I don’t usually post the music thread here on Dean’s World, and seldom contribute, but i figured tonight would be a good night to do it since my wife just introduced me to a band I’d never heard before: Mumford & Sons. The link goes to the island record video released on you tube nearly a year ago. Id live to embed it, but can’t seem to find a good link, so there it is. Enjoy. Share.
{ 2 comments }
There’s normally not much news that comes out of Afghanistan that surprises me. I am a firm supporter of the effort and the people there, I know perfectly well that it will be a long hard slog and that in any large enterprise of this magnitude upsetting things will sometimes occur, it’s messy but necessary, sometimes our people will misbehave but most of the time not, and well, that’s about it.
It’s been long enough now that this or that bit of propaganda used by the enemy and/or the anti-American/”anti-war” crowd essentially doesn’t phase me. Some piece of (sometimes carefully edited and shaped, sometimes not) video showing American forces behaving badly that goes viral on the internet among people with an axe to grind usually bounces off of me. So when I first heard news of this I all but flicked it aside and moved on until a friend of mine made me really look at it.
Oh. Look again. There’s a bit of video showing US forces acting in an unprofessional way by urinating on some Taliban corpses after a fight, and the Taliban says they do not expect it to affect the peace talks.
Still didn’t penetrate at first. then it sunk in: the Taliban is saying it won’t affect their peace negotiations. What with Iran meddling in the affairs there, various Pakistani elements meddling there, and everything else going on, if the Taliban were fundamentally unserious about wanting to end the fighting you would expect them to instantly make hay with something like this and use it as a pretext to bash the Americans. But instead they are acting like people who know what war is and that worse things happen and their own people aren’t above things like this and are essentially shrugging it off and say “we still want to talk.” And it’s not our people saying that, it’s them saying that.
This doesn’t mean the Afghanistan conflict is over. It doesn’t even mean that if the Taliban cease hostilities, that hostilities in general cease. But it’s quite significant nonetheless.
{ 2 comments }
So, Mitt Romney won New Hampshire handily, Ron Paul took second, and underdog Jon Hunstman came in third.
Although I continue to see Huntsman as a long shot, I expect South Caolina to be the make or break for him. That will be the last real chance he has, probably, to rally the anti-Romney camp around him in Republican circles. Though some of the white Evangelicals won’t like the fact that Huntsman’s Mormon, if he looks conservative enough they may look past that. On the other hand we know Rick Perry will be fighting hard South Carolina, and so will a few other candidates. Still, it would seem to me that it’s no longer disputable that it’s Romney’s race to lose, but Jon Huntsman is definitely someone to watch–and who’s definitely going about to start getting more scrutiny.
{ 9 comments }
It appears that part of the President’s strategy for this election year is to stir up the hornet’s nest with Congress, creating a fight over nominations wherein some can argue he’s wrong but others can argue that he’s right–and regardless, he can set himself up to wage a public fight against the Congress, which is almost always in a President’s advantage, especially with a Congress as contentious as this one.
Meantime, the President has also announced major defense reorganization and spending cuts. Although the conservative Washington Times hosts a column saying good things about it, the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin takes what will likely be the standing conservative line of slamming it as dangerous and awful. Expect the issue of defense spending to suddenly appear in the Presidential campaign in a way it hasn’t in at least a decade if not more.
Meanwhile, good news for everybody (including Obama) is that the unemployment rate is down to “only” 8.5% (the unemployment rate people usually look at anyway). But I wouldn’t expect this to do too much to bolster Obama; while it’s good news considering how lousy things have been, in normal times 8.5% unemployment would be considered pretty lousy. So expect Republicans to capitalize on that and try to convince voters that it’s nowhere near enough; Obama’s best hope will be that it continues to improve from month to month and quarter to quarter. Although actually that should be everybody’s hope. Nevertheless expect Republicans to hammer home the message that it’s not enough.
{ 15 comments }
An old and favorite topic on Dean’s World; a relatively recent article in the New York Times:
At that point, the 34 patients who remained stopped dieting and began working to maintain the new lower weight. Nutritionists counseled them in person and by phone, promoting regular exercise and urging them to eat more vegetables and less fat. But despite the effort, they slowly began to put on weight. After a year, the patients already had regained an average of 11 of the pounds they struggled so hard to lose. They also reported feeling far more hungry and preoccupied with food than before they lost the weight.
