Another in the ongoing "Subron 8 Sea Stories" series.
My nephew asked how many times I'd been to Captain's Mast. Ha.
On a diesel boat Captain's Mast was never conducted at sea, and was held somewhat irregularly when we were in port, but whenever one was held and I was not there the Captain wanted to know why not. I think he was not sure how to hold Mast without me there.
I nonetheless got the third chevron below my crow before I got my first hashmark. To those who don't know, that means I made E-6 before I finished my first four-year hitch. That certainly could not be done in today's Navy, and I'm not sure it could have been done then anywhere but on a diesel boat, and only by an Electrician. EM's were in short supply.
And, at the risk of being immodest, I was very good. I had a hell of a reputation when it came to diagnosing a fault in a motor controller, or finding a distribution problem and, best of all, I was the best jury rigger on the boat. That was a skill highly valued on a 21-year-old diesel submarine, a ship type that was already becoming the bastard stepchild of the submarine Navy, which was rapidly going nuclear.
Response to comment, Wednesday afternoon
And I'm still not going to answer the question, because I don't know the answer. Let's just say it was not a particularly rare occurrence. It typically had to do with overly enthusiastic consumption of alcohol while on liberty which, in those days, was by no means considered a heinous crime.
And luck had nothing to do with the time and place, buddy. The choice of rating was deliberate when I joined the Navy, specifically designed to give me the best chance of winding up on a submarine and specifically on a diesel boat. I had to jump through a lot of hoops to get waivers due to being taller than the maximum height allowed, and with my test scores they were hell bent to put me on a nuclear boat, which I emphatically did not want. From about age ten I had been determined to serve on an operational diesel submarine and I worked my ass off to make that happen.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
A Study In Overreaction
And for today’s lesson in overreaction, we turn to the provision in the “Health Care Reform” bill that passed in 2010 regarding “high risk insurance pools” for people who had been turned down for insurance by the health insurance companies. The projected cost per person for this provision was $13,026, and the current projected cost for 2012 is $28,994 per person.
Certainly this is not terribly good news but it doesn’t, I think, call for the total meltdown engaged in by one financial piece that I had the opportunity to peruse.
That’s a longer quote than I usually engage in, but since I’m not going to embarrass the writer by linking to the piece, I wanted to bring all of it to you. I think he went a little off the rails there.
He’s talking about “one trillion dollars over ten years,” which is a masterpiece of irrelevancy, since the “high risk pool” provision expires in 2014 and the program only has this year and next year to run. So even if it was $90 billion per year, he’s off by almost an order of magnitude.
But even his “1% of the population” is massive overreaction, because spelled out right there in the article to which he is reacting is the very clear statement that only $600 million was spent in the last 18 months, so getting from $400 million per year to $90 billion per year requires a somewhat staggering leap of imagination.
His train of thought starts with an “if,” followed by an “odds are” and a ten year figure for a two year program, leading to a 25% spending increase for a presumptive 1% of the population. And I thought the sleeping pill study algorithm was flawed.
Certainly this is not terribly good news but it doesn’t, I think, call for the total meltdown engaged in by one financial piece that I had the opportunity to peruse.
Here's the truth folks -- if one percent of the population is "high risk", that's 3 million people. If the cost per person is $30,000 a year then we're talking about $90 billion a year. And that's if it's just one percent of the population.
Remember, the original design was for people who (1) were employed, (2) therefore could pay, but (3) had been turned down. When you look at the total panoply of uninsured, about 16% of the population, the odds are that we have at least one percent of the people in this category.
Simply put this is one trillion dollars over ten years, basically. Which we do not have.
Which we cannot raise. Which, incidentally, is almost one quarter of all Medicaid spending in 2010. That's right -- a 25% increase for 1% of the population.
That’s a longer quote than I usually engage in, but since I’m not going to embarrass the writer by linking to the piece, I wanted to bring all of it to you. I think he went a little off the rails there.
He’s talking about “one trillion dollars over ten years,” which is a masterpiece of irrelevancy, since the “high risk pool” provision expires in 2014 and the program only has this year and next year to run. So even if it was $90 billion per year, he’s off by almost an order of magnitude.
But even his “1% of the population” is massive overreaction, because spelled out right there in the article to which he is reacting is the very clear statement that only $600 million was spent in the last 18 months, so getting from $400 million per year to $90 billion per year requires a somewhat staggering leap of imagination.
His train of thought starts with an “if,” followed by an “odds are” and a ten year figure for a two year program, leading to a 25% spending increase for a presumptive 1% of the population. And I thought the sleeping pill study algorithm was flawed.
Oh God, Another "Study"
So now we have another of these “studies” which reveals that modern medicine is probably killing you, all in the name of the greedy profits of sleazy corporations and to save time for lazy doctors, because they can simply write you a prescription instead of having to spend time with you. Sleeping pills are killing you people, slaughtering you like cattle in a packing house.
I am very familiar with Scripps Health, the outfit which published this “study,” and in fact I had surgery done there just last month. They are quite a good health care organization, and that is a point worth making. They are not a research organization; they are staffed with practicing doctors and nurses who cure sick people who walk in their doors.
(emphasis mine) Notice that they were working from medical records. So, do they know whether or not the sleeping pill users were taking the pills properly? They do not. Do they know whether the pill users were even taking the pills at all? They do not; they only know that prescriptions were written for the pills.
They do not know, for God’s sake, what the cause of death was. Patient Alpha was murdered by her husband when she asked him for a divorce. She had been taking Ambien for two weeks, therefor her Ambien use contributed to the death rate. Give me a break.
They say that, “the team's algorithm considered both users' and non-users' age, [blah, blah] to determine if any other conditions were contributing to the mortality rates.” Right. Did it account for the two-week user who was shot by her jealous husband? No, only actual research would do that, and knowing the actual usage and actual cause of death, you idiots.
I always love this “we had an algorithm which adjusted the data for…” No, you had an algorithm which massaged the data to produce the results you wanted it to produce. Or even if you had no preconceived result, what makes you so certain that your “algorithm” was valid?
The publisher of the study warns that sleeping pills can result in “waking up in a ‘hangover’ state, where they are at a higher risk for falls or car accidents.” Any medication has to place some responsibility on the user for proper use. If you take a sleeping pill at 2:00am and then get up at 6:00am to drive to work then you might well be at risk for a car accident. The warning labels on the medication tell you very clearly not to do that.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have a vested interest, as I take Ambien regularly due to a neurological issue called Parkinson’s Disease. Inability to fall asleep or stay asleep is a common aspect of that disorder, and without the medication I would probably never dare to drive a car at all, as I would be falling asleep all day. Vested interest or not, this “study” strikes me as bogus.
