Twitter Madness

 My goodness, it's been a long time.  I have been using Twitter for my rants.  Short and sweet.  Get's them off my mind.  However, on Jan. 30, 2022 I was permanently banned.  I was tweeting about the Jan 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and they claimed I was inciting violence.  This was really my second run-in with content moderation so I assumed there was a mistake.  I appealed the ban and assumed I would be reinstated.  But no.  Four subsequent efforts have all failed.  So I'm off.  

Let me explain: This is bigger than just losing my hobby.  There is no realistic appeal from these decisions.  I'm fortunate the it was just a hobby.  Can you imagine if you were dependent upon your access as part of your job.  This is the context.

I joined  twitter over 10 years ago.  I have sent and responded to thousands of tweets without complaint. I suddenly received a permanent suspension for a tweet i made.  I couldn’t imagine what was so bad. I assumed a mistake or misunderstanding.  I appealed but I then received a denial resulting in a PERMANENT suspension.  I still can’t believe it. This is the tweet. 

It was around the anniversary of the 1/6 attack and the discussion was about the threat to our democracy from the lies about the election and the people who attacked the Capitol.  I was pretending I was the former President tweeting Mike Pence on 1/6/21 over a year before the tweet.  I guess I should have used quotes or said satire or something.  I was definitely not responding to anyone named Mike or intentionally threatened anyone. I don't see how anyone would take this as a current threat to anyone or that it was inciting violence one year in the past.  Trump actually asked a SoS to find him votes to overturn his loss.  Trump actually implied a threat to Pence on Twitter while there was a mob attacking the Capitol chanting "Hang Mike Pence".  And all of this was a year in the past before I wrote this tweet.  I was responding in a thread to a Bill Kristol tweet, not to anyone named Mike.  

I thought explaining the context of the tweet would lift my suspension.  I would have deleted the tweet if they asked.  But no, this single tweet has permanently banned me from twitter.  I have asked for any explanation, but all I get it the same exact response. There is no discussion, there is no one to call, there is no one to complain to.  

I googled twitter suspension to see other's experience.  Unfortunately, the people complaining were about a person who apparently repeatedly called Covid a hoax and another person who was harassing a trans person on-line about not being a woman.  People I would rather not join forces with.  However, it got me thinking about larger issues of this content moderation.  Up to this, I thought it was to the good.  Hate speech, lies about Covid can get people killed.  But I've seen some really nasty language and what I would call threats directed at people on twitter just because they disagree politically and nothing apparently happens.  Others push the limits of the rules repeatedly before they are banned.  There doesn't appear to be any real appeal from such a permanent suspension.  If there is, I haven't found it.  It's as though there is a scarlet letter on my account and no one will read what I'm saying.  It's like an assembly line that just keeps punching button number 3 labeled "Denied violent threat".  

Before I switched almost completely to twitter, I would use this blog to empty some of the thoughts that kept me from sleeping or woke me at night.  Guess I'll have to come home again.  

  

Trump is threatening our very existence.

Taking on Trump

Its been a while since I've posted anything.  If I don't get somethings off my chest I'll burst.  The slings and arrows keep coming at a dizzying pace.  No one can keep up.  I think that's part of the strategy.  Just as in the campaign, he adds one outrage on top of another so no one outrage sticks and the cumulative effect of the outrages just exhausts most normal human beings.  Most of us just want to hide from the dizzying, terrible news coming at us minute by minute, daily from the WH.  I'm hoping that stronger minds and leaders than I are seeing this for what it is: warfare by chaos, disruption, denial, and sheer volume. I hope they are developing strategies to address this monstrosity of an administration and not just doing what I've been doing, reacting minute by minute.

While we need to resist almost everything this administration does and says, we really need to pick those big issues on which to fight.  I started a list in my mind, but it grows, again with slight after slight after insult. I'm sure others might have different big fights but we really need to consider the fights with the largest constituencies, support, and impact and chance of success.

1.  Saving Democracy itself.  If we don't fight on a number of fronts, the very democracy we claim to support and admire will be destroyed or at least seriously damaged. This man is undermining so many of the foundations on which the country was built and for which the Constitution has served. Our system of checks and balances is at risk.  Because the government. including SC, is in the hands of a single party and because that party seems to prize party over country, there are no checks on power and corruption in the WH. Lower courts and hopefully Circuit Courts have not yet been taken over, but extreme conservatives are on verge of a majority on SC. While the voting will not change from Scalia court, the next new justice, an idealogue will last long beyond. This assault on democracy should be the priority for fighting Trump.

2. Civil Rights and Voting Rights - without these, the government of and by the people will perish from the earth. The lies of the WH about voter fraud is already mobilizing even more voter suppression laws at state level; so called religious freedom EO and proposals are being considered that will legalize discrimination on basis of individual religious belief vs. the constitutional rights of millions and entangle the federal government in religious disputes of huge proportion; women's rights are being seriously questioned rather than furthered in our trajectory toward a more perfect union.

3. Corruption in Government and WH in particular. Never or at least not in a very long time, has someone so ethically challenged been elected President.  His conflicts of interest are legendary, the questionable basis of his election with foreign power actively seeking his election and succeeding, the oligarchs he seems determined to hand most of the levers of government to, need to be challenged at every opportunity.

4.  Immigration and refugees - topic that demonstrates our values and our exceptionalism are being attacked and restricted in the name of fear.  While millions die of disease, hundreds of  thousands die from preventable accidents, suicide, and homicides, we cower in face of terrorism that has resulted in less than 100 tragic deaths since 9/11.  The loss for the families and victims of terror is incalculable, but society's loss in relative to other tragic terms is not.  We must make every reasonable effort to protect society, but we must not destroy the society that has been built over 225 years in that pursuit.
We need to learn from past mistakes, not repeat them.

5. Environment and Climate Change - most scientists and world leaders agree that climate change is an existential threat to the very planet we inhabit.  So far the threat seems likely to reach a peak beyond our adult lifespan, but most have children and grandchildren that will face the threats head on.  We need to stop him from turning back the clock, even if we can't force him to move the cause forward. He also must not be allowed to sell, give away or decimate the resources that belong to the entire country, including those who did not vote for him.  The cost of recovery of these resources would be beyond astronomical once he is ousted from his perch. We must hold the line.

Other important issues, too numerous to list exist, but if we fight everything, we will win nothing.  While resistance to many of these is possible, fighting and turning them back is probably not.  We must pick our battles and our compatriots.  We all may not agree on everything but large groups of us agree on individual issues and we should band together on those issues while letting our petty disagreements on others slide.  And they are petty disagreements when compared to the existential threat of this man and the people who enable him.  Once this threat is vanquished, we can return to fighting over issues on which we disagree, but for now we must unite.

Please Tell Me We Have Been Punk'd

Donald Trump has been nominated to be President of the United States. Sixty percent of America believes he is unfit to hold that office. Yet some number of them will vote for him anyway because he is not Hillary Clinton.

