GOP and the Unholy Trinity

Well, once the economy started to stabilize,  I guess it had to come to this: devoid of any substantive issue to use against Barack Obama, the GOP has leaped to the holy mother of all 'social' issues--religion itself.

Across the right wing punditry you today find ceaseless questions about the degree of the President's faith...his tawdry past in the arms of devil/pastor Jeremiah Wright...and his legislative 'war on religion'.  Good God!

But this is a can of whup asps that should certainly backfire, since it shines the same light on the underlying knot which prevents the party from rallying behind any candidate--and that is religion itself.  In fact, instead of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, they now sport a three headed monster of irrational belief:

• Evangelicals: mystical whack jobs of the 20th century
• Mormons: mystical whack jobs of the 19th century
• Catholics: mystical whack jobs of the first century (although all of their 'fundamentals' were borrowed from people they subsequently branded 'pagans')

The fact is, these groups neither trust nor recognize each other.  As a bloc, the Mormons will never support Santorum, the Catholics will never support Romney, and the Evangelicals will never vote automatically for either one.  It's that simple.

So forget the economy and Social Security and public education--these issues have no meaning to any of these people without a religious overtone.  Instead, they align only in wielding the broad cudgel of 'religion' to publicly beat the President about his supposedly un-haloed head; but at the same time they can't resist also brandishing it against each other. 

In that second attack, may they all succeed.

Con Jobs

Well, it's now been almost 60 days since Steve Jobs shed his earthly shackles.  The fawning obituaries have thinned, but holiday shoppers still clog the retail shrines he left behind.  It remains impossible to speak his name without cueing a choir of earthbound apostles, all chanting the obligatory 'genius!'.  And thanks largely to the work of biographer Walter Isaacson, we have a better understanding of how best that description should be applied.  And now, I would like to add my tribute.

But first, a little stage setting.

For those not fully aware of the man behind the curtain, it must be stated for the record that Steve Jobs did not invent the computer.  Or the laptop.  Or the MP3 music player.  Or the mobile phone.  Or the tablet.  He didn't write the software that makes all the Apple miracles blink to life. When he was fired from his own company, he ran the animation studio Pixar, but never penned a movie script.  Or as far as we know, any song or novel or sitcom available on his App Store. The man's genius was not making things...but making people want things.  And then, wanting that same thing...over and over again.

We are now four years into the era of the iPhone.  And already, we're on the fifth iteration of that product line.  Increasingly, differences from the preceding model are approaching imperceptibility.  Each of the millions ever sold is an implied ticket into the not-so-exclusive world of techno chic.  And each is not so good at actually making phone calls.
The mysterious iPad is setting an even faster pace, with the first model surpassed by a successor less than a year out of the box, and a third version already rumored.  Apple has perfected the devil's brew of consumer amnesia.  One day, you are convinced they have created the single best thing that ever was; and the next, you are certain it must be replaced.  In the pantheon of planned obsolescence, Jobs is a demanding deity.

We also know that he was capable of being a downright nasty human being.  He would belittle and fire employees for fun.  But because he was adopted, and hardly the first megalomaniac of technology, some find those sins easy to forgive.  Maybe harder to accept was his fierce denial of paternity for his eldest daughter.  He went to court and swore under oath he could not have sired her, because he was infertile.  He scoffed at the idea that there was a connection between her name and that of his first line of consumer computers, both called 'Lisa'.  Three more children and many years later he had admitted it was a lie, but by then, 'genius' had conquered all.

So yes, he was not a man without faults, but one gift remains unquestioned--his singular, relentless, crazed pursuit of perfection.  It is not the marketing or the industrial design or the cool cachet that consumers crave.  It is the realization that every aspect of everything bearing the Apple name not only works better than any competitor's...but exists, in effect, on a higher plane of consciousness.  They are simply better--and they are better because of Steve Jobs.

Which brings me to the power cord for the MacBook Pro.

It is so hip it almost makes one weep.  The power unit itself has those iconic prongs that pivot in or out of the body depending on need.  On the other side, there are those adorable little ears that also appear when the cord itself needs to be carried.  And on the other end of the cord, there's a little tube that doesn't actually plug into the computer so much as magnetically merge with it.  Thus, before the power switch is even  activated, several sensory thrills have already occurred.  It is the magic of Apple...applied to the same electricity that powers everything else.

But other than that...this cable is a piece of crap.

And you don't have to take my word for it.  You can go to the Apple website and read the consumer reviews for yourself.  At this writing, 707 people (not including me--yet) have combined to give this little power cord a whopping 1.5 stars out of a possible 5.  And really, five is really just a given, isn't it? After all, this is Apple we're talking about.  But people hate it for all the right reasons. Because it fails without reason or warning.  Because, when you drop it, it displays all the tensile strength of Humpty Dumpty.  In fact, its design ranks right up there with the Xbox 360 as among the least reliable consumer products ever sold.  But at least no one refers to Steve Ballmer as a 'genius'.  It is simply wretched.  And when it inevitably and prematurely dies, you can redeploy your laptop as a fashionable paperweight.  Or you can buy a replacement for the low, low price of $80, plus tax.