I am very familiar with Scripps Health, the outfit which published this “study,” and in fact I had surgery done there just last month. They are quite a good health care organization, and that is a point worth making. They are not a research organization; they are staffed with practicing doctors and nurses who cure sick people who walk in their doors.
The study followed 10,000 sleeping pill users and 23,500 non-users in Pennsylvania between 2002 and 2006. About 1 percent of non-users died during that time, compared to 6 percent of sleeping pill users. Since the medical records available for the study didn't include the cause of death, it's unclear how sleeping pill use contributed to the higher death rate.
(emphasis mine) Notice that they were working from medical records. So, do they know whether or not the sleeping pill users were taking the pills properly? They do not. Do they know whether the pill users were even taking the pills at all? They do not; they only know that prescriptions were written for the pills.
They do not know, for God’s sake, what the cause of death was. Patient Alpha was murdered by her husband when she asked him for a divorce. She had been taking Ambien for two weeks, therefor her Ambien use contributed to the death rate. Give me a break.
They say that, “the team's algorithm considered both users' and non-users' age, [blah, blah] to determine if any other conditions were contributing to the mortality rates.” Right. Did it account for the two-week user who was shot by her jealous husband? No, only actual research would do that, and knowing the actual usage and actual cause of death, you idiots.
I always love this “we had an algorithm which adjusted the data for…” No, you had an algorithm which massaged the data to produce the results you wanted it to produce. Or even if you had no preconceived result, what makes you so certain that your “algorithm” was valid?
The publisher of the study warns that sleeping pills can result in “waking up in a ‘hangover’ state, where they are at a higher risk for falls or car accidents.” Any medication has to place some responsibility on the user for proper use. If you take a sleeping pill at 2:00am and then get up at 6:00am to drive to work then you might well be at risk for a car accident. The warning labels on the medication tell you very clearly not to do that.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have a vested interest, as I take Ambien regularly due to a neurological issue called Parkinson’s Disease. Inability to fall asleep or stay asleep is a common aspect of that disorder, and without the medication I would probably never dare to drive a car at all, as I would be falling asleep all day. Vested interest or not, this “study” strikes me as bogus.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Fracking Responsibly?
An op-ed in today’s New York Times by Joe Nocera is an example of why this country is failing to control the corporate pillaging of both our environment and our economy. The title is “How to Frack Responsibly,” but read it for yourself, and tell me how in hell it lives up to that name. It doesn’t even come close. The first paragraph is, in its entirety, “Fracking isn’t going away,” and in the second paragraph we find this,
Do you really need to read any further to figure out where this asshole is going with his half-witted, corporate propaganda diatribe?
He does ask the question, “How much methane leaks into the air as a result of fracking?” and answers himself, “Incredibly, nobody knows.” Then, instead of responsibly saying that we should hold off on engaging in this pernicious process until we know the answer to that question, he says we should study it and think about regulations, and meanwhile continue fracking and leaking at the maximum possible rate because… Well, you know, because the drillers need the gas.
Incredibly, he has some so-called environmentalist outfit on his side,
These people are the ones who apparently gave this bonehead the idea that we should study the fracking process rather than actually, you know, stop it, or at least make major changes to it and make those changes now, before major damage is done to our environment. Not only that but if regulation is ever implemented, these idiots don’t want the federal gov't involved, they think that states would do a better job. Right, like the states’ records on regulating the oil industry is such an unblemished success.
Missing completely from his half-witted discussion is the effect of fracking on domestic water supplies, which is a well documented ongoing disaster and ample reason to shut down fracking in its entirety immediately.
To put it another way, the technique of hydraulic fracturing, … has more than proved its value. Fracking’s enemies can stamp their feet all they want, but that gas is too important to leave it in the ground.
Do you really need to read any further to figure out where this asshole is going with his half-witted, corporate propaganda diatribe?
He does ask the question, “How much methane leaks into the air as a result of fracking?” and answers himself, “Incredibly, nobody knows.” Then, instead of responsibly saying that we should hold off on engaging in this pernicious process until we know the answer to that question, he says we should study it and think about regulations, and meanwhile continue fracking and leaking at the maximum possible rate because… Well, you know, because the drillers need the gas.
Incredibly, he has some so-called environmentalist outfit on his side,
One thing I’ve always liked about the Environmental Defense Fund is its hardheaded approach. Founded by scientists, it believes in data, not hysteria. It promotes market incentives to change behavior and isn’t afraid to work with industry.
These people are the ones who apparently gave this bonehead the idea that we should study the fracking process rather than actually, you know, stop it, or at least make major changes to it and make those changes now, before major damage is done to our environment. Not only that but if regulation is ever implemented, these idiots don’t want the federal gov't involved, they think that states would do a better job. Right, like the states’ records on regulating the oil industry is such an unblemished success.
Missing completely from his half-witted discussion is the effect of fracking on domestic water supplies, which is a well documented ongoing disaster and ample reason to shut down fracking in its entirety immediately.
Subron 8: We Have Air
Another in the ongoing "Subron 8 Sea Stories" series.
Somewhere in North Atlantic, running on the surface in heavy weather. Pughead, a Machinist Mate 3 and I are in the pump room working on the high pressure air compressor. There are several things wrong with this picture, but we’re doing it anyway, and we are not having fun.
Most things on a submarine are dual purpose, so that if something fails then something else can be cross connected to serve in its place. If the bilge pump fails, for instance, we can cross connect and use the trim pump to pump bilges. That gets bilge water in our trim tanks, so we don’t do that unless we have to, but accumulated bilge is a problem, especially on this pigboat, which leaks like a sieve.
Anyway, one of the things which we have two of is the air compressor which provides us with compressed air at 3000 psi. That air is critical, as it provides the pressure for our hydraulic system, and is what we use to blow our ballast tanks when we want to surface. We use enough of our stored air surfacing, usually, that we can’t dive again until we replenish our supply of high pressure air using these beasts, which are powered by electric motors and are located in the pump room directly below the control room.
So when one air compressor produces a loud clank and craps out, that presents a major problem. We are on our way somewhere that we aren’t being told about (now revealed to be the north coast of Russia), and if we have only one air compressor we’ll have to abort the mission and turn back. The situation calls for a control room conference, which includes me in case the problem might be the motor or a control, and I happen to be the closest Electrician. I opine that motors don’t usually fail with a loud clank, but…
So the MM3 and I go below into the pump room. There isn’t a whole lot for him to check out, as the air compressor is a sealed unit which is replaced in its entirety when need be and is never repaired by the ship’s crew. He checks for metal filings in the oil and such and finds nothing. I check the motor and motor controls with the same results. We disconnect the coupling and find that the motor turns, while the compressor seems to be partially seized up. This is not good.