The Right Wing has accomplished what it started out ot do more than 25 years ago. They have delegitimized the Clintons. Almost every mention of Hillary in this contest has mentioned that she is considered untrustworthy, now the most untrustworthy candidate ever in the race. She is derided by her opponents as “crooked” and the many people who don't particularly like her have accepted that as a given. None of this has been proven. Even dozens of investigations have proven no real wrongdoing. She is no more untrustworthy or crooked than most of the men we have elected over two centuries. We can go over the scandals and deceits of so many of them point by point, but it doesn't matter. The impression has been imprinted and after all this time, not likely to be changed. Unlike the teflon that seemed to cover different “liked” politicians, she has been slimed and each time, some of it did not wash off. Never mind that up to two years ago she was among the most admired women in the world. Never mind that even her Republican colleagues could compliment her and work with her in the Senate when they weren't considering her Presidential opposition. Never mind that she has served the country for more than two decades. She is an opportunist because she is also ambitious and wanted to do these jobs. That is the ultimate sin apparently in a politician, at least a female one. So many people, while they believe she is competent, temperamentally suited for the job she clearly wants, either will not vote for her or will vote in the most grudgingly fashion possible even when her opponent is Donald Trump.

Unlike almost every politician who has run for office, Trump has been given a free pass by a substantial minority of America to say almost anything. He has been given a pass as a bully, charlatan, fascist, deceitful human being. The proof of these insults is out there. Many of his supporters even admit most of these facts. He's declared bankruptcy multiple times. He's involved in so many lawsuits over his business dealings most of us have lost count. He bullies those he can, and disparages those he cannot. There is little disagreement about this. Yet he receives 40% of the country's support. The fact that Hillary cannot breach that 40% is blamed on her. She is the problem as far as 20-40% of the rest assume. Young women are interviewed and they repeat the Republican talking points against her. Many Bernie supporters are adamant they won't vote for her because they don't like her Wall Street connections, and she will work within the system we have given her to do the job. They ignore the 25 years of mostly progressive or left of center positions she has taken on the environment, education, women's rights, reproductive rights, health. As Secretary of State she was highly respected around the world and at home for her untiring efforts on behalf of the country. None of that counts in this election.

The world is a dangerous and unsettled place. The world as we knew it in post WWII America is changing. Our country is changing. Many men feel under siege, economically and culturally. FOX News has provided many of them with scapegoats: Muslims, African Americans, illegal immigrants, uppity women. Those scapegoats are being personified by Hillary, the Democrat. Her husband signed NAFTA which kicked off the sucking sound of millions of jobs leaving our cities and country behind. Never mind the GOP has been the party of free trade forever. The Clintons are the Democrats that made it happen.

In more normal political times, her position on issues such as NAFTA would be criticized. Her hawkishness on foreign policy would be attacked. Her ties to Wall Street would be raised. These are legitimate issues to be concerned with. In normal times, she would be weighed against an opponent who held similar views on those issues and compared to that opponent on the positive values she also possesses. But these are not normal political times. Those who don't want to vote for Hillary, for whatever reason, use these as the excuse. They exclaim in their high and mighty principles, they are through voting for the lesser of two EVILS. They will not vote, or they will vote for a third party who cannot win under our electoral system. And on November 9^th, they may wake up to a Trump Presidency just as UK woke up to BREXIT, and say we were mislead, we didn't understand. Many young people were outraged that the vote went against their future, but many of them didn't vote to remain. We may have the same result here. There are no do overs.

The fact is there are no perfect candidates. There are people who are more or less qualified. There are people who we agree with on some things, strongly disagree on others. There are people we like and people we find off putting. But there are two choices in this election. You can choose a very qualified, but flawed candidate who will make a reasonable President. That candidate will accomplish some things you support and some you do not. The Presidency may be very successful or not; but it will not result in a roll back of so many progressive accomplishments made over the last 50 years. The election of Trump and his VP will have the opposite effect. With a GOP Senate and House, the country we have in 4 years will not be the country we have today and hope to have tomorrow. It will establish a reactionary Supreme Court for decades to come. It will roll back protections of equality, any progress on inequality, and issue in an era of open bigotry and hate against those who aren't “America” . And all those angry, resentful, disadvantaged, put upon white people who voted for Trump knowing he was unfit but too angry to care will be as much losers of a Trump administration as the people who believe in the principles of the Democratic Party as written in the platform even though not practiced in large measure in our flawed political system. But instead of progressing by inches and feet we will roll back that progress and create an even more angry and aggrieved populace in an angry and aggrieved world full of weapons and people who are willing to use them.

No wonder I can't sleep.

It's the Economy, Stupid!

It's totally amazing -- almost everyone on the business channels rails about growth -- we need growth, we're not growing enough, the demographics are tamping down growth, growth is the way out of our fiscal problems, Europe has a growth problem, the global economy is slowing down.  At the same time, the solution being touted from sea to shining sea, from Europe to Alaska, the solution being pushed and pushed and pushed is austerity.  Spend less and somehow we will grow our way out of the problems.  This just doesn't make any sense, unless you are willing to wait years and years for things to equalize.  People need to make money to buy things, people have to buy things for others to make money.  People can't buy things so people quit making things and the economy slows down thereby  reducing growth.  Everyone agrees that long term, we have a financial problem -- health care costs are fast outpacing our ability to pay them.  The single biggest contributor to our long term economic problems are medical costs, both public and private.  Our public system pays out more than it takes in, but it also controls costs better than our private system.  We can cut costs by denying care, by charging people who don't have money more for their care so they can choose between living and medical care, thereby actually raising the costs because the only time they are medically attended to is when there is no choice.  We can continue to ratchet up the cost to employers and employees of employer based health care and we will continue to create a climate where more and more of our wealth goes to the health care system or we can actually try and reduce health care costs, which the new reform act puts a tiny downpayment on.  If you look at the share of the budget, you see where the big ticket items are, but you don't see where the savings can come from.   The ideological war we have gotten into basically cuts domestic discretionary spending every time they cut spending.  The share of government spending that is for something other than medicare, medicaid, defense and the national debt is now down to a miniscule 15% but still we want to cut "government" by which we seem to always mean that 15%.  Government really is getting down to the place where you can drown it in the bathtub just like Grover Norquist wants.  But this is where we invest in America -- this is where the interstate highway system came from, this is where our bridges and water treatment facilities were built, this is where we do basic science research and basic medical research that gives us all those cures and treatments for all those diseases we seek medical care from. 