So we are left to ponder one of two unthinkables.  Either Jobs was not the perfectionist he was said to be.  Or he personally authorized the manufacture of a criminally sub-standard power cord--one any graduate EE student could better in a day--simply to further reward all the happy Apple shareholders.

I don't have definitive proof either way.  But I'm pretty sure when Jobs made his lateral move over to the Pearly Gates, someone was there to ask him, 'how in hell did you get off charging $80 for this?!'

Farce and Free Speech

Today the scales of justice tipped.



In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church and founder Fred Phelps would not be held liable for inflicting emotional distress on the family of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, killed in Iraq in 2006.  Church members had attended Snyder's funeral, carrying signs that read, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", and "God Hates Fags".  Earlier they had done the same thing at the Idaho funeral of 19-year-old Army spc. Carrie French, also killed in Iraq.  As mourners turned into the French ceremony, members of the Phelps congregation yelled, 'Carrie is in hell!", and, 'Watch out for IEDs!".  If anyone yelled back, the Phelps clan just laughed.

It's important to point out that neither of the deceased was a homosexual.  But in Phelpsland, that wasn't the point.  American soldiers were being killed by a vengeful god, reportedly conducting a jihad against a sinful nation for not being more diligent in riding itself of actual homosexuals.  

Showing the good grace of the family, daughter Margie Phelps said after today's ruling, "When you're standing there with your young child's body bits and pieces in a coffin, you've been dealt some emotional distress by the Lord your God."  She graciously added, "I very much appreciate the fact that I get to be the mouth of God in this matter."

Snyder

Is this odious?  You be the judge.  But speaking of the protesters, Chief Justice John Roberts defended his authorship of the majority opinion by declaring, "the issues they highlight--the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens--are matters of public import."

Well, you know, in a funny kind of way, doesn't that make you just a tiny bit proud?  Yes, it's sickening, but isn't that what America is all about?  No one being deprived of their right to peaceful protest?

Except, except...how does this square with how the courts have ruled in 'matters of public import' concerning protests over the way George W. Bush conducted the war in which Snyder and French were killed?

In case you forgot, Bush sent the U.S. military into a conflict to find and destroy mythological weapons of mass destruction.  His mistake killed more than 4,000 American troops and at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians. In our bastion of free speech, you could expect a few citizens to be a little perturbed.  And to protest.  After all, free speech is what we're all about, right?

Well, yes--except when it came to George W. Bush.  At the instruction of the Secret Service, peaceful protesters in cities across America were dispatched to controlled 'free speech zones', located at least a third of a mile away from wherever Bush would track a bloody footprint.  There, they would remain out of sight, out of mind, and in many cases, legally off limits to any reporter who cared to interview them. 

And it must be noted that these restrictions were not applied equally.  Those banished were the ones who indicated they opposed the Iraqi War.  Those allowed to remain were those whose signs and shirts showed support for Bush.  One of the pretenses for the disequity was the purported fear of 'suicide bombers'.  Think about that for a minute.  The conviction that a terrorist would not figure out to wear a 'Bush is Great' button and a flag lapel pin on his mission erases any doubt as to how we could have allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place.

Anyway, the tactic of 'controlled' free speech moved to another dimension when the Republicans held their 2004 National Convention in New York City.  An anti-war group received a permit from the city to march three miles to the site of the festivities, Madison Square Garden.  But they got only a block or so before police leaped from storefronts, apartment vestibules and alleys to circle them inside orange crime scene tape--this creating an instantly declared, instantly controlled 'free speech' zone. 

That same week, the father of one of the first servicemen killed in Iraq managed his way into the GOP convention, and silently held up a sign reading, "Bush Lied; My Son Died".

French



Unlike 'Thank God for Dead Soldiers', his sign was offensive.  He was summarily tossed out.



So here, once again, we see the travesty of the current court system unmasked.  The same radical jurists who disastrously inserted Bush into the Oval Office have expanded their variable rulebook.  No man shall be denied his right to freely speak on 'the political and moral conduct of the United States', even if that speech brings distress and dishonor to the families of our fallen troops.

Unless, of course, such speech should dare hurt the feelings of the man who sent them to their rest.

Indeed, the scales are askew.  Snyder and French are gone.

And today, America died a little.









There Is a Place...

...where stupidity and self-absorption meet at an apex of ecstasy.

It is the Mt. Olympus of narcissism.  Where only a definitive queen of preen...or king of bling...could survive.  We have always assumed it a mythical land, existing only in theory, never to be seen by the likes of us.

Well, all you disbelievers, repent.

Because there is a chance in this mortal world that we may be given the unthinkable opportunity to watch these giants of ego and megalomania come face-to-face, and decide finally who would rule their land of knaves.