We go back up to the control room and make our report, and more of a crowd has gathered. The Chief Electrician is there and asks me a few questions, which I answer. The Engineering Officer and the XO have a few questions, and no one seems to like those answers either. The Captain isn’t saying anything, but he’s looking at me, and I kind of know why. I’m one of the top ranked Electricians on the boat and, while I’ve caused a bit of trouble from time to time, I also have a reputation for getting things done.
Mostly, in the Navy, repairing machinery is the province of Machinist Mates but, like most diesel boats these days, we don’t have many of those so the Electricians Mates, who normally care for electrical distribution, motors and motor controls, also pitch in on dealing with anything powered by an electric motor. On a submarine, that’s pretty much everything, so we stay pretty busy and I’ve done a good bit of mechanical work.
“We could take it apart,” I pipe up, “and see if we can fix it.”
What had been a gloomy silence turns into a “there’s a crazy person in the house” silence, and everyone is staring at me like I’ve suddenly lost my mind. All except the Captain, who was already looking at me and whose expression has not changed at all. I have a sinking feeling that he somehow suckered me into saying that.
“It’s sealed,” he says, “shipyard job.” But he’s still looking at me. I’m thinking about the time I stole the mooring lines off the sub tender, and I have a hunch that he is too. I’m not a big believer in letting petty regulations stand in the way of what I need to get done.
I shrug. “Better to ask forgiveness after we get back than to ask permission after we abort.” I’m not actually sure what that means, but I get the tiniest hint of a smile.
“Even if we’re stupid enough to do that,” the Engineering Officer chimes in, “we don’t have any parts.”
“Might be able to make ‘em,” I come back. “Or if something’s broke we could probably weld it up. We jury rig half the stuff we fix.”
“Oh, that’s encouraging,” someone retorts. The XO gives him a dirty look.
After a bit more discussion the Captain says to go ahead and I immediately wish I had kept my stupid mouth shut. The MM3 agrees to help and I send for Pughead, who is my favorite “partner in crime.” The three of us are gathering tools and getting ready to go below and the XO puts his hand on my shoulder. “You really think you can get it going?” he asks. I just shrug.
We get below and start on the problem and it doesn't take long to figure out why this thing is replaced rather than repaired. There isn’t room down here to take this effing thing apart. So we’re down here where there is room for maybe one guy, two at a pinch, and there’s three of us. It’s hotter than hell. We’re fighting with doing something that we’re not supposed to be doing, with machinery that we don’t have plans for, and we’re doing it on an unstable platform. There is, needless to say, a good bit of cursing and yelling, using the Navy’s favorite word, which starts with “f,” ends with “k” and isn’t “firetruck.”
At one point the XO comes halfway down the ladder and wants to know how the job is coming and I want to tell him to just eff off and leave us alone. I was not in a very good mood and had already told two Chiefs and a Lieutenant (jg) to do precisely that, but it’s best not to do so with the XO, so I just make some noncommittal noise. He offers some officer-like encouragment and then observes that, “it sounds like you’re trying to teach two machines how to mate.” He’s never really approved of bad language.
“Yes sir,” I tell him, “when they get the hang of it we’ll let you watch 'em.”
He opens his mouth, looking sort of like a beached carp, but can’t think of a snappy comeback and so merely closes it and leaves.
After taking apart several things that weren’t the problem and therefore didn’t need to be taken apart, we finally find the problem. The compressor has cylinders, much like your car but a little more complicated and the cylinders aren't all the same size, and a valve has broken off and gotten sucked into a cylinder. Happily, it didn’t do any real damage in there and with some welding and grinding we can cobble up a new valve. After about eight hours or so we have it pumping air, and it holds up.
And I have banked up brownie points for the next time I might be facing the “The Man” at Captain’s Mast. All in all, not a bad day.
Somewhere in North Atlantic, running on the surface in heavy weather. Pughead, a Machinist Mate 3 and I are in the pump room working on the high pressure air compressor. There are several things wrong with this picture, but we’re doing it anyway, and we are not having fun.
Most things on a submarine are dual purpose, so that if something fails then something else can be cross connected to serve in its place. If the bilge pump fails, for instance, we can cross connect and use the trim pump to pump bilges. That gets bilge water in our trim tanks, so we don’t do that unless we have to, but accumulated bilge is a problem, especially on this pigboat, which leaks like a sieve.
Anyway, one of the things which we have two of is the air compressor which provides us with compressed air at 3000 psi. That air is critical, as it provides the pressure for our hydraulic system, and is what we use to blow our ballast tanks when we want to surface. We use enough of our stored air surfacing, usually, that we can’t dive again until we replenish our supply of high pressure air using these beasts, which are powered by electric motors and are located in the pump room directly below the control room.
So when one air compressor produces a loud clank and craps out, that presents a major problem. We are on our way somewhere that we aren’t being told about (now revealed to be the north coast of Russia), and if we have only one air compressor we’ll have to abort the mission and turn back. The situation calls for a control room conference, which includes me in case the problem might be the motor or a control, and I happen to be the closest Electrician. I opine that motors don’t usually fail with a loud clank, but…
So the MM3 and I go below into the pump room. There isn’t a whole lot for him to check out, as the air compressor is a sealed unit which is replaced in its entirety when need be and is never repaired by the ship’s crew. He checks for metal filings in the oil and such and finds nothing. I check the motor and motor controls with the same results. We disconnect the coupling and find that the motor turns, while the compressor seems to be partially seized up. This is not good.
We go back up to the control room and make our report, and more of a crowd has gathered. The Chief Electrician is there and asks me a few questions, which I answer. The Engineering Officer and the XO have a few questions, and no one seems to like those answers either. The Captain isn’t saying anything, but he’s looking at me, and I kind of know why. I’m one of the top ranked Electricians on the boat and, while I’ve caused a bit of trouble from time to time, I also have a reputation for getting things done.
Mostly, in the Navy, repairing machinery is the province of Machinist Mates but, like most diesel boats these days, we don’t have many of those so the Electricians Mates, who normally care for electrical distribution, motors and motor controls, also pitch in on dealing with anything powered by an electric motor. On a submarine, that’s pretty much everything, so we stay pretty busy and I’ve done a good bit of mechanical work.
“We could take it apart,” I pipe up, “and see if we can fix it.”
What had been a gloomy silence turns into a “there’s a crazy person in the house” silence, and everyone is staring at me like I’ve suddenly lost my mind. All except the Captain, who was already looking at me and whose expression has not changed at all. I have a sinking feeling that he somehow suckered me into saying that.
“It’s sealed,” he says, “shipyard job.” But he’s still looking at me. I’m thinking about the time I stole the mooring lines off the sub tender, and I have a hunch that he is too. I’m not a big believer in letting petty regulations stand in the way of what I need to get done.
