Everyone should read this article and get scared, really scared, of the damage that fundamentalist Christians are trying to do to this country, and of the unholy alliance between fundamentalists and the GOP. This explains how the Texas state curriculum is largely set by a man who proudly proclaims he is a "Christian fundamentalist," that America is a Christian nation (not just in a demographic or cultural sense), and believes that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago. Yes, that's right: the Republicans have put in charge of teaching kids a person who doesn't "believe" in biology or geology. This is why honest, decent people have got to get over the daily headlines and stop voting Republican for any reason. These people are just way too dangerous.
It's about time that decent people begin standing up to these fundamentalist Christians and telling them - and their Republican allies - that there is no religious privilege to choose to "believe" or "not believe" in reality. Believing in one's own special reality is called mental illness. It is a form of insanity, simply put, to decide you are not going to "believe" in biology, or geology, or to choose not to "believe" that the sky is blue, or choose to "believe" that (as Mormons do) the Indians are descended from the Israelites. Sanity requires accepting reality. Once something is proven to be demonstrably true or false, there is no privilege to "believe" otherwise. As the late Senator Moynihan used to say, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Fundamentalist Christians don't get this. People who will construct and believe in their own private reality are too dangerous to allow in the public square. They need to be cast out.
Literally frothing at the mouth here. Serious froth.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Ignorance instead of Education
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Enforce
I just saw a report on Daily Kos (see link to the right) that says that an open gay Arabic translator (and West Point grad) who challenged DADT in court has been recalled to active service. The presumption is that this is an indication of the new Department of Defense policy on enforcing DADT (they aren't anymore).
Monday, February 08, 2010
Tommy Tea
Have you heard what Tom Tancredo said at the Tea Party convention this weekend?
"People who could not even spell the word 'vote' or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House," he said.
We all know Tancredo is racist. But man, this is clearly a call to bring back Jim Crow laws, and it's not even that thinly veiled. Pitiful! The man needs help.
Also, as Jimmy Kimmel points out, a literacy test might not be such a good idea for the tea partiers ...
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Unemployment, Class, Education and Generational Changes
Bonddad at FiveThirtyEight.com posted this fantastic analysis of unemployment trends. He points to a few interesting and related points. First, points out that about three fourths of all the jobs lost during this recession have been in manufacturing and construction. Second, he points out that the manufacturing sector did not replace many of the jobs it lost in the last recession and should not be expected to replace them after this one. Finally, he points out that the unemployment rate among people with less than a high school diploma is at about 15%! For people with a high school diploma but no college it is at about 10%. For people with "some college" (community college grads), it is at 8.5%. For people with college degrees (or higher), 4.9%.
The first number is for January 2009 and the second is for January 2010:
Less the high school diploma: 12.4%/15.2%
High School Graduates, no college: 8.1%/10.1%
Some college or associate degree: 6.4%/8.5%
Bachelor's degree or higher: 3.9%/4.9%
So how does "the economy" go about doing that? In the short and medium term, the way to do this is to maintain or increase support for public education - especially colleges and community colleges. Unfortunately, most state are prevented from deficit spending by balanced budget laws passed in the 1990s. This combines with populist anger at "elites" to make public education an easy target for mandated budget cuts as tax revenues decrease.
In the long run, we as a country need to drive home the idea that the days when unskilled work could provide a "middle class" life style are dead and gone. Whining about it won't bring those days back. When Baby Boomers were growing up, there was a fluke development in our economic history when a person with no education (not even a high school diploma) could get a job in construction or manufacturing and expect to be able to support a family comfortably complete with nice car, house and vacations at the lake or seashore. That started to end in the 70s but with every recession since then, the development gets more entrenched.
I'm no expert on working class attitudes towards education but I have done some reading in the area have listened to working class relatives talk about it. My impression is that many parents who do not have college educations send their kids mixed signals. On the one hand they say "stay in school." On the other they frequently complain about "egg heads" at work or "college boys" who really don't know anything and say that what really matters is "real world" learning as opposed to "book learning." Kids get the message that teachers are not to be respected and college educations are not really neccessary, but more of a pointless hoop that "elitists" make you jump through for no good reason. Politically, this same attitude manifests itself in populist attacks on public universities.
The problem is that if universities are attacked politically and defunded, the same demographic that fuels the resentment behind these policies will be hurt the most. The statistics mentioned above make clear that the way out of the 9-15% unemployment group to the 5% unemployment group is to get a college education. If the only way to get that is in private colleges, which cost at least twice as much as publics to attend (and tend to be harder to get into), it will be exceedingly difficult for people to improve their families' prospects from one generation to the next.
Oh well. It's easier to blame "elitists" and people with dark skin, a different language or sexual preference for our problems.