That's right--should the stars align, and fate smile upon us--next year we will be able to witness both Sarah Palin and Donald Trump vie for the Republican nomination to become Lord of the Corporate Whores President!

Ah, America the beautiful...

Gay Marriage

I'm going to be honest; I've heard just about all I need about gay marriage, don't ask/don't tell, and the wackos who think this argument somehow constitutes the biggest issue facing America.

But...but...I just have to say that if you believe that the real problem allowing 'gay marriage'--a semantic distinction--is that it will mushroom the number of children raised by gay couples...and that these children will somehow be deprived, depraved or even victimized; well, then please listen to Zach Wahls testifying before the Iowa state legislature.

And then I ask: is he not worthy of immediate inclusion in the U.S. Senate?  Even if it means amending the Constitution to allow 101 members?

Maybe we're not doomed after all...

Why Green Bay?

The first reason you should be rooting for the Packers this Sunday is because I have loved them since I was 10.

But assuming that's not convincing enough, consider how the Packers are different from every other major professional sports franchise in America:

• The team is owned solely by the citizens of its home community.  Just think about that for a minute.
• To be more precise, there is no singular 'owner'.  There is a 45-person board of directors, of whom seven form the executive committee. Among these seven, only one is paid for his service.
• By charter, the team is non-profit.  Should it ever be sold for any reason, all profits would go to charity, not the shareholders.
• There are about 300,000 people in the Green Bay environs.  There are 112,000 shareholders.
• The Packers are the only franchise in U.S. professional sports to make its balance sheet public every year.
• The next smallest city with an NFL franchise is Buffalo--about four times Green Bay's size.
• The next smallest city with a major league baseball franchise, ironically enough, is Milwaukee--five times Green Bay's size.

To put it mildly, this seems implausible.  How in the world could a city so small support a franchise so important?  The answer, as provided by Bill Maher, is that the NFL is a socialist state.  I know that doesn't gibe with the likes of Jimmy Johnson, his football palace, or the enormous league TV rights.  But that last point--the TV rights--only begins to describe the collectivist nature of the NFL:

• Unlike baseball, there are no local TV rights--everything goes to the league.  And those funds are distributed equally among the league's 32 teams, no matter how big or important you think you are.  (This alone could explain the absence of Donald Trump). 
• By union contract, 60% of all revenues go to player compensation, again divided equally among the teams.  It's a lucrative salary cap from the standpoint of the players, but a cap nonetheless.  Roster sizes are also fixed; thus, there is no provision for overspending for players, or for that matter, even underspending your rivals.
• Consequently, 'profitability', for what that means in such circumstances, is largely fixed.
• Player development is free.  The colleges do the work; you just pay for the best of what they produce.  And what you have to pay is limited by that salary cap.
• The NFL is a monopoly; you can't just do a startup team in Fresno, no matter how much money you have.  Just ask Mark Cuban.

In keeping with all this, a community-owned, non-profit team, where local kids regularly loan their bicycles to players to ride at summer training camp seems a model not only for pro football, but for American sports.

But, not surprisingly, the NFL has enacted a statute that, while grandfathering in the Packers, prevents any other business model like it from ever endangering the American way of life again.  

Where the Tea Party is Right

Members of the Tea Party have always claimed their central rallying point is the federal budget--they will do whatever necessary to save their children and grandchildren from fiscal ruin. (Of course, this begs the question of where they were during the Bush years, when the financial infection became life-threatening. Or the Clinton years, when the only four budget surpluses of the last 40 years were crafted. Somehow their cheers for Bill weren't heard). But for the moment, let's take them at their word. They want fiscal responsibility.

Willie Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks. He answered, 'cause that's where the money is'. Using that same flawless logic, attacking the national debt should naturally start where the most money is spent. And everyone knows where that is--Social Security. In theory, there are pretty simple solutions: raise the retirement age; reduce benefits, particularly for the financially well off; or giving a nice portion of that huge fund to the same Wall Street wizards who passed you the bill once the housing bubble burst. Amazingly, not many Americans support any of this. In fact, even the Tea Party would rather not talk about it.

OK, next, Medicare and Medicaid together are in the same ballpark. But seeing as the battle over health insurance continues under its own power, there's no need to digress here. That sign held by an elderly Tea Partier at a political rally last year said it all: 'Keep your government hands off my Medicare!'

However, the knives are sharpened and clearly unsheathed, ready to eviscerate any number of 'wasteful' and 'worthless' federal agencies--health and human services, transportation, housing and urban development, energy, education, the EPA. You know the list. But here's the problem: put every one of these agencies together--combine every tax dollar they spend--and the total isn't even half of what we pay in another area--defense. So any Tea Partier worth his salt is going to turn his Sutton-like eyes on the defense mega-bank. Go where the money is.

But do they have the courage and common sense to do that?

Turns out, some do.

Max Pappas of Freedom Works says, "we have some who think you just can’t cut defense spending, it’s just not possible". (But) there’s waste there, there’s the wrong incentives, there’s room for them to cut.”