Contraception and Insurance --Failure to Consider the Ramifications

I don't understand why the entire discussion of the religious institutions not being allowed to veto contraception coverage in insurance policies for their employees in their secular institutions such as schools, universities, hospitals, and social service organizations, has focused almost solely on contraception as a hot button issue. If constitutional experts were asked, they would point out that if the Catholic Bishops and their Catholic pundit advocates were to reverse this decision, the ramifications for our democracy are significant, the chaos over religious beliefs that will be stirred into the mix of this discussion would be ugly, and, possibly, the employer based health insurance system would have to be ended. If an employer's sincere religious belief  allows them to veto certain coverages in insurance policies they partly pay for as an employee benefit, no matter the belief set of their employees, and even though religious affiliation is unrelated to the employees employment agreement, what provisions might be exempted from these policies?  No one seems to even discuss this.  (remember, we are not talking about churches, or church employees, or institutions which only hire and only serve members who are pledged to the same creed.). Could 7th Day Adventists exempt blood transfusions from their hospital employee's insurance coverage?  Could the Christian Science Monitor exempt all medical treatment not in line with their belief system from policies covering their journalists, editors, building maintenance, IT tech support, most of whom I suspect are not followers of this faith?  Might religious ownership allow  insurance to exempt sterilization from coverage?  What about denying Viagra drugs to unmarried men, since many religions believe fornication is a sin?  How about HIV care when patient is gay.  Doesn't that sanction the  sinful behavior through which the disease was contracted?  I'm sure I could go on and on, just dealing with sins in Christian churches; however, surely exemptions would not be limited to only Christian religions?  Almost all Americans understand that each religion should be treated similarly and neutrally.  What exemptions might Orthodox Jewish organizations demand they exempt from coverage for their diverse staffs.  What about Muslims or Hindus?  Do they have beliefs about medical treatments, not held by most non Muslims, non Hindus?  I'm not familiar with the details of any of these faiths, but I suspect we all might find differences which we don't hold or find odd.  At least some of the tenets that the faithful believe are sacred and fundamental to how they live their lives, but do not have adherents from other faiths or non- believers.  But I see no discussion of these issues and their implications. Most of the institutions covered by these single set of medical minimums, may be owned or even run by people of that particular faith, but almost all of them hire employees without regard to whether they are of that particular faith, and they serve populations which come from many faiths and even non-believers.  They are very similar in their form and function to other such organizations not run by a particular faith.   There are also significant parallels to businesses like stores, restaurants, hotels and the like.  Before the civil rights acts of the 60's, these public places were legally free to turn away people because of their race, gender, ethnic affiliation, religion or whatever personal reason they felt justified.  With those acts and a Supreme Court which upheld those laws, no one need fear the humiliation of legally being turned away from a public accommodation for those reasons.  Today, the vast majority of Americans would never turn back the clock on that progress.  In fact, many cities, counties and states have expanded these protections.  These protections apply to all public places, all places which are open to the general public.  There are no exceptions for religious bigotry or beliefs which may run counter to race mixing or gender equality.  You can have these beliefs because beliefs are protected by the 1st amendment;  but if you serve the public, you must serve them all, over whatever personal beliefs you hold.  Serve one, serve all or get out of the business of serving the public.  The court finally ruled in the sixties that inter-racial marriage could not be banned, whether a religion objected or not.  Religion shouldn't be allowed to impose or force non believers to adhere to their creed.  A minister might not perform the ceremony, but a state license could not be denied.  If the precedent were to be set in this kerfuffle, [i.e. that the state can't regulate what is or is not a necessary medical service contained in a standard insurance policy merely because it is paid in part or in whole by an employer as part of an employees' compensation package, without satisfying religious, non church institution objections]  how far could these employers expand this exception?  In states with legalized gay marriage could they refuse to offer identical spousal benefits?  Could they choose to exclude fertility treatments because this is interfering in God's plan?  Maternity benefits to unmarried women?  Again, are their religious objections we will validate while not upholding those of minority sects or religions in the minority in this country, that many of us might consider odd or flaky.  Even most religions do not want the government making such determinations and would consider such decisions as interfering with religion rather than being as neutral as possible about the validity of any belief.  Again, our heritage says you can believe almost anything you want and call it religion, you just cannot impose it on those who don't agree.   Allowing Catholic Bishops to dictate medical coverage in insurance will open pandora's box.  The unintended consequences for our religious freedoms, and freedom from religion for others is potentially enormous, but the discussion thus far seems only address whether Catholic or other anti-contraception institutions should provide health insurance that every other employer or exchange policy provides.  Just because the premium you pay includes services you don't agree with, doesn't mean you as the employer are providing the service.  You are providing health insurance and that should be it. No one is forcing these doctors, schools, hospitals to actually give out birth control, or condoms or whatever or even prescriptions for them.  The employee will likely go to a provider who does not object and the employer shouldn't even know what insurance services are being used by a particular employee, except for auditing purposes to assure fraud is not taking place and the insurance company is paying for appropriate services outlined in the policy.  For my employer to know every personal and private medical procedure I might use or seek simply because he pays part of my premium is an invasion of my privacy that I don't think most people would expect. Finally, I and many other Americans are forced to pay taxes that go towards a war machine that we totally abhor.  However, most of us do not feel that by paying our taxes, we are supporting this war policy.  We can still strongly object or protest this, but for most of us, we accept that each taxpayer, even if we could avoid prosecution, could withhold taxes in proportion to the expenditure on specific items we oppose.  This insurance issue is quite equivalent.  Separate the concept of providing health insurance from the details of that product.  Leave medical decisions to the patient and doctors, basically unrelated to whom pays a health insurance premium. Or we will rue the day.   Political analysts should expand the discussion to the many, many ramifications of this attempt to roll back this decision, and not just make this issue about contraception.  It is so much larger.

Any Human Heart!

"In the end that's all there is... all the good luck and all the bad luck you've had."


I can't believe this piece actually had meaning for me - just not inspiration.

Change We Can't Believe In!

I truly think that no one who was running for President in 2008 would be better than Obama.  But that doesn't mean that I believe Obama has been the President he represented himself to be or been the leader he could have been.  I truly knew that nothing significant would change, but he raised my hopes and those hopes are dashed.  The biggest problem I have with this is that the field in 2012 is going to be worse than the field in 2008.  My big fear is that Obama has been such a disappointment to so many that someone worse could beat him.  That was my fear in 2000 and I was right.  That is my fear in 2012 and I pray I'm wrong.

Why am I disappointed - let me count the ways.  Are they all his fault - no.  That's really why I don't blame him, I'm just disappointed in him and in the situation.  We can start with the financial meltdown and the failure to end the too big to fail - just postponing for now the reckoning that will surely come.  Then there is the budget fight - or lack thereof.  Obama and the Democrats have ceded the battlefield to the GOP.  They are just, at best playing not to lose too much more ground.  The slash and burn of the GOP will damage the economy further and the agonies of this recession will just go on and on for many people.  Obama bailed on the foreclosure and housing crisis.  He again ceded the battleground to the GOP.  They want to punish the people who were caught up in the crisis, many of which may have acted foolishly but almost none of which were responsible for the mess.  Banks had no business making many of the bad mortgages in the first place, but we have allowed all the furor to be directed towards the irresponsible buyers.  And the truth is that most of the irresponsible buyers lost their homes in the early days of the crisis.  The foreclosure crisis has gone way beyond this to all those folks who lost their homes because of the financial crisis and the banks irresponsibility.  But we don't seem to feel the need to make them pay for their mistakes like we were happy to do with the irresponsible borrowers.  Our failure to address this crisis has hurt the entire economy, not just the people who are losing their homes.  Eventually, this particular problem should go away, but it along with so many other policies of this GOP economy will live afterward.  Our economy will never be as vibrant as it was or might be.  Unfettered capitalism is like evolution - it rewards only the fittest with real survival.  Unless it is tempered by mercy and compassion,, i.e. regulated, the people who can't compete at the top of the heap will just be left to wallow in the afterbirth.   I don't think most people want this kind of system, but the people on the top seem to think it is their manifest destiny and do want it.  The money is directed at ensuring this system survives no matter the evidence that it doesn't work for most people, no matter how hard they might work at it.

