeopardy by a growing sub-culture, am I able to disassociate myself from groups who want to close the American borders to anyone who might not look Anglo-Saxon or be Protestant? How much of the Dutch, Swiss, and American fear of a large Muslim presence is real and how much is misguided? When is ethnic cleansing not ethnic cleansing? Most importantly, can we even discuss these things over the snarling of the trolls?

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Tom Coburn

mjwstickings@yahoo.ca (Michael J.W. Stickings) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:15:00 +0000

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For saying this:

We need to start over. We need to fix what's really wrong in health care and we need to protect what's really great. What's really great is if you're really sick anywhere in the world, this is the best place to be sick, it just costs too much.

Tell that to the millions of Americans who have no insurance at all, or who are denied treatment by their HMOs, or who are drowning in debt because of those high costs of care, or who have to make choices between health care and, say, food.

If you're poor and sick, and even if you have somewhat decent coverage, it's not so "great" to be sick in America.

Or, Senator, are these people -- millions and millions of your fellow Americans, all so far beneath you on the socio-economic scale -- supposed to take comfort in the excellent care that you and the privileged oligarchy are able to access whenever you need? Is this supposed to make them proud of their country, a country that has largely abandoned them, with a political class, your class, that doesn't give a shit?

You know what? Fuck you, Tom Coburn. Fuck... you.

I lived in the U.S. for many years and I was one of the privileged. When I needed care, I got maybe the best care in the world. I saw it up close. When I was in high school, I had a fairly serious operation, and then also a follow-up one. My doctor was exceptional. There were no waiting times. And it was all quite amazing. But how did I come to receive such care? Because my family, though my father's work, had incredible coverage. And I don't for a second take that for granted.

I now live in Canada, where we have excellent care through a government-run single-payer system (but with private insurance as well, for many).

But should I oppose health-care reform in the U.S. just because my own experiences were so positive? That seems to be what Coburn is saying: The system is great, the care is great, we just need to bring costs down a bit.

And how do you propose to do that, Senator, if all you want is to reinforce the status quo by keeping health care in the hands of private insurers and profiteering drug companies?

It "just" costs too much? That's it? That's the only problem? Not the fact that millions and millions hardly have any access to decent care at all, and certainly not to the sort of quality care you and your fellow congressmen get?

Fuck you.

Dump Bernanke

noreply@blogger.com (creature) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:24:00 +0000

By Creature

Like many on the Internets I was ambivalent towards Bernanke getting another whirl as Fed chief. Being in charge and ignoring the mess Wall Street was making leading up to the crash should have been enough to disqualify him. On the other hand, the actions taken to prevent a collapse have been bold and necessary (however, one sided). In the end, if it wasn't Bernanke, another Wall Street tool would be put in his place. At least Bernanke was a tool with experience having dealt with the mess.

All that being said, after his performance yesterday in front of the Senate Banking Committee (bastard wants to gut Social Security and Medicare while leaving his rich buddies alone), I am fully on board the dump Bernanke express. Now I can only hope the Senate gets on board too. Dumping Bernanke would send a strong signal that the Senate is on the side of the people and not the bankers (and as I typed that I realized how futile that hope is).

Palin and the Birthers

mjwstickings@yahoo.ca (Michael J.W. Stickings) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:45:00 +0000

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Would it surprise you to learn that Sarah Palin is a Birther, or is at least sympathetic to the Birthers? (If only we could send the whole Birther movement before one of her mythical Death Panels.)

Her stupidity is apparently a bottomless well. But is she really that stupid? Does she actually believe that there is truth to what the Birthers allege, namely, that Obama was not born in the U.S.? Or is she just a cynical liar, one who knows full well that she's spewing bullshit for partisan purposes?

I don't think she can tell the difference anymore, if she ever could, between truth and spin, nad between reality and propaganda, and so she probably does think that the Birthers are on to something. Even if it isn't true, she believes it to be true, and wants it to be true, and so, for her, it is.

One is tempted to call her an extremist, but is she? A majority of Republicans buy the Birther lie at least in part, after all, and so she's fully in the mainstream of her own party. But, then, the GOP is fully the party of right-wing extremism, and so, yes, she fits right in, stupidity and all.