Chris Gibson, a retired U.S. Army colonel and freshly-minted Tea Party congressman adds, “this deficit that we have threatens our very way of life, and everything needs to be on the table.”

And former congressional leader Dick Armey, no stranger to Republican politics, chimes in, “A lot of people say if you cut defense, you’re demonstrating less than a full commitment to our nation’s security--and that’s baloney".

In fact, no uncompromised person can argue with this. Defense spending takes up nearly 20% of the total federal budget...or over 40% of all discretionary spending. America represents 43% of the total world spending on defense. There is no force on earth--even every other force on earth combined--who can challenge us militarily. Pick a fight with us--you will perish.

And beyond the pure funding of the military industrial complex is the question of how the money is spent. Which I would like to spell out for you now. But I can't, because no one really knows. The Government Accounting Office in 2009 was asked to come up with an answer. In the end, they just threw up their hands: "...serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense made its financial statements unauditable." 'Serious problems'? 'Unauditable'?

Well, damn, them's fightin' words! Positively socialistic! Certainly the head of the Defense Department will have a thing or two to say about that, right? Well, look at how Secretary Robert Gates responded: "This department simply cannot risk continuing down the same path - where our investment priorities, bureaucratic habits and lax attitude towards costs are increasingly divorced from the real threats of today."

Yeah! See that, you Tea Party pussies! 'Lax attitude towards costs!' Ha!

No, wait...

So, if both sides are really fighting for the same thing here (and I'm just taking a leap of faith and assuming most Democrats are on board with saving the early childhood nutrition program rather than killing a few more innocent Afghans), what could possibly be the problem?

We can encapsulate that answer in a single human life form: Congressman Howard 'Buck' McKeon. And what a man he is.

Buck spent two of his formative years on an LDS mission...then returned to graduate from Brigham Young University with a degree in animal husbandry. (I know, I know, it's too easy--insert your own joke). Additional credentials qualifying him for his current job as head of the House Armed Services Committee include running a Western wear store; being available to become the first mayor of Santa Clarita, Ca. when it was incorporated; being available to represent California's 25th district after it magically sprung to life by reapportionment; and then shifting over one seat to slide into the armed services chairmanship after the gavel was left sitting on the table when the Democrats lost the House. So Howard has hit the good fortune trifecta, never having to face an incumbent in a meaningful election. But from this, you should never judge him worthless. In fact, to some, he is money in the bank.

First, we must understand that Howard is a fierce defender of America. All you have to do is ask him (comments mine):

“A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline.” (Anything less than the current three-quarters of a trillion, and we all go the way of ancient Rome. And for the record, no one except Barney Frank has actually suggested cutting the budget, only reducing its rate of growth.)

"Let me put this in the simplest terms possible: Cutting defense spending amidst two wars is a red line for me and should be a red line for all Americans.” (Translation: you disagree with me? You're a terrorist.)

"I will not support initiatives that will leave our military less capable and less able to fight." (How do you know they would be less capable...when no one knows how the money's being spent in the first place?)

"I cannot say it strongly enough. I will not support any measures that stress our forces and jeopardize the lives of our men and women in uniform" (Yeah, I think we got that the first time.)

"The concern I have is that defense spending is being based on budget rather than defense needs." (Yeah, you see Buck, that's the whole point. We need to start basing things on how much money we've got, not how much you wish we had.)

“I will also oppose any plans that have the potential to damage or jeopardize our national security.”

Aha! Now, here's where it starts to get interesting. Note that we've moved from our 'forces' to our 'national security'. And that subtle little gap in semantics is where Buck earns his pay.

California's fighting 25th is home to the following: Fort Irwin, Edwards Air Force Base, Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, and the Marine Mountain Warfare Training Center. It's also home to development and manufacturing of some of the most ambitious weapons programs in U.S history...paid for by U.S. taxpayers...funneled through middlemen including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. In fact, by the most unpredictable of coincidences, these were the three largest contributors to Buck's most recent election campaign.

But one has to wonder if those donors believe they'll get their money's worth, even with Buck in the big chair. After all, during Buck's time in Congress, they've suffered some severe setbacks:

• The order for Northrop's B2 bomber was cut from 130 planes to 21
• At one time, the Pentagon ordered 450 of Lockheed's F22 fighters; now that's been reduced to 188
• GE and Rolls Royce are in partnership to build a backup engine for Lockheed's jinxed F35, a project so horrible that funding was cut not only by the traitorous Obama, but also that celebrated fighter pilot, George W. Bush.

So Buck sort of found himself in a corner. It's time to pay back his political debts, but even with the Democrats cowering, those pesky Tea Partiers are now getting in the way. Egads--what to do?! Fortunately, the crafty Buck has a plan of attack:

“While China today may not intend to attack our carriers, neutralize our bases in Japan and Guam, or push back our naval presence out of the South China Sea, they are without question making the investments and developing capabilities to do just that."

