My Immigration Fears Were Misplaced

Per John Bouma, the attorney arguing in support of Arizona's new immigration law:

In Arizona we have a tremendous Hispanic heritage. To think that everybody that's Hispanic is going to be stopped and questioned ... defies reality.  All this hypothetical that we're going to go out and arrest everybody that's Hispanic, look around. That's impossible.

Well, ok.  That changes everything.  I had assumed that this law would end up getting every Hispanic in Arizona stopped, questioned, and arrested.  But if it's not feasible for them to harass every Hispanic, then I guess there's not a problem.

I can't wait to use this justification for everything.  As long as every gun owner in America isn't sent to an Obama re-education camp, there's no problem with outlawing guns and rounding up their owners for re-education.  As long as every Christian isn't forced to renounce Christ as their lord and savior while being waterboarded, such a law would be legal.  I mean, to imagine we could get them all would defy reality.

Once upon a time, the informal standard was that it was better to avoid laws that harassed any innocent person.  It seems we've now flipped that on its head and as long as every innocent isn't harassed, we don't have a problem.  How interesting.

Glenn Beck's Real Economic Lesson

Most conservatives have an odd belief that because they support what businesses do, that they must inherently know something about how businesses work and the economy as a whole.  And I've generally found that, for the most part, they don't know what the hell they're talking about.  And my biggest complaint against liberals is that they don't take economic classes, which would allow them to realize that conservative economic policies aren't just immoral; they're just plain wrong.

And so I'm reading TPM and see that they cover the second installment of Beck University, Glenn Beck's latest money-making scheme to convince rightwing rubes to fork over even more of their soft-earned money.  And this one was even worse than the first.

And the funniest part about it is that, as part of the lesson, the "instructor" actually admits why he got the job: Because he's the cheapest.  Here's the "lesson" in economics he attempted to impart, as given by TPM:

"The number one concept to best understand wealth," Buckner explained, "is to understand the value of your time."

"Why?" Because once you understand the value of your time and how best to use it, you "won't produce that which you are not the lowest cost at producing."

Buckner elaborated, kind of: If Joshua is the most efficient pie-maker, and Jennifer can make cheaper cakes, then they should each play to their strengths to maximize output and minimize cost.

For example, "why am I here?" he asked. "Truthfully, I'm the cheapest."

And...no.  In case you weren't lucky enough to take an economics class by someone who actually knew what they were talking about, let me assure you, this isn't economics.  Or at least, it's not modern economics. 

As one commenter at TPM pointed out, this guy is basically promoting Mercantilism, a discredited economic system that predates Adam Smith and modern economic theories, which basically says that you should only produce what you produce best.  And again...no.  That's definitely not the best way to produce wealth.

Profits, Not Costs

Rather, our modern economics is based upon the idea of profits, and that you should sell products that will earn you the most money.  It doesn't matter if Joshua is the most efficient pie maker, if he can sell his cakes for twice as much profit.  If he makes a pie for a dollar and can sell it for five dollars but make a cake for two dollars and sell it for ten dollars, he should make cakes.  After all, eight dollars is more than four dollars; even at Glenn Beck University.

It's all about how much you can sell your product or service for; not how much it cost to make it.  Costs don't even factor into how much you should charge for a product or service.  It's all about how much someone's willing to pay for it.  I mean, I can produce blogposts for free, but because I don't get paid for them, it's not a particularly good use of my time; financially speaking. 

And of course, the ultimate lesson here is this dude's own worth.  As he said himself, he's doing this because he's the cheapest, and had Beck wanted to pay a real economist, he would have had to pay a lot more.  But Beck realizes that his rubes will buy whatever he has to sell and if they're dumb enough to shell out money to Beck University, they're too dumb to realize what a crappy lesson they're getting.

So the great deal Beck's getting isn't because this guy is so cheap, but because Beck's rubes are so dumb that they put real value to his valueless lessons by paying for it.  It was Beck's name that added economic value to this endeavor.  The "professor's" cheap lesson merely increased the profit margin.  But that was because there was no point in paying more for a lesson that wouldn't be learned anyway.

Republicans: As Stupid as they Seem

Over at WaMo, Carpetbagger's got a post about how Republicans are Economic Illiterates, because they keep saying that taxcuts don't cost any money, which is why we need more taxcuts.  And of course, progressives came out in droves to insist that these guys really do know what they're talking about, but they're lying for political and economic gain.  And some of them are insisting that Obama and the Dems are part of the problem, or else they'd do a better job of attacking Republicans for it. 

As one guy put it, '"Polite" and "deliberative" don't cut it in politics.'  Yes, because "rude" and "knee-jerk" will prove to be so much more effective.  Somehow, we're supposed to forget that "polite" and "deliberative" won us the Whitehouse; despite assurances by these same people that "polite" would get Obama stomped by McCain.

But my question for them is: Why should we assume that these guys are lying?  These same people display on a daily basis that they're completely ignorant about some of the most basic issues of the day, often saying things that hurt them politically.  And for as much as there's a possibility of them beating us in November, it's in spite of their politics and policies; not because of them.  People might be upset that Obama isn't doing more (though I think this is overstated), but it sure isn't because Republicans are giving anyone a better alternative.

So, why should we imagine that they're any brighter about economic policy?  If they can't even develop a proper political strategy beyond "Keep tossing more red meat to Teh Crazies and hope for the best," why should we imagine that they know anything about tax policies?  Especially as their statements on tax policies are incoherent, and aren't particularly compelling.  Now, perhaps I'm wrong and our country is brimming with moderates and Democrats who are clamoring for any party who promises more taxcuts for the rich.  But I kind of think that this is only red meat for the people who are already pulling them to the right, and isn't going to win over anyone.

So I just think it makes more sense for us to assume that they really ARE this dumb, and if they knew what they were talking about, they'd be making big bucks on Wall Street, rather than having to work every day in Washington; eternally begging for campaign contributions from people much smarter than themselves.  For Republicans, politics is what you do when you're good at talking but can't think of anything useful to say.

Preying on the Fearful & Naive

When I think "Hitler," I think extended unemployment benefits and bank bailouts.  Oh, wait.  No I don't.  I think "murdered six million Jews" and "tried to take over Europe."  And for as much as people have a visceral loathing for Hitler, I'm pretty sure it's not because people associate him with socialism. 

And yet, Iowa Tea Partiers give us this:

Fearful and naive, indeed.  Yeah, no scaremongering going on here.  Hitler, Obama, and Lenin are all socialists who promoted change.  It's just natural to link these three together. 

The Message is Socialism

Curiously, it seems the Tea Partiers finally agreed to take down the billboard, so the stories I'm finding on this all mention how they took it down, quoting the group's spokesman saying:

They are absolutely right in their criticism because the image of Hitler just totally wiped everything else and it misrepresents the tea party movement.  They were right from the standpoint that the image was not a positive reflection on the tea people.

Not that that's such a great mea culpa, as he's saying it was wrong because of how it made the "tea people" look.  Does that mean he still stands by how it made Obama look?

And that's a little different from the justification he gave earlier in the day, when I first read the story:

"The purpose of the billboard was to draw attention to the socialism. It seems to have been lost in the visuals," Johnson said. "The pictures overwhelmed the message. The message is socialism." He said he didn't know of any plans to remove the sign.

Yeah, the pictures overwhelmed the message.  I'm sure the Wall Street Reform = Hitler connection made a whole lot more sense in the written form.

Hitler = Hitler

But of course, it didn't.  The reason you associate someone with Hitler is because you're saying they're evil.  And as I've said before, unless the person you're associating with Hitler intentionally exterminated millions of people while starting a war that killed millions more, it's not a comparison you get to make.

And seriously, aren' there maybe a few more recent socialists that Tea Partiers could associate with Obama, if their big message was that Obama was a socialist?  Maybe a few heads of state in Europe?  Or are we to pretend that Europe doesn't have socialism?  But of course they do and Tea Partiers have absolutely no problem reminding us about that.  But hey, if they think Europe's so bad, why not put up a billboard associating Obama with the sort of dreaded socialists he's supposedly trying to emulate? 