I shrug. “Better to ask forgiveness after we get back than to ask permission after we abort.” I’m not actually sure what that means, but I get the tiniest hint of a smile.
“Even if we’re stupid enough to do that,” the Engineering Officer chimes in, “we don’t have any parts.”
“Might be able to make ‘em,” I come back. “Or if something’s broke we could probably weld it up. We jury rig half the stuff we fix.”
“Oh, that’s encouraging,” someone retorts. The XO gives him a dirty look.
After a bit more discussion the Captain says to go ahead and I immediately wish I had kept my stupid mouth shut. The MM3 agrees to help and I send for Pughead, who is my favorite “partner in crime.” The three of us are gathering tools and getting ready to go below and the XO puts his hand on my shoulder. “You really think you can get it going?” he asks. I just shrug.
We get below and start on the problem and it doesn't take long to figure out why this thing is replaced rather than repaired. There isn’t room down here to take this effing thing apart. So we’re down here where there is room for maybe one guy, two at a pinch, and there’s three of us. It’s hotter than hell. We’re fighting with doing something that we’re not supposed to be doing, with machinery that we don’t have plans for, and we’re doing it on an unstable platform. There is, needless to say, a good bit of cursing and yelling, using the Navy’s favorite word, which starts with “f,” ends with “k” and isn’t “firetruck.”
At one point the XO comes halfway down the ladder and wants to know how the job is coming and I want to tell him to just eff off and leave us alone. I was not in a very good mood and had already told two Chiefs and a Lieutenant (jg) to do precisely that, but it’s best not to do so with the XO, so I just make some noncommittal noise. He offers some officer-like encouragment and then observes that, “it sounds like you’re trying to teach two machines how to mate.” He’s never really approved of bad language.
“Yes sir,” I tell him, “when they get the hang of it we’ll let you watch 'em.”
He opens his mouth, looking sort of like a beached carp, but can’t think of a snappy comeback and so merely closes it and leaves.
After taking apart several things that weren’t the problem and therefore didn’t need to be taken apart, we finally find the problem. The compressor has cylinders, much like your car but a little more complicated and the cylinders aren't all the same size, and a valve has broken off and gotten sucked into a cylinder. Happily, it didn’t do any real damage in there and with some welding and grinding we can cobble up a new valve. After about eight hours or so we have it pumping air, and it holds up.
And I have banked up brownie points for the next time I might be facing the “The Man” at Captain’s Mast. All in all, not a bad day.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Reverse Tribalism
The liberal side of the blogosphere has devolved almost entirely into an exercise in discussing the insanity and/or disgusting nature of the current crop of Republican candidates. There is little or no evaluation of Obama’s campaign or of his efforts at governance, to the rather pathetic degree to which such efforts exist. At several places I have commented on that point, saying that posters and commenters claim to be liberals and asking why they are discussing conservative issues and ignoring the Democratic campaign, and the responses have been interesting, to say the least.
Some have been personal, of course. One person said that “some education would help” me. I don’t doubt the validity of that, but I don’t see what it has to do with this subject. Many were of the “you’re an idiot” variety, which suggested to me that I struck some nerves.
One response was that “we’re vetting the Republican candidate at this point in time,” to which I would respond with, “Yes, that’s rather the point of my statement, but why?” The posters and commenters all profess to be liberals, so how many of them are going to be voting in Republican primary elections? I didn’t think so. Given that, for what purpose are you “vetting the Republican candidate” then?
Another said that “there is no Democratic campaign.” Oh really? I believe Mr. Obama is going to be really disappointed to hear you say that, since he has been spending a hell of a lot of money, time and energy to stand behind podiums all over the country and shout campaign slogans. Apparently you’ve been so busy “vetting the Republican candidate” that you didn’t notice your own candidate campaigning. It might upset him to know that his own base is not listening and doesn’t, in fact, even know that he’s doing it.
I suspect that liberals are actually very unexcited about their own candidate, who is decidedly not very liberal, and they don’t have a lot to crow about either with his accomplishments or his campaign promises. So they turn to making themselves feel good by trashing the other side. It may work for them, but it just makes them look pathetic to me. “We don’t have anything to say for ourselves, but boy those other guys are really stupid.” Color me unimpressed.
Some have been personal, of course. One person said that “some education would help” me. I don’t doubt the validity of that, but I don’t see what it has to do with this subject. Many were of the “you’re an idiot” variety, which suggested to me that I struck some nerves.
One response was that “we’re vetting the Republican candidate at this point in time,” to which I would respond with, “Yes, that’s rather the point of my statement, but why?” The posters and commenters all profess to be liberals, so how many of them are going to be voting in Republican primary elections? I didn’t think so. Given that, for what purpose are you “vetting the Republican candidate” then?
Another said that “there is no Democratic campaign.” Oh really? I believe Mr. Obama is going to be really disappointed to hear you say that, since he has been spending a hell of a lot of money, time and energy to stand behind podiums all over the country and shout campaign slogans. Apparently you’ve been so busy “vetting the Republican candidate” that you didn’t notice your own candidate campaigning. It might upset him to know that his own base is not listening and doesn’t, in fact, even know that he’s doing it.
I suspect that liberals are actually very unexcited about their own candidate, who is decidedly not very liberal, and they don’t have a lot to crow about either with his accomplishments or his campaign promises. So they turn to making themselves feel good by trashing the other side. It may work for them, but it just makes them look pathetic to me. “We don’t have anything to say for ourselves, but boy those other guys are really stupid.” Color me unimpressed.
More American Insanity
Afghanistan erupts into violence directed at the American occupation, hundreds of thousands of people pouring into the streets across the country to express their hatred of the "American occupier," and the response from "the highest levels of the Obama administration and Pentagon" is that maybe we can't pull out after all, at least not as soon as scheduled, because the Afghan troops are not yet able to control the riotous mobs.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Waxing Poetic
Secretary Clinton is going off the deep end, saying that if Assad doesn't do this and that that he will "have more blood on his hands," that it is "despicable" the way that Russia and China voted on the UN resoltion and asking, "whose side are they on?" Well, not on ours, probably. They voted against us in the UN rather than against Syria because, in their own words, they "didn't want to open the door for American interventionism and regime change as in Libya." She apparently didn't hear that part.
She sounded really pissed off, but of course she pisses off really easily.
Update, Saturday morning: Secretary Clinton is fond of saying that "the world is united against Iran," and is probably soon going to say that Russia and China will "find themselves isolated" if they continue to refuse to vote against sanctions on Iran. Juan Cole at Informed Comment has provided us with a nice world map putting that into proportion, with red being nations boycotting Iran and green being nations refusing to do so. That doesn't look like a world "united against Iran" to me.
She sounded really pissed off, but of course she pisses off really easily.