I'm disappointed at the little things as well as the big.  DADT was passed in December.  It's now almost April and not only is it not implemented, I read today they are still discharging people under the old policy.  How stupid is that.  For the eighth president, Obama has made a speech about our dependence on foreign oil and how we must stop it.  But its just another speech in line with so many others.  Foreign oil isn't really the problem, it is carbon based fuel.  Oil is fungible and whether we drill it here or there we will still pay a very high price for it in the years to come, in both dollars and climate change.  But there will be no action, just more talk.  Clean energy could actually help both the economy and the climate, but the GOP doesn't want anything to do with it because it might give credit to Obama, and it would require some compromise on their ideological bedrock that all government is bad and all taxes are worse.  Obama's speech didn't mark any new ground and it certainly wasn't a real call to action.  It's like he's given up on the issue and just pays lip service like so many of his predecessors.  Then there's transparency.  We are a more secret society than we were under Bush and Cheney and it seems to only get worse.  It's clear that Obama was also only paying lip service to the idea that the people need to know what is going on if they are to exercise any good judgement about the issues.  He has opted for father knows best when it comes to national security.  We haven't broken from our surveillance society in any way.  We mistreat our dissidents, even though how we do it may no longer rise to torture, its mistreatment nevertheless.  Obama has given up on doing anything to improve the economy - he seems to have accepted that the GOP has won and is just negotiating the terms of surrender.  I know he doesn't believe the economics of this approach, but apparently, he believes the politics of it.  No more - I'd rather be a one term good President than a mediocre two termer.  He seems to have opted to try and figure out how to alienate the fewest people in order to win the 2d term rather than actually standing for something.  No walking the picket line to protect union rights, no instead, just stay silent and hope your base survives to make its contribution to your campaign.  The only reason the base will support him is the alternatives will be so bad.  But that is what he is counting on to win that 2d term.  Leadership is what  I thought we were getting when I voted, but instead what I got was mediator in chief.  And he gives away the store before he even begins the mediation sessions.  He moves half way to the other side before the first meeting, so that the opposition ends up winning the bulk of their claims.

Finally, I'm disappointed in the foreign policy stuff.  We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.  There is little mention of getting out of Iraq - I do hope we are still planning on the end of the year, but no one's mentioned it in a long time so I'm not sure that is will actually happen.  I fear there will be a change in mission so we can stay there in some other way.  We are already waffling on even 2014 as a timetable for Afghanistan.  Even though we are no closer to a solution in that country and the situation will be just as iffy in 3 more years as it was 3 years ago.  We cannot prevent a medieval country from reverting to a medieval country when we leave, with all of its intended terrible consequences.  Women will still be abused and denied rights, people will still be killed by guns and bombs, schools will still not be built or will be destroyed by those nihilists who want nothing but for people to do what they want them to do.  And now we also have the rest of the middle east rising up, wanting to be free, but likely ending up in chaos that we can't control and they can't control.  Suffering and misery will abound.  I wish I could be more optimistic.  I almost was when Mubarak left power, but I see that the regime didn't leave power, so even in Egypt where the possibilities exist, it will be a long and painful process before anything good comes from the Arab spring.  And a lot of suffering will happen in the meantime in all those countries, where hopes were raised, before they are dashed.  And then we have subsaharan Africa - a melting pot of mess for which I have no hope.  This is where diplomacy is tried the hardest and shows how weak and ineffectual it really is.  But it also shows that its probably no worse than in those other countries where we intervene with military aid.  Neither work, both result in untold misery, so again there just doesn't seem to be a solution when men want to kill each other in the name of winning.  Charlie Sheen must be proud.  I really can't blame Obama on this foreign stuff either.  I don't think anyone could do better, but I just really wish we could.

I would be an isolationist if I could.  But that would only impact the world, not the country.  I'm hung up on what's wrong at home as well.  However, if I could only block out word of the rest of the world.  I can't stand feeling helpless, but I need to accept the fact that we are helpless.  I really need to stop listening and reading and being aware.  It won't help anyone else, but it would make my life better.  Again, so selfish, but then again, the sky is falling....

The Sky is Falling!

I'm overwhelmed by the bad news in the world.  It just keeps coming and none of the problems have realistic fixes.  Just look at them all:  Japan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Wisconsin, the declining middle class, the intransigent unemployment levels, foreclosures and falling home values, a political system which has ceased to function and is only in it for re-election.  Although I wonder why anyone would want to be re-elected into this mess.  Last night it was a program called Journey to Planet Earth on PBS.  It outlined the likely effect of climate change on world civilization.  It laid out the need for immediate and major change, but that just isn't going to happen, either here because of the swath of climate deniers in politics or elsewhere, in the developing world, because they don't believe they should have to change because they didn't create the problem.  The final segment just seemed so inadequate to the task - "we all have to get involved and push the change".  The program ignores the fact that all these influential folks have had so little impact on the issue so how likely is it that individuals, largely unable to move the agenda on so many issues will have any effect.  My only protection from this is that I'll be dead before the worst is likely to hit.  It will be someone else's problem to try and reverse or clean up the mess.  Or its really bad, it's Mad Max time, but I won't be here.

This attitude seems selfish to me, but it's all I have most of the time.  There are just too many issues, too many problems, and too few leaders and solutions.  We are as a group pretty selfish so what likelihood is there that people will step up to the plate and sacrifice to save the planet when they won't even agree to pay a few % in taxes to resolve some of these budget issues in this country alone.  I read that the 4 HUNDRED  richest people in the country have more than the bottom 150 MILLION.  If just those 400 would decide to fix things instead of just figuring out how to keep their BILLIONS, wouldn't change happen.  Those 400 could really make a difference.  Yes, they are moving towards philanthropy, led by Buffet and Gates, but changing the political systems is what is really needed.    And that would threaten their uniqueness so philanthropy from a few will have to do.

The more immediate problems of war and conflict are also intractable.  There are just too many megalomaniacs with guns, most of which were sold to them by the democracies many weapons manufacturers to expect any respite.  I was torn by Libya.  The people just seemed to want out from under the regime that has ruled their lives with an iron fist.  It seemed everyone wanted out, except Gaddafi and a small circle of his regime.  But now we see that he has a substantial following.  Maybe he couldn't win an election, but with guns, he has enough to hold on.  People keep talking about a negotiated solution, but he seems to have made it clear that he isn't going anywhere. Given his tenuous grasp on reality that he doesn't like, I believe him.  He will take down the entire country with him rather than be toppled.  So now we are faced with intervening even more, arming the opposition or just sitting back and letting the country fall apart.  This would be bad enough if it were just Libya.  But there are a dozens similarly situated countries on the edge of either imploding or exploding.  We can't help them all, and in fact, it appears that we really can't help any.  Arming the rebels won't really make it better anytime soon, it will just enmesh the west in yet another Muslim country, which will drive others outside that country into the arms of the extremists who just believe we want to be there.  Instead of being caught between a rock and hard place, often of our own making.  We tried to keep a lid on this chaos by supporting dictators whom we thought could control their population, but we only made it worse and damaged our own principles in the making.  Now, when we try to support these apparent democratic movements, they welcome our help but they aren't too keen on it and if they succeed, I don't see a lot of gratitude emanating, not that I blame them.