Oh yeah, because they were trying to scare people into thinking that Obama's the next Hitler.  You know, because Hitler got rid of co-pays for preventive medicine.  With holocausts like that, who needs breast cancer?

The Economics of Real Waiter Wages

Minnesota State Rep and presumptive GOP gubernatorial nominee Tom Emmer got in hot water for proposing to cut waiter wages in the state, allowing restaurants to credit waiter tips towards minimum wage; effectively lowering their hourly rate by over $5 an hour.  And he justified that with his belief that many of these people make over $100k annually, and don't really need the extra money.  And hopefully, all of the Minnesota waiters who make over $100k will vote for Emmer, while the rest will vote for his opponent.

And one of the things Emmer used to justify his belief that this cut won't effect their wages was a study by two professors at the University of Nebraska titled Do higher tipped minimum wages boost server pay?  And I just had to read this study, because I find it mind boggling that you could somehow cut someone's wages without reducing their wages.

Here's what the professors had to say about it:

Do servers earn more in states with higher tipped minimum wages? We hypothesize no ceteris paribus premium to such servers. The reason is that the national market for servers is very competitive and we contend that it will equalize pay between states. Servers in states with lower tipped minimum wages may migrate to states with higher wages, or businesses in states with higher tipped minimum wages may relocate to states with lower wages. The resulting adjustments in server demand and supply will dissipate any interstate ceteris paribus differences in pay.

And I have two words for that: Uhm, no.  I can only imagine that these two professors have literally zero experience in the restaurant industry, as their vision of supply & demand as a corrective in this is entirely absurd. 

Real World v. Fantasyland

And the main problem here is that there is no national market for waiters.  A waiter isn't going to move from Arkansas to Minnesota for their higher minimum wage.  The waiter market is local only, and they compete to work for the best restaurants in their town.  Nor is a restaurateur going to close his restaurant in Minnesota and move to Arkansas to save on waiter costs.  That's absurd.  People just don't do these things.

And even their economics are wrong here, because supply & demand don't apply in this case.  Because it doesn't matter how many waiters move to MN for their better minimum wage; they'll still all be paid the same minimum wage and receive the same in tips.  Even an infinite supply of waiters won't make them get paid any less than the minimum wage. 

If anything, the higher minimum wage would force a restaurant to hire fewer waiters, so the waiters would make more in tips.  Or, the increased expenses would mean fewer restaurants would open in MN, so the remaining ones could charge more to pay for their more expensive employees.  But it doesn't matter what the supply & demand for waiters is, as their price still can't go below the minimum wage.

So not only is supply & demand not applicable to the waiter market, the minimum wage completely negates any effect it might have.  Honestly, if these professors haven't figured out how minimum wage affects supply & demand, they really need to go back to school.

Hocus Pocus Statistics

And so what could be the mechanism that would make it so increased minimum wages wouldn't increase actual wages?  Maybe it's because eaters know that their waiters already make minimum wage, so they tip less.  And that's fine by me, as I've never quite grasped the idea of mandatory tipping and would prefer that they be paid by the restaurant.  Or maybe it's because restaurant prices are too high, so people don't eat out as much.  Or possibly, just possibly, the results of the study are simply wrong.  And that is indeed the case.

First off, if you read their report, you'll find a bunch of statistical hoohaw that appears that they jimmied the numbers in order to flatten out any differences they would have found.  Basically, in their efforts of making "all things equal," they screwed with the numbers until everything was equal and then announced their findings that everything was equal.

And they never bother giving their results in actual numbers, but rather give you a chart that tells you (among other things) that Category 5 States have a 0.7820E-01 estimated coefficient, so you can't actual decipher their results.  They never translate this into numbers you can read.  For as much as I understand the need for statisticians to use jargon, I've generally found if they don't translate it back into English, they probably screwed with the numbers.

But then they have no problem giving you the final conclusion, which looks suspiciously like their original question, saying:

We conclude that, for the most part, servers in those states with higher tipped minimum wages appear to have no income advantage over servers elsewhere.

Surprise, surprise.  They take a bunch of numbers, run it through an incomprehensible statistical analysis, and presto change-o, come out of it with the exact answer they were looking for.  Well, not the exact answer, as they did find one group of states with higher paid waiters: States that had a real minimum wage. 

Real Wages = More Money

As they said, waiters in states that didn't allow tip credits were "paid a small premium relative to workers in states where there are no minimum wage laws."  Or written in English, waiters that received a real minimum wage got more money than waiters that didn't.  And, well, duh.  That's exactly what I'd expect to see.

In fact, the biggest problem with their study was that they focused on tip credits, rather than on actual minimum wages.  And that means they lumped states with real minimum wages with states with the bare minimum $2.13 wage, if they had higher standards including their tips.  But in the restaurant industry, these fake minimum wages are a sad joke, as restaurants generally don't pay extra to their employees on slow nights.  Trust me, I've done accounting for a few restaurants, and this isn't even the sort of thing they keep track of.  The waiters made $2.13 an hour, always.

So the proper standard should be how much a restaurant is forced to pay by law, regardless of these pretend tip credits.  And by that standard, it's fairly obvious that a real minimum wage makes a difference.  Here are the average wages paid for these categories, according to DOL's website and the numbers I crunched from the BLS:

$0 Min. Hourly - $18,134
$2 - $3 Hourly - $19,377
$3 - $5 Hourly - $19,496
$5 - $9 Hourly - $22,827

Wow, just like what you'd expect to see: The more a restaurant pays their employees, the more money they make; with employees in the highest category making almost $4700 more annually than those with no minimum wage.  Oh, and here's a shocker: The state with the highest minimum wage (Washington) has the highest waiter wages.  And of the top ten wage states, only three of them pay less than $5.50 an hour; while the bottom ten states only have one that pays more than that.

And just so you understand, those in the highest category aren't necessarily the most prosperous or most progressive states, as they include low population states like Montana, Alaska, and West Virginia.

Caveats

Oh, and there's a big caveat to all this: Most waiters don't report their real tip income, so these numbers aren't the real numbers anyway.  They report whatever the waiter got paid by the restaurants, plus whatever imaginary number they included in tips for tax purposes.  Some restaurants use a percentage to invent tip income, while others leave it up to waiter. 

And naturally, restaurants that get to credit tip-income towards minimum wage are going to be more strict about forcing their waiters to report real tip income than states that it doesn't matter.  And that's what's got to be going on here, as a quick analysis shows that tip income inexplicably goes down the more a waiter is paid.  Either people in Montana, California, and Alaska are the cheapest tippers in the country, or their waitstaff are under-reporting their tips.  Or perhaps it's because people tip less when they know their waiter's already being paid a real wage.  But in any case, it's still better to get that minimum wage than not get it.

And how about Minnesota waiters, you might ask.  They reported making an average of $22,730 for 2009, a little below the $100k Emmers talked about.  But still, it's over $3300 more than waiters in states that have policies Emmers want to emulate.  Now, maybe Emmers is cool with taking a 15% paycut to save his boss some money, but I suspect the waiters of MN might disagree.

And the most important take from all this: You really shouldn't listen to economic professors who apply economic theories to areas they don't apply.  Yes, it'd be great if people were numbers which easily flowed to where they benefited the most economically, but in real life, people have other reasons for living somewhere than their state's wage laws.  If someone moves to CA or NY to become a waiter, I suspect it has more to do with the screenplay they're trying to sell than the minimum wage they'd get waiting tables.

Capitalism Wins, Always

I'm not sure why, but most people have trouble grasping long time periods.  Like the people who deny the idea of evolution because they haven't seen anything evolve within their lifetime, failing to grasp the concept of millions of years. 

No, a slug didn't become a superior type of slug in the time it took you to go from Pampers to Depends, but civilization hasn't even been around 10,000 years, while a million years is one hundred times longer than that; and even a million years isn't a long time when you're considering evolution.  But still, a slug now is the same slug they saw as a child, so that disproves that anything can change over millions of years. 

