There you have it.....

Raison d'etre.....Part duex!

Well I have been doing this blogging thing for a a bit over a year now. Who would have thought that?

Now I could do a sort of reflective post or some such nonsense, but instead, I will point to a post by one of favorite my bloggers, Glenn Greenwald.

Who, I think, has written one of the most compelling posts on, "why he writes about, what he writes about", I have read in some time.

Anyways, I am sure somethings will piss me off some more over the next year so as always.

-Cheers

Lets talk about Race...

Okay I have had many conversations over the last few days about the Gates-Crowley affair.

We can go back and forth over whether it involved racial profiling. I have come to the sad conclusion that a persons views on this issue is mainly determined via the prism of their ethnicity (at least in the case of the media, or even in my own) .

I personally can not detach my own feelings and experiences from this situation.

But that all being said, this story is probably the greatest example of why racism/bigotry/biases are so hard to talk about.

People literally do not realize when they are doing it. This letter is disturbing on so many levels. Here are some follow up commentary by, Andrew Sullivan and Jeffery Goldberg.

And the CNN story that is sort of its coda.

A Boston police officer who sent a mass e-mail — in which he referred to Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. as a “banana-eating jungle monkey” — has apologized, saying he’s not a racist.

Officer Justin Barrett told a local television station on Wednesday night that he was sorry for the e-mail.

“I regret that I used such words,” Barrett told CNN affiliate WCVB. “I have so many friends of every type of culture and race you can name. I am not a racist.”

Now you can form your own opinions on this. No matter what person says or does, they in the sanctity of their own mind never thinks their actions are tinged by bias.

An article that deals with some of the statistics on the racial profiling subject in Illinois. Once again the Atlantic.

-Cheers

Talking about Bipartisanship

Steven Benen crystallizes the problem with all the talk of "bipartisanship" with two fabulous posts today.

His first post dealt with the actual ideological problems with with all this talk, and puts it in the proper historical context.

David Waldman reminded me the other day that Republican opponents of Social Security and Medicare used some of the same ridiculous arguments then that we're hearing now. That's absolutely true. It's worth noting, though, that in those eras, there were plenty of centrist and center-left Republicans who rejected the nonsense and worked with Democrats on achieving progressive policy goals.

Those days are long gone. We're now watching negotiations with Republicans like Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi, who are not only conservative, but fundamentally reject the goals the majority hopes to achieve through reform.

This is hopelessly twisted, and evidence of a political system that not only doesn't work, but doesn't know how to work. To reiterate a point from a couple of weeks ago, bills with bipartisan support have traditionally been the result of one party reaching out to moderates from the other party to put together a reasonably good-sized majority.

This really is the point of the issue. If individuals absolutely reject what you view the problem as being, they can not have constructive input. Because they do not believe the premise.

His second post, even more, illustrates how tragically broken our system is at times. Or, it could just mean someone needs to be to dick punch Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wy).

But definitely the posts are worth the read.

-Cheers

More on Healthcare....

Arguably one of the best articles I have read on the state of health care in this country and a good discussion about that article.

In the modern health-care system, there is no higher power than the insurance market. And the insurers who populate that market have grown all the stronger. The Justice Department judges an industry "highly concentrated" if a single company controls more than 42 percent of the market. By that definition, 94 percent of statewide insurance markets are highly concentrated. A recent study by the advocacy organization Health Care for America Now showed that in Indiana, WellPoint controls 60 percent of the insurance market; in Iowa, Wellmark accounts for 71 percent; and in Alabama, Blue Cross/Blue Shield holds 83 percent. In the past 13 years, there have been more than 400 corporate mergers involving health insurers.

Economics textbooks tell us that concentrated markets reduce the competitive behavior that benefits consumers and lead to outsize profits for the dominant firms. Predictably, health-care premiums shot up more than 90 percent between 2000 and 2007, while the profits of the 10 largest insurers increased 428 percent over the same period. Clinton had promised us managed care within managed competition. Instead, the insurers took control of our care and managed to effectively end competition. Neat trick.

If you do not read Ezra Klein now, you should. He is the sort of thought provoking pundit that we need more of. If for nothing else this exchange showed what it is we are talking about.

