Two Guitars

hat tip = Little Green Footballs

Today's Eternal Sadness

(lifted wholesale from Balloon Juice):

You can have my metadata, but you will pry the projectile fired by my [firearm of choice] out of my cold, dead partner.

Not to mention this.

This is not to diminish the implications of Osama Bin Laden’s victory — his ability to terrify the US into surrendering willingly what we have long said was worth fighting for. That’s been coming a long time –see this ProPublica timeline (h/t TPM) for a quick overview of just how we’ve done it to ourselves over the last four decades. But, I can’t cease getting heart sick at each new anecdote, each new framing of the rolling massacre that takes Americans by the dozens every damn day of the year…every year.

So, for those who declare the 2nd amendment the one sure bulwark against tyranny, I have a question:
Where were you when the surveillance state was forming? What are you going to do about it now? What tree, exactly, has been watered by the blood of all the men, women, and children lost to suicide, to partner-murder, to bad luck, to whatever.

Feh.

Update: On tweeting this post I got a message from Chris Clarke, who made this chart and posted it to his Facebook pagealmost exactly a year ago. I’m glad to be able to make the acknowledgement here.

Today's Dismal-ness

For all the time we spend blathering on about how rotten the schools are; and for all the inked up dead trees that eventually serve no purpose except to keep our Christmas decorations safe - for all of that over-stated and under-informed rhetoric, we still seem not to have any good ideas about what we might do to keep 'our precious youth' from rising up and slaughtering us in our beds one night when they finally get hip to how bad we're fuckin' 'em over.

From Salon, by David Sirota (hat tip = Facebook friend DC):

Before getting to the big news, let’s review the dominant fairy tale: As embodied by New York City’s major education announcement this weekend, the “reform” fantasy pretends that a lack of teacher “accountability” is the major education problem and somehow wholly writes family economics out of the story (amazingly, this fantasy persists even in a place like the Big Apple where economic inequality is particularly crushing). That key — and deliberate — omission serves myriad political interests.

For education, technology and charter school companies and the Wall Streeters who back them, it lets them cite troubled public schools to argue that the current public education system is flawed, and to then argue that education can be improved if taxpayer money is funneled away from the public school system’s priorities (hiring teachers, training teachers, reducing class size, etc.) and into the private sector (replacing teachers with computers, replacing public schools with privately run charter schools, etc.). Likewise, for conservative politicians and activist-profiteers disproportionately bankrolled by these and other monied interests, the “reform” argument gives them a way to both talk about fixing education and to bash organized labor, all without having to mention an economic status quo that monied interests benefit from and thus do not want changed.

It's a big hot gnarly mess that doesn't get any better any time soon if we just continue to beat a starving mule, and while there is no solution for a big hot gnarly mess that fits neatly on a bumper sticker, this one thing is certain: you can't fix the schools if you don't fix the neighborhoods.

Todays' Pix

 

What Ya Don't Do

• You don't fight terrorism by becoming a terrorist.
• You don't improve a democratic system by squelching the voting franchise.
• You don't boost Demand in a struggling economy by making it harder for people to buy stuff.
• You don't make your Democratic Party brand stronger by acting just like the Republicans.
• You don't ensure our precious way of life here in God's US America™ by turning the joint into some bullshit parody of itself, as we actually become something more like Noriega's Panama if you look too close.

I'm thinking there's more to this than we know (as usual - it's not about what they tell us it's about).  And what we don't know could easily either mitigate or exacerbate the "scandal", but even if I'm willing to give TeamObama some wagon room on this, I still have a hard time not thinking somebody in Obama's administration - up to and including Obama himself - needs to get kicked right in the nuts.  (And BTW, that goes for the Diane Feinsteins and Lindsay Grahams in congress as well)

At the very least, the politics and the "optics" make this look a lot worse than it may actually be.

I do have to ask one question tho'.  This kind of abusable power has been legal - and has been applied inside the US - for a very long time now.  That doesn't make it OK, even after "9/11 changed everything", but still, why are we gettin' all spastic about it now?

John Mayer

From the Abbey Road sessions in about 2007(?)

--Never Gonna Win The War--

Is there anyone who
Ever remembers changing their mind from
The paint on a sign?
Is there anyone who really recalls
Ever breaking rank at all
For something someone yelled real loud one time

Everyone believes
In how they think it ought to be
Everyone believes
And they're not going easily

Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword
Like punching under water
You never can hit who you're trying for
Some need the exhibition
And some have to know they tried
It's the chemical weapon
For the war that's raging on inside

Everyone believes
From emptiness to everything
Everyone believes
And no one's going quietly

We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for

What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand
Belief can
Belief can
What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand
Belief can
Belief can

Today's Gaffe

It's well known that a 'gaffe' is when some politician accidentally tells the truth.