See that? The snap of a finger, and a new threat is born. We are effectively doomed if we cut a dollar. Our children could all wind up speaking Mandarin.

But wait...could there be a way to defeat that threat? Well, yes, with the Aegis anti-missle shield, of course! Silly! You thought Buck wouldn't have come up with something?

And who are the prime contractors for such a program? Well, ironically, Lockeed and Northrop. And in a development too strange to imagine, just this week the Navy announced the first successful test of the Aegis system. Shazam!

And we can attribute much of this to our boy Buck. He will never rest easy. If you're a tireless defender of our troops, you always have the courage to speak the truth. For example, what would happen, Buck, if we cut a dollar?: "my concern is we end up back with a ‘bow and arrow’ -- I’m hoping not.”

So, Tea Partiers, there you have it. There's your opposition. A guy with expertise in both Western wear and animal husbandry...a guy with the full support of the military contractors...a red-blooded American who fears we'll have to try to shoot deadly Chinese missiles out of the sky with bows and arrows.

You keep asking for your stupid cuts...and this is the America you'll be responsible for.

Tucson, Jefferson and God

One week ago today, gunfire erupted in a Tucson shopping center, killing six people, including a little girl who went there to learn more about American politics. What lesson did she take to her grave?

Contrary to early suspicions, there is no evidence that the gunman was motivated by any political dogma, from any point on the spectrum. Thus, President Obama and most of his critics on the right have agreed to drop pursuit of such claims. And consequently, arguments for the moment have shifted to gun control, or more accurately, to gun safety considerations.

The arguments have quickly devolved to the extremes: 'bans' on one hand, 'second amendment rights' on the other. It's as if there is no middle ground worth considering. I would ask this: how would Americans respond to the following question: "would you be willing to at least discuss ways to minimize the chances of U.S. Representatives, federal judges and nine-year-old girls from being shot?" I'm guessing there would be a clear majority in favor.

And the extreme second amendment advocates realize this, as well. This is a conversation they don't want to have.

Which leads us to the following quote to the New York Times from Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America:

Why should the government be in the business of telling us how we can defend ourselves? These politicians need to remember that these rights aren't given to us by them. They come from God. They are god-given rights. They can't be infringed or limited in any way. What are they going to do--limit it to two or three rounds? Having lots of ammunition is critical, especially when the police are not around and you have to defend yourself against mobs."

Let's quickly deconstruct that.

• First of all, there is no evidence that God wrote the Bill of Rights, nor is there any mention (to my knowledge) of Glocks or extended clips in the Bible;
• Who are the mobs coming to take Mr. Pratt's guns away? Highly unlikely they will be the non-gun owners, since by definition they would be at a severe disadvantage;
• Actually, a limit to two or three rounds could be very helpful--particularly when someone decides to kill as many people as possible in a Tucson shopping center.

But what's most evident here is the immediate resurrection of God into any argument concerning guns, no matter how clumsy the implementation. God is the ultimate bullet-proof shield against logic. It's apparent that God is an invincible repellent to common sense reasoning; never mind the revered founding fathers, who actually did create the right to bear arms.

Surveys have shown that conservatives are 50% more likely to own guns than liberals. And conservatives are certainly far more likely to be members of the Republican party. So why would conservatives bother enlisting the defense of an other-worldly God rather than the former real world colonists who actually drafted the second amendment?

The answer, I believe, is the confounding legacy that is Thomas Jefferson.

In many ways, Jefferson is the patron saint of modern conservatism. He was a champion of the rural farmer, distrustful of cities. He was an expansionist, negotiating the Louisiana Purchase, and sending Lewis and Clark on their way. He consistently opposed a strong federal government, preferring ultimate power to reside with the states. He wrote vociferously against British taxation, and as Governor of Virginia, twice saw the British invade his state. He was unflinching in his belief in freedom, liberty and individual rights--after all, the guy wrote the Declaration of Independence! By many, he is considered 'the first Republican'.

With such credentials...it would seem logical for current conservatives to consider him not just a founding father, but in fact the Godfather of their movement.

And yet, they seldom mention him.

The sticking point, of course, comes from his views on religion. Yes, he is well known for his "wall of separation between Church and State". But his words and actions are far more definitive than that:

• As governor, he disestablished Anglicanism as the official state church, and abolished 'religious tests' for citizens;
• He wrote, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection..."
• He wrote, "The clergy had a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity throughout the United States; and as every sect believed its own form to be the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own. (But) the returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they believe power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly..."
• He wrote, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."

These are hardly words a modern conservative can abide by. The feelings of this perhaps most prominent founding father are clear: liberty, freedom and religion do not live in the same neighborhood much less room together. It is no wonder that people like Erich Pratt bypass the founding fathers altogether in defense of their fetishes and phobias. To him, the god of his own invention provides the only 'true' answer.

The New York Times should be quoting Jefferson instead of Pratt.

And the fact that automatic weapons are not a god-given right is the lesson that nine-year-old Christina Green might have lived to learn.