Babson Park, Fla.: Medicare is already cutting care to seniors. Does anyone know this? No payment for vaccinations are permitted. I had a friend with a puncture injury by a rusty nail, but Medicare refused payment for a tetanus shot. Is this preventive care or not? Medicare refused payment for a PSA test on an elderly man I know. Is this prevention or not? We have the best health care in the world. The issue is not care, but government waste and management. How to make the government more responsible is the question; fire all the bureaucrats and impose term limits for Congress. Why make things worse with so-called health-care reform? Health care is the best in the world, but how do we keep insurance companies from raising rates beyond affordability and disallowing payments for needed care?

Ezra Klein: No. We don't have the best health care in the world. Not on any broad measure or metric. We don't have the most cost effective health care in the world. We don't have the best outcomes in the world. We can't even manage to give everyone access to health care.

That said, there are certain diseases, like breast cancer, that we are uniquely good at treating. But then we lag on diseases like diabetes. It's a mixed bag. And it's a mixed bag that we are spending twice as much as most other countries on. So it's important to say this clearly: We have a very, even uniquely, bad health-care system. Not for every individual. But in the aggregate. As a country, we spend far too much and get much too little.

If people are interested in the evidence on this score, T.R. Reid's new book

The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care

is an extremely good, and extremely readable, explanation of how our system compares to those of other countries.

(emphasis added, mine) There is no point in facile nationalistic verve on this issue. Our system is not that good. And other countries systems are not that bad. We should stop fooling ourselves. We are bankrupting our future and not getting particularly good medical care in the bargain.

The whole debate on "Health Care Reform" has been completely one-dimensional in my estimation. We have allowed ourselves to be absolutely consumed with costs and have not really diagrammed what the root causes are, or the sorts of solutions necessary to meet our goals. We are quibbling over the jellybeans when we do not even know the size of the jar. That seems like a bad way to go about fixing a problem.

-Cheers

A good read....

This Op-Ed piece by Frank Rich is as good a critique and homage of the mainstream media, and Walter Cronkite as I have read.

Echoing Glenn Greenwald in some ways.

It truly gets at the pervasive and pernicious nature of our media today.

Also Dr. Krugman brings the knowledge on an important aspect of the healthcare debate.

-Cheers

Crowely and Gates

I have tried to my best not to blog about this issue. Mainly because your views on the issue are so radically affected by your ethnicity.

Biases are hard to explain, and transparent. No on thinks they are a bigot. In the abstract we all agree that racial profiling takes place, but when any particular incident happens the individuals involved are always exceptions. The studies on the issue are incontrovertible in a variety of fields from law enforcement to medicine.

But stepping aside from that, Ta-Nahisi Coates actually distills the issue down to its most salient point.

The rest of us are left with a country where, by all appearances, officers are well within their rights to arrest you for sassing them. Which is where we started. I can't explain why, but this is the sort of thing that makes you reflect on your own precarious citizenship. I mean, the end of all of this scares the hell out of me.

A bit about my perspective on these issues. I have a brother who is a police officer, yet despite that I have been pulled over for "DWB" as well as followed around stores. The looks I got, when visiting Mike in Washington MO, with my girlfriend of the time, have colored my world view.

So it is hard to explain to somebody who does not have that sort of experience, what it is like. The very idea that "sassing" a police officer can land you in jail is offensive. Police officers are vested with some of the most awesome powers any individual citizen can have and take incredible risks on our behalf. Yet they are not infallible. They are possessed of the same moral slants as the rest of society, except for the fact that they deal with some of the worst segments of society. Also police have a disturbing habit of covering for each other no matter what.

So I am sympathetic to both sides. But I can not deny the experiences I have had.

If you ever wonder what bias looks like or how it is expressed, we can generally just take a walk around town to illustrate it. If you have never seen a lady clutch her purse just a little tighter or roll up her window up a bit when you walk by. It may be a little harder for you to understand how this situation may feel. I have never been arrested. I have had one traffic ticket for speeding in my life and that is the sort of reaction I have come to expect.

That is the world we live in, and that is the context in which these things must be taken into consideration.