At a Dallas County GOP event last month, Bishop John Lawson asked Ken Emanuelson, a Tea Party activist, what the Republican Party was doing for African-American voters. The progressive group Battleground Texas posted audio from the event. "I'm going to be real honest with you," Emanuelson said. "The Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote if they are going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats." In Emanuelson's view, in other words, the solution to lack of support from African-American voters is to have fewer of them show up at the polls. When the inevitable criticism ensued, Emanuelson backtracked. In a post on his Facebook page, the Tea Party activist acknowledged that he "misspoke" and tried to clarify what he was getting at. "What I meant, and should have said, is that it is not, in my personal opinion, in the interests of the Republican Party to spend its own time and energy working to generally increase the number of Democratic voters at the polls, and at this point in time, nine of every ten African-American voters cast their votes for the Democratic Party."

And Emanualson isn't the first Repub to say something like that.

1) It's not in the best interests of the GOP for everybody who's eligible to vote to go out and vote.
2) The GOP is working very hard in many places to pass laws that effectively keep people - the big majority of whom are likely not going to vote for Repubs - away from the polls.

Here's a slightly different angle:  When everybody who should vote gets to vote, we say yay, democracy - our system is healthy, and it's working the way it's supposed to work.  That's what America's all about.  But that's what the TeaParty Republicans are against; they're saying it's wrong for so many people to vote; they're saying there's too much democracy going on here.  They're saying democracy is bad for the GOP, and so the GOP is opposed to democracy.

It just seems pretty clear, and it's pretty fucked up.

Today's Quote

"I will continue to work vehemently and robustly to fight back against what most in the other party want to do to transform our country into becoming."
--Michelle Bachmann, announcing she won't run for a 5th term.

Seriously.  That's what she said.  I've checked it several times.  I've checked the actual quote; and I've checked my typing and my hearing and my willingness to keep trying to make sense of what these meatheads have to say.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive

hat tip = Little Green Footballs

A Pretty Good Rant

Dear "Conservatives",

I wanna believe you.  I really do.  I wanna know when the people I'm trusting to run my government are fucking up and/or fucking us over and/or whatever.  We all need you to tell us about the things you find out - especially the shit that goes on in every administration that every administration doesn't want us to know about.  Do that and you're fulfilling your number one obligation to our country.  Your guys aren't in the White House right now, so applying counter weight to the balance of power is what you're supposed be doing.  All well and good - but ya gotta stop just makin' shit up.  Cuz guess what - I'm not inclined to believe one fuckin' thing that falls outa your gob-shite pie-holes any more.

First off, there's plenty of stuff about Obama we should be talking about that we're not talking about, because you won't let us talk about it, because you're too busy jumping up and down screeching about stoopid "issues" that're either trivial or straight-up made-up bullshit.

Let's see if Ol' Doc Maddow can 'splain some of it:



Repubs are fond of saying how fucked up Gubmint is, and they seem to be working really hard to make sure it says that way.

Today's Pix

Today's Best Comment

From the comments at The American Conservative:

Cliff says:
June 3, 2013 at 9:18 am

The Tea Party was founded in much the same way as the Monkees…

The Parade Of Clowns

...continues unabated, via James Fallows at The Atlantic:

The menace of the all-powerful bicycle lobby -- revealed at last! Writers at the Onion, take careful notes.

The best part of this video comes very near the beginning when Ms Rabinowitz more than implies (ie: makes a rather straight-up claim) that she represents the entire citizenry of NYC - and the journalist interviewer Press Poodle let's it go completely unchallenged.



The Rupert Street Journal editorial page was a big part of WingNut Central Command even before Papa Murdoch came along, so this shouldn't be such a big surprise for me.  It's just that every time I get a big whiff of the atmosphere from inside that "conservative" bubble, it makes my eyes water and I feel a certain churning in my bowels - like I'd spent the last coupla days chompin' on Feen-a-mint and slammin' Metamucil shots or somethin'.

I mean, c'mon, lady.  Offering bikes for people to ride in a city that's way over-packed with cars - is that really what you're convinced is a sure sign of impending tyranny and enslavement?  Seriously?

This is just too fuckin' weird, man.

It's A Wonderment

From a bit in Forbes, by the leftie-ish Rick Ungar:

With Medicaid eligibility about to be expanded in some 30 states, as a result of the Affordable Care Act, Wal-Mart has responded by cutting employee hours—and thereby wages—even further in order to push more of their workers into state Medicaid programs and increase Wal-Mart profits. Good news for Wal-Mart shareholders and senior management earning the big bucks—not so good for the taxpayers who will now be expected to contribute even larger amounts of money to subsidize Wal-Mart’s burgeoning profits.