That's a classic example of small-minded thinking: Because they didn't see something change in sixty years, nothing can change over sixty million years.  It's as if adding "million" to a number is somehow insignificant.

Watching Mountains Grow

Similarly, because people can't see society changes within a twenty year period, they insist that we'll never see changes unless we force them ourselves.  They simply can't conceive of a bigger picture with forces that are outside our individual control.  Obama's president, so Obama should be able to strong-arm anything from anyone; and that's the only way things happen.  It's all about strong people taking bold actions, and without that, nothing will change.  And if Obama can't give us everything we want right now, we'll never get it.

But that's bunk.  For as much as I appreciate the bold actions Obama has taken, he's only building on things that have been in motion for decades, and if the time's not right for something, then it's stupid to force it.  The Civil Rights movement didn't happen because MLK showed up, and had he gone in a time machine to Birmingham a hundred years earlier, he would have been lucky to merely end up in jail.  He was a strong player in the movement, but he was part of something that started long before him.

Just as the individual actions you took as a teen will effect you the rest of your life, group actions societies took decades ago are slowly coming into fruition.  And so much of this is beyond human ken.  The bigger something is, the more inertia it has and the longer it takes to move and to stop; and watching society change is like watching mountains grow.  We know it's happening, yet all the same, it just looks like the same damn piece of rock to us.

Progress in China

And that all brings me to my main point: China.  I keep hearing about how dreadful workers are treated in China and how we need to stop buying Chinese products because of this.  Or conversely, that China's going to take us over if we don't stop buying their shit.  And it's as if the conditions in China will somehow always stay that way because that's how they are now. 

But that's simply incorrect.  As I keep explaining, they will eventually form a middle-class as their increasingly growing economic needs require more and more skilled workers; both as skilled labor as well as managers, accountants, and other such administrative personnel and middle-men.  And soon, they'll be striking for better work conditions, demanding more pay, and eventually they'll form powerful unions that grow lazy and corrupt and screw everything up for them; just like what happened here in America. 

And yeah, the Chinese government will bust their heads, just as our early unions got their heads busted, but this sort of thing is simply inevitable.  By accepting limited capitalism into their country, they're stuck getting the whole damn thing shoved down their throats; and what we couldn't do with bombs or embargoes, we can easily do by buying their shit; and there's not a damn thing they can do to stop it. 

And the only way we could stop it is if we stopped buying their shit, forcing them all back into poverty.  Yes, they're being exploited, but it's obviously better for them than the alternative.  And that's why Disney's in Vietnam, while North Korea's still a backwards suckhole.  They were both totalitarian, but only the North Koreans forbid outsiders.  Same goes for Cuba, which would be a swinging destination for drunk Spring Breakers, if only we sold them our shit and bought their cigars.

iPad to Prosperity

I've been saying that for quite a few years now, and it now looks like we have evidence that I was right (not that I had any doubts).

Factory workers demanding better wages and working conditions are hastening the eventual end of an era of cheap costs that helped make southern coastal China the world's factory floor.

A series of strikes over the past two months have been a rude wakeup call for the many foreign companies that depend on China's low costs to compete overseas, from makers of Christmas trees to manufacturers of gadgets like the iPad.
[....]
They have little choice. Many of today's factory workers have higher ambitions than their parents, who generally saved their earnings from assembling toys and television sets for retirement in their rural hometowns. They are also choosier about wages and working conditions. "The conflicts are challenging the current set-up of low-wage, low-tech manufacturing, and may catalyze the transformation of China's industrial sector," said Yu Hai, a sociology professor at Shanghai's Fudan University.

And well, duh.  I mean, what else would happen?  Are we really to imagine that Americans and other westerners are so different from the Chinese that they somehow wouldn't make the same progress we made?  Could we really think that China could post huge economic gains without creating a skilled labor force that would wise-up to how they were getting ripped off? 

Hell, America did it without much guidance at all, while the Chinese are well aware of how this shit works.  They've got the internet.  They watch our movies.  They know how workers are supposed to be treated.  And moreover, these guys are doing more complex work than the mine workers of yore.  The idea that China could perpetually keep them down is a huge insult; as if Chinese workers are simply too stupid to unionize.

Tides of History

And no, it's not going to happen overnight.  Big things never do.  But it'll definitely happen, and not just in China, but anywhere we buy shit from.  The more dollars that flow into a third-world country, the sooner they'll develop into second-world countries, and then eventually become first-world.  That's just how it works.  And the only way to stop it is to stop buying their shit.

Or...we can pretend that workers will magically unionize before the factories arrive and they'll all be paid great wages to sit around watching porn all day, like us Americans do.  But I don't see that happening.  Like it or not, the exploiters will pave the way to economic freedom, just as they always have, and we'll have to wait a few decades before the exploiters have to move on to greener pastures.  But a few decades is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Someday, we'll all regret that living conditions are identical the world over; not because things were so great before, but because people just like having something to bitch about.  Life is better now than it's ever been.  Don't let anyone tell you any different.

What Would Bush Have Done?

Carpetbagger has a post called Still Taking BP's Side which highlights Nevada weirdo Sharron Angle's suggestion that the $20 billion trust fund BP set up is a "slush fund."  And Carpetbagger uses that to suggest that, as the title says, Republicans are still taking BP's side.

But I don't think that's the case regarding those who label it a slush fund.  Maybe that's the case for BP's congressmen, like Rep. Barton (R-BP), but Angle strikes me as one of the true believers: Someone who gets her news from talk radio and imagines Fox News to be a little too fair and balanced, in that they don't repeat enough of the conspiracy theories they get from radio and emails.  So in her case, I think this has more to do with her general distrust of Obama.

Obama as Bush

Now, imagine how you'd have felt if this had happened while Bush was in office and Bush met with the heads of BP and proudly announced that BP had agreed to aside $20 billion to handle claims.  You'd naturally have been suspicious. 

Because, most likely, this really WOULD be a political slush fund.  Bush would no doubt have put a political hack in charge of the fund, and while little guys would surely have gotten some dough; most of it would have gone to Bush cronies and to pump money into congressional districts they wanted to win.  And no matter how bad we thought this would be handled, we'd eventually find out that it was even more corrupt than we had imagined.  For example, the political hack would be getting kickbacks of every dollar he doled out, and taxpayers would ultimately have been the ones funding the whole thing, while BP expensed it on their tax return. 

Well, that's what they think about us.  That's what they're assuming Obama is doing.  They're not calling this a slush fund because they don't think BP should pay up.  They're calling it a slush fund because they think Obama is a political goon who only has his corrupt interests in mind, and that he's a smooth liar who's extremely good at hiding his true intentions.  And they "know" his true intentions, because of what they've picked up from talk radio and the emails they keep receiving from their crazy uncles.

Meet the Crazies

And that's what's going on here.  For crackpots like Angle, Obama is a Chicago-style thug who's doing all the stuff we saw Bush do.  And they think we're as blind as we thought they were when they didn't see what sort of guy Bush really was.  They see the same reality we see, but the context is different. 

And just as Obama's critics on the left bash him because they see everything in the context of him selling them out, just as they always "knew" he would; the crackpots on the right already "know" he's a corrupt thug, so that's how everything looks to them.  For both sides, it's just a matter of time before their suspicious are finally proven.  Until then, they'll consider all speculation to be stronger than fact.

And I now see that Angle has retracted her "slush fund" comment, realizing that it put her on the side of defending BP.  So now she's giving the bizarro postion that she supports the trust fund, but that we should have waited to determine everyone who was to blame for the spill; including the federal government for not stopping BP from breaking the rules.  And while that sounds a bit more like something a political consultant would write, it completely contradicts her "slush fund" remark and still doesn't sound very good.  It's like forbidding a murderer from pleading guilty because the cops failed to stop the murder in the first place.

And overall, this just demonstrates how dangerous the Tea Party movement is for Republicans, because these people are simply wacko.  And with Angle's recent comment suggesting that we make "lemonade" by forcing women to give birth to incest and rape babies, I think the GOP is going to increasingly regret ever hyping these fools in the first place. 