Words, words, words

noreply@blogger.com (Carl) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:01:00 +0000

By Carl

It strikes me the solution here is a lot simpler than the administration is making it out to be:

President Obama shifts his focus to the double digit unemployment rate on Thursday, teaming up with members of his administration for a White House jobs summit. The event will be held on the eve of the monthly report on job losses, which in last month’s study showed an October rate of 10.2 percent unemployment.

Mr. Obama is scheduled to speak at the opening of the summit, then moderate a discussion at the closing session. In between, a who’s who of the executive branch will lead their own talks — among others, Energy Secretary Steven Chu on green jobs, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on small businesses and the combo of Treasury Secretary Ray LaHood and Peter Orszag of the Office of Management and Budget on creating jobs through infrastructure projects.

As The Times’s Jackie Calmes reports, the summit comes as the White House is considering dipping into funds earmarked to bail out banks to aid those seeking jobs. The administration’s discussions with lawmakers, Ms. Calmes writes, “reflect the Democrats’ effort to balance concerns for the high federal budget deficit and a costly, crowded domestic agenda, including an effort for further economic stimulus measures that is likely to exceed $100 billion.”

That initial step, dipping into the bailout fund to support job-seekers, is a good one, but it's not going to be enough, even if Bank of America makes good on today's promise.

The slippage in jobs seems to be slowing down, which is great news. Obama seems to have put a halt to the horrendously bad Bush administration's attitude towards jobs, which apparently was, let them eat grass. However, turning that around into job growth is going to be a moumental task, one for which the US economy is badly situated right now. We've doubled, tripled, even quadrupled down on debt. We'll have a hard enough time paying all that back in any short order.

But spend more, we must. We simply must, because simply put, taxes pay debt, and the more people we have paying taxes, the lower we can keep the tax rates.

So, short of all-out war, which we really can't afford anyway, how to grow jobs? Tax cuts, the past thirty years' data tells us, won't work. If anything, job growth has accelerated in eras of higher tax rates.

The knee-jerk solution, then, would be to raise taxes. That's going to happen pretty much automatically next year, as the Bush tax cuts begin to expire, and indeed, forecasts from all around the country seem to predict job growth expanding in the Spring of 2010.

Look, here's the real answer: we have infrastructure problems. We have idle hands. Let's marry the two together. It's what FDR did in the 1930s, when unemployment was really a problem. Obama should do it and do it now.

It's good to see that he's included this in his seminars and panels, as well as green jobs, but those two items pretty much go hand in hand. Green jobs are good jobs and will help with the infrastructure problem, particularly in terms of the energy grid and old wiring in urban areas.

We'll need short term...I think the term of art here is "shovel ready"...solutions, but we also need to keep an eye out on the future and that means starting to put in place permanent job creation mechanisms. Yes, targeted tax credits are all fine and dandy, but we've had them and renewable energy distribution is still in its infancy, despite higher oil prices. We've had highway planning for decades, but all we've ended up with is the Bud Shuster Thruway in Western PA.

We've nibbled around the edges of a national railway program, but it's time President Obama started to pony up some ideas about that. It seems silly that a car can drive hundreds of miles on a straight highway thru the desert or high plains, but we can't come up with a competitively priced option of sticking that car on a train, saving the driver and car wear and tear.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Out and about, with thoughts on the NFL in Toronto

mjwstickings@yahoo.ca (Michael J.W. Stickings) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:46:00 +0000

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Alas, it's been a quiet day here at The Reaction. I was out pretty much the entire day and then came home and watched some of the Bills-Jets game from... Toronto?

Yup, the game was right here in T.O., at the Rogers Centre, and it was both a miserable game and, from what I could tell, a miserable atmosphere, and I feel sorry for Bills fans, and for the Bills themselves, that they have to put up with one regular-season home game a year away home as part of this stupid "Bills in Toronto" series, all so that Ralph Wilson can pocket some extra cash. Toronto would probably make a decent NFL city, for its own team, but these Bills games are just trendy events for some and a forgettable shows for others. It was sellout, I think, but I heard that tickets were on sale on the secondary market for less than face value, and the whole thing just smacked of corporate phoniness, just like last year. Most people I know either didn't know the game was in Toronto or didn't care, and I think it's fair to say that most people in the city just ignored it. (The Leafs played tonight, after all, and that's of much greater interest than a heavily marketed and overhyped game with Buffalo as the "home" team.)