We aren't responsible for all the bad in the world, but we have enough blame that we feel dirty.  The alternative to aiding these countries is to do nothing and stand by and watch the massacres take place.  That doesn't sit well with most of us when it is happening, because I think most of us care about inhumanity to people.  But we can't intervene everywhere so we pick some battles and then we impose all these conditions on ourselves.  Then these battles don't turn out the way we expect or more likely hope, and we find ourselves in another war in the middle east.  IT SUCKS!  Here we sit hoping that Gaddafi leaves.  Somehow, its so much easier to ignore the plight of people stuck in these terrible situations when the news doesn't bother to cover it nightly.  When the news brings the calls and pictures from people who sound a lot like us, being brutalized by terrible regimes who seem to love power so much they will do anything to keep it.  But Libya has been under the thumb of this madman for 40 years and we didn't do anything before - we even provided him money and arms with which to do it, once he paid some blood money for Lockerbie.  Why do we care now.  But then again, a lot of people don't care now and dread our further involvement.

Yes, the sky is falling, and there is nothing most of us can do about it.  I only wish I could ignore it like so many do.  Would the world be worse off for my lack of concern?  Is it better off because of it?  The answer is no.  The only one who suffers because of my attention is me.  I wish I could turn it off.

Nuclear Power - Is The Risk Worth It?

I listened to the NBC science correspondent who seemed to be making the case for nuclear power.  He said no power generation is without risk and that on the whole, nuclear is and has been quite safe.  Only one major accident has occurred in the 50 years of the technology's existence.  While all this is true, I believe he fails to make the case, when comparing this power source to coal production which kills workers, gas production which through explosions kills workers and consumers and damages homes and industries, and oil production, which spills regularly and the last major spill did major damage to the gulf coast and its workers and wildlife.  It is true that no power source is without risk.  It is true that these other power sources have killed many more people than nuclear.   However, despite this, I believe the risk associated with nuclear power is just unacceptable.

The risk of a major accident is one of those very low probability events - events which may only happen once a generation or more, or in the case of Japan, once in its recorded history.  However, the consequences of such an event last for many decades, for many generations, if not centuries.  People are affected immediately and in the long term and the environment of the area is rendered unfit for a long time and the whole world is impacted negatively to some extent.  This is not an accident that is just over.  Twenty five years after Chernobyl the immediate area around the plant is uninhabitable, the area surrounding that has an significantly elevated cancer risk to the inhabitants, and as we learn more about genetics, it is likely that the event will have effects on children yet to be conceived.  The area impacted by the accident is much less desirable as a place to live and work than before. Is this a risk that we really believe is acceptable?  No matter how many redundancies are built into a plant, eventually they will fail and, as in the Japanese experience, it is likely that those failures will cascade into catastrophe.  Is this something we are willing to risk once every thirty years?  Isn't it hubris to believe that we can operate these plants throughout the world perfectly, forever?  Nothing man has ever invented has worked perfectly indefinitely.  These events do not end with the deaths of the people who are killed in the accident like coal miners.  They continue for years and they spread danger far beyond the immediate impact zone.  They also spread anxiety and uncertainty far beyond the immediate fallout.  Japan was dealing with over 300,000 people who are homeless as a result of the earthquake and tsunami, but now they are also dealing with another 200,000 people who have homes that in the danger zone from the power plant.  This compounds by almost 100% the supply logistics in providing food, water and shelter to people in need.  Is this really the price we are willing to pay for boiled water?

The impact of accidents are only the beginning of the trail of hazards from nuclear power.  These begin with uranium mining, then processing where dozens to hundreds are killed or die each year, likely as many as coal miners.  Then once the fuel rods are spent, the issue of nuclear waste becomes huge.  We have no technological fix for nuclear waste.  We have almost no other fix.  Transportation of the waste is a continuing issue anywhere it is proposed.  So much is stored on-site.  We store it and hope that it remains quiescent.  But now, in Japan, the on-site waste rods are being exposed and are creating resulting crises in addition to the reactor problems.  Hopefully, this crisis will be resolved with a minimum of additional death and injury.  But even if it is, I question whether the risk from such a long lasting environmental and human impact is really the fuel of the future.  We moved into very deep water to drill for oil without knowing how we would contain an accident and then an accident occurred. It was clear that they could have prevented the accident but did not and they also did not have the capability to respond once the accident occurred.  It was a terrible environmental and human tragedy, but it will mostly be resolved in a few years.  Eventually, a really bad nuclear accident will occur in a nuclear plant or with the waste, that accident will have been preventable but not prevented.  The response will be less than optimum because we are human.  The after effects will last for generations.  Is it really worth it just because it doesn't happen often.  Is it really worth it to expand the use of this fuel as a major source of power despite the forever consequences of an accident and the waste?

Damned if we do...

Does everyone have memory loss with regard to war?  If you listen to the pundits you will hear the drumbeat for war in Libya, most without acknowledging that this is what they are advocating.  There are two sides doing the pushing.  One is the neocon side who seem never to have met a dictator they didn't want to remove by force, especially a dictator in the Muslim world.  The other side are the humanitarian groups who, in this case, see our hard power as something we can exercise for good, not acknowledging that if something goes wrong, they will be among the first to blame the US for mistaken civilian casualties and, if a democratic Libya doesn't rise from the ashes of this conflict, then the US will also be blamed for the disintegration of the state or the rise of strong men who impose their will on the people.  We cannot win in this battle, but both sides seem intent on our entering into another misadventure in the Muslim world, even as it is said that we do not understand that world and we do not exercise our power well.

I doubt that anyone in government wants to see what is happening in Libya go from bad to worse.  There are reasons both pro and con for intervention.  However, given our track record and given the Muslim world's reaction to that track record, I don't really see a success in the offing.  We saved Bosnia and Kosovo after terrible civil conflict, but no power in the Muslim world publicly approved of that effort.  Instead, they have allowed the meme that we want to destroy the Muslim world to permeate much of the so-called Muslim street.  Yes, our adventures in Iraq in this decade have done nothing to aid the US cause, but remember, we did get deeply involved in this effort originally to "save" Kuwait, a Muslim nation, from Saddam.  That seems to have been completely sent down the rabbit hole.  It was also done with the support and encouragement of the Saudi's.  But they continue to allow their clerics to push an incredibly anti-western messages to their people and many of the terrorists threatening the western world come from there, including most of those who flew planes into the trade center, the pentagon and those in Yemen who have launched smalled but still deadly attacks in the US.