Nutritionists Suck

I know I've said this before, but nutritionists suck.  Like their whole kick against cane sugar and corn syrup, as if there's something magical about the sugars in other plants that somehow make them superior to the sugars from sugar cane and corn.  And don't even get me started on their war against fastfood.  Because yeah, that stuff's not healthfood, but regular restaurants can pack in quite a lot more calories than McDonalds; yet don't get half the attention. 

And so I see this article titled 3 Low-Cal Summer Thirst Quenchers, and I'm somewhat interested as I'm trying to lose just a little more belly fat (though I'm already in great shape) and realized that I get quite a few unnecessary calories from juice and soda.  But of course, none of the three "thirst quenchers" appeal to me; one of which was just tea with lemon and mint in it, because yeah, I couldn't have figured that one out myself.

But the second one was simply ridiculous.  It was for "Low-Sugar Lemonade," which included unsweetened applesauce, maple syrup, and mint.  And I'm like, yuck, that sounds disgusting.  I'm not sure which of those three bothers me more, though it's probably the applesauce, because there's half a cup of the stuff in there, divided into four servings; so each cup contains an eighth of a cup of applesauce.  I like applesauce, but not in my drink.

And of course, the applesauce and syrup are there as sugar substitutes, for reasons that make no sense.  And mint?  Minty lemonade?  I don't think so.

How Low Can You Go

But worst of all, the fitness guru posting this stuff actually admits that this concoction has 80 calories per serving; yet acts like that's a good thing.  80 calories?  My god, Dr. Pepper has 100 calories per serving, and I've been assured that it comes from the Devil himself.  And the powdered Country Time Lemonade I drink on a regular basis has 60 calories per serving, and I generally water it down so as to cut down on my calorie intake and actually prefer it a little less sweet.  (I also water down my juice and soda, btw.)

So I'm supposed to be impressed with a "low sugar" lemonade that has twenty fewer calories that Dr. Pepper and twenty more calories than powdered lemonade?  So much so that I'm going to put applesauce and syrup in my drink?  I don't think so.

And seriously, what the hell is the matter with these people?  Because the reality is that soda really isn't that bad for you.  It's the quantity that's the problem; not the quality.  It's that people want to drink 64 ounce Big Gulps of the stuff.  But the thing is, that's not going away just because people start substituting syrup for cane sugar.  If someone wants 64 ounces of a drink, they're going to drink 64 ounces.  And whether it's soda, juice, or maple-mint lemonade; you're going to pack on the calories if you drink that much.

If your diet recipes count on the users having the restraint to only eat and drink individual serving sizes, then you can count on them to fail.  And that's the biggest problem with why people are fat.  It's not that they're drinking soda or eating McDonald's.  It's that they're eating and drinking servings that are five times bigger than they should.  And these stupid nutritionists with their rant against specific foods while highlighting other foods which are only marginally better (and sometimes worse) doesn't help at all. 

And so people imagine they're earning healthpoints every time they take this nitwit advice, rather than realizing that there really is no magic bullet and you simply have to eat less and exercise more.

It's the Quantity, Stupid

People shouldn't be warned away from 100 calories in Dr. Pepper.  They need to be warned about the 800 calories they're getting in a Super Big Gulp; which is only 160 calories more than they'd get from drinking the same quantity of this "Low Sugar Lemonade."  They need to be told that the recommended daily serving of 2% milk they're told to drink has 9 grams of saturated fat and 390 calories; and how 2% milk has more calories than Coke.  And they need to be told that a typical burger at a regular restaurant has more fat and calories than a Big Mac.

But nutritionists refuse to do that, because that's just not something they care about.  They prefer being food nazis.  They want to tell you to avoid certain types of food, not because they're worse for you, but because they personally don't like these foods.  And so they'll tell you that weird applesauce lemonade is "low calorie," even though it has more calories than powdered lemonade; not because it's true, but because it makes them feel better.

Oh, and the worst of these?  The Eat This Not This guy, who gives moronic advice, such as replacing your 20 ounce Minutemaid Lemonade with an absurdly small 8 ounce Knudsen Lemonade, even though the calorie savings is due solely to the smaller serving size and the Knudsen has 100 more calories if you drink 20 ounces of it (a fact he fails to mention at all).  And then there's his bizarro theory that foods with fewer ingredients are somehow better for you, or that natural ingredients are inherently superior to processed ones.  As if peanuts can't kill people, or fish are somehow comprised of one simple chemical we all understand.

And these are all lies.  Stupid, dangerous lies that con people into believing that they've finally found the secret to losing weight, which doesn't require them to eat less or exercise.  Because that's all this is about, and if I could quench my thirst with 8 ounces of lemonade, I'd do it.  But until then, I'll stick to twenty ounces of watered down Country Time and try to get in a little more exercise.  Not for myself, but for the ladies.

Foiling God's Plan

One of the positive aspects of religion is that it teaches people to think outside of their own tiny existence, and focus a little on the Big Picture; so that they see things beyond their own specific perspective.  Not that that's any guarantee, as many religious people merely translate their own specific perspective onto their god's, and insist that their goals are identical to their god's.  But still, even that's a start.

And so it can be somewhat encouraging to see a stupid person applying their concept of this bigger picture onto their own policies, as demonstrated by crackpot Senate nominee Sharron Angle in this radio interview from January:

Manders: I, too, am pro life but I'm also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.

Angle: I'm pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I'm a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

And first off, please note the childish rewriting of what "pro-choice" might mean, showing Angle to have all the flair of a clever fourth-grader riffing on a variation of the rubber-glue paradigm.

But seriously, I do like her use of God's Plan here, because it really does show some signs of mental maturity.  It's about thinking outside of our immediate goals and desires, and enters a theoretical realm in which we attempt to comprehend the workings of an omniscient being.  And no, I'm not suggesting this is some novel idea for Angle, but merely noting that she's engaging in a slightly higher level of thinking than your average numbnut. 

The Bigger Picture

But of course, Angle lacks the ability to think this through any further.  Because, yes, perhaps the impregnation of a rape victim is part of God's Plan.  But why stop there?  Wouldn't the subsequent abortion also be part of God's Plan?  Of course it is.  How could it be otherwise?

In fact, if we believe that God has a plan, then it must be argued that everything we do is part of God's Plan.  How could it be otherwise?  To suggest that a mere mortal could conceivably screw with God's Plan is shear blasphemy and must be unthinkable by any true believer. 

So if God truly wanted a rape victim to give birth, he not only could have used the virgin birth option (thus sparing her the rape), but he could have foiled the abortion doctor.  Or...he could have changed the mind of the victim, making her choose life; something he did repeatedly in the bible.   And if he didn't do any of these things and allowed the woman to abort the fetus, then this surely was part of his plan.

And so, while Angle scores point for at least considering the idea that there's a Big Picture; she definitely loses major points for not considering how much bigger that picture is than her own.  Because once we start considering the idea of God having a plan, we're stuck acknowledging that nothing can possibly be outside of that plan.  It simply can't happen.  If you think that everything happens for a reason, that means every thing; not just the things you want to happen.

If God has a plan to have rape victims give birth, he must have planned for when they abort.  Perhaps that's God's way of getting babies in Heaven, I don't know.  But of course, I don't know any of this stuff, which is why I'm agnostic.  When thinking about questions only gives you more questions, it's time to give up and start finding questions you can answer.  I suspect Sharron Angle doesn't often see those sort of questions.

Hezbollah in Mexico

I keep hearing from anti-Obama lefties about how Democrats are really no better than Republicans, and we'd be better off supporting third parties in order to teach Dems a lesson.  And then I see stories about how a Republican Congresswoman from NC thinks Hezbollah's partnering with Mexican drug cartels to sell them digging lessons, and a Congressman in Texas who imagines that terrorists are creating anchor-terror babies to destroy us in twenty years, and a likely Senate winner from KY who thinks we should be protected by an underground electric fence the full length of the Mexican border.