It's bad for the Bills, bad for the NFL, and bad for this great city, and, honestly, I'm embarrased by it.

Anyway...

We'll be back tomorrow with new posts. As always, stay tuned.

Don't blame Al Franken

noreply@blogger.com (creature) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:40:00 +0000

By Creature

If Republicans didn't want to be perceived as pro-rape they should have thought about that before they voted. Now they whine (something they do best) that they can't work with Franken. Like they ever would have worked with him in the first place.

New York Senate rejects same-sex marriage

mjwstickings@yahoo.ca (Michael J.W. Stickings) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:31:00 +0000

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, yes, this is a bad defeat for the forces of good:

The New York State Senate decisively rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have allowed gay couples to wed, providing a major victory for those who oppose same-sex marriage and underscoring the deep and passionate divisions surrounding the issue.

The 38-to-24 vote startled proponents of the bill and signaled that political momentum, at least right now, had shifted against same-sex marriage, even in heavily Democratic New York. It followed more than a year of lobbying by gay rights organizations, who steered close to $1 million into New York legislative races to boost support for the measure.

Senators who voted against the measure said the public was gripped by economic anxiety and remained uneasy about changing the state's definition of marriage.

"Certainly this is an emotional issue and an important issue for many New Yorkers," said Senator Tom Libous, the deputy Republican leader. "I just don't think the majority care too much about it at this time because they're out of work, they want to see the state reduce spending, and they are having a hard time making ends meet. And I don't mean to sound callous, but that's true."

The defeat, which followed a stirring, tearful and at times very personal debate, all but ensures that the issue is dead in New York until at least 2011, when a new Legislature will be installed.

The issue may be dead in New York for now, with "political momentum" seemingly against change, but there's a silver lining here, which is that the vote may simply have been a sign of the economically depressed moment. Not that a high-ranking Republican interpreted the result as a vote against change at "a hard time." Of course, that may just be an easy excuse for those who oppose same-sex marriage generally, but it must be noted that supporters of the bill thought they had enough votes for passage, which means that some of those who voted against it may indeed have done so for reasons other than opposition to same-sex marriage. Republicans were unanimously against it, but eight Democrats voted no as well. Move those Democrats to the other side and the measure passes 32-30. In other words... maybe, just maybe, a vote at a different time -- say, shortly after the 2011 elections -- will yield a different result.

Besides, as Think Progress notes, "[a] recent Marist poll found that 51 percent of New Yorkers support legalizing same-sex marriage and just 42 percent oppose it." That's pretty decisive, even if, for the time being, the momentum in the Legislature seems to be pointing the other way.

This is a disappointing setback, but the fight for marriage equality ain't over, and it's pretty clear, I think, that New York will eventually legalize same-sex marriage, and probably in the not-too-distant future. The momentum in American society, after all, both in New York and elsewhere, is heading in that direction, and, while there will continue to be setbacks, along with fierce opposition from the other side, change is coming.

Who cares? We do, apparently!

noreply@blogger.com (Carl) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:21:00 +0000

By Carl

I've been thinking about this story a little this week:

Tiger Woods received a traffic citation for careless driving that will cost him $164 and four points on his Florida license, but the Florida Highway Patrol said during a news conference Tuesday it had no evidence to pursue any criminal charges in connection with Woods's single-car crash outside his Windermere, Fla., mansion Thanksgiving night.

"With the issuance of this citation, the Florida Highway Patrol has concluded the investigation," FHP troop commander Cindy Williams said without taking any questions.

Which is as it should be. No one was injured, not even Woods, really, and it amounts to a little property damage that Woods' insurance company will have to pay for.

It's the other half of the equation that disturbed me:

A second woman has stepped into the spotlight in the Tiger Woods controversy – and this one whole-heartedly claims that she and the champion golfer had an affair.

Jamie Grubbs, a cocktail waitress who appeared on the VH1 show Tool Academy, tells the British tabloid the Sun that she and the pro golfer had a 31-month fling that included around 20 sexual encounters, the first just days before Woods's wife, Elin Nordegren, gave birth to the married couple's first child.

"He told me just last month, 'Quietly and secretly we will always be together,' " Grubbs, 24, says.

