Cannon Fodder

In wars of the past, masses of soldiers were thrown at each other in battle with no consideration of their humanity. Kings and emperors treated men like some cheap commodity: "Shovel on more coal!" Whence the term "cannon fodder" for those people who were held in such low esteem that they could be shovelled into battle like coal feeding a steam engine or hay feeding cattle.

The modern American equivalent of cannon fodder is the army of working men and women shovelled with contempt into low-wage occupations that stifle thought and personal growth. These days it is the wealthy class, rather than kings and generals, that handle the shovels. This is the reason science and history are despised by the ruling class--they require the modern cannon fodder to fuel their wealth, not inquisitive persons who question things or are skeptical of what their rulers tell them. Politicians promote this state of affairs by convincing the masses to vote for them in the belief that the policies called for by the politicians will bring them, too, into the aristocracy of wealth. The masses can be mollified by dreams of a better life.

Promise them anything--"I promise not to cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security! I promise to make the economy grow at an unprecedented rate! I promise a new system of health care insurance that will cover everybody, more cheaply, and will be fantastic!"

But when you examine what promises are being kept, they are not these. Autocrats don't make promises to cannon fodder. Those who are pleased with the autocrat's actions are the exceedingly wealthy and the executives of corporations with lots of money to contribute, those who have a realistic chance of influencing the Dear Leader.

Fodder is only useful as long as the oxen are plowing the fields.

W's Happy Dance

I heard that yesterday, former President George W. Bush was seen and heard in the street doing a "happy dance" and singing over and over again, "I'm not the worst presnint ever after all!" I can't verify this, but I guess in Trumpterms, that means it must be true as an alternative fact.
 

Birth Certificate and Golden Shower

We're all familiar with the long-lived yet long-discredited Republican myth: Barack Obama was born in Kenya, his Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery, and conspirators placed a false announcement of his birth in the local paper many, many years before he ran for president. Today, everybody except the congenitally deluded understands this myth was just an expression of the ignoratti's racial animus toward our nation's first African-American president.

A new story has just arisen, this time with regard to president-elect Donald Trump. It follows close on the heels of news of the Russian hacking of the presidential campaigns and Trump's involvement as a puppet or useful idiot of Vladimir Putin. It includes "perverted" sexual activities that Putin might use to blackmail the soon-to-be leader of the free world, with an episode of "golden showers" in particular. Some elements of this story lend it credibility: Trump has visited Russia; Trump campaign people had been involved in lobbying for Putin's desired outcome in Ukraine; and Trump has been filmed bragging about his sexual activities with numerous women to whom he was not married.

This story has not been verified. Conceivably, the whole thing may be a story made up by "some dude" sitting at a computer. A precedent for that is the alleged quote by George W. Bush regarding having to act within the bounds of the Constitution: "It's just a goddam piece of paper!" All citations of that quote linked to the same source (if any link was provided) and that source provided no evidence of its veracity.

But you know, Donald Trump continued to bring up the false birth certificate myth long after it was debunked. It would serve him right if for years people refer to him as "Pissident Trump" and giggle over a leak from the White House, and wonder if his next speech will be live streamed. Indeed, a golden age of comedy.

Thank You, Americans for Prosperity (for reminding me why I should vote for Katie McGinty)

I received a flyer in the mail today from Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the evil spawn of the Koch brothers, pleading for me to vote against Katie McGinty. Their chief argument is that McGinty, as senator, will support energy policies that might be disadvantageous to fossil fuels.

Should I be surprised that a bunch of rich old farts want me to vote in a way that will make them richer? At my expense? Of course AFP favors continued use and extraction of fossil fuels, just as Big Tobacco favors continued smoking.

The flyer threatens that electricity costs will go up, groceries will cost more, and wages are down, and it is all, according to AFP, Katie McGinty's fault. But AFP fails to mention the costs that will be incurred if energy policy ignores climate change and the pressing need to switch away from fossil fuels.

According to The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change, issued by the White House, "a delay that results in warming of 3 deg C above preindustrial levels, instead of 2 deg C, could increase economic damages by approximately 0.9 percent of global output." And these costs are incurred every year. But the Koch brothers won't be paying--your children and grandchildren, and their children, will pay. If mitigation is attempted, but delayed, those "costs increase, ,on average, by approximately 40 percent for each decade of delay." Not only does mitigation become more expensive, it also becomes more difficult.