Friday, February 05, 2010
RNC Chair Says a Million Bucks is Chump Change
Seriously, Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said, "Trust me, after taxes, a million dollars is not a lot of money."
Demon Sheep
So, Carly Fiornina - the woman who famously claimed that being a corporate CEO was harder than being President of the USA - has displayed her political genius a second time with the "demon sheep" ad demonizing her primary opponsent, Professional Worm Tom Campbell. As you can guess, I actually agree with her that Tom Campbell would be the worse candidate for governor. He was behind the Governator's lurch right in 2005 that resulted in eight failed ballot initiatives. He then supported Arnold's new and contradictory positions on taxes. The best line in the Demon Sheep ad is to remark on "whatever office [Tom] is running for this week." He's become a professional candidate, tolerated because he can play the Moderate Law Professor from Silicon Valley, which gives the GOP a veneer of at least one non-Jesus-freak candidate.
But holy crap, have you seen the "Demon Sheep" ad? It's not just schlocky, it's one of the most symbolically stupid things i've seen in years.
First, it starts by discussing "purity" and showing lots of white sheep. Now, that's a bad start to any political campaign in diverse California. Then you discover that the white sheep are the paragons of political leadership and virtue. Sheep, you know, the normal symbol for leadership. Tom Campbell is depicted as a wolf with glowy-red eyes. But you are meant to see that the glowy-red eyes are fake and that the costume is worn by a guy crawling. It's campy, in other words. Camp always plays well with conservatives. And Campbell is portrayed as waffly. Hence the wolf: the symbol of weakness. Got that wrong too. I mean, how many people are watching the ad thinking, "I don't get it - do I want to vote for a wolf or a sheep?"
Apparently Fiorina liked the ad. You are going to lose. And that is sad, because she really is the better candidate for California.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Smackdown
Everyone's seen this, right? Well, in case you haven't:
It's quite long. Get some popcorn and a beer. It's worth it.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Tim Tebow's Anti-Abortion Superbowl Ad
So CBS - which refused a couple years ago to let the United Church of Christ air an ad welcoming gays and lesbians to the church on the grounds that it doesn't take advocacy ads during the superbowl - has proven to be hypocrites once again. OF course, who is really surprised that big corporations are right-wing, only those who buy the "liberal media" crap promoted by the far, far right. Well, CBS is allowing Tim Tebow to put religious ad on TV, only this is for the religious right and anti-abortion. Apparently his mother was offered the choice of an abortion while she was a missionary in the Philippines, but declined on religious grounds. And of course, Tim Tebow is the Heisman-winning QB. See how wrong abortion is? See?
I will donate to the liberal group that buys ad space on CBS to air a similar ad except one that ends with "Nobody had a right to make that choice for Mrs. Tebow. It's not the government's choice - it's hers." Then show other famous people saying, "Me too: Pro-choice and proud to be American, where we have the right to choose."
Shame on CBS to caving into this ad by Focus on the Family (a group only one step up from AlQaeda). And shame on anyone who thinks misses the fact that the real message is TO OUTLAW CHOICE.
Obama and Nuclear Power etc
President Obama made a few policy suggestions in his state of the union address. The one that I thought stuck out the most was his call for new nuclear power plants.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Reactions to the State of the Union
My reactions ebbed a bit as the speech wore on. I liked it when he said what a rotten situation he inherited and left no doubts as to who left it to him. I also liked it when he said words to the effect that Democrats in Congress need to pass laws not "head for the hills." And when he chastised Republicans for knee jerk obstructionism (all while they uniformly sat on their hands - even when he talked about tax cuts!).
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Great Discussion of The History of the Filibuster
Hi Everyone,
Here is a great interview on NPR's Fresh Air with political scientist, Greg Koger, about the history of the filibuster. It's the most thorough and even handed discussion of the filibuster I've ever seen or heard on a mainstream media venue. It's way above the norm of what we normally see on Chicken Noodle News or Faux News etc.
Enjoy.
The Post Ried Senate
So I'm increasingly convinced that Harry Ried is going to lose his seat no matter what he does with the health care reform bill(s). Does anyone care to speculate about who the next Senate Majority Leader will be?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Language is evil
Oh, you have got to be kidding me.
Dictionaries have been removed from classrooms in southern California schools after a parent complained about a child reading the definition for "oral sex".
Merriam Webster's 10th edition, which has been used for the past few years in fourth and fifth grade classrooms (for children aged nine to 10) in Menifee Union school district, has been pulled from shelves over fears that the "sexually graphic" entry is "just not age appropriate", according to the area's local paper.