Life & Style reports that Kalika Moquin, a Las Vegas marketing manager, is the latest woman to be connected to Tiger Woods. Reports of Moquin follow rumors about Rachel Uchitel and Jaimee Grubbs, both of whom have been linked to Woods romantically in the past week.

First off, is Tool Academy not THE perfect place for the first tool, even assuming she's lying through her teeth? But I digress...

No, what's more distressing about this whole sordid affair is that it's even on our radar.

There's a cult of hero worship in this culture that's pretty sick and twisted. We set someone up as a godsend of perfection, only to tear him to shreds the minute his feet of clay are revealed. Even if Woods has been completely faithful to his wife Elin, his reputation has been tarnished, possibly beyond repair.

Admittedly, that possibility, that's he's completely faithful, seems miniscule. This doesn't change my larger point, which is why do we continually set ourselves and these "celebrities" up like this?

He's an athlete (barely, considering the game he plays). He's not in a surgery or behind the controls of a jet fighter. He's not saving lives except through whatever charitable works he's done. He's not educating our kids, or building houses. He is, by any measure, extremely talented at the one thing we know he does exceedingly well: play golf.

But he's human, as human as you or I. An object of fascination, to be sure, but that fascination should be limited to marvelling at his ability to sink his putts, and should in no way be extended to disdain over how he sinks his putz.

PERIOD. That it goes beyond this is a testament to the sickly nature of American and now world culture that America has infected with its glib anything-for-a-buck mentality of selling newspapers and magazines.

(Yes, I'm aware that British tabloids put ours to shame, but the culture in the UK allows for a lot more important stories to filter through, like Afghanistan, and not be stonewalled behind trappings of "importance". For example, at the Times of London website, the mistrial of a minor New York City mob boss ranks far higher than the Woods' story.)

Worse, this same convoluted thinking affects our politics, which after the last ten to fifteen years, you'd think we'd outgrow. First came the sex scandals, highlighted but certainly not limited to the Monica Lewinski affair, then came eight years of an administration that bullied, badgered and bluffed its way to destroying the greatest nation ever to arise on the face of the planet.

In eight short years! Compassionate conservatism, indeed! Nero couldn't have fiddled any faster!

And now, Barack Obama has to suffer the same misfortune. Having run without dismantling the perception that he was an agent of change, leaving the unfair and fantastical impression that somehow he had a plan that would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, out of the Bush Depression, and into national health care, all within his first year, his image has suffered from slings and arrows from both sides of the aisle.

He asked to bite off more than he could chew, knowing full well he'd never be able to swallow it all inside such a short period.

But what's the worst part of this is, we allowed ourselves that delusion. Obama was very straightforward on the campaign trail about timetables for Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly as the election drew near, and yet a significant percentage of Americans elected him with the thought that he could work miracles.

And now they're shocked to find out he's not Jesus.

Or even Tiger Woods.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

God hates freedom of religion

noreply@blogger.com (Capt. Fogg) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:45:00 +0000

By Capt. Fogg

He hates yours anyway, you heretic.

I don't know if the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but the road to Heaven is once again being resurfaced with fresh slime. The Family Research Council, which purports to be a Christian organization having something to do with families, is really a lie factory with the objective of fomenting a civil war pitting fundamentalists against our religiously neutral constitution. They've now launched yet another campaign against the rest of us, claiming that the President plans to "silence Christianity" and "Impose homosexuality." It's the kind of thing that requires dementia, stupidity and ignorance to believe but in 21st century America, the very air stinks of it.

I really don't wonder that such people are obsessed to the point of mania about homosexuality or that for them, the purpose of what they call Christianity is to bring about a fundamentalist state that will enforce their sexual and social taboos. It's not so much that people hiding behind a false name are at war with secular democracy or at war with religious freedom or at war with private consensual sex, these are people at war with their own wet dreams.