I highly recommend reading Mr. Coates various pieces on the issue. This is the sort of dialog we should be having. Not the reflexive, "cops are wrong, cops are right" milieu.

In closing there is this pieces by Andrew Sullivan in the Times online, that does as good a job of addressing both aspects of this issue in an even handed fashion as I have seen. But I think this would be the most revealing comment.

Equally, I’d wager that if the policeman had seen an older white man wielding a cane through the glass door of a posh house, he would not have demanded that the man come out onto his porch and identify himself. He would have knocked, explained the reason for his visit and instantly accepted a white man’s explanation. Is this racism? If it has never happened to you, no. If it has, yes.

On the web, the comments sections on various blogs and stories were the most honest. Here is one view: “Butt the hell out Obama. You don’t know the facts of the case, you weren’t there, you’re friends with the douchebag, you’re black. Taking Obama’s word is the same as judging a criminal by a jury of his fellow gangster peers.”

Here is another: “Professor Gates might not have been arrested if he’d been more submissive — let the cop win the masculinity contest. Every brotha has played that game as well: you don’t look the popo in the eye, you do say ‘sir’ a lot and maybe you won’t get locked up. Then you go home and stew in the stuff that gives African-American men low life expectancy.”

-edit added an additional article, and I need maps!

I think the implications here are clear enough.

-Cheers

The President is a Nerd....

I had it confirmed the other night and Dr. Paul Krugman backs me up.

I caught this during the press conference and thought, "That is kinda neat the president is making a Matrix reference!". Evidently the commentariat didn't get it.

-Cheers.

Health care Debate....

Health care is once again, a topic of some interest in the our country.

Everyone seems to agree there is a problem.

Will we get the sort of discussion that we did not have during the stimulus debate?

Nope it does not look like it.

I personally am an advocate for a Single-payer, universal system. If for no other reason, then in this day and age, in this country, there is no excuse for individuals to be slaves to the 'all or nothing' scheme we have today. If you have a job, you (may) have health care. If you do not have a job? You most assuredly will not. If you survey the papers of other 1st world countries, you will notice that there are very few stories about families facing catastrophic financial loses due to illness or accident.

This is not a system that promotes good health practices. And by extension changing/replacing the system is a major undertaking. Why we are quibbling about costs is insane.

Yes it will be expensive.

The problem is huge and complex, with many moving parts. Is this not explainable to the public at large or to representatives in Washington?

Basically the main to arguments I hear against some sort of health care/insurance reform is a) expense, b) socialism. And most people who use "b" do not know what socialism actually is.

-Cheers

NSFW.....German Edition!

Seriously. I can see why they did not want to air this. Not even thinly veiled.....

G

PSA ALERT!

They made me laugh.

-Cheers

Sotomayor goes to Washington.

I am not going to say much about the confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor. Mainly because it would just be a rant about the execrable Jeff Sessions (R-AL). But I have to concur with Jeffery Toobin on CNN:

TOOBIN: What's worth noting about what Jeff Sessions -- the line of questioning -- was that being a white man, that's normal. Everybody else has biases and prejudices --

BORGER: Yeah. Exactly.

TOOBIN: -- but the white man, they don't have any ethnicity. They don't have any gender. They're just like the normal folks -- and I thought that was a little jarring.

This I think is the central issue and provides the proper context. The pervasive idea in our society is just that. If you are a minority or a woman, you are inherently biased. Yet it is always assumed that Caucasian males are the epitome of impartiality.

I think it is absolutely laughable to think that Dred Scott would not have turned out differently if there were any African-Americans on the court. But then if African-Americans, or women, or any other minority had been able to be involved in that decision making, I suspect the issue would not have had to have been raised.

Anyway back to the Kabuki theater.

-Cheers

The Science Crucible....

Anyone who knows me, knows that I have very strong feelings about science in the public square and the the teaching of science in school. Over the weekend there were a couple of different stories which dealt with this issue.

As some of you know, I feel that science and technological subjects get short shrift in our general discourse. Actually more to the point, the public at large is poorly informed about scientific subjects and the pervasive political culture holds scientists in disdain as "ivory tower intellectuals", or the ever popular "elitists".