And then I think, what Republican Party are they talking about?  Do they even know what actual Republicans think, or are they so concerned with sell-out Democrats that they're just not paying attention to the other side?  Because these are the people they'll be putting in charge if we don't support the Democrats.  No longer will we be discussing how much Democrats have to compromise with themselves while weakening much needed reforms.  We'll be talking about anchor babies, and flag-burning amendments, and government implanted microchips, and Hezbollah in Mexico.  And that's when they're not cutting taxes, government services, and the sparse regulations we have protecting us now.

And I'm sorry, but those are our two choices: Do we want a sell-out party that doesn't give us everything we want, or do we want a bat-shit crazy party that will spend millions upon millions to investigate Obama's every move, while banning SCOTUS from hearing any issue related to religion?  Anyone who doesn't realize this just isn't paying attention.

Getting High on Your Own Supply-Side

Carpetbagger's got a post titled Republicans Just Don't Like the Unemployed, Cont'd..., which is pretty self-explanatory, as well as an earlier post in which he wrote:

It's unpleasant to think about, and I really hope it's not true, but it may be time for a discussion about whether GOP lawmakers are trying to deliberately sabotage the economy to help their midterm election strategy.

And this was later followed by a post about how Senator Stabenow (winner of this year's award for Worst Name in Senate), who outright said:

It is very clear that the Republicans in the Senate want this economy to fail. They see that things are beginning to turn around.... In cynical political terms, it doesn't serve them in terms of their election interests if things are beginning to turn around.

And yeah, I suppose there's probably some of that in play here.  But I really don't think that's the main issue. 

They Really Are That Dumb

After all, can any of us seriously think that we'd be seeing awesome bills helping the unemployed and creating more jobs if we had a Republican president and Congress?  Of course not.  Their only solution would be to cut taxes and remove "burdensome" regulations, and hope for the best. 

And if that didn't work, they'd rinse and repeat.  We know that because that's exactly what they did during the Bush years, and his employment record was absolutely dismal.  Whether they want things to boom or bust, their solution is the same: Get government out of the way and reward the people who gave them money.

And the real reason requires us to think outside our own concepts of strategy, and take things a whole lot simpler: They're just stupid.  They really don't know what they're talking about.  They're getting high on their own supply and really do imagine that taxcuts are some magical formula for growth, and believe that government is the real problem.  And since the only solution a politician can devise must naturally involve the government, their only answer is to remove the government from the picture.  They have no other recourse.

And it's really just a sick joke.  Like someone who so firmly believed in Santa Claus that they refused to buy their children presents each Christmas, and then blamed their kids when they didn't get anything.  "I guess you guys were naughty again this year.  Better luck next time." 

No, Really.  They're That Dumb

Because the whole thing was a hoax.  The guys who crafted this garbage didn't really believe it.  They just wanted an excuse allowing them to keep more money and screw over more people.  And the politicians were game, as it gave them something better to say than "I support this because it helps the people who gave me money."

But somewhere along the line, the message got screwed-up.  The people saying this crap were so convincing that the current generation of dopes really believed it.  I mean, for as much as Republicans pretend to be the party of High Finance, look at their resumes.  Even the ones who were actual businessmen weren't real number crunchers, and the only people they'll hire are the ones who tell them what they want to hear.  Any Republican who can make money in the real world would be a fool to enter politics. 

And the point is, even if Republicans loved the unemployed and wanted the economy to boom, their ideological beliefs would force them to take the same actions they're taking now.  They have no other option as they really do believe the bullshit they're spouting.  And if God himself came down and explained to them their errors and they decided to support Obama, their base would erupt in furious anger and they'd be replaced quicker than you can say "Jehovah."  That's just the way it is.

Somewhere, up in Heaven, there's a group of crafty Republican politicos, shaking their heads, hands on face; wondering how it was that they failed to leave someone halfway intelligent in charge.  Or, more likely, they're down in Hell, laughing their asses off.

The Politics of Pierogis

I read yesterday about a running Pierogi working for the Pittsburgh Pirates who got fired for writing on Facebook

Coonelly extended the contracts of Russell and Huntington through the 2011 season. That means a 19-straight losing streak. Way to go Pirates.

With the three named people being the president, GM, and manager of the Pirates, respectively. 

Now, maybe this Pierogi's Facebook page makes direct references to his employment as a fifth-inning sideshow, and his hundred or so friends soak up every word he writes.  I don't know.  But the whole thing was pretty tame and I seriously doubt anyone knew about it beyond his direct friends.  So why bother about it?  This is hardly McChrystal dissing his civilian leaders.

And of course, they've now rehired him.  According to the official response, it was because they fired him in the wrong way.  And that's entirely possible.  At a guess, I'd say it was because they didn't give him a warning first, making him eligible for unemployment benefits, or some other form of severance.

How to Handle the Media

But another reason may have been the bad press they got for firing him.  Not that I think people were up in arms about a Pierogi biting the dust.  But merely because it's funny.  I mean, they fired a Pierogi for speaking its mind.  The media loves that sort of thing. 

And that's where the real blunder lies.  Because, at best, maybe a hundred people read his initial diss; and it was probably far less than that.  But after they fired him, it became a national story.  I mean, I didn't even know the Pirates sucked until I heard that they fired a Pierogi for saying they did.  And so any damage he may have done was made infinitely worse by firing him.  If letting people know that the Pirates suck is a fireable offense, whoever fired him deserves to be fired a hundred times over.

And no, I'm not turning this into a sports blog.  This has all kinds of lessons on politics and how to manage the media.  Obama knew this, which is why it must have been such a hard decision on what to do with McChrystal.  But McChrystal was a huge story that would have gotten bigger if it hadn't been dealt with.  The Pierogi was the exact opposite: Direct action in combating their critics only made things worse.

And that's how it is in life.  There are no obvious answers when dealing with the media and political situations.  Sometimes, you've got to stick with your guns when you're under fire, and other times, you need to apologize for apologizing and not unapologize for it.  It all depends on the situation and the people who tell you otherwise are hardcore ideologues who simply can't accept the fact that not everyone agrees with them.  But as we saw in Pittsburgh, sometimes you have to ignore the Pierogi, even if it hurts.


DISCLAIMER: I have no idea what a pierogi is.

Politics: The Art of Getting Enough

Lawrence Lessig at Huffington has a post about the "pathetic and puny" DISCLOSE Act which pretty much sums up the leftie opposition to Obama: Big problems require big solutions. And since a small solution might be treated as a substitute for the only solution, it’s worse than no solution.

And first off, that doesn’t even remotely make sense, unless we assume that we’re guaranteed a solution. But we’re not. And more likely, if we don’t get a small solution, we’ll get nothing. And a little of something is still better than a lot of nothing.

And the crux of this line of thinking is that the system is broken and requires real answers. But by historical standards, our system is fantastic. Look back at what the original progressives were fighting for, and you’ll realize we already have most of that stuff. Yes, we’re far from perfect. But things are a helleva lot better than they’ve EVER been in this country.  If anyone could point to some dream period where things were better, I'd like to see it.  But it never happened.  Sorry, folks, but this is as good as it's gotten.

Not that that’s any reason to sit on our laurels, but seriously, let’s not blow things out of proportion. In relative terms, it wasn’t that long ago that a large portion of the people in America couldn’t even vote, and politicians would outright purchase votes with jobs and booze. Many of the things we take for granted weren’t even thinkable a hundred years ago. Hell, we’ve made huge progress since FIVE years ago. Anyone who thinks we’ve got problems now is seriously delusional.

Putting the Promise in Compromise

And finally, I’d like to address the Progressive Obama Syndrome. You know, the one where progressives are upset that Candidate Obama isn’t the same guy as President Obama; and they’re all fighting over whether it’s cooler to have supported Obama and been betrayed, or to have always known he’d be rotten and be proven right.

And we heard the same things about Bush, and Clinton, and Reagan, and really, just about ANY politician who was held out to be better than the typical politician. And then they get in office and POOF!, they sell-out and show us how corrupt they really were, and how we need a REAL hero to be elected, and THEN we can finally get the change we believed in.