While advocating for US withdrawal from these countries, many have called on the US to stop using hard power to bring about regime change and democracy.  Those same people are now beating the drums for war in Libya.  And, as the Defense Secretary pointed out, make no mistake, even setting up a no-fly zone is war.  Further, it is war without a clear end game.  What happens when the no-fly zone doesn't work? What happens if Gaddafi hangs on for months or years?  What happens, if as it appears in today's paper, he starts holding refugees as hostages, not letting them flee the war zone?   What happens when we accidentally drop a bomb on civilians while taking out air defenses.  What happens if we have another "Blackhawk Down" scenario?   And yet, all these questions aren't even discussed, but the President is pictured as dithering for taking time to line up allies and even people who are willing to sit on the fence.   Yes, people are dying in Libya at the hands of a disgusting, amoral, tyrant.  But they are dying in other parts of the world, like the Ivory Coast, Sudan, and Somalia everyday in the same way so why is Libya the ONE place where we should use hard power to save lives?

The same people who say that we cannot be the policemen for the world are saying we should be setting up a no-fly zone, without acknowledging that this is where policing starts.  As someone said in beginning the Iraq adventure, if you break it, you own it.  No one seems to remember that when they are cavalierly suggesting we intervene militarily.  No one even wants the President to take the time to consider the options, all the options, very carefully before we become involved in the fourth war in 20 years in a Muslim country.  [And we won't even count Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia in the tally].

I do not envy the President.  I do not have any good options for him or us.  I would note that Egypt has one of the largest militaries in the Arab world, trained and equipped by the US.  Yet, they appear to be unwilling to use their hard power to aid their brothers in Libya.  They can't even put out a strong resolution in the Arab League that actually kicks Gaddafi's Libya out of the League.  [hedging their bets?]  They also aren't calling for a western no-fly zone.  The Saudis have an expensive and well-equipped army and air force, yet they have no appetite for helping their fellow Arab brothers.  No power in the middle east seems interested in aiding their Libyan brothers.  Yes, some of this is because they don't want a democratic Libya because it will only encourage their people to ask for greater freedom.  But still, where is all that solidarity among the Muslim brotherhood to protect the vulnerable people of Libya who are being gunned down in the streets by their own leader?  No, they'd rather the west fix this, so they can't be blamed if it doesn't turn out well.  And I'm sure there will be no shortage of blame for the US, whichever way this turns out for Libya.

I do hope the Libyan people prevail against this monster.  I support all the soft power we can muster.  Why aren't we in Chad, Mali and Niger trying to stem the mercenaries at the source rather than killing them once they arrive?  What about the alleged Algerian, Italian and other non-black African mercenaries?  What is being done to ensure they aren't heading for Libya?   I know that soft power is slow and often ineffective, but I believe that we should try it first, at least until there is no other way.  And even then, we need to  drag the rest of the world along with us before we go forth and enter yet another war in a Muslim country.   We also need to be very clear with the American people that when we start using military means to achieve this objective, it may get very ugly and many people may still die.  And pundits, and Senators, and reporters need to shut up about what we should or should not do until they are ready to pick up a gun and help.

Response to NYT Editorial Stopping Gaddafi

Our hostage excuse is gone with the departure of the ferry, but the US dithers. Using doctored intelligence, we invaded another country, killing over a hundred thousand people to change a regime that no one asked us to. That regime is now attacking its own pro-democracy non-sectarian demonstrators. We haven't even sent humanitarian aid to the Libyan borders. Why aren't we doing more. We don't even seem to be preparing to do more - where is the American navy in the Med. Why isn't it on standby? In Libya, we have a mass democratic movement to get rid of a dictator who has murdered hundreds of Americans and many others and fomented war and strife throughout Africa. "This is our moment, this is our time." Help the people of Libya get rid of this insane despot. They will do the heavy lifting, all they need is a little help. For once, can we be true to our principles instead of our perceived "strategic interests." The Libyan people are begging for us to Take a Chance on Us. We might be pleasantly surprised at the results.

Murder in Libya - The World Just Looks On

I'm terribly upset by the impotence of the international community, merely words, no action.  But then I'm reminded that when I look back in only my adult lifetime the number of really major massacres that the international community condemned but did nothing because they were done "internally".  Just think about it:  Pol Pot, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Rawanda, Darfur, Congo, Sebrenica, Prague Spring, Iran Green.  Just look at the actual uprisings against repression that we just ring our hands about and look the other way, or in come cases secretly cheer like the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq, the Hungary Uprising in the 50's, Chechnya, Tibet, a variety of African countries.  I'm sure all of you can add to the list with so many others I've missed.  It's almost serendipitous and very rare when the world does take any real action.  And what may be even more telling is that after these massacres are undertaken and condemned, the world goes back to normal relations as soon as the bad press dies down.  Civilized world is impotent & complicit in most of these.  Gaddafi's sly in that, as an escapee from Libya said, it seemed clear that the government troops were told to avoid hurting too many foreigners, as if to avoid any provocation that might result in real action.  They are also seizing memory cards and sim cards from escapees to try to ensure that the killings are not publicized in pictures.  Cleaning up of the dead in Tripoli seems another effort to reduce the proof.

What's even worse than looking the other way while the massacres go on, its even worse that there is no price for these governments to pay for giving the middle finger to the international community.  Back to business as usual, almost as fast as the trouble fades from the news.  I'm sure the pictures of the SoS's hugging the dear leader are uncomfortable today, but this was done after he deliberated murdered American citizens in Lockerbie and Berlin, among the rest and it will be done again as soon as this is past, if Gaddafi succeeds in holding on.  

Competition Where Art Thou!

Recently, I received a notice from Quicken that I will no longer be able to use the 2008 version I bought to download records from my financial institutions.  I bought the 2008 version because they changed formats which stopped the downloading in the earlier format.  I don't want to buy another version.  I don't want any of the bells and whistles that I will supposedly get by upgrading.  All I want is a place to keep track of my transactions and periodically see how I"m doing.  However, without downloading, the current software will become worthless to me.   I have tried to identify an alternative that would allow me to do the basics but the pickings are slim.  They are even slimmer if you try and find an alternative in Mac.  I've tried several demos but they just don't work.  Reading the comments along the way, it appears that Quicken identifies any real competitors and then just buys them out before they can threaten their monopoly.  They are then free to abuse their users by forcing regular upgrades by taking away features that existed when we paid their fees.   This is to just keep the fees flowing, apparently, now every three years, even though they offer nothing extra to entice voluntary upgrading.

This experience with Quicken got me thinking about our entire economy and how monopolies are taking over our lives by buying out the competitors.  Companies used to grow and expand by inventing and improving their products, but now they just grow through acquisition.  If someone offers something new and exciting, just buy them out, don't compete.

This is true with many of our industries:
 * Media through Comcast, Viacom, Disney which now own almost all the network and cable stations, and Verizon and ATT which will soon control the content arriving on your computer, despite the pretent net neutrality rules of the FCC.
* Finance where the big 5 financial institutions which brought us financial armageddon now hold 60% of GDP http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/shooting-banks up significantly since the crisis, as the perpetrators were the chief beneficiaries of the financial failures wrought by the crisis.
* Pharmaceuticals, some of which have combined names longer than their chemical formulas, but still spend less on R&D than advertising.
* Health insurers which control the health care industry through Blue Cross, Humana, United Health and Cigna.
*Agriculture where just a very few food conglomerates like Cargill, Arthur Daniels Midland, and Tyson dominate all aspects of food production from farm to market.
*Energy which has significantly consolidated into a small number of huge companies in oil, coal and natural gas.
These are the big groupings but they are hardly alone.