2011: The Year Ahead

Three things you can take to the bank in 2011:

In Politics: it will be conclusively proven that Democrats have brains but no balls; and Republicans have balls but no brains.

In Business: The U.S. economy shed 40,000 manufacturing plants (not jobs, plants) during the Bush regime...and saw the share of all U.S. corporate profits earned by Sleaze Street grow from 18% to 33%. Thus, we will conclusively demonstrate that the U.S. economy has moved irrevocably from making shit...to making shit up.

Where Politics and Business intersect: the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will not propose a thing--not one...single...thing--that would not shovel more money to their corporate masters.

That is all.

9/11: The Final Insult

Today, despite the shameful delaying tactics of members John McCain and Tom Coburn, the U.S. Senate passed a bill awarding extended medical benefits to first responders during the 9/11 attack. While alone this is cause for thankfulness (if not celebration), it also created the opportunity for Fox News to again trot out the most despicable man in America, Rudolph Giuliani.

The person once honored as Man of the Year by Time magazine is, of course, the poster boy for corrupt incompetence. But that's just a personal opinion. Instead, on this day of his rising from the ashes to again self-proclaim his heroism, let's dispassionately deal with established fact concerning his 'leadership':

• In February of 1993, while he was running for mayor, the twin towers were attacked for the first time, by a bomb-laden truck in one of the tower's underground parking lots. Presumably he noticed.
• One of the lessons learned that day was the importance of radio communication between first responders, and with their command centers. During that attack, the radios performed dismally, if at all.
• It took over seven years of Giuliani's term for new radios to be purchased for the fire department. When they were, it was done without competitive bidding. Giuliani's administration made the decision unilaterally.
• The radios were never properly field tested prior to purchase. When they were tested after distribution, they failed field tests repeatedly.
• On the day of the 9/11 attacks, during rescue operations, all police and fire department personnel were ordered evacuated from the building. All police (working on their own radio system) obeyed the radio call, without loss of life for any of those evacuees.
• However, 212 firefighters were killed when they remained inside the building which subsequently collapsed. Surviving firefighters on the scene reported that the radio commands were never heard--the radios failed.
• When subsequently called to testify, Giuliani reported under oath that the firefighters who died simply disobeyed orders. (Apparently, firefighters are uniformly 'braver' than police).
• Members of the fire department rallied to protest Giuliani's version of the facts. Giuliani had them arrested.
• Giuliani never entered the city's unified emergency command center on that day. That's because it was located on the 23rd floor in the WTC complex. Giuliani claimed afterwards it was put there because that's where his director of emergency operations wanted it. That is, until that director presented a memo showing he had clearly stated it should be put in Brooklyn, for exactly the reason that it would be far less prone to attack.
• One of the requirements for the command center was the installation of huge underground fuel tanks to run generators in case of emergency. It was those fuel tanks that exploded and burned violently during the attack, accounting for the immense heat and flame that killed many of the victims.
• Giuliani's hand-selected center was bullet proof and had its own private elevator, cigar humidor and monogrammed towels, making it ideal as a secret weekend location for assignations with his then-girlfriend.
• The reason for today's appropriations are the lifelong lung problems being suffered by those first responders. They worked 8 and 12 hour shifts trying to locate survivors and remains in the rubble. They did so without any city mandate requiring breathing respirators.
• Shortly after the attack, Giuliani had personally declared the site safe. It is interesting that much video shows him greeting and thanking clean-up workers on site. He is wearing a mask. Virtually none of the people actually doing the work are.

Despite all the evidence, we again have to endure the duplicity of Giuliani claiming solidarity with those first responders and their families.

How much better served they would have been had he exhibited any such concern in the eight years of his mayoralty before the attack.

Terrorists in Robes

Ten years to the week, the smothering hand of right wing judicial terrorism again has clawed the throat of democracy.

It was December of 2000 when five Supreme Court puppets of the Republican Party cast aside legal precedence and any pretense of non-partisanship to halt a recount of Presidential votes in Florida...for fear that a full recount might 'cast a cloud' on the presidency of fellow puppet George W. Bush. As such, Anton Scalia and his fellow scum ushered in an era of fiscal disaster, Constitutional travesties, and the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis in order for Fearless Leader Bush to exorcise the demons of his desertion from the same armed forces he presumed to respect.

Today, we have experienced a lower-level travesty. But in its own way, it betrays the degree to which the feared 'judicial activism' so lamented by the right has in reality become their calling card...the central method by which they seek to reestablish the monarchy and class separation for which which our founding fathers risked their lives to deposit in the dust bin of history.

A Bush-appointed Federal judge in Virginia, Henry E. Hudson, has ruled that key provisions of the Obama Health Care Bill--the one that provides health insurance to many more Americans--AND reduces costs--are unconstitutional. Unsurprisingly, Hudson is part owner of an online political action firm that has lobbied against the Obama health bill. And the U.S. Attorney who brought the case to Hudson's court has also purchased the services of the same firm, Campaign Solutions Inc.