But, at long last and in a move gaining popularity around the nation, the State of California is attempting to say ‘enough’ to Wal-Mart and the other large retailers who are looking to the taxpayers to take on the responsibility for the company’s employees—a responsibility Wal-Mart has long refused to accept.

It’s about time.

--and--

Of course, the California Retailers Association, where Wal-Mart Stores WMT +1.14%, Inc. is listed as a board member company, is not quite so pleased with the legislation. According to Bill Dombrowski, chief executive of the Association, ”It’s one of the worst job-killer bills I’ve seen in my 20 years in Sacramento, and that says a lot. The unions are fixated on Wal-Mart, but that’s not the issue here. It’s a monster project to implement the Affordable Care Act, and having this thrown on top is not helpful.”

One wonders if we will ever see the day when Americans will stop falling for the hostage-taking narrative consistently put forward by those whose job it is to defend the indefensible. At the first suggestion of finally putting a chink in Wal-Mart’s policy of profiting at the taxpayers’ expense—a practice that should have every American thinking about what passes for free-enterprise in the United States today—the response is to always threaten to take away jobs if we dare to challenge their business practices, even if those practices cost us billions.

I'm not a regular visitor to their site, so I don't know how often they do this kinda thing, but seeing this under the flagship Forbes brand seems odd to me.  It feels encouraging tho', especially considering that Ungar is staking out what has traditionally been the conservative position when we approach the issue of government involvement in private business.

When Wal-Mart practically owns local and state politicians; when they dominate the retail sector of any portion of any economy; and as a result they get to use the power of government to enforce their business plan - isn't that almost exactly the kind of overly-powerful relationship we're all supposed to be against?

Be sure to browse the comments too - Ungar goes toe-to-toe with some of the more rabid knee-jerkers. 

Celebrating Life's Little Victories

How come it seems like when you see one of these guys, it's just always at Wal-Mart?

Today's Quote

The best line I've seen today is this one from Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs, translating into English a comment Marsha Blackburn made in her native ShitSpeak:

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) says women don’t want laws guaranteeing them equal pay, because they want to have the “power and the control” to let men make those decisions for them: Marsha Blackburn: Women ‘Don’t Want’ Equal Pay Laws.

Just Another KrugMan Post

This one's by way of Balloon Juice, excerpting from NYT:

Last month the Congressional Budget Office released its much-anticipated projections for debt and deficits, and there were cries of lamentation from the deficit scolds who have had so much influence on our policy discourse. The problem, you see, was that the budget office numbers looked, well, O.K.: deficits are falling fast, and the ratio of debt to gross domestic product is projected to remain roughly stable over the next decade. Obviously it would be nice, eventually, to actually reduce debt. But if you’ve built your career around proclamations of imminent fiscal doom, this definitely wasn’t the report you wanted to see.

--and--

Start with Social Security. The retirement program’s trustees do foresee rising spending as the population ages, with total payments rising from 5.1 percent of G.D.P. now to 6.2 percent in 2035, at which point they stabilize. This means, by the way, that all the talk of Social Security going “bankrupt” is nonsense; even if nothing at all is done, the system will be able to pay most of its scheduled benefits as far as the eye can see.

 --and--

What about Medicare? For years, many people — myself included — have warned that Medicare is a much bigger problem than Social Security, and the latest report from the program’s trustees still shows spending rising from 3.6 percent of G.D.P. now to 5.6 percent in 2035. But that’s a smaller rise than in previous projections. Why?

The answer is that the long-term upward trend in health care costs — a trend that has affected private insurance as well as Medicare — seems to have flattened out significantly over the past few years. Nobody is quite sure why, but there are indications that some of the cost-reducing measures contained in the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, are actually starting to “bend the curve,” just as they were supposed to. And because there are a number of cost-reducing measures in the law that have not yet kicked in, there’s every reason to believe that this favorable trend will continue.

--and (the big payoff)--

So what are we looking at here? The latest projections show the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare rising by a bit more than 3 percent of G.D.P. between now and 2035, and that number could easily come down with more effort on the health care front. Now, 3 percent of G.D.P. is a big number, but it’s not an economy-crushing number. The United States could, for example, close that gap entirely through tax increases, with no reduction in benefits at all, and still have one of the lowest overall tax rates in the advanced world.

How The KrugMan Speaks

If you're in a running rhetorical battle with almost anybody about almost anything - and the other side starts to slam you for being rude or personal or shrill or whatever - when they start to complain about your tone, you can take it as a pretty good sign that you're winning.