This monopolization is also true with niche industries, like financial software.  Once they get a big enough share, they can force their way on their customers and competitors without worrying about their customers abandoning them.  If a truly new and improved product is invented or developed, then just use your considerable assets to buy them out.  If your assets aren't enough, then just leverage the buyout through the hedge funds and all.  Nothing stands in the way of this monopolization.

In Teddy Roosevelt's time, trust busting became the way to really bring back the free market but now it has almost gone the way of extinct animals.  Bigger is better appears to be today's philosophy run amok!  We only pay lip service to free enterprise, because monopoly capitalism is anything but the market that Adam Smith envisioned.  Yet corporate power seems too great, that there does not appear to be solution.

With these monopolies also come great political clout.  Anything that threatens their monopoly which cannot be bought out can be crushed through legal maneuvers, regulations, and legislation.  These are delivered by the bought and paid for political class which is dedicated primarily to getting or staying in office.  These trends may be unstoppable, but that doesn't make them any the less ominous. This realization has left me disturbed and pessimistic.  I'm just not sure how to fight.

Bill Maher is Right!

Bill Maher Takes on the Rally to Restore Sanity

Pessimism is well founded

The pessimism of this election is well-deserved because the no-nothings voted for change again, but they didn't have a clue about what that change would be and they have ensured another two years of economic stagnation and failure.

No distinctions were made regarding politicians, it really didn't matter what they stood for or how they had performed in the past, it only mattered that they were part of the status quo so anyone was else was more desirable.

The people want the politicians to "work together" to solve the very real problems of the country, so they voted in people who have avowed that they will not compromise, they will not work together, that its my way or the highway.

The people want civility in Washington so they vote in some of the most uncivil and almost voted in even worse.

The people want jobs so they voted in people who will not provide jobs, who will not stimulate the economy or future industries that could provide jobs, who will continue the ever-widening gap between rich and the rest, who are likely to shut down the government and engage in witch hunts for secret muslims, and global warming hoaxes, and finding a way to impeach the president and roll back health care for 35 million people [which the CBO says will save money for the government over the next 20 years].  They don't want to improve the health care bill, they want to repeal it, because the idea that health care should be a right not a privilege is socialism.

I realized after 2000 that elections do matter and that someone gets elected no matter what.  It is unlikely that any politician will actually change the system that made him or her.  It's unlikely that they will ever change the system where money is influence and influence sets much of the agenda.  Ralph Nader was right, Gore wouldn't be fundamentally different that Bush.  He was a representative of the powers that be and he would not significantly change those powers.  However, that said, change does occur on the margins.  We would not have unnecessarily invaded Iraq and spent almost 3T dollars had Gore been elected.  We would not have spent another 8 years denying climate change was real and starting to actually tackle the same energy crisis that Jimmy Carter warned about in 1979.  We might have had eight years of research into treatments and cures for diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.  Would the financial crisis that hit in 2008 have happened.  It's likely since the causes were set in motion 30 years ago with the deregulatory fever that gripped the nation with Reagan's ascendance.  It's likely because Alan Greenspan would still have failed to see the flaw in his economic theory and popped the housing bubble before it became an F5  tornado.  But on the margins, our lives would have been better.

The same is true in 2010.  A Democratic Congress would not have ended world hunger, put a chicken in every pot, fundamentally changed the broken election system or the broken financial system.  The Democrats are too beholden to special interest to fundamentally challenge the powers that run the world, but they would have continued unemployment benefits, they might have made infrastructure spending a priority, they might have moved us towards a better energy future, they might have made real improvements in education in this country.  These are where the margins meet people.  Instead, we have rewarded the obstruction and nastiness of the Republican minority, we have told them their efforts at bringing down the President and hurting the economy have worked for them politically, so why should they change.   I believe that most politicians aren't really in this job for the good of the country, its for themselves.  We just showed the GOP that the best chance they have for 2012 is more of the same no matter how bad it might be for the no-nothings who vote, because a bad economy in 2012 is their best chance of winning politically.

I keep saying, I'm glad I won't live to see the results of these destructive policies, but unfortunately, I will see the slow decline in that direction.  Ten years ago, it was widely believed that we had reached the end of history.  Boy were we wrong.  It appears like we are heading for the BRIC century, where unfettered capitalism wins, and political freedom is just another phrase for nothing else to lose.

Dear Jon Stewart

It's been a week since your rally and a few days since the election.  I keep trying to understand what you were saying and what the election is saying, but I keep coming up empty.  Your rally attacked the news media and entertained folks and was a small feel good moment of a picnic on the mall, but that's about all.  I found your false equivalency between Fox and the rest of the media, especially MSNBC disheartening and demoralizing.  I've tried to analyze why I see this mess differently since I've always appreciated your show for its political satire and calling out the emperor.

We have three types of [electronic] media reporting in the country.  One is opinion media, one is straight news and the other is infotainment.  In the opinion media, we have FOX and right wing radio, MSNBC and everyone else.  The major difference between FOX and MSNBC in my mind, besides size, is that FOX's right wing opinions are generally not based in fact, or if facts are involved and don't support their position, they just make something up.   MSNBC generally has a liberal point of view, but most of their opinions seem grounded in facts.   When they make a factual error, they usually correct it on the air.  Yes, they get carried away and rant and rave now and again, but most of their shows are a dissection of opinion and fact.  Now of course there are lies, damned lies and statistics so there will be disagreements about some of those facts, but in general they can be validated, even when you disagree with the conclusions the hosts have made based on those facts.

With CNN primetime you also is opinion media, its just that it's everyones' opinions sprinkled with some facts.  You rightly pointed out the dozens of analysts on election night. What does that sort of political journalism do for anyone?  It's chaos.  All these folks talking over each other, and no one mediating the truth or the facts.  You then have PBS, our high brow news, which when it comes to political journalism or more fightening almost any controversial issue, does basically what CNN does, except with a little more decorum.   On one show, they might have Dick Armey or Tom DeLay, David Brooks or David Gerson, and some "lefty" analyst.  Each says what they think from their point of view and you the viewer can decide which one was more persuasive or likeable.   Occasionally you have dueling experts - a climate change advocate and a climate change denier - full equivalency no matter the subject. No one vets these folks or challenges their facts for the most part - they are just allowed or encourage to have their say.  No analysis of the facts are provided in any straightforward way, just you decide who you like better.  PBS actually doesn't do this when it comes to health issues, or education issues, or even some financial issues, they actually try to educate the viewer to the issue and present different solutions for their consideration, but only the low passion stuff gets this treatment.  These they treat as issues which can be explained, facts which can be presented and sometimes even cause and effect and alternative solutions.