So here are a few articles that caught my attention the first two are quite old, but still illustrative of something that absolutely annoys me. When someone no background in a subject critiques/dismantles a scientific subject on purely ideological grounds.

Gregg Easterbrook on String Theory.

An impressive rebuttal by Jason Rosenhouse.

Now I am no expert on String Theory. But then I am not writing on its virtues or inequities. I honestly feel some issues are complex enough that merely picking up a book on the subject is not enough. Sometimes, some subject matter relies on a lifetime of experience and expertise to adequately discourse on the subject. An example of this exchange would be this:

Easterbrook:

Maybe string theory eventually will prove out; maybe the apparent vibrating nothing on which we are based is but a slice of some far grander reality. But string theory seems to contain significant helpings of blather designed to intimidate nonscientists from questioning the budgets of physics departments and tax-funded particle accelerator labs. And consider this. Today if a professor at Princeton claims there are 11 unobservable dimensions about which he can speak with great confidence despite an utter lack of supporting evidence, that professor is praised for incredible sophistication. If another person in the same place asserted there exists one unobservable dimension, the plane of the spirit, he would be hooted down as a superstitious crank.

Rosenhouse:

Right. All of that mathematics that string theorists talk about is just meant to scare away the nonscientists. Real particle physics is something you should be able to explain to a child.

Understanding string theory is difficult and requires years of study and mathematical training. Easterbrook has neither the time nor the brainpower to undertake such a task. So rather than just confess ignorance and concede that he's not really in a position to assess the merits of the subject, he uses the very difficulty of the theory, judo-like, against it. Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity, right? This is a useful technique for cranks wanting to play with the big boys. Creationists frequently make use of it for that reason. But it's not the sort of garbage I would expect from a reputable journal of opinion.

But those last few sentences are really just too much. Easterbrook is merely resorting to word games in likening the extra dimensions of string theory to some mysterious “plane of the spirit.”

The extra dimensions of string theory are spatial dimensions just like the three we know about. Physicists are hypothesizing more of the same, not anything fundamentally new. They are led to hypothesize them because they are a consequence of a promising mathematical theory that just happens to provide a solution to the biggest problem in physics: a theory of quantum gravity. They would also point out that there is nothing in current physics to suggest that such dimensions don't exist.....

.....Easterbrook may as well argue that the Pope should go to prison because he has many convictions. That's the level he's at....

Hopefully that conveyed the point I was trying to make. Here you have an example someone who understands the subject matter versus someone who does not.

Not really much to follow up with on that. Just wanted to get that out of my system. But here are a couple more articles on science and scientists.

Salon did a nice article on "Why America is flunking Science" (may have to watch a small ad).

Also Pew Research Center released and interesting poll about scientists. The poll is interesting in that, I completely agree with Kevin Drum and Steve Benen, it gives both sides exactly what they want. Scientists by large have become increasingly liberal in their affiliations over the past few decades. Echoing a complaint of some on the right, as well as, showing the widening gulf between the GOP and scientists based on a perceived hostility towards their profession.

Some interesting stuff. I can only hope this decade breeds a better relationship between the public and its scientists.

-Cheers

"The Stupid, it Burns!"

This is sort of a catchall post.

Many things caught my attention but these would have to be the most egregious (image blatantly stolen from Bad Astronomy):

• Evidetnly Arizona is only 6000 years old
• Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC) is kind of a douche
• Readingis not entirely fundamental
• Seriously. Seriously?!?!?
• Dahlia bringing the noise on Gov. Palin
• This needs to stop. The administration needs to put an end to the notion of any sort of bifurcated legal standard. Indefinite detention is inherently corrosive to democracy. We need to hold their feet to the fire on this.

-Cheers

E tu Palin.....

In a previous thread there was the intimation that perhaps I was being too harsh on Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin.

A comparison was drawn between Sen. McCain and President Eisenhower to, I believe, show the perils of prejudging an individual. In my response I went over some of my rationale as to why I thought this was an inaccurate comparison at best. The choice of Sarah Palin as vice president and the choice of Richard Nixon, are not analogous.