BTW: I always tho't of Zakaria as a pretty straight shooter.  Not always right and certainly not always in agreement with me.  But then he kinda started drifting into The Zone of False Equivalencies.  It's like the Suits took him aside and had "the talk" with him.  The talk that points out that The News has to pay its way too, and if you piss off 20-30% of the viewers, they won't watch the show, which means they won't see the commercials, which means the sponsors won't buy the airtime, which means we won't make our numbers, which means you won't get paid, which means we'll just pick any of the 5,000 Makeup-and-Hair-Gel Models working in local markets to plug into your time slot, which means you need to concentrate on "balancing this thing out", which means you will not focus in on the facts, which means you will spend interview time hyping the cat-fight du jour - cuz that's what sells the Trinkets and Trash, which is what keeps the rubes bent over and greased up.

Ah Yes, I See It Now

Wes Clark's a pretty smart guy.  I haven't checked on any of this, but I'll bet it's at least as close to The Truth as anything you're gonna get talking to anybody else.

We spend about 1/2 a TRILLION dollars every year trying to secure the flow of oil into the US.

You're a pretty smart cookie too, so I'm sure you're wondering, why is it OK for us to spend all that money every year?  Two basic reasons:
1) The US economy is designed, engineered and marketed as Petroleum-Based.
$15 Trillion dollars per year in GDP, and prob'ly 80-90% of it depends on relatively inexpensive oil products in one way or another.  $500 Billion (aka 1/30th of your "gross revenue") sounds like cheap insurance to some of these pricks.

2) Clark says there's something like $170 Trillion worth of oil still in the ground.



And, oh yeah - 3) Most of the various layers of Government in the US reflect the "realities" of our Petro-Based economy, and the political community has again been corporatized to the point where it's not much more than just another Business Unit.

Knowledge is Power?  Not here.  Not anymore.

from WhoWhatWhy ( a new one for me) with a hat tip to Democratic Underground

Just A Tho't

(sparked by a bit in the Adam Curtis piece I posted yesterday)

"The Invisible Hand" has become the catch-all shield for anybody arguing for austerity and privatization, etc; or against Gubmint and social welfare or whatever evil rotten thing they find moldering in their fevered skulls.

The Invisible Hand (per Wikipedia):

In economics, the invisible hand of the market is a metaphor conceived by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behavior of the marketplace.[1] The exact phrase is used just three times in Smith's writings, but has come to capture his important claim that individuals' efforts to maximize their own gains in a free market benefits society, even if the ambitious have no benevolent intentions. Smith came up with the two meanings of the phrase from Richard Cantillon who developed both economic applications in his model of the isolated estate.[2]

From just a quick look at our own relatively brief history, I'm sure we could all come up with some good examples of bad results whenever The Invisible Hand was allowed to rule - the Slave Trade in America comes to my mind.  But maybe what we really need to consider is something a bit more ethereal, even tho' in a weird way it's right there in front of us.

Maybe "The Invisible Hand" is invisible because it isn't fucking there.  Not as a prospectively guiding force anyway.  My main problem with "market-based self-regulation" is that the regulatory function is always retroactive; it's remedial instead of preventative; and so any solutions or corrections always come after the fact, which means the whole mess is way more costly than it'd be if we'd had good regulations in place that were aimed at heading off problems before they become problems.

Looking at it thru the "Fuck Your Buddy" filter, the picture clears up a bit more.

BTW: "Conservatives" adhering to the (increasingly debunked) theories of Milton Friedman and John Nash and Friedrich von Hayek seem to be insisting that all the bad shit that seems always to happen with unregulated capitalism hasn't actually happened.  And that's all part of the revisionist bullshit theme that runs very strong in "Conservative" politics - start with your desired outcome, and then do whatever is necessary to fix the facts around that outcome.  (see Downing Street Memo for an excellent example)

Friedman's shock therapy gets applied in Chile and Argentina and Iraq and Greece and and and - and it's mostly pretty much all fucked up.

Nash's Game Theory gets played out with the secretaries at Rand Corp, and what happens?  The subjects insisted on cooperating with each other instead of fucking each other over all the time, so the experiment was a complete flop.  And of course, it wasn't because there were serious problems with the theory - it had to be because those stupid secretaries weren't behaving in the "appropriately rational manner".  So the theory didn't fail, those idiot biddies failed the theory.  Sound familiar?

Here's a little experiment we can try: whenever you hear somebody use the phrase "The Invisible Hand", substitute "the will of god", or "god's mysterious plan".  Now tell me if anything else that person says makes any real sense from the standpoint of what a "fully rational, pragmatic adult" might say - about economics or politics or actual human-type people.

If it's bullshit, then you're not being rude when you call it bullshit.