Update, Saturday morning: Secretary Clinton is fond of saying that "the world is united against Iran," and is probably soon going to say that Russia and China will "find themselves isolated" if they continue to refuse to vote against sanctions on Iran. Juan Cole at Informed Comment has provided us with a nice world map putting that into proportion, with red being nations boycotting Iran and green being nations refusing to do so. That doesn't look like a world "united against Iran" to me.
Auto Bailout Reality Check
I do think that Obama was right to “bail out” the auto industry, but that process and its outcome is in need of a little bit of a reality check today, the first being that Obama didn’t even start the process. He came into the middle of it, finishing up a process that was begun by George W. Bush who donated $17 billion of TARP funds to the cause in his last month in office. Obama then followed with $60 billion a few months later.
Note should be made that the bailout did not include Ford Motor Company, which restructured on its own and has become profitable without government intervention.
It also should be pointed out while crowing about GM’s “highest profit in history” that the profit level has been reached by inflation (each unit sells for a far higher price than historically) and cost cutting, not by a true increase in sales, which are still at abysmal levels compared to historical highs.
Let’s also make note that, while GM is adding jobs, the number of people they employ is still vastly smaller than the number they employed before the restructuring, and the average wage is quite a lot smaller, even considering the $7000 profit sharing checks that workers will be receiving this month. The reduction in workforce and wages was part of the bailout, a condition imposed by the government.
Finally, the impact of GM having paid back its loans is lessened a bit by the fact that the government has not yet been able to redeem its GM stock without losing it’s metaphorical shirt. The majority of GM stock is still owned by the taxpayers, and for us to be able to sell it at so much as break even on our investment, that stock would have to more than double in value.
And, of course, Chrysler is now owned by a bunch of Italians.
Note should be made that the bailout did not include Ford Motor Company, which restructured on its own and has become profitable without government intervention.
It also should be pointed out while crowing about GM’s “highest profit in history” that the profit level has been reached by inflation (each unit sells for a far higher price than historically) and cost cutting, not by a true increase in sales, which are still at abysmal levels compared to historical highs.
Let’s also make note that, while GM is adding jobs, the number of people they employ is still vastly smaller than the number they employed before the restructuring, and the average wage is quite a lot smaller, even considering the $7000 profit sharing checks that workers will be receiving this month. The reduction in workforce and wages was part of the bailout, a condition imposed by the government.
Finally, the impact of GM having paid back its loans is lessened a bit by the fact that the government has not yet been able to redeem its GM stock without losing it’s metaphorical shirt. The majority of GM stock is still owned by the taxpayers, and for us to be able to sell it at so much as break even on our investment, that stock would have to more than double in value.
And, of course, Chrysler is now owned by a bunch of Italians.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Michael Crashes, Hilarity Ensues
There were two Waltrip brothers involved in the first Gatorade NASCAR race at Daytona today, Darryl doing commentary and Michael driving one of the race cars. Darryl is a former NASCAR champion and was a very decent driver, Michael is more of an egotistical “personality” than he is a driver, and has about as much success driving a race car as I would have being a quarterback for an NFL football team.
Michael managed to crash his race car while leaving the pit after a fuel stop late in the race, which was hardly a stellar display of driving skill because he was pitting all by himself and the crash was totally unassisted, but the announcers managed to fall all over themselves in a manner that made Michael look positively expert.
First, the accident itself was unobserved; all that the audience or announcers saw was Michael’s car hitting the wall. Darryl immediately speculated that Michael must have cut a tire, causing him to spin out. There was no evidence for that, the two tires that could be seen were fully inflated, but Darryl never needs any evidence to start declaiming why a crash is not his brother’s fault.
Then Larry MacReynolds declared that the crash and ensuing caution was a “huge break” for Denny Hamlin and Marcus Ambrose, two drivers who had made pitstops earlier. No, Larry, it would have been were they still on the lead lap, but they had been passed by the leaders just a few minutes ago and were now a lap down and so the caution is of no help to them whatsoever. Perhaps you didn’t notice the leaders passing them, or forgot that they had done so, but since you are narrating the race, noticing and remembering is what you are supposed to do.
Then we see a replay of Michael’s crash and it is clear that he botched the transition from the flat apron to the banked racing surface. Darryl’s “cut tire theory” is blown so he now launches into a theory about how Michael must have picked up some debris on his hot tires which caused him to lose traction and spin out. That theory is visibly weak and no one else picks up on it, but Darryl repeats it several times, becoming more enamored of it each time he repeats it.
Then another announcer sort of spoils Darryl’s moment by telling us that Michael has just apologized to his crew for making a mistake and crashing the car, admitting that the wreck was his fault and saying, “Sorry, guys.”
Darryl is unswayed, saying that “I really think that he picked up debris on his tires,” and repeating his theory as to why the wreck was not his brother’s fault. Where he thinks the debris came from is unclear, as there has been no wreck and Michael has been driving in the racing groove and has not been anywhere that debris would have been being deposited.
This announcing crew sort of reminds me of the trio on the Bob Newhart Show. “Hi, I’m Larry. This is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl.” Except the two Darryls never have anything to say.
Michael managed to crash his race car while leaving the pit after a fuel stop late in the race, which was hardly a stellar display of driving skill because he was pitting all by himself and the crash was totally unassisted, but the announcers managed to fall all over themselves in a manner that made Michael look positively expert.
First, the accident itself was unobserved; all that the audience or announcers saw was Michael’s car hitting the wall. Darryl immediately speculated that Michael must have cut a tire, causing him to spin out. There was no evidence for that, the two tires that could be seen were fully inflated, but Darryl never needs any evidence to start declaiming why a crash is not his brother’s fault.
Then Larry MacReynolds declared that the crash and ensuing caution was a “huge break” for Denny Hamlin and Marcus Ambrose, two drivers who had made pitstops earlier. No, Larry, it would have been were they still on the lead lap, but they had been passed by the leaders just a few minutes ago and were now a lap down and so the caution is of no help to them whatsoever. Perhaps you didn’t notice the leaders passing them, or forgot that they had done so, but since you are narrating the race, noticing and remembering is what you are supposed to do.
Then we see a replay of Michael’s crash and it is clear that he botched the transition from the flat apron to the banked racing surface. Darryl’s “cut tire theory” is blown so he now launches into a theory about how Michael must have picked up some debris on his hot tires which caused him to lose traction and spin out. That theory is visibly weak and no one else picks up on it, but Darryl repeats it several times, becoming more enamored of it each time he repeats it.
Then another announcer sort of spoils Darryl’s moment by telling us that Michael has just apologized to his crew for making a mistake and crashing the car, admitting that the wreck was his fault and saying, “Sorry, guys.”
Darryl is unswayed, saying that “I really think that he picked up debris on his tires,” and repeating his theory as to why the wreck was not his brother’s fault. Where he thinks the debris came from is unclear, as there has been no wreck and Michael has been driving in the racing groove and has not been anywhere that debris would have been being deposited.