Unemployment in the past decade has been strongly affected by the severe recession that began during the George W. Bush administration. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimates that the Clean Power Plan will likely increase jobs by about 360,000 in 2020, with slower rates of job creation down to a gain of about 15,000 jobs in 2030.

Changes in weather patterns resulting from climate change will lead to greater monetary losses in coastal zones. According to the Risky Business Project (co-chaired by Michael R. Bloomberg, Henry M. Paulson, Jr., and Thomas F. Steyer), under the business-as-usual scenario, $66B to $106B worth of coastal property will be inundated by rising sea level, and that figure rises to $238B to $507B by 2100. Losses due to hurricanes will grow by more than $42B due to the effect of higher sea level on the inland reach of storms. Potential changes in hurricane activity could increase that figure to $108B. Increased incidence and duration of extreme heat threaten productivity, energy systems, food production, and health. Health impacts of extreme heat have already cost lives in Europe and Russia.

So, cleaning up emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, from power generation and transportation sources is extremely important from the standpoint of global warming. But it is also very important for its consequences on health. A study published in Nature Climate Change, predicts immediate, substantial health benefits coming from a strong Clean Power Plan, with expected prevention of 3,500 premature deaths in the United States annually, as well as reduced incidence of heart attacks and hospitalization.

So AFP and the Koch brothers don't give a damn if you take a loss on property or miss out on the rising tide of employment in the renewable energy field, or even get sick and die--the Kochtopus doesn't have all your money yet, so it still has a reason for being. And they want you to believe that you, too, will gain from their efforts.

And then there is a whole 'nother issue not mentioned in the AFP flyer--if you vote against McGinty, for whom do you vote? There are three candidates listed: Democrat McGinty, Republican Toomey, and Libertarian Clifford. The flyer does not suggest which of McGinty's oppnents one ought to vote for. Well, they legally cannot do that, because as a 501(c)(4) "social welfare organization," they are obliged to be non-partisan, neither supporting nor opposing any political candidates (and yet they are opposing McGinity?). It's obvious (Clifford who?) that AFP prefers Pat Toomey for U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania. Like the Koch brothers, Pat Toomey denies humans have had anything to do with changing climate: "My view is: I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it's clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated." The overwhelming consensus among climate researchers is that human activity is the primary contributor toward global warming. But Toomey is a politician; he don't need no stinkin' science!

For the reasons discussed above, as well as for his desperate efforts to deny the reality of climate change and his giving fossil-fuel profits higher priority over human health, Pat Toomey is unfit for reelection to the United States Senate. But there is still another factor to disqualify him. He has refused to discharge his Constitutional duty to vote on President Barack Obama's nominee for justice of the United States Supreme Court. Sure, he cannot bring the name up for a vote on his own. But he could argue with the other dodging senators (particularly Justice Committee chair Grassley and Majority Leader McConnell) and try to convince them to allow the Senate to fulfill its duty. When I wrote urging Toomey to do the job he is being paid to do, he responded very condescendingly, saying (as I translate) "I hope I hope I hope a Republican will be elected president in 2016!" Well, Sen. Toomey, how's that Donald working out for you?

Telephone Sex

"Hello, Fox News? This is Donald."

Damn Furriners

Donald Trump tweeted that he would reverse President Obama's restoration of the original name to Mt. Denali, claiming that restoring an Alaskan name to an Alaskan mountain was a “great insult” to Ohio.

SCOTUS Opens Door to Teaching Creationism

...At least in private schools that are corporate persons and enjoy corporate freedom of religion. As put by Justice Alito in the 5-4 majority opinion in Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al.

According to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.

This misguided statement has the potential to allow all sorts of nonsense. A private school may teach that Adam and Eve played polo riding on the backs of dinosaurs, if that is their religious belief. Science be damned; if their religious belief says so, they can teach that the Earth is 6,000 years old. If consistent with their religious belief, demon-created earthquakes and  devil-guided tornadoes might find their way into the curiculum. 

Jay Michaelson at The Daily Beast got it exactly right, saying 

"The four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients." That should be a statement of fact, not faith.