Scalia, thug that he is, at least had the decency to attempt a rationalization for the actions crowning Bush the boy king. Of course, those legal pretenses are destined to become a laughingstock of American jurisprudence for centuries to come. The two clowns in Virginia didn't have the same backbone. They quickly asserted that their cowardly conduct would ultimately be reviewed by a higher court...thus attempting to remove themselves from responsibility.

But they've done their jobs. They've set legal wheels in motion that will allow Scalia and cohorts to again overturn the will of the American people.

It's only a matter of time until people wake up...and take the law into their own hands.

And the law will be better for it.

If

Passing through a decent high school literature class creates a high probability you'll run across the Rudyard Kipling poem, If. Most people never give it a second thought. Some may remember a stanza or two. (The full version is here.) But I'm thinking that Barack Obama has a copy pasted to the mirror so that he can consult it every morning while shaving.

It's really one of the few things that explains his baffling reticence to confront his dastardly political opponents. What follows are select lines from the poem which might appeal to the President...and some thoughts on the same:

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowances for their doubting too...

In other words, above all else, keep cool. Descending to their level is a sign of weakness--even if their words and deeds are weakening you more than you could ever do to yourself.

If you can wait and not be tired of waiting, or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating, and yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise...

Well, I'm sure there's a moral message here, maintaining civility and all that. But that last phrase is a killer: could it be that Mr. Obama believes that simply opening his mouth will, de facto, make him look too wise? I mean, how could others not pale in comparison? Mr. President, trust me, the Tea Partiers are robbing you of your apparent wisdom...while you maintain your modesty.

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, and stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools...

Yes, it's true--Kipling was prescient enough to foresee the creation of Fox News. You may have no choice but to suffer the knaves...but keep the faith in his inspiration--stoop, stoop, stoop and build! Before it's too late!

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew to serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you except the will which says to them: "Hold on!"

Hold on, Mr. President. Show that heart and nerve and sinew. You can prove beyond a doubt that you're better than they are--if you simply lace up the gloves and fight.

70%

Give them credit: the Tea Partiers have done the seemingly impossible. They've introduced the topic of economics, in the form of numbers-laden debt concerns, into the public debate. Working in contradiction to the standard GOP playbook of manipulating voters with divisive social issues (abortion, flag burning, gays anyone?), the TP'ers have led us down the path of speculating on what, exactly, would need to be done to balance the budget...and erase the deficit.

Now, the cynical may ask where those sentiments were when Bill Clinton actually created a surplus, and introduced the idea that you can't fund new programs until you find an offset in the federal budget to pay for them. I don't recall too many people at the time urging that impeachment proceedings be dismissed lest they take the national eye off the ball of financial restraint.

And I don't recall a peep from these same outraged Americans when George Bush spent eight years squandering what Clinton had saved, spending like a former cocaine-addled AWOL pilot now making amends by playing soldiers with real humans. How to pay for his overseas follies? Easy. Just take the cost off the books. Leave it for the next guy to figure out. See how simple that was?

Well, at any rate we're now having a financial conversation. You can't flip a cable channel without some numbnuts throwing out a string of numbers. And that can get confusing. Thus, the title of this post--the only number that really matters: 70%.

That's the portion of the U.S. economy that depends on a single source--consumer spending. That includes every loaf of bread and box of Kleenex...every new McMansion, Escalade and pedicure. Unless consumers continue to spend, our economy will remain a mere shadow of its former self.

Now, think about what works against consumer spending: consumers not having enough money; consumers having mortgages that are higher than the value of their homes; consumers unable to get a loan for a new car; consumers not having jobs. If there's one thing we learned from the last two bubbles, maybe it's that you really can't spend money you don't have without eventually needing to pay it back. (Unless, of course, you're a Wall Street banker, in which case you can pretty much do what you want).

There's no conservative I know of (excepting Ron Paul) who believes that laying off even more workers, shutting more factories, sending more jobs overseas, further reducing wages and shredding the social safety net is the necessary medicine to cure what ails the economy. Even if that were the right prescription, it would take decades to return us to health. In the interim, the collapsing economy would begin to feed on its own decay, reducing consumer spending to levels not seen since the forced reductions of World War II.

And the amazing part of this is the inability of most large corporations to look past their own balance sheets. Of course, it is in their nature to want more productivity, a higher stock price, and greater profits. And if taxpayers are willing to help underwrite that with their tax dollars...and more of their workers are thrown out on the street...well, that's just the price of progress. That's the 'free market' at work.

But when virtually all corporations act the same way, helping 'carve out' the American economy by subjecting the middle class to financial genocide, there is, at best, a long and painful road to recovery.

How do you achieve 70% consumer spending when consumers have nothing left to spend?

What's the Matter With Kids Today?

Of all the navel gazing done concerning the 2010 election returns, one thing stands out to me: only 11% of people aged 18-29 voted. That compares to 18% when Barack Obama was elected just two years ago.