The dictionary's online definition of the term is "oral stimulation of the genitals". "It's hard to sit and read the dictionary, but we'll be looking to find other things of a graphic nature," district spokeswoman Betti Cadmus told the paper.
We should ban kids from talking because they might say mean things. Also we should block out the sun because if people stare at it, they'll go blind.
We had a good run as a country. Now it's time to turn it over to whoever's next in line. China? Is that you?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Boot Bernanke!
This weekend, the President should softpedal his support for Bernanke in such a way that any insider will recognize it as a withdrawal. It's perfect. If the Democrats had sought to replace Bernanke on their own, it would have ginned up accusations of irresponsibility. But with the GOP getting in line (McCain added his 'nay' vote today) this is an amazing opportunity. Obama will have the ability to appoint a new Fed Chairman. This is an enormous amount of power that may fall into his lap. And tagging it as Obama's defeat is not going to work, not when Bernanke was inherited. Greenspan's problem was that he as an Ayn Randist who never really understood that self-interest was an insufficient cushion against economic anarchy. Bernanke, being Greenspan's annointed, is not of a wholly different mode. We need a real institutionalist to be appointed to that spot. Someone who understands that sound financial regulation is not "red tape" but the sine qua non of a healthy financial system. This is not a good time for Barack Obama to support the unpopular Fed chairman, not when withdrawing his support could actually empower the Democratic agenda.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Barack Obama Isn't Magic
And Presidents aren't omnipotent.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
What it means - the Earthquake in Massachusetts
There are worse things in the world than having 58 or 59 Democratic Senators, a large Democratic majority in the House, and Democratic President with far better approval ratings than his Republican predecessor. Indeed, that's exactly how the world looked on November 4, 2008, when Barack Obama won the presidency at the zenith of Democratic party popularity. But you would think from today's headlines that the Democrats just lost power altogether.
Yes, it's dispiriting as hell. A female version of Sarah Palin won Massachusetts because, among other things, the Democratic candidate, Coakley, forgot to campaign for the seat. And it's clear that dissatisfaction with the Democratic party is behind this. Notably, it is a dispirited left that stayed home as well as angry independent voters who showed up.
What does it really mean? Unemployment has risen to 10% and the Democrats are viewed as having spent trillions but accomplished nothing so far.
The fear is that Democrats will take the wrong lesson and cut and run. The real lesson is that if the Democrats had rammed through health care on 'reconciliation' in July, this would never have happened. Allowing the process to drag out for another seven months while scrambling for the 60th rascal did no good. If Democrats abandon the health care bill altogether, it will be a total and unmitigated disaster. Time to declare victory, for heaven's sake. Get a "W" in your column! The American people respect action in hard times; they are tired of speeches and don't understand the filibuster. The ultimate insult to Ted Kennedy would be to walk away now. It also will be a political disaster.
I assure you, if Democrats walk away from health care and act embarrassed for having had an agenda of hope and change, the result in 2010 will be political catastrophe. Weak and apologetic loses elections. You have to at least win your base, and they will stay home in 2010. If Democrats pass health care reform as promised - through the House or with a quick Senate vote before Brown can be seated - they will at least have done something for the ages. The base will be ready to campaign in 2010. Your choice, Democrats: will you turn 2010 into a season in hell, or leave this merely as a brief winter of discontent. Time to fight. Time to govern, at last. Time to punish Lieberman for betrayal, since having him "in" has done only harm. Pass health care, then give us a stimulus bill with real tax cuts that can be felt in the pockets of taxpayers very quickly.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Massachussets Republican Senate Candidate Insults Obama's Mother
Here is a clip of Republican Massachussets Senate Candidate questioning whether Obama's parents were married at the time of his birth.
This is the guy who has promised to kill health care reform with his first vote in the Senate. Is there anything to the Republicans' ideology except misdirection with social pontificating combined with protection of big business interests? They wave their hands about "family values" and "the homosexual agenda" etc and then vote a fairly transparent line of protection of huge corporations (note that this is different than a market oriented voting pattern).
This guy, Brown, is a tool. I can't believe there are independent voters seriously considering voting for this guy.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Haiti
Hi Everyone,
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Farewell to Iceland
So Iceland's President vetoed the "IceSave" package to repay some of the debts owed to the UK, Netherlands, and others. An LSE Economist made the odd comment that Iceland might go "bankrupt." Of course, countries can't go bankrupt. This means some sort of default might be possible. But there are still other possibilities.
Until 1949, Newfoundland was not part of the Canadian Confederation, but was an independent Dominion like NZ or Australia. In 1933, with Newfoundland unable to pay its debts, the British government essentially cancelled Newfoundland's independence and created a commission to pursue its constitutional future. After WWII, Newfounldand was offered a chance to return to independence ("responsible government" it was called) or continue the commission government for another 5 years. At length, a third option was added: joining Canada. In 1948, Newfoundland voted to join Canada (and have Canada take over its debts).