"It's hard to make this stuff up" says Stephen Webster at Raw Story. Not for them it isn't. Their four-page letter, available here howls, shrieks and lies like the Devil himself about Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would guarantee gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans the right to work just like other Americans without fear of reprisal by the employers due solely to their sexual orientation or appearance. No, it does not force churches and their businesses and their schools to hire anyone they don't want to but FRC lies and says it does. No, limiting the free exercise of religion does not extend to giving any group the right to force their practices on anyone, but they say it does. The FRC has been lying about a lot of things for a long time and the rest of us have let them do it no matter how many people have to suffer. America gets weak and spineless every time some one crosses two sticks and pretends to speak for God.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Howard Dean isn't helping

mjwstickings@yahoo.ca (Michael J.W. Stickings) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:30:00 +0000

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to Ezra Klein, Howard Dean, once thought to be a leading health-care guru in the Democratic Party, thinks that "this bill is worthless and should be defeated" -- if it doesn't include a public option.

Like Ezra, and as I've written here many times, I'm a supporter of the public option and want Democrats to push for its inclusion, preferably in a robust form. But Dean's comment is just plain stupid. Klein:

The strongest public option on the table -- the House's version -- would serve a couple million folks and cost a bit more than private insurance. It's worth having, for reasons I've argued over and over again. But a lot of things are worth having. It isn't decisive, or even obviously relevant, to the bill's success or failure. If the bill is "worthless," then it's worthless in the presence of the public option. And if it's not worthless, it's not worthless in the absence of the public option.

Which leaves us arguing over the meaning of the word "worthless," I guess. This is a bill that cuts premiums costs. That extends insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans. That cuts the deficit. That establishes an expectation for near-universal health-care coverage. That really digs into delivery-system reforms. That takes the first, halting steps away from the fee-for-service system. That makes better insurance cheaper for the poorest Americans. If passed, it will be, without doubt or competition, the largest piece of progressive social policy since Lyndon Johnson established Medicare and Medicaid. If this isn't worthwhile, then progressives should pack up and go home, because nothing Congress passes in the foreseeable future will even come close.

I think that's exactly right. This doesn't mean dropping the public option, just recognizing that the public option (and especially the decidedly non-robust variations that Congress is considering) isn't the be-all and end-all of health-care reform and that there could be significant and even historic reform even without it.

I appreciate and even admire Dean's firm commitment to the public option -- it's just the sort of passion and determination we need from Democrats -- but he isn't helping. Ultimately, Democrats may vote for, and need to defend, because it may be all they can achieve given Republican opposition and their own internal divisions, a bill that either does not include a public option or that includes a severely weakened public option -- or that includes a trigger of some kind. This would be a less-than-desirable bill, to be sure, but also one that results in genuine reform. It would be better for a prominent figure like Dean not to be sniping from the sidelines, calling such a bill "worthless" even when it's actually worth a great deal in terms of changing America's dysfunctional, costly, and unjust health-care system for the better.

Thoughts on Obama's Afghanistan speech at West Point

mjwstickings@yahoo.ca (Michael J.W. Stickings) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:27:00 +0000

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'll be adding to this throughout the night. Stay tuned for updates.

**********

As expected, it was an admirable speech (transcript), regardless of the questionable content, but, then, we've come to expect such lofty rhetorical flights from Obama. The tone was serious, which it had to be, and, on the whole, the president made his case effectively, I thought.

But do we buy the case? I do not.

In making the case for war, Obama sounded at times a lot like Bush. Yes, there was good reason (a solid, defensible rationale) to go to war, and the war, early on, may have been legitimate (in other words, the U.S. was justified in going to war to confront an enemy that had attacked it), but the war now is not the war then. Back then, it was about removing the Taliban from power and denying al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan. That was accomplished, quickly, even if Karzai's government doesn't really run the country in any meaningful way. It is not clear what it is about now. Rebuilding the country? Propping up the government? Holding back the Taliban?

In the absence of a clear purpose, or rationale, for the continuing conduct of the war, there is an astonishing lack of legitimacy for the war. And even if the rationale for the war is to hold back the Taliban, as well as to maintain some semblance of stability in neighbouring Pakistan (which may descend into chaos even if the U.S. remains engaged militarily in Afghanistan), it isn't clear that continuing to wage the war, let alone escalating it, is worth the cost, both monetary and human.

I was following Andrew Sullivan's live-blogging throughout the speech. These are some of his better points, with my comments:

-- "The argument for staying on offense is pure Giuliani. If you thought you were voting for a peacenik last year, you weren't paying attention, were you? The notion that we do not face a popular insurgency as in Vietnam is also unconvincing."

I wouldn't call Obama a warmonger, but his resemblance to Bush, Cheney, and Giuliani, among others, is troubling. At least he's trying to be responsible.