And yeah, maybe that theory’s true. Maybe we DO keep getting suckered by the fake messiahs and the real messiah will someday rise up and save us all from the corruption around us. Or maybe…just maybe…the problem isn’t that these guys are flawed. Maybe the problem is the idea that we can EVER expect ideological purity from people who have to deal with reality.

And really, there’s no “maybe” about it. That’s the case. It’s easy to make promises before you realize what you’re up against and it'd be dumb to try to create a political platform based solely on what you knew you could deliver.  Obama's a smart man, but he's not a fricking psychic. 

And if you actually expect to get anything done, you have to turn those promises into compromises. Not because the people involved are so corrupt, but because this isn’t a dictatorship.  You can’t always get what you want, because our system is designed so that we share power. And there’s nothing inherently corrupt about powerful people wanting to hold on to their power.

A Nation of Dictators

And that’s not a bug; that’s a feature. That’s the way it was designed. The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, realized it works best if you divvy up power, even if that makes things harder to get done.  We all want a say in how things are done, and that's what democracy is all about. 

It's not about finding the "right" answer, but maintaining the "right" system.  The question isn't whether the system works towards helping the most people, but whether it prevents us from tearing ourselves apart.  And based upon that standard, we're still doing alright.  There are a whole lot worse things than corrupt politicians and oil spills.

Because yeah, it’d be great if Candidate Obama could come into office and do everything he said he would. But then Bush could have done all the things HE wanted to do, which could have included making sure someone like a Candidate Obama couldn’t be a President Obama.  And hell, Candidate Reagan promised to destroy Social Security and Medicare.  Aren't we all a bit glad that political reality stopped him?

And then of course, there’s the issue that NONE of us want the same thing. Yes, people are easily separated into like-minded groups, so we can label some people “progressives” and “liberals” and “conservatives,” etc. But none of these people actually want the same things. Life just doesn’t work like that.  Even a group of co-workers all working for the same goal can have trouble enough just during a pointless staff meeting. How anyone expects a nation of dictators to get the change they believe in is beyond me.

So, yes, it'd be great if the corporate structure didn't consolidate so much power into such single-minded entities, and I'd sure like it if oil wasn't spilling into the Gulf.  But in the grand scheme of things, those are pretty small problems compared with how things could be.  Again, that's no excuse to allow ourselves to give up any hope of getting what we need, but it does put things into a little perspective. 

And the better perspective is, yeah, President Obama isn't nearly as perfect as Candidate Obama seemed, but it's sure a helleva lot better than the alternative.  And if it bugs you that Obama's got you by the shorthairs that way, tough.  Unless you want to see Congressman Barton apologizing to Big Oil as the top member of the House Energy Committee, you don't have a choice.  Because that's what we're really looking at, and the "big" changes progressives are holding out for might be entirely in the wrong direction.

Totalitarians Know No Bounds

There are Muslims who want to take over the world and install their own religion as the one true religion upon all of us.  That's simply undeniable.  And were I inclined to do so, I'm sure I could find quotes of Muslims here in America who say the same thing.  They want this to be a Muslim nation based upon Muslim laws.  Somehow, this thought is supposed to scare me so badly that I'll find it acceptable for people to insult Islam and demand that Muslims be racially profiled and kicked out of the country.

And this is garbage.  Because yeah, sure, there are Muslims who want this.  But, without a doubt, there are Christians who want this too; I mean, for themselves.  They believe they have the one true religion and they're convinced that America is a Christian nation based upon Christian laws, and anyone who suggests otherwise is treacherous evil-doer intent upon destroying our great nation (Barack Obama, I'm looking at you).

And so, yeah, there are Muslims and Christians who want to make our nation in their image.  Just as there are atheists who want the same thing.  They think all religion sucks and if they could banish it, I'm sure they would.  And hey, why keep this to religion?  There are socialists and Tea Partiers who want the country for themselves, too.  And in fact, you kind find people of every race, creed, and ideology who want the world to be run the way they want it run.  So what?

What we're really seeing is that there's a certain type of person who can't stand the idea that they're stuck sharing a society with people who don't agree with them, and rather than learn to tolerate differences of opinion, they demonize their opponents and insist that their way is the only way.  And fortunately, those people are in a small minority, and the rest of us are ok living in a democracy in which we all agree to a system of lawmaking which is independent of religion or ideology. 

And so it's simply absurd to take the rants of an extremist sect within any group and try to pretend it somehow applies to the group as a whole.  And no, it's not enough to say that you aren't blaming the whole group, if you spend the bulk of your time denouncing the acts of one of these groups while ignoring the others. 

Because again, it's not a Muslim, or Christian, or atheist thing.  It's a totalitarian thing.  And if you're going to denounce the acts of totalitarians, you've got to denounce the acts of all totalitarians; and not try to pretend as if one particular group has a monopoly on totalitarianism.  They don't.

I had more to say on this, but might say it in a separate post.

The Grilling of BP

Despite criticism of congressmen as if their jobs involve simple binary decisions with obvious answers, it's really got to be a pretty tough job.  Not wrangling bulls tough, but pretty tough.  Because it's not just a job, it's a lifestyle.  Being a congressman is who you are, and you're always expected to be on, all the time. 

But the one part of the job that's simply dumb: Congressional hearings.  I hate the things.  They're such stupid wastes of time that I really wish they'd pass a law outlawing them.  And sure, there are probably good ones that actually achieve something.  But for the most part, they're just opportunities for politicians to grandstand and give good speech, while pretending to ask questions that they really don't expect to get answered.  And even if they got a real answer, they'd be the last ones to know.

I mean, imagine a trial in which the prosecutor only had a vague idea of who the defendant was and how they were related to the crime.  And when he asked questions of the defendant, they were real questions that he didn't know the answer to.  And when the defendant answered the question, the prosecutor didn't have the slightest clue whether it was true or not, and was really only asking because he wanted the jury to like him better and thought they might be impressed by the question.

That's what a congressional hearing is, yet they televise the damn things.  How dumb.  I can learn more reading news on my computer than a congressman will get by holding one of these hearings.

Hayward Highlight Reel

And I'm thinking about this while reading about today's "grilling" of BP chief Tony Hayward.  Here's a recap of all Hayward's comments, grouped together, in the order presented in the article about him.

I am so devastated with this accident, deeply sorry, so distraught.  With respect, sir, we drill hundreds of wells a year around the world. I wasn't involved in any of that decision-making.  I wasn't part of the decision-making process.  I'm not a cement engineer, I'm afraid.  I am not a drilling engineer.  I'm not an oceanographic scientist.  I had no prior knowledge.  I'm not stonewalling. I simply was not involved in the decision-making process.  That is why I am so devastated with this accident.

And honestly, Hayward could simply have condensed everything down to this exact statement and we'd know as much about why this happened as we did before.

He's a CEO, Dummy

No, I take it back.  I learned that some people in Congress are f-ing retarded.  I mean, seriously.  Hayward's right.  He's not a cement engineer.  He's not a drilling engineer.  He's not a oceanographic scientist.  He's a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company.  And if these dudes think a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company makes decisions about the best way to cut costs on an oil well, then they need to get the hell out of Congress and work a real job until they learn what sort of decisions a CEO makes.

This guy wasn't stonewalling.  They were asking the wrong f-ing questions.  And if they had done their homework, that wouldn't have happened.  Yeah, I'm sure there's a lot of blame to go around, and I'm sure a lot of that can go on Hayward, but asking him specific questions about how this well was drilled makes about as much sense as complaining to the head of McDonald's because your french fries were burnt.  That's simply not what the man does. 

Hell, if BP is like most companies, Hayward would be the LAST person to know that this well was having problems and that they were cutting dangerous corners to save a buck.  A CEO wants to know the size of the sausage; not what they put into it.  Just because you're the head of the company doesn't mean you make all the decisions for it.  That's why they hire other people.  But of course, these congressmen didn't care about any of this stuff.  They weren't expecting answers.  They were grandstanding.  They wanted to show America that they cared enough about this crisis to get mad at someone about it. 