Could Iceland go the way of its North Atlantic neighbor and rejoin, say, Norway?
Friday, January 01, 2010
2010 Predictions
So, what's the point of following politics really closely if you aren't willing to go out on a limb and be a prognosticator? I'm sure there are mathematical models out there based on polls, voting history, and economic data that can predict 2010, but they are likely of limited value here. Such models are good explanatory (in reverse) but depend on data we don't have yet and have large margins of error, large enough to consume the tighter races and. Applying such metrics in advance reminds me of NFL referees who spot the football based on their own hunch, then measure it with a micrometer as if it were an exact science. I am going to make predictions based on how I expect the world to look in the summer of 2010.
Background: I presume that the campaigns of November 2010 will be "set" by summer 2010. What I mean by this is by August 2010, we will know what issues are going to be salient, which races are going to be contested, and the voters will have formed their impressions about (a) how Obama is doing (b) how the Democrats are doing on the Hill and (c) how the economy is going. So after Labor Day 2010, the arguments raised by the candidates will take place within this existing framework. I presume it will not be possible after that point to make large changes to public opinion about how the economy is going or what issues matter. (Only a whopping scandal, terrorist attack, or other massive unforeseeable event can really change the layout of campaigns from that point forward). Thus I base my predictions largely on how I expect the parties and candidates to position themselves in relation to this set battlefield.
Base predictions on issue salience-
Economy: the GDP will be enjoying its 5th straight quarter of growth by July 2010, and the unemployment rate will have begun to dip below 10%. Public opinion will amenable to the argument that the Obama administration has "fixed" the economy from the state it was left in by Bush. This will be the most important issue in the 2010 races.
Foreign policy: This is rarely an important issue. It will be mixed, in any event: Afghanistan will be an unpopular war, but the public will have no significant reason to fault Obama on foreign policy.
Deficits: Important if connected to a weak economy and fear of sliding back to recession; unimportant by itself.
Social issues: Independent voters hate these issues. They are unlikely to be a big deal because the GOP is getting tired of running on an anti-gay platform. Despite brutal and vocal Republican opposition, no cause in America has done as well in the past decade as gay rights.
Health Care Reform: Not an issue except for the party base on both sides.
Taxes: not an issue in 2010, because no promise to cut taxes will be taken seriously or perceived as responsible.
Likely themes: Democrats will look backwards to their economic accomplishment and warn of a return to Bush. Republicans will run hard against Barack Obama (NoBama) and deficits.
Likely mistakes: Democrats run the risk of downplaying their accomplishments, and weakening the base support/response, in the mistaken belief that they need to run to the right to win. Republians are a more right-wing, conservative bunch than even 2008 (smaller electorate) and they run the risk of having a bitter, extremist campaign that turns off the center. Democrats, in other words, run the risk of taking their base for granted, while Republicans run the risk of playing only to their base.
How to succeed: For Democrats, put Barack Obama out front and cheer for him. Bring back the love. For Republicans, urge caution and moderation.
Predictions:
Democrats will lose 10-15 seats in the house. These will be almost entirely marginal southern/border states where a smaller, more conservative midterm electorate cannot support them. The most written-about losses will be in Virginia, probably Dist. No. 5.
Senate:
Pickups by D: NH, Missouri
Why: NH is trending blue and Carnahan can win MO given the economic issues.
Pickups by R: Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware
Why: Arkansas hates Obama. Colorado will not have the Obama excitement in 2008. Delaware will not vote for Biden's son for senator over its incumbent rep, Castle (R).
Seats that will be hard-fought but will not change hands: Nevada (Reid), Florida (Open-R), LA (Vitter), Penn (Specter), Ohio (Voinovich).
Why: Florida and Louisiana are trending Republican, while Nevada and Penn are going blue. These are very powerful demographic forces that aren't going to be turned back. As tough as things may look for Reid now, Nevada has never been more Democratic. Ohio will sink back to its Republican ways in an open seat in an off-year election.
Seats that are supposed to be hard-fought, but won't be: CT (Dodd), Illinois, Kentucky
Why: These races are beltway stories. Connecticut isn't going to elect a right-wing Republican, and there's no other kind available. Ditto for Illinois. Kentucky's Bunning may be unpopular, but KY isn't going to elect a Democrat now. Not given Obama's unpopularity in the Appalachia-Ozark area.
Predicted Senate: 59D - 41R.
Note that the projected pickups are all pretty tight races. We could legitimately see Dems from between 57-62.