Whenever someone tries to justify religious notions with a scientific basis, they usually run into trouble, most especially if they completely lack any understanding of the science.

What War on Science?

Fewer  than one percent of peer-reviewed articles published from November 2012 to December 2013 reject human-caused global warming (one author out of 9,136).

Thirty percent of the United States Congress (both houses) do.

They are all Republicans.

Our country is in trouble when so many legislators refuse to believe in reality. The science of global warming is not the only science they reject.

Chart from jamespowell.org -- additional data available at that site.

Mark Leibovich Hit the Nail on the Head with this Tale

I've been reading Mark Leibovich's new book, This Town, about the interrelationships of the Washington "Villagers"--that collection of politicians, lobbyists, and media celebrities that have turned our nation's capital into an ongoing fraternity party. Leibovich presents case after case of Villagers working hard, in some cases desperately, to be "insiders," or members of the clique of Very Important People That Are Talked About And Invited To Parties and Dinner--And Talk Shows.

I'm finding the book pretty dull as a reader who is not excited by politicians and details of their behavior; I'm aware that Washington is crammed with panderers, egotists, and power-wielder-wannabes. But one anecdote struck me as more impressive than it was meant when written.

This tale involved the profile of General Stanley McChrystal that appeared in Rolling Stone in 2010, written by Michael Hastings. You may recall that McChrystal (then commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan) criticized certain members of the Obama administration undiplomatically; as Hastings put it 

But part of the problem is personal: In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side.

For his indiscretion, McChrystal fell on his sword was fired and condemned to start up a consulting outfit, sign a book deal, join a couple of boards of directors, teach a graduate seminar at Yale, and accept $60,000 per speech to talk about stuff.

Leibovich describes how the Villagers rushed to McChrystal's defense and condemned Hastings for daring to engage in real journalism (as opposed to head-bobbing). But the real howler comes when Leibovich describes the reaction of now-disgraced former journalist Lara Logan:

But the harshest criticism came from inside the pack. CBS's chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan was brutal, saying that Hastings had violated an "unspoken agreement" between reporters and military officials. It is understood, she said, that journalists should not embarrass troops "by reporting insults and banter." She implied that Hastings had disingenuously gained the trust of his subjects and even that Hastings made up the offending material [bold added]--or at the very least burned the military leaders on an off-the-record agreement.

Who'da thought that a couple years later, Lara Logan would present a hard-hitting, troubling analysis of the attack on the American diplomatic compound at Benghazi, based primarily on an interview with some dude who made shit up? Leibovich concludes the tale 

The biggest point in this case concerns the place of the "reputable journalist" in the Washington Club--or lifetime banishment from it.

In Praise of Sen. Pat Toomey

Last month, I wrote that I was ashamed of my Senator for voting in favor of the United States defaulting on its obligations and shutting down the government. Today, I note that he did the right thing and was one of seven Republican senators voting for ENDA--a bill to stop workplace discrimination. Thank you, Senator Toomey.

Pat Toomey and Scott Perry--My Shameful Senator and Congressman

From Pat Toomey's official Senate Web Page:

Senator Pat Toomey is a leader on economic, financial services, and budget issues.

So he voted in favor of default, and a government shutdown that cost about $24B that achieved nothing. 

My tehadist congressman, Scott Perry, likewise voted for default and to continue the disruptive shutdown.

These men claim to be concerned with improving the economic well-being of America, yet they act in ways that achieve just the opposite, adopting policies that hurt recovery from the recession, and impede the efforts of those who need to improve their ability to care for their families. Thanks a pantload, guys.

GOP's Effort to "Save Taxpayer's Money" Cost $24B

Standard and Poor's estimates that the Republican shutdown of the government cost about $24 Billion dollars. And that doesn't begin to include the costs and hardship to those affected by the shutdown.

"Won't Somebody Listen to me" Sez Cruz

When I was a young pup, I sometimes played ball with the older kids in the neighborhood. The older kids barely tolerated me but let me play, announcing in audible whispers, "His runs and outs don't count."

And Tuesday we saw the little kid from Canada brag about his planned filibuster in the Senate of the House Continuing Resolution that defunds the Affordable Care Act. Well, kid, your filibuster doesn't count. The big kids are disregarding your efforts, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will introduce an amendment to restore funding, with a final Senate vote coming perhaps on Sunday.  