Can't quit without discussing the network media.  They provide 17 minutes of news every night.  Most of its is presented in 1-2 minute segments in a fairly straighforward journalistic manner.  For the last several years, they have reserved at least 1-3 minutes of this airtime for the positive story - something uplifting, heartwarming, optimistic or the like, basically leaving less than 15 minutes a day to cover real news like war in Afghanistan, terror attacks in Europe, the stock market, political shenanigans in Congress or the administration, and crime and corruption in America and elsewhere.  The local news picks up a little of the slack, especially on the crime and corruption, but most local news outside the really big cities is really bad and uninformative.

Finally, you have the infotainment news which covers Hollywood, dead celebrities, reality tv stars, criminals, Chilean miners, natural and man-made disasters, and missing teenagers in Aruba or Utah.  This is, of course, the highest rated news on TV.

The interesting thing is that most people in America for the most part don't listen to any of this news.  They prefer sports, reality tv, dramadey and other mindless crap exposes.  We are generally a nation of morons who get to vote periodically and make those decisions based on negative tv ads and as Stephen Colbert would say their gut!  The gut knows.  Jay Leno used to demonstrate this regularly on the Jay Walk Allstars.  I always thought this segment must have taken hours of video to put together since I was sure they had to look for these idiots who were so proud of their no-nothing knowledge of news.  However, I saw an interview with Jay, where he indicated he became demoralized about the segment because it was so easy.  It seldom took more than 15 minutes or so to find the people who were showcased.  How sad is that.

All this to say, what do you want?  What solutions do you have?  Do you really think that there should be no counterpoint to FOX's distortions and lies?  Maybe having a counterpoint is counterproductive, but it really feels better that someone describes what is going on there, that someone says what is going on there.  To stop is just unilateral disarmament.  Only FOX and Rush and Glenn and Michael Savage, and all the rest of the hate mongers.  Do you really feel that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann or Lawrence O'Donnell belong in this same category just because they present a point of view?  No politician is bragging about having them in their pocket, or how they can use them to get their message out.  Further, the main reason that their programs are so one-sided is because most of the conservative politicians and the spokespeople won't even go on the shows because they know, that unlike FOX they might actually have to explain their positions or answer some of those pesky questions Sharron Angle promised to answer WHEN she was Senator.  Guess we'll never know now.

So please, tell us what you think will fix the news because I don't see any answers on the horizon but I do see MSNBC as a little counterweight to the overwhelming force of FOX and friends in the political morass we are in.

A Pox on Your House

I expected it but I hoped against it, but my expectations were met and exceeded.  It's unfortunate, but many of the people who voted in protest against big government and health care will get what they voted for and so much more.  Gridlocked government at a time that calls for bold action and a very unpleasant and partisan witch hunt on Capitol Hill for the boogeymen in Obama's administration.  Impeachment hearings anyone?  The red scare is on among many who were elected -- following Glenn Beck and Faux News they will hold hearings and demand the czars explain themselves.  They will extend the tax cuts, [which the weasely Dems will jump on board with] causing further damage to the debt and deficit without providing any of the stimulus or demand that the country so desperately needs.  More than ever, the corporate interests will rule -- while I doubt that many rules, except perhaps the clean air ones [Murkowski's pet project], will be rolled back, there will be no improvements on food or drug safety, oil or mine safety, biomedical research, alternative energy, or climate change, among others.  The long slow decline of American jobs will continue as the incentives to not keep jobs here won't be repealed.  The gap between rich and poor will widen and our infrastructure will crumble.  I can go on, but why bother.  The American people are ignorant of what goes on - they follow Dancing with the Stars much more closely than the people running for office, they are helpless and hopeless so they strike out in anger, which only makes things worse. 

I have to remind myself that I am not worse off personally, although the value of my house will likely decline further, I can afford my payments, and don't have to sell and I'm not in the bottom 95% of the economic ladder.  Any negative changes or lack of change will affect others far more than myself, so I need to adopt the mindset of so many others - hear no evil, see no evil.... It isn't the end of the world and this too shall pass, but its sad that so many people will suffer [although clearly many of them have wrought this themselves with their vote or lack of one] and times do not bode well for the American Experiment in the long run - but alas, at least I won't live long enough to see the really awful results.  I do hope this does not mean we will go to war in any other countries for a while.

Ask America

Wow, am I depressed.  I thought the election was the bottom of my unhappiness, but so many of the results in this ask america poll are even more disheartening.  Significant majorities actually believe the Dems are more partisan, that is doesn't matter whether Dems or Rep are in power for the economy, that war til victory, even where there is no likelihood is basically hooray, that the tea party is here to stay.  I could go on, but you should see for yourself.  Much is contradictory - majorities for a trade war with China but against government protecting workers and jobs, majorities for civility but against compromise.  There does appear to be a green streak still alive and homophobia is definitely on the decline.  People believe the immigrants as bogeyman and this notion that they broke the law so no quarter.  And nothing seems to be informed by events, facts or history. 

askamerica.yahoo.com/

Poverty rate goes up, but commenters blame the poor!

I'm appalled at many of the comments on this page: More Americans Living in Poverty
I'm so tired of people blaming the victims.  Tired old hackneyed excuses of too many babies, too lazy, deserving of being poor.   This economy only works for the well off. A "living wage" is double what the minimum wage is and yet millions of people don't receive one. Many people do back-breaking work for 40 or 50 years at very low wages. There is always someone willing to do the job at that wage, so they have no choice. We despise unions because they try and increase the wages of working people to a living wage standard. Illegal mmigration is a boon to American corporations because it holds down wages, so that is why it never gets fixed. We should be demonizing the people who hire illegal immigrants, not the people just seeking to work and provide for their families. We are falling in our standard of living for the vast majority of Americans, while other developed countries aren't. We used to be number one - we are lucky to still be considered number 11 now. It's only a matter of time before we slip further. Henry Ford believed that you needed to pay people well so they could buy the products you were selling. We no longer believe that, because 1) we don't make many products anymore and 2) corporations can always sell those products overseas instead [see GM selling more cars in China than US]. But the reaction is to blame people who are poor for being poor, people who are unemployed for being unemployed, people who are sick and uninsured for being sick and uninsured. A rising tide lifts all boats, but a falling one grounds all those boats on dry land. We are grounding millions of Americans, in a misguided ideology of inidividual responsibility, when the corporations and the rich are really pulling the strings. Wake up, before it is too late.

Mass Murder - is it just the modern world?

I just read about a serial or perhaps spree killer in the Philippines who went on a rampage in the last month killing 9 people. They found him through his Facebook page. He was an educated and employed 28 year old computer tech. Yesterday, the news carried the arrest of a serial killer from the metro DC area, charged with the murder of two sets of mother/daughters and suspected of more. He is college educated and employed. The things that made these stand out are the foreignness of the first and the race of the second. Most [I read 85%] serial killers on record are white, middle class Americans. I'm wondering if we are just rubbing off on the rest of the world or if there is something else going on. I read one article which says it is a phenomena of urbanization and alienation. That would at least explain its increase over the last 100 years. It would be interesting to see if the spread of media is correlated with this phenomena, or is it that we just hear about it now, where once it was a local event. I had always assumed that civilization would lead to civilized people, but it seems to lead to the opposite. Or perhaps there are just so many more people in the world, that even a small percentage of deviates produce significant numbers of these killers. Nonetheless, it is depressing.