-- "A reprise of liberal internationalism, and a Niebuhrian mix of military realism and global hope. 'We do not seek to occupy other nations.' And yet we do. And we will."

This is where liberal internationalism resembles neoconservatism. Obama is firmly committed to the pursuit of American hegemony, if less aggressively. I will continue to support him, given the alternatives, but there will be no radical transformation of American foreign policy during his presidency. It will be more of the same, just different, which means that the overall decline of the American Empire will continue. What has gotten the U.S. in trouble will continue to be the focus of foreign policy going forward. This isn't change I can believe in. Not even close. Better than Bush, of course, but that's flimsy praise.

Okay, more later.

**********

More Sullivan:

I confess I do not feel those highest hopes. I do not share his confidence in American military and civilian power to turn the roiling region of Afghanistan and Pakistan into something less threatening. I see no reason after the last eight years to see how this can happen, even with these new resources. But if you rule out withdrawal right away, then this seems to me to be about the smartest strategy ahead. But I see absolutely no reason to believe that it will mean withdrawal of any significant amount in Obama's first term.

Yeah, I guess so -- if you rule out withdrawal right away.

But why rule it out? Because the problem is, this isn't going to work. Afghanistan isn't Iraq. It doesn't have a history of modern governance, nor of the sort of infrastructure one finds in modern societies, nor a reservoir of human resources, including of the intellectual kind. It isn't possible to rebuild the country sufficiently within the limited timeframe Obama envisions. He wants to "[start] to withdraw forces from the country in July 2011," but, honestly, what will have been accomplished by then? Will the government be stable? Will it actually be governing? Will it be providing services? Will the Taliban have successfully been beaten back? And what about Pakistan? Will it be any more stable then than it is now? Even if the Afghan government and security forces are more secure, and more effective, than they are now, will conditions on the ground be such that the U.S. can actually leave? Isn't it far more likely that Afghanistan a few years from now won't be all that much better than it is now, and that lives and money will have been wasted?

**********

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Thomas Friedman made a great point on The Daily Show tonight. The key to getting from the Afghanistan of today to a relatively stable, peaceful Afghanistan is the Afghan government. The problem is that the government is a kleptocracy and is in no position to do what is needed to be done. I paraphrase, but that was the gist of it.

**********

Again, an additional 30,000 troops won't be nearly enough. That's not to say more troops should be sent, of course, because it would require a massive troop increase to stabilize Afghanistan, and there is neither the desire nor the capacity for such an increase. Even if the new troops are focused on Kabul and specific parts of the country that need to be pacified through counterinsurgency, and even if there is an exit plan, the chance of success, even limited success, is small.

Here's how Fred Kaplan put it the other day:

So here's what it comes down to: This option might be a good idea if it worked, but the chances of its working are slim (though not zero); all the other options seem to be bad ideas, but they might cost less money and get fewer American soldiers killed (though not necessarily).

And here's how I put it, responding to Kaplan:

No, one doesn't envy Obama, who inherited this war, a war that was mismanaged and then neglected entirely, or so it seemed, by his predecessor. Whatever he chooses to do won't be good enough and will be criticized by armchair presidents around the world, including by his critics on both the left and the right. My own views place me to his left, but I remain realistic enough to know that the war can't, and won't, end anytime soon. It's now a matter of finding a way out while not giving up and pulling out until sufficient progress has been made or until some sustainable level of peace, security, and stability has been achieved in divided and war-torn country with no history of peace, security, or stability.

Obama is clearly looking ahead to the way out, but I'm pessimistic that sufficient progress will be made and that some sustainable level of peace, security, and stability will be achieved. I understand that, assuming that withdrawal was off the table, this is probably the least bad option that was available to Obama, not least for political reasons. But so what? Does that mean it's worth the risk? The right will continue to hammer him, the left will distance itself further from him, and it's not clear that those in the middle will credit him with taking the middle path, especially as it becomes clearer that that path may well lead to more of the same with even more casualties.

Obama is basically taking one last shot at "winning," broadly defined, the Afghan War. I'm just not sure it's a shot he should be taking.