Some Atrocities...

If the United States must punish Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons, must we punish George W. Bush for using torture? Just asking.

Senators Do Bad, Feel No Shame

Most Republican, and some Democratic, senators shamefully decided to vote against the wishes of about ninety percent of the American people, defeating* a measure that would only weakly address the horrific death toll caused by firearms by extending background checks. Those senators' shame was assuaged by the knowledge that their overlords, the National Retailers of Armaments, will reward their assault on the American people, as always, with riches beyond their dreams.

If only the people would remind their elected officials that although the NRA can give politicians seas of money, only the people can give them votes.

I expect that, in the wake of the explosions at the finish of the Boston Marathon, we will hear a spokesman for the NRA declare that "The only way to stop a bad man with a bomb, is a good man with a bomb." I do not expect the spokesman to admit that what stands between the weapons manufacturers and twenty murdered children, is the NRA.

*Clarification:  By "defeating," I of course mean "filibustered" so that there was no actual vote on the actual measure.

Bipartisan Cooperation

In Wednesday's presidential debate, Mitt Romney boasted he was able to pass ObamaRomneycare in Massachusetts by coming to bipartisan agreement with Democrats in the State legislature. President Obama, Romney claimed, "pushed through" his agenda without consideration of Republican views.

Romney failed to note that in Massachusetts, the leader of the Democrats in the legislature did not declare that party's Number One Priority to be committing to ensuring Romney would not be re-elected. Not like at the Federal level, where Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed that his party's Number One Priority would not be job creation, nor improvement of economic conditions, nor national defense, but making sure Obama would be a one-term president. 

Why Science Matters

It is important that American citizens have at least some background in science because some moronic politicians will say the most foolish things and expect people to believe them. People ought to be able to have some sense of what the scientific community thinks about such things and, if they are not sure of the actual science, they should at least have an idea where the answers can be found.

Case in point: wingnut politician Todd Akin, Missouri Congressman now running for the U.S. Senate, is virulently anti-abortion. Now, some people think that perhaps an exception should be made in the case of rape; not so Mr. Akin. According to Mr. Akin, there is no need--after all, "in cases of legitimate rape" the "female body has a way of shutting that down."

One can only hope that the people of Missouri are not all as mind-numbingly ignorant as the twit that would like to represent them in the U.S. Senate.


Sorry, I cannot recall the source of the illustration, which is several years old.

We've Been Here Before

The dramatic scene of a warrior on board a warship sounds a familiar tune. Where have I heard it? The economic policies...they, too, have a familiar ring. I'm beginning to remember.

Who has the Spirit?

We've just celebrated America's birthday for the 236th time (more fireworks this weekend). Besides all the sales, we have been treated to speeches about the bravery of the founding fathers who dared to defy a king and an empire, as well as the brave men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend their country throughout its history.

Now America is trying to emerge from another threat, an economic threat. This is not the sort of threat that can be fought by soldiers advancing through gunfire; their noble spirit cannot help in this. But help can come, if another group could only find the spirit it takes to save the nation--if only that group were willing to sacrifice, not their lives, but a small piece of their fortunes. Are the wealthy (including the huge corporations who are, after all, "people" as we are told), who hold a vastly disproportionate share of the national wealth, willing to sacrifice, just a bit? Can they find in themselves the same Spirit that inspired so many to give everything?

"The Spirit of '76' painted by Archibald MacNeal Willard, ca. 1875.  

House GOP About to Begin Job Creation Effort...

...But something else came up. Again. Yep, when the House comes back from shooting off their fireworks after the Fourth of July weekend, they would have been all set to pass legislation that would create jobs. But then there was that devastating blow dealt by Chief Justice John Roberts who joined with the rational branch of the Supreme Court in upholding the Affordable Care Act. They were all prepared to set aside discussions of icky lady parts so they could concentrate on job creation, which the Speaker of the House had said was a high priority. But now instead, they will do their best to prevent millions of people from having health care coverage, trying to prohibit the IRS from receiving transfers of funds from the Department of Health and Human Services that would help implement the ACA. 

No doubt Republican House members will (really, this time) get back on track creating jobs as soon as their bill passes the Senate and is signed by President Obama. Unless there are more icky lady parts to discuss.