This announcing crew sort of reminds me of the trio on the Bob Newhart Show. “Hi, I’m Larry. This is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl.” Except the two Darryls never have anything to say.
Tone Deaf
One of the problems I have with Obama is his unwillingness to face difficulty head on, other than to take relatively “cheap shots” at Republicans. His reaction to rising prices for gasoline is typical. From The Hill newspaper a couple of days ago,
None of which addresses the problem. Admittedly, he can’t really do anything about high gas prices, so instead of exercising leadership and telling people to face facts, he tries to pretend the problem doesn’t exist, or that it isn’t really a problem, and does his version of “drill baby drill.”
And he seems, at times, to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the American people will hear. His proposal to cut corporate taxes and “close loopholes” at this point strikes me as utterly inane. Voters are going to hear the “cut taxes” part in great numbers, but few are going to hear the “close loopholes” part, and of those who do very few are going to believe that any loopholes are actually going to get cut.
So what people are hearing is that he wants to raise taxes on the rich and cut taxes on corporations, and I doubt there are going to be very many voters who think that makes any sense.
Count me, by the way, among those who think that corporate rates will be cut, that no loopholes will be closed, and that Obama is idiotic to propose this in the present environment.
He will highlight the fact that production is up and imports have fallen, and will note additional steps the nation can take to deal with higher gas prices, the officials said.
None of which addresses the problem. Admittedly, he can’t really do anything about high gas prices, so instead of exercising leadership and telling people to face facts, he tries to pretend the problem doesn’t exist, or that it isn’t really a problem, and does his version of “drill baby drill.”
And he seems, at times, to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the American people will hear. His proposal to cut corporate taxes and “close loopholes” at this point strikes me as utterly inane. Voters are going to hear the “cut taxes” part in great numbers, but few are going to hear the “close loopholes” part, and of those who do very few are going to believe that any loopholes are actually going to get cut.
So what people are hearing is that he wants to raise taxes on the rich and cut taxes on corporations, and I doubt there are going to be very many voters who think that makes any sense.
Count me, by the way, among those who think that corporate rates will be cut, that no loopholes will be closed, and that Obama is idiotic to propose this in the present environment.
CBS and Ultrasound
CBS News did a lengthy piece on a proposed law in Virginia which would require a woman to undergo an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, a law which has since been dropped. CBS went into a great deal of detail about the proposed law, and gave the distinct impression that it was something new and revolutionary. It is not. No fewer than seven states already have such laws, and both Texas and Oklahoma (you can figure it would be them) require the viewing screen to be placed where the woman must view it. The proposed Virginia law did not require that.
Suppressing Rebellion
I'm not sure the comparison is entirely valid, but in condemning the "brutality" with which Assad is suppressing the rebellion in his country, we might want to reflect upon the fact that The United States was not exactly restrained in the manner in which we suppressed rebellion in this nation. Sherman's march to the sea was hardly an act of kindness, and he burned Atlanta to the ground. Vicksburg and Shreveport were shelled for weeks without discrimination. We thought then, and continue to think now, that such action was justified in maintaining the integrity of our nation.
We may not consider Assad to be legitimate, but he does; and he still enjoys considerable support in his country. What is he supposed to do about those who are trying to overthrow him by force? He is meeting force with force, admittedly with greater force, and I'm not sure that he doesn't have the right to do that.
We may not consider Assad to be legitimate, but he does; and he still enjoys considerable support in his country. What is he supposed to do about those who are trying to overthrow him by force? He is meeting force with force, admittedly with greater force, and I'm not sure that he doesn't have the right to do that.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Justifying The Unjustifiable
Paul Krugman asked a question in a column on Feb 13th, wanting to know, “How did American conservatism end up so detached from, indeed at odds with, facts and rationality?” This is, of course the liberal mantra, that conservatives are detached from reality, but they have no problem with their beloved leader in the White House coming up with gems like the following.
On the war in Afghanistan, “We are denying them space in which to plan their attacks.”
The attack of 9/11 was planned in Hamburg, Germany, and the attackers did their training in Tampa and San Diego. The last three external attacks on this nation have originated in Yemen. The last several attacks “prevented” by the FBI have originated in the United States.
Sort of reminds me of the insane asylum nurse who asked an inmate why he was doing something and was told it was for the purpose of keeping the elephants away. The nurse pointed out that there were no elephants anywhere near the asylum, and the inmate calmly replied, “See, it works, don’t it.”
On Iran’s nuclear ambitions: “We can’t allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, because that would start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.”
Does he even listen to himself when he says things like this? Israel has nuclear weapons and Iran, if we accept his rather doubtful premise, is trying to develop them. If this is not an existing ongoing nuclear arms race, then what is it? There has been a nuclear arms race ongoing, according to his premise that Iran is seeking nuclear weaponry, and he’s blathering about Iran trying to start one.
Conservatives make statements which are detached from reality for the same reason that liberals make statements that are detached from reality; they are trying to justify the unjustifiable. Liberals like to believe that conservatives are the only ones who do that. No, liberals probably do it to a lesser degree, but the practice is not unique to conservatism.
On the war in Afghanistan, “We are denying them space in which to plan their attacks.”
The attack of 9/11 was planned in Hamburg, Germany, and the attackers did their training in Tampa and San Diego. The last three external attacks on this nation have originated in Yemen. The last several attacks “prevented” by the FBI have originated in the United States.
Sort of reminds me of the insane asylum nurse who asked an inmate why he was doing something and was told it was for the purpose of keeping the elephants away. The nurse pointed out that there were no elephants anywhere near the asylum, and the inmate calmly replied, “See, it works, don’t it.”
On Iran’s nuclear ambitions: “We can’t allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, because that would start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.”
Does he even listen to himself when he says things like this? Israel has nuclear weapons and Iran, if we accept his rather doubtful premise, is trying to develop them. If this is not an existing ongoing nuclear arms race, then what is it? There has been a nuclear arms race ongoing, according to his premise that Iran is seeking nuclear weaponry, and he’s blathering about Iran trying to start one.
Conservatives make statements which are detached from reality for the same reason that liberals make statements that are detached from reality; they are trying to justify the unjustifiable. Liberals like to believe that conservatives are the only ones who do that. No, liberals probably do it to a lesser degree, but the practice is not unique to conservatism.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Friendship 7, Mercury Program
Fifty years ago today. I did not realize the the Atlas rocket was built in San Diego. Of Course, in 1962 I did not really know that San Diego existed. I did boot and EM school at Great Lakes, Submarine School at New London, and was still there when John Glenn made his flight. Shortly after that I would be stationed in San Diego, but not for long, and it was not until 1994 that I made this city my home.