And hopefully, at some point, a real prosecutor will hold real hearings about what happened, and hopefully, they'll already know the answers before they ask the questions.  Until then, we're stuck with politicians trying to look important, doing the least important part of their job.

Knee-Jerk Conservatives Defend the Indefensible...Again

Simply astounding.  Just as it was entirely bizarre for Cheney's shotgun victim to apologize to Cheney for the hassle he caused by putting his face in the way of Cheney's blast, I find it unthinkable that a politician might not only side with BP after they ruined the Gulf of Mexico, but would actually apologize because they were asked to set aside money for the damage they did.

And make no mistake, this isn't just because Congressman Barton (R-Big Oil) is some corporate lackey, though he most assuredly is.  This is about Obama.  Had this happened while Bush was president and Bush demanded that BP set aside $20 billion in escrow (yes, as unthinkable as that is), it's entirely unlikely that Barton or anyone else would have blasted him for it.

Because the thing is, there isn't really anything particular egregious about this escrow account.  Not only was BP given a timeline that is more than fair to fund the account, I think it's odd that they didn't just decide to do this on their own.  And if the stock market is any indication, it actually looks like investors like the idea; as it removes much of the mystery about how all this would be handled.  Because if there's one thing investors hate, it's uncertainty.  They can take bad news, just as long as they have an idea of how bad it'll be.

The Political Cut is the Deepest

And really, BP knew that it was in for a world of hurt, so I can't imagine why they'd be particularly upset about the deal.  While many progressives insisted that BP was secretly working to bankrupt their company to avoid liability claims, BP knows how the world really works and realizes that they're not getting out of this easy.  For as much as they're still trying to play PR games to underplay the seriousness of this, their best shot is to act above-board and like they're not trying to screw us over.  And this escrow account helps with that.

But for Republicans, this deal hurts them dearly.  Not because they're such dire supporters of Big Business (though they are), but because it showed Obama flexing muscle and looking effective.  And that hurts them most of all. 

And so they end up screwing themselves over in ways that Democrats could never do; not because it helps them politically, but because it's their only way of hurting Obama.  And that's the biggest reason why they haven't been able to gain traction with voters despite their dislike of Democrats, because they're so willing to hurt Obama even if it hurts themselves more.  It's like they're cutting off their faces to spite their nose.

A Political Issue for the President

Oddly enough, after I wrote this, I happened to see Senater Cornyn's remarks on Barton's apology, in which he said:

But the part that Representative Barton is expressing some concern about, that I share the concern, is this has really become a political issue for the President and he's trying to deal with it by showing how tough he's being against BP. The problem is BP's the only one who really is in control of shutting down this well, and he's trying to mitigate, I think, his own political problems.

And that's exactly what I'm saying.  It's not that they're against BP having an escrow account, or even that they were forced into having one; it's that Obama forced them to have one, which helps him politically.  And anything that helps Obama hurts them.  So they're going to attack the escrow account as a "slush fund," not because it makes any sense at all, but because it's an attack on Obama.

And that's what it's all about.  They decided early last year that their political fortunes rested upon them being the anti-Obama, and that requires them to strongly denounce everything he does, no matter how sensible it is.  And that was an absolutely moronic strategy, as it gives Obama almost complete control over their agenda, and all he has to do is propose sensible policies and they're stuck taking the insensible ones.  Obama could proclaim today Kitten Day, and Republicans would attack him for supporting bird murder, while insisting that this was a kickback to the Big Cat Lobby.

And even worse for them, if he takes the politically strong position, they're stuck taking the politically weak one.  And so they're stuck apologizing to a foreign company that they admit did something wrong, and their best defense for doing so is that they need to score political points against Obama.  Somehow, I doubt voters will find this particularly compelling.

Why Enemies Are Always Omnipotent

For most people, good news is good news. They're happy to hear that things are working out, and that the sky's not falling.  But...for people who DO think the sky's falling, good news is the worst news of all.

They truly believe that things are so fucked that nothing can possibly work without their specific remedy for intervention; which is so radical that normal folks wouldn't possibly agree to it under normal conditions.  After all, if it wasn't that radical, they wouldn't require a falling sky to convince people to do it  And that's why they're so deadset on reminding us of how abnormal everything is, and why we should never trust our lying eyes.

And so for these people, crises are good news, while any news that suggests a crisis is being effectively dealt with by the "inherently corrupt" system they oppose must be knocked down immediately. And if there are no facts to support their negative view of the story, they won't think twice about inventing conspiracies which not only negate the story, but actually suggest that things are now WORSE due to this development and the system is even more corrupt than they first assumed.

And so it is with the recent announcement that Obama got BP to agree to set aside $20 billion to cover liability claims from its oil spill in the Gulf.  Now, a normal person might think of this as a bit of good news, as it lays to rest some of the worry about how quickly BP might be helping the people they hurt.  And you'd think progressives would be happy about this, as many of them have been speculating endlessly about how likely it is that BP is busily hiding assets in order to avoid any liability claims. 

But if you think that, then you don't read this blog, as I've pointed out before, progressives don't like good news.

When Speculation Beats Facts

Here's a few responses to this story:

"How much do we get NOW? We don't have "several years" to repair this MASSIVE fuck up.  Also, people are nuts if they think $20 billion is enough to fix this mess. I'm getting the feeling there is a quid pro quo that's not being covered here. It's not a good feeling, either.  $20 billion is a small downpayment IMO. Obama better not sell the farm for that pittance."

$20 billion is a lot of money, but I bet the damage will end up being around four or five times that.  Is this gesture intended to absolve BP of criminal or other liability?  Did they sign something to that effect?

Obviously, the devil will be in the details and whether, in fact, BP complies. What lucky bank gets this escrow account? What if it disappears in the next financial meltdown since nothing has been done since the last? Who is going to monitor compliance? Too many potential loopholes for my liking.

I agree that $20B may end up being small potatoes for this mess. BP may be very, very happy with that number.

Yes, he got these concessions without Congress acting to lift the liability cap, but doesn't that strongly suggest that BP thought it was a better bargain?

Now remember, the initial news story on this states that this fund is for liability claims only and isn't a cap on much BP will pay for claims, and that BP will still be responsible for the total clean-up.  Yet these folks had to invent speculation which contradicted those facts, in order to figure out some way for this to be a bad idea. 

The System Can Work

Overall, their basic story is all about how Obama got rolled, with claims of "too many loopholes" from people who didn't know even the basic facts.  The idea that Obama actually stuck it to BP is simply inconceivable for these people.  Not that they have any evidence to suggest that Obama is a moron, it's simply that they "know" that the system can't work and that corporations always win.  And that meme is stronger than any facts known to man.  Either Obama got played as a sucker or he's playing us like suckers; that's all there is to it.

But what if they're wrong?  What if the system CAN work?  What if an oddly named half-black man from a broken home really CAN work hard and become president?  To me, that shows what I love about America and why I'm a liberal: Because I want more of this sort of thing and believe we can do so from within the system we already have.

But these people don't see it that way, because that destroys the entire rationale for their radicalism.  If we already have a system that allows a regular guy to run the country, then why the hell are they working so hard to destroy the system?  And even worse, if all the problems we have aren't due to a corrupt system, but are inherent problems caused by basic human nature, than a radical change won't really fix anything and might even leave us with something even worse!

And if you start having those sort of doubts, the whole shitpile comes crashing down and they lose their entire sense of purpose. 

Creating our Enemies

But of course, I suspect that's what's really behind all this.  Modern life is pointless, as all the real problems have been solved.  And even worse, it appears to be a random shitfest, where anything can happen and there are no guarantees.  And just as primative men invented ghosts and demons to explain why bad things happen, modern men invent their own bogeymen. 

For conservatives, the bogeymen are minorities and government bureaucrats.  For liberals, it's evil corporations and government thugs.  But it all amounts to the same thing: An all-powerful foe to explain why everything isn't working the way they think it should.  And if there's one thing about all-powerful people, it's that they're all-powerful.  And for progressives, that means that corporations will always win, even if they seem to be losing.  It's not a matter of "if" corporations win, but figuring out how they did it.