Yes Nixon would be viewed unkindly by history after his presidency, but let us not forget, he had to become president. He was no political neophyte and there are some very noteworthy aspects of his presidency. There are many terms that could be used to describe this man, but "inept" is not one of them. And this is coming from a person who has no love for President Nixon, his implementation of the "southern strategy" is a pox on our body politic, that has yet to be fully cleansed.

Yet comparing him to Sarah Palin is wildly inappropriate. Why? Before he was tapped he had put together an impressive list accomplishments. What acumen has Mrs. Palin shown, other then her charisma?

And then there is this. Steve Benen over at Washington Monthly does some additional analysis. With this little gem in it:

[W]hen I asked Palin if she ever decided to pursue national office again, as she did less than a year ago when she joined Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the race for the White House, wouldn't she encounter the same political blood sport? Can such ugliness ever be avoided?

Palin said there is a difference between the White House and what she has experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations.

"I think on a national level your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.

There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.

I have to concur that it would be easy to think that Gov. Palin may have been referring to the Dept. of Justice. But that does not make the reference any better.

You see, I have it in my head that those who seek national office, should at the very least have a working knowledge of how out government works. Some basic initiation in civics would be nice. They should be able to enumerate what the various parts of the government are. Also they should know that the Executive is not immune to prosecution. They do not get to ignore them. That is for the judicial branch to decide the relative merits of various legal complaints. The would not just "throw them out".

Gov. Palin has not shown any expertise in policy, any aptitude with complex issues, or even the slightest acknowledgment that others might disagree with her. And these are all things we know before she has set foot in office. Nixon did become a crook. But that was much later.

This women is dangerously incurious, and I do blame Sen. John McCain for foisting her upon us.

-Cheers

Possibly one of the best comics ever.....

Questionable Content


I guess if you are going to be useless....be epically useless.....

On the other hand, getting a sugar mama could be pretty sweet!

-Cheer

This was exactly what I was concerned about.....

Back in February, when the Stimulus was being debated, many economists voices were ignored due to political consideration and crass capitulations.

You have Vice President Joe Biden saying this.

"The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there," Biden said. "We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package."

Dr. Krugman brings the knowledge and loads up the way back machine to point out, this was imminently predictable.

This was always the problem with the Stimulus debate, too many people who do not know a thing about economics opining on the subject, and very little actual expertise. So you get compromises that are way less effective to court votes, ignoring what the problem actually was.

I really wish we had more grown-ups running things. Or we had a press capable of holding our venal politicians accountable for their votes or what they say.

-Cheers

Huh....

I am not even sure what to say about this.

If you have not seen the speech, you need to watch it.




Trying to get my head around this. I have to agree with Steve Benen when he says:

"Everything about this was hopelessly bizarre. The speech was written by an amateur and delivered by an amateur. It was rambling, petty, and defensive -- for no apparent reason. Palin didn't deliver an announcement so much as she rambled on for about 20 minutes......
.....The transcript doesn't do it justice, but it makes it easier to notice the near-constant contradictions. She says she's "given my reasons" for quitting, in the same breath as she says she doesn't feel the need to "explain" her decision. She blasts those who take the "quitter's way out," and then quits."

If there were ever proof that Sen. John McCain has lost his way, this would be it. Words can not describe the pure hackery of this woman. I implore you to listen to it. I honestly pray that the Republicans will field some legitimate candidates. Because this lady is dangerous. And sometimes, petty, spiteful, incompetent, know-nothing people do get elected. I do not even want her on the stage.

Shame on you John McCain. You are deserving of so much respect to have squandered it, and foist this woman upon us. You have done you country a grave disservice sir.

-Cheers

Happy Fourth

.....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.....

Happy Birthday United States.

-Cheers

Taking a step back...

I had an extremely vitriolic post prepared today, in general it dealt with several different themes that have sprung up recently. Its main focus was about a particularly pernicious logical fallacy that I see applied every day: Special Pleading.

But instead of posting that thread, I decided to take my own advice and take a step back.

So for all the ladies out there, who probably would have been offended by my post and its gross over-generalizations about your species. I offer this olive branch instead.

You are beautiful

-Cheers