Anyway, in 1962 I was certainly aware of the Mercury program, and later of Gemini and then Apollo. Like much of America our space program kept me glued to my television set for many huors. What happened?
Anyway, in 1962 I was certainly aware of the Mercury program, and later of Gemini and then Apollo. Like much of America our space program kept me glued to my television set for many huors. What happened?
Is Our Government Honest?
From a post at Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis, an interesting observation from looking at numbers posted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those are the folks who tell us that the unemployment rate has fallen to 8.3% and that the economy is recovering.
And I have a bridge in Brooklyn upon which I can make you such a deal.
In the last year, the civilian population rose by 3,565,000. Yet the labor force only rose by 1,145,000. Those not in the labor force rose by 2,420,000.
And I have a bridge in Brooklyn upon which I can make you such a deal.
The Three Phases of War
Andrew Bacevich doesn’t seem to buy into the “greatest military in the history of mankind” theory. In his piece at Tom Dispatch describing the WFKATGWOT (War Formerly Known As The Global War On Terror), he described the aftermath of our military’s invasion of Iraq as, “when harassed by minor insurgencies and scattered bands of jihadis, they proved surprisingly slow to figure out what hit them.”
Indeed. I recall that variously being described as “shit happens,” “a few die hard loyalists,” and as “a last gasp.” That “last gasp” lasted something like seven years. It should be noted that he reserves his contempt for our leadership, and not in any way for the fighting men and women of our armed forces, whom he holds in the highest respect. I share his position.
You should read his piece in its entirety, but the gist of it is that he breaks the WFKATGWOT into three phases.
The first phase he labels “Liberation,” and I’m pretty sure that is sarcasm. The alternate label for that is “shock and awe,” but he makes it clear that while it may have shocked a few, it didn’t awe very many, as they waited for the dust to settle and then kicked the shit out of us. I think the Marines at Iwo Jima might have warned them that that might happen.
The second phase is “Pacification,” otherwise known as the Patreaus era, or the religion of COIN. Read the history of its application both in Iraq and Afghanistan and you might realize that the only thing that was “pacified” was the American public. By making the public able to ignore anything happening beyond our borders, we were able to move to phase three.
Phase three is “Assassination.” This is sort of the “wild west” policy of “just kill ‘em all and let God sort 'em out,” and I, personally, find it the most repugnant of the three; not only in that we are doing it, but that the public not only accepts but cheers it. We violate the sovereignty of a nation with whom we are not at war and summarily execute someone against we have established no actual proof of wrongdoing. Not only does the public accept this, but they cheer wildly and call the man who ordered it a national hero.
It would be bad enough if it were killing only that one person, but it kills bystanders in significant numbers, persons whom we do not even pretend have done anything wrong. We simply deny that they got killed at all, or we declare that they were persons who deserved to be killed without even knowing who they were.
You may be okay with all of that. I most definitely am not.
Indeed. I recall that variously being described as “shit happens,” “a few die hard loyalists,” and as “a last gasp.” That “last gasp” lasted something like seven years. It should be noted that he reserves his contempt for our leadership, and not in any way for the fighting men and women of our armed forces, whom he holds in the highest respect. I share his position.
You should read his piece in its entirety, but the gist of it is that he breaks the WFKATGWOT into three phases.
The first phase he labels “Liberation,” and I’m pretty sure that is sarcasm. The alternate label for that is “shock and awe,” but he makes it clear that while it may have shocked a few, it didn’t awe very many, as they waited for the dust to settle and then kicked the shit out of us. I think the Marines at Iwo Jima might have warned them that that might happen.
The second phase is “Pacification,” otherwise known as the Patreaus era, or the religion of COIN. Read the history of its application both in Iraq and Afghanistan and you might realize that the only thing that was “pacified” was the American public. By making the public able to ignore anything happening beyond our borders, we were able to move to phase three.
Phase three is “Assassination.” This is sort of the “wild west” policy of “just kill ‘em all and let God sort 'em out,” and I, personally, find it the most repugnant of the three; not only in that we are doing it, but that the public not only accepts but cheers it. We violate the sovereignty of a nation with whom we are not at war and summarily execute someone against we have established no actual proof of wrongdoing. Not only does the public accept this, but they cheer wildly and call the man who ordered it a national hero.
It would be bad enough if it were killing only that one person, but it kills bystanders in significant numbers, persons whom we do not even pretend have done anything wrong. We simply deny that they got killed at all, or we declare that they were persons who deserved to be killed without even knowing who they were.
You may be okay with all of that. I most definitely am not.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
How Does This Make Sense?
No posting yesterday because we were without power all day. Late posting today because we have been expecting a brief shutdown again today and did not know when it would occur. Happily, it occurred just five minutes agter the PGA sudden death overtime was completed. Anyway, in the “how does this make sense” department:
Warren Buffet says that he pays less tax than his secretary and urges a 1% tax increase on rich people, says he’s willing to pay and additional 1% tax himself. “Occupy Wall Street” hails him as a hero, while condemning rich people as evil doers and thieves. Warren Buffet is among the five richest people in the nation, but because he claims to pay less tax than his secretary he is hailed as a hero. Really?
Obama says the religious employers have to provide birth control in their health care packages and outrage ensues. Then he says that the employers need not do so, but the health insurance plans offered by employers must do so. Of large employers, 40% are “self insured,” meaning that they do not utilize an insurance company but pay the cost of health care themselves. Of companies with over 200 employees, 82% are self insured. For these companies, then, there is no difference between the employer and the payor of health care costs. So how is Obama’s “accommodation” actually a solution for the outrage that first arose? Well it is because he says so, and it is not permissible to subject Mr. Obama’s pronouncements to critical evaluation.
The United States economy is recovering dramatically, with jobs being created and unemployment dropping at rates which are quarantined to secure Obama’s reelection. The DOW will break 13,000 this week. Meanwhile, Greece will default on it’s debt shortly, Europe is sliding into recession, housing bubbles are bursting in Canada and Australia, Japan is enduring a sharply increasing trade deficit, as are we, the price of oil is rising sharply, and China’s economy is slowing dramatically. None of the world’s economic problems will affect us in the least, though, so don’t worry about anything. Vote for Obama and buy stocks.
Canadians want to build a military base in Germany. For what purpose is unclear; apparently just to have an "overseas military presence." Somebody named Carlm says, "What are those Canadians thinking, eh? Let the Germans fend for themselves, they've got the money and the know how to do the job, if they choose. But why would they when others, namely the US, are dumb enough to do it for them." Do what for them, for God's sake? Who is attacking Germany these days, that they need massive numbers of troops for defense?