But what if that's not the case?  What if anyone CAN be president or senator or mayor?  What if we really ARE the masters of our own destinies and the only one holding us back is ourselves?  Then we lose all the crutches we've been using to explain away our own deficiencies and have no one to blame but ourselves.  And that's the scariest thing of all.  It's much better to blame everything on a faceless enemy than to learn that the face of the enemy is our own.

Some Laws Are Better Than Others

Via Carpetbagger, I read this line from Tapped's Paul Waldman:

You can't call yourself a "deficit hawk" if the only programs you want to cut are the ones you don't like anyway.

Yet, this is what Republicans do all the time.  They have a laser-like focus on balanced budgets and reducing deficits, just as long as it involves us doing all the things they like, while getting rid of the things they don't like.  And anything they don't like is strictly off the table and can't possibly be discussed. 

In fact, if you even want to discuss the possibility of having a discussion on raising taxes or cutting any spending they like, they'll attack you and insist you're not acting in good faith.  Because the truth is that they don't care about spending at all.  They just use it as an excuse to get what they want.

Anchor Baby, Away

But we see this sort of atttitude in everything they do, where they act as if some rationale is unbreakable...except for when they want to break it.  For example, they act as if a law is inherently perfect because it's in the Constitution...unless they don't like the law, in which case they think it's disgraceful that we haven't already fixed the Constitution. 

Like with so-called "anchor babies."  The Constitution clearly states that anyone born here is a citizen, yet these people don't like that particular amendment, so that means it doesn't really count.  The 2nd Amendment is inherently valid because it's in the Constitution, and no further rationale is required to explain why all gun control is bad, but the 14th Amendment simply doesn't count, because it prevents them from passing a law they like.

Even weirder, the people trying to break the 14th Amendment are doing so on the grounds that it breaks a law that isn't even in the Constitution.  Conservatives absolutely insist that illegal immigrants must be booted from the country because they've done something illegal, and no further argument can be made.  Yet...if they're willing to change the Constitution in order to ensure that illegal people don't have legal children in our country, why can't we just change the law to make it NOT illegal for them to be here?

But of course, to them, that's Alice in Wonderland time.  The idea that we'd even consider changing immigration laws to make it so these people aren't illegal isn't even thinkable.  Somehow, this law is untouchable and requires no explanation.  The 14th Amendment says anyone born here is a citizen, and that's wrong because it violates a perfect law that can never change. 

The Second Most Important Law

And what exactly makes that law so perfect?  They never say.  They rant about how these people are here illegally, pretending to not remember that conservatives are the reason it's illegal.  They rant about how illegals don't pay income tax, again failing to realize that it's their own policies that make that the case. 

In fact, all of the problems conservatives rant about regarding illegal immigrants is caused by the law they support.  The problem isn't with the people.  The problem is that we made them illegal.  But rather than remove that stupid law, we're forced to create a whole host of other laws.  Not because we're bigots who want to keep Mexicans out of our country, but because we're trying to support a law that serves no other purpose than to keep Mexicans and other brown-skinned people out of our country. 

That's the second most important law of the land, and if we have to change the Constitution for the sole purpose of making that law more effective, so be it.  Even their precious Constitution is nothing compared with immigration laws.

The Man That Could Have Been King

Wow, we really dodged a bullet with this one.  When non-entity Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi dissed on Obama for taxing tanning salons and suggested that McCain wouldn't have done that, McCain apparently twittered:

u r right, I would never tax your tanning bed! Pres Obama's tax/spend policy is quite The Situation. but I do rec wearing sunscreen!

Uhm...this guy could have been president? 

I'm not sure which part of this is more pathetic: The faux-internet misspellings, the embarrassing and nonsensical reference to "The Situation," the fact that he replied to "Snooki's" comment at all, or that he did so on Twitter.  I feel embarrassed just having read about this.  For as much of a clown as Bush was, even he had a certain sense of self-respect and wouldn't have degraded himself with this sort of basement-level pandering. 

For the record, I find it entirely likely that McCain doesn't write his own Twitters.  But for even allowing this sort of thing to go out with his name on it is bad enough.

NRSC Attack Fail

For as all-powerful as progressives paint Republican political attacks as being, what's been striking me for the last several years is how entirely inept they are at doing anything right.  Forget about convincing a majority of Americans to support them, they're not even very good at attacking liberals anymore.

So I happened to stumble upon the NRSC's website and saw their main story for the day Reid Unveils Tone-Deaf Campaign Slogan; GOP Unites Around Angle (Warning: Their site apparently has some bug that makes it automatically play the audio for an ABC video also displayed on the page; or at least it did for me repeatedly). 

And what, exactly, is this "tone deaf" slogan of Reid's?  "No one can do more."  And frankly, I fail to see what's so deaf about that.   While it doesn't strike me as being particularly persuasive, for it to be "tone deaf," it'd have to be something that will actually backfire on Reid, by highlighting some aspect of this that hurts Reid because he's so out of touch with how bad it sounds.  Kind of like Senator Boner's Boehner's insistence that taxpayers should help pay to clean up BP's mess.  I'm sure voters are going to love that.

As the NRSC sees it, this is "tone deaf" because they can use it to insult Reid, saying "no one has done more to grow the size of the federal government and increase the tax burden on Nevada families."  And this is a classic variation of the schoolyard taunt used when someone boasts that they're the best, and you reply "Yes, the best at being the worst." 
\
Touché, Senate Republicans.  You really burned Reid with that one.

Quoting Themselves

And it was downhill from there.  Because after that, they were reduced to citing heavily edited quotes of news orgs attacking Reid.  Oh wait, did I say the news orgs attacked Reid?  Sorry, I meant that the NRSC used edited quotes of news orgs quoting Republicans attacking Reid, while making it at first appear as if the quotes were coming from the news orgs. 

In fact, the two Republicans that were quoted were NRSC Spokesman Brain Walsh and NRSC Chair John Cornyn.  Yes, the NRSC is now quoting news stories about the NRSC's own positions.  Doctor Biobrain, a prominent liberal blogger, was quoted as saying "Epic... fail."

Here's what I'm talking about:

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports: "Senator Reid and his campaign have… made clear that the only way they can win is by…playing dirty…" NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh said. "… we are committed to helping [Angle] win in November so that Nevadans finally have the fresh leadership they deserve."


ABC’s Rick Klein reports that Republicans are united around Sharron Angle: “Nevada voters are going to have a referendum on Harry Reid" said Cornyn, "…[w]e are solidly behind Sharron Angle and I'm confident that… she's actually leading Harry Reid… I think [Reid’s] in very deep trouble."

And mind you, those edits weren't from the news stories; all those "..." you see were done by the NRSC, editing their own statements; often in ways that changed nothing and made it more difficult to read.  It's as if they think their own spokemen are too long-winded to quote directly.  Or perhaps editing quotes has just become a habit for them.

The Ultimate Snow Job

They also cite a Hotline article which calls this "the ultimate referendum" and then adds that 25% of Nevada Dems voted for someone other than Reid; in a way that implies that Hotline was making that point, even though they didn't.  But of course, that's a stupid point, as Angle, the Republican nominee, failed to get 60% of Republican votes; and wasn't even supported by the NRSC until after she won.  Doh!

The entire effort wrecks of desperation and cluelessness.  It's like someone has the basic idea of how to write an attack post, but no clue as to how to fill in the details.  And remember, this was the lead story on their site, meant to attack their biggest foe.  And the best they can do is a schoolyard switcheroo of Reid's slogan, and two edited quotes from their own organization.  Pathetic.

As always, the question isn't why Republicans aren't doing better, but why any Democrat would ever fear these bozos.  They haven't mounted an effective campaign since 2004, and haven't been scary since 2002.  Yet all the same, I keep hearing about how awesome they are at "fooling the sheeple" and how we can never win until we start copying their aggressive tactics.  Why anyone would want to copy these lousy efforts is beyond me.