Yes, midterms always draw fewer voters.

Except, not always.

This off-year election, the number of voters over the age of 65 actually increased, from 16% to 23%. And as CNN's exit polls prove, the older, richer and whiter a voter, the far more likely he is to vote Republican.

If the Democrats want to retain the White House in 2012, they better figure out a way to convince young people to vote--starting now.

How the Senate Explains America

As a reference point for America, or even American politics, the U.S. Senate seems to have a glaring defect: it's inherently non-representative. It is the counterbalance built into the Constitution by the founding fathers to assure that big states would not overwhelm little ones. After all, at the end of the Revolutionary War, Virginia was a population bully--12 times the size of Delaware. Without the Senate, the good folks of Delaware could be lost in the shuffle.

Today, the disparity is even worse. We have a Vice President from Delaware, which certainly would not have happened if big states were allowed to fully exercise their populous muscle. Delaware simply wouldn't matter. California today contains 68 times as many people as Wyoming. In fact, California is home to more folks than 21 other states combined.

Still, I think studying the Senate explains American politics. Largely because voters look at Senate candidates in a more sober, studied way than those for any other office. After all, they are making a six year commitment--longer than they devote to a college choice, a car loan, or most romantic relationships. Those six years give a sense of familiarity that is seldom associated with any Congressman. While Presidential races are characterized by a numbing overload of pomp and circumstance, from declaration all the way through inauguration day, those who would be Senator are seen through a lens more sharply focused on reality.

And it is because of this, I believe, that those Tea Partiers who saw themselves as Senators--Miller in Alaska, Angle in Nevada, Raese in West Virginia, Buck in Colorado, and O'Donnell in Delaware--went home without trophies this time around. In the end, they were not judged Senate-worthy.

In fact, statistically the Senate seems precisely aligned with the sentiments of America. This fall, among those voters who were willing to declare a party affiliation (leaving the independents aside), 52% said 'Democrat' compared to 48% for 'Republican'. It appears the new Senate will include 52 Senators caucusing with Democrats...compared to 48 with the Republicans. A perfect match.

But beneath the surface, there are two central currents running through the Senate that help explain America's political divide better than 24 straight hours of any political punditry.

True, in general Republicans are richer and Democrats less so; Democrats more progressive and Republicans more conservative. The GOP is whiter, while the Dems get more female votes. But working against the stereotypes are jarring exceptions: there are two very moderate female GOP Senators representing the state of Maine, each assailed by members of their own party as 'liberals' for their positions on social issues; on the Democratic side of the aisle, that party can take nothing for granted from Blue Dog members who would logically support the progressive policies designed to provide better times for their relatively poorer constituencies.

What explains this?

Isolation...and religion.

There are 13 states in America where population density is more than 200 people per square mile. They don't seem to have much in common: Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio and Hawaii are not close together. California houses four of the nation's 12 biggest cities. The densest state--New Jersey--doesn't even include one in the top 60.

But people in those states have one thing in common--contact with a lot of other people. They cross paths. They interact. They find out about each other. They have no choice. They have to share--roads and school rooms and open spaces. They are the answer to Rodney King's plea--yes, they all can just get along.

However, does this constant contact make them anxious and angry...or more forgiving? Do they end up wanting to help their fellow men...or punish them? Maybe a good test would be to study who they elect as Senators. Do they want 'help your fellow man' Democrats? Or 'every man for himself' conservatives?

Here's the breakdown for those 26 elected officials: 21 are Democrats...and only five Republicans. When people have to get along, they do. Isolation breeds desolation. Familiarity would seem to breed consideration for your fellow man. Perhaps close contact promote appreciation for the fundamental liberties our first patriots envisioned.

The other definitive fissure in American politics is religion. On one side of the chasm you have good, God-fearing Christians. On the other, there's your collection of atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, witches, cultists, devil-worshipers, and those who spend their Sunday mornings on golf courses that may or may not have been created by intelligent design.

How does the Senate scorecard play out here? Of the ten states where church attendance is lowest, fourteen senators are Democrats, and only six Republicans. Not worshipping there is not fatal to a political career.

But in the ten states where people most often attend Sunday services, a whopping 17 Senators carry the GOP banner, compared to three lowly Democrats. Here, it is definitely advisable to be seen consulting the Good Book.

Over the next two years, the legislative engine of Congress will most certainly seize. It's hard to see either side giving an inch (if the Democrats have learned even a modicum of reality). And into that void, the media will jump, yabbering about what they really want to talk about anyway--Sarah Palin.

As a resident of the state with the most open space...and already clearly comfortable with the concept of Messiah...Ms. Palin seems perfectly suited to play to her base.

But it's not yet clear that her act will play as well where Americans really have to interact and assess strangers every day...where more faith is placed in human beings than supreme beings.

Yes, she is blissfully isolated and vocally devout.

But could America ever see her as a Senator...much less a President?