Warren Buffet says that he pays less tax than his secretary and urges a 1% tax increase on rich people, says he’s willing to pay and additional 1% tax himself. “Occupy Wall Street” hails him as a hero, while condemning rich people as evil doers and thieves. Warren Buffet is among the five richest people in the nation, but because he claims to pay less tax than his secretary he is hailed as a hero. Really?
Obama says the religious employers have to provide birth control in their health care packages and outrage ensues. Then he says that the employers need not do so, but the health insurance plans offered by employers must do so. Of large employers, 40% are “self insured,” meaning that they do not utilize an insurance company but pay the cost of health care themselves. Of companies with over 200 employees, 82% are self insured. For these companies, then, there is no difference between the employer and the payor of health care costs. So how is Obama’s “accommodation” actually a solution for the outrage that first arose? Well it is because he says so, and it is not permissible to subject Mr. Obama’s pronouncements to critical evaluation.
The United States economy is recovering dramatically, with jobs being created and unemployment dropping at rates which are quarantined to secure Obama’s reelection. The DOW will break 13,000 this week. Meanwhile, Greece will default on it’s debt shortly, Europe is sliding into recession, housing bubbles are bursting in Canada and Australia, Japan is enduring a sharply increasing trade deficit, as are we, the price of oil is rising sharply, and China’s economy is slowing dramatically. None of the world’s economic problems will affect us in the least, though, so don’t worry about anything. Vote for Obama and buy stocks.
Canadians want to build a military base in Germany. For what purpose is unclear; apparently just to have an "overseas military presence." Somebody named Carlm says, "What are those Canadians thinking, eh? Let the Germans fend for themselves, they've got the money and the know how to do the job, if they choose. But why would they when others, namely the US, are dumb enough to do it for them." Do what for them, for God's sake? Who is attacking Germany these days, that they need massive numbers of troops for defense?
Friday, February 17, 2012
Inducing The Voters
Paul Krugman has a column in the New York Times today, pondering the strange fact that the so-called “red” states which elect the most Republicans are precisely the same states that benefit the most from the government spending that Republicans profess to hate so much. As is typical of people who have lots of money, live in cloistered environments, and make their living studying society rather than living in it, he gets it wrong. He manages to blame it on the Republicans.
He says, for instance, that “working-class Americans are induced to vote against their own interests by the G.O.P.’s exploitation of social issues.” Indeed. Think about that for a moment while I rephrase it for you. “Working-class Americans decide to vote against Social Security for themselves because they want to prevent someone other than themselves from getting an abortion.” And that decision is forced upon them by the G.O.P, according to Paul Krugman. The poor, helpless voter plays no role in making that voting decision.
He goes to great length to point out that a huge portion of people voting Republican do so because they think that “government spending mean programs for the idle poor, not things they themselves count on” and should therefor be slashed, even though they themselves are recipients of Social Security and Medicare. Somehow that, too, is the Republicans’ fault and not an indication of the stupidity of the American voting public.
Paul Krugman makes the same flawed assumption that virtually all liberals make; he assumes that Republicans know that they are wrong, know that what they are doing is bad for the country, and want to do it anyway because they have evil intentions. He is so impressed with his own conviction that it is incomprehensible to him that anyone could not believe as he does. He is an idiot.
Republicans are as fully convinced that they are right as he is convinced that he is right. His convictions look as ridiculous to Republicans as theirs do to him.
Politicians make sales pitches. Right now Democrats are trying to convince us that we are winning in Afghanistan, that the summary execution of citizens is justified, that the economy is booming, and that killing civilians overseas with unmanned drones is a good thing. Republicans are trying to convince us that spending is a bad thing. Both sides are trying to convince us that Reps and Senators being millionaires all is perfectly suitable.
Americans have to pay attention, and they are not. It’s not the Republicans’ fault and its not the Democrats’ fault. The fault lies with it’s the voters who are not voting, or who are voting stupidly because they are listening to and believing lies. They are not “induced to vote” by anything. They vote stupidly because they are stupid, or because they just don’t care.
And that, dear friends, is how democracy dies.
He says, for instance, that “working-class Americans are induced to vote against their own interests by the G.O.P.’s exploitation of social issues.” Indeed. Think about that for a moment while I rephrase it for you. “Working-class Americans decide to vote against Social Security for themselves because they want to prevent someone other than themselves from getting an abortion.” And that decision is forced upon them by the G.O.P, according to Paul Krugman. The poor, helpless voter plays no role in making that voting decision.
He goes to great length to point out that a huge portion of people voting Republican do so because they think that “government spending mean programs for the idle poor, not things they themselves count on” and should therefor be slashed, even though they themselves are recipients of Social Security and Medicare. Somehow that, too, is the Republicans’ fault and not an indication of the stupidity of the American voting public.
Paul Krugman makes the same flawed assumption that virtually all liberals make; he assumes that Republicans know that they are wrong, know that what they are doing is bad for the country, and want to do it anyway because they have evil intentions. He is so impressed with his own conviction that it is incomprehensible to him that anyone could not believe as he does. He is an idiot.
Republicans are as fully convinced that they are right as he is convinced that he is right. His convictions look as ridiculous to Republicans as theirs do to him.
Politicians make sales pitches. Right now Democrats are trying to convince us that we are winning in Afghanistan, that the summary execution of citizens is justified, that the economy is booming, and that killing civilians overseas with unmanned drones is a good thing. Republicans are trying to convince us that spending is a bad thing. Both sides are trying to convince us that Reps and Senators being millionaires all is perfectly suitable.
Americans have to pay attention, and they are not. It’s not the Republicans’ fault and its not the Democrats’ fault. The fault lies with it’s the voters who are not voting, or who are voting stupidly because they are listening to and believing lies. They are not “induced to vote” by anything. They vote stupidly because they are stupid, or because they just don’t care.
And that, dear friends, is how democracy dies.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Choosing A Side
If you want to go to liberal blogs and discussion boards to read about liberal issues, about what liberal policies the government should be doing or why Obama should be elected, forget it. They don't talk about things like that. To be a liberal, one talks about how bad the Republicans are, the awful things that conservatives are doing, and why the Republican flavor of the day should not be elected. They do crow at great length about how Obama is going to win in a landslide come November, but only because the opponents are such criminal idiots.
Conservative groups decry liberal policies to be sure, but to a very large extent they talk about conservative issues, the policies which their candidates and legislators are proposing, and why Republicans should be elected. Some of those policies and proposals make sense to me, but most of them do not, and their candidates are mostly very unattractive.
At this point I see absolutely no reason to support either side.
Conservative groups decry liberal policies to be sure, but to a very large extent they talk about conservative issues, the policies which their candidates and legislators are proposing, and why Republicans should be elected. Some of those policies and proposals make sense to me, but most of them do not, and their candidates are mostly very unattractive.
At this point I see absolutely no reason to support either side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)