When countries go bust

noreply@blogger.com (Carl) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:15:00 +0000

By Carl

I'll have more to say on this after the quote:

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Dubai World began talks with banks to restructure $26 billion of debt, including $3.5 billion owed by property unit Nakheel, and said the remainder of its liabilities are on “a stable financial footing.”
Debt from subsidiaries including Infinity World Holding, Istithmar World and Ports & Free Zone World will be excluded from the negotiations, Dubai World, one of the emirate’s three main state-related holding companies, said in a statement. The cost to protect Dubai debt against default fell to the lowest since Nov. 25. Dubai’s main equity index dropped 6.6 percent.
Dubai is seeking to delay payments on less than half its $59 billion of liabilities, easing the potential damage to banks recovering from $1.7 trillion of losses and writedowns from the global crisis. Shares worldwide recovered some of the losses suffered since Dubai announced it would seek a “standstill” agreement on all of Dubai World’s debt as the Dow Jones Euro Stoxx 600 gained 1.2 percent and the MSCI Emerging Markets Index showed the first back-to-back gains in two weeks.

Per capita, Dubai is the wealthiest nation on the planet and is 12th in GDP.

Digest that for a second.

Dubai, you may recall, put in a bid to run the ports of the United States back in 2006, and it was only a strong public outcry that scuttled the deal, at least in the form it would have taken.

However, anyone with a lick of sense could have seen this development coming from 240,000 miles away. Literally. When you sink tens of billions of dollars into inviting people to the desert and your GDP is only $37 billion per annum, you are likely going to go bust, Las Vegas notwithstanding.

They gambled, they lost, and while the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a large part, will help clean up the mess, this development almost certainly commits the United States, in the middle of negotiations with the UAE for a free trade zone, to yet another defense posture in the Middle East, particularly as the UAE has the seventh largest oil reserve and the United States isn't even in the top five importers of UAE oil (China is number one...now do you get the picture?). In fact, it may commit us without invitation to be the defense partner of the UAE, and I'm not so sure we want to be there.

The UAE and Dubai specifically, because of its no-tax, "100% foreign ownership welcome" economy, is a haven for all kinds of illicit activities, from drug running (despite zero tolerance policies for possession) to money laundering. Too, the human rights record of Dubai is pretty spotty, even to the point of refusing to prosecute three Dubai men for raping a Swiss teen, giving him HIV.

Still, if a country as wealthy as Dubai, its profligacy with money aside, can go bankrupt, then how easy would it be for a nation with a far heavier debt-to-income load to fold?

I'm thinking about China. And I'm thinking THAT would be a disaster.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

There are simply no good answers in Afghanistan

mjwstickings@yahoo.ca (Michael J.W. Stickings) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:00:00 +0000

By Michael J.W. Stickings

One of my favourite writers on national security and military policy is Slate's Fred Kaplan, who had a great piece up yesterday on his ambivalance with respect to the Afghan War. (Obama is set to announce his plan tonight. It will likely involve sending tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan and shifting the strategy to counterinsurgency, "which emphasizes protecting the population more than chasing terrorists.")

Like Kaplan, I am generally ambivalent about the war. While I am opposed to any escalation of the war, not least in the absence of a firm understanding of what the point is, that is, of what the objectives are and of what would constitute success (if not victory), I recognize that a full withdrawal is simply not a viable, or desirable, option at this point, not with the need for the U.S. to remain firmly engaged in the region and with the risk that Afghanistan would fall to the Taliban, not to mention that the region would further destabilize, threatening what remains a delicate political situation in Pakistan.

So what to do? At this point, as Kaplan writes, it's a matter of choosing the lesser of undesirable choices, with counterinsurgency in a complex place like Afghanistan likely not to succeed all that well, or not at all, and with the other options perhaps even worse.

No, one doesn't envy Obama, who inherited this war, a war that was mismanaged and then neglected entirely, or so it seemed, by his predecessor. Whatever he chooses to do won't be good enough and will be criticized by armchair presidents around the world, including by his critics on both the left and the right. My own views place me to his left, but I remain realistic enough to know that the war can't, and won't, end anytime soon. It's now a matter of finding a way out while not giving up and pulling out until sufficient progress has been made or until some sustainable level of peace, security, and stability has been achieved in divided and war-torn country with no history of peace, security, or stability.

Good luck with that, Mr. President.

(Read Kaplan's piece. It should get you thinking.)