While researchers have known for decades that the body undergoes various metabolic and hormonal changes while it’s losing weight, the Australian team detected something new. A full year after significant weight loss, these men and women remained in what could be described as a biologically altered state. Their still-plump bodies were acting as if they were starving and were working overtime to regain the pounds they lost. For instance, a gastric hormone called ghrelin, often dubbed the “hunger hormone,” was about 20 percent higher than at the start of the study. Another hormone associated with suppressing hunger, peptide YY, was also abnormally low. Levels of leptin, a hormone that suppresses hunger and increases metabolism, also remained lower than expected. A cocktail of other hormones associated with hunger and metabolism all remained significantly changed compared to pre-dieting levels. It was almost as if weight loss had put their bodies into a unique metabolic state, a sort of post-dieting syndrome that set them apart from people who hadn’t tried to lose weight in the first place.
Well, that and our weak character.
{ 34 comments }
Republican strategist Karl Rove, whom some think may be the smartest man in politics, appears to think that Romney is the heavy favorite to win the nomination. I can’t fault a single bit of his logic. Although it’s unsurprising that he would find so much favor with a man who, like George W. Bush, is essentially a centrist who is running as one.
The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson, on the other hand, notes that lots of Republicans still don’t like Romney, and there are still ways he could lose this thing because of it. I expect he’s right that the fire on Romney is going to be withering in the next few primary battles. That said, I think Rove is right, and if Romney takes it calmly and with grace, he’ll have little trouble. McCain already proved it could be done.
Meanwhile, Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times notes that the Tea Party is just about over, in part because of all this. The Tea Party’s internal fractures and inability to coalesce around any particular candidate have apparently been its undoing. But that was already predictable. They were always more astroturfed than their most fervent supporters wanted to believe–which is pretty common among astroturfed movements, which are usually full of well-meaning people. But as with many other movement based primarily on incoherent sentiment and opposition to things they don’t like (rather than a very specific set of achievable policy objectives), they were doomed to eventually peter out. Like the Reform Party of the 1990s, I doubt most people will even remember them in ten years, as annoyed as any of my friends who are still part of that movement might be at me for saying so.
{ 3 comments }
Ramesh Ponnuru writes:
One of the worst features of contemporary politics is the tendency — found on the right, on the left and in between — to label our opponents liars, often without a shred of evidence that the person we’re attacking is saying something he knows to be false.
The only quibble I have is that I’m not certain it’s a feature of “contemporary” politics alone. That said, the remark is pretty spot on.
In political discourse, I generally detest the use of the word “lie” and try hard to reserve it only for cases where I can state with fair certainty that, even after a person has repeatedly had it explained to them that they are in error, they knowingly continue to repeat something that is demonstrably untrue with no room for difference of perception or opinion.
I can’t claim to be 100% consistent with this. On occasion when I lose my temper I’ll let fly with the “lie” accusation, and I think I’m most prone to use it on people who themselves use the word incautiously. It’s juvenile, but if they like to use the word “lie” I usually find they don’t like it much when it gets flung back at them. But even then, I usually regret it later, and I try to thank people when they point out if I’m being unfair.
Mostly, when I see the word “lie” or “liar” on a political opinion piece, I simply stop reading. Because odds are, I’m not reading something rational. Saying George Bush tried to destroy Social Security by privatization may have been unfair and a gross distortion, but it was not a lie. Saying Obama is trying to nationalize the health care system may be grossly distorted and misleading, but it doesn’t count as a lie either. Both are arguably poisonous statements, but more poisonous still, I think, would be to whip out the word “liar” in response, because “liar” strongly implies that you’re knowingly repeating something you know perfectly well is absolutely and unequivocally false, like “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” when you know damn well you did.
I am often surprised at how otherwise decent and sensible people will let fly with the word “lie” or “liar” without hesitation. I frankly find it far more offensive than language like “assh***” or “s***head” or or “motherf****r.” If I use it, I’m usually pretty steamed, and if I hear it from someone else I’m likely to get steamed too.
{ 0 comments }
Joe Trippi, formerly of the Walter Mondale and Howard Dean campaigns (Democratic) has some interesting predictions for the Iowa caucuses tonight. While some Republicans will rankle a bit at a few things he says, I mostly think he’s on the money here. I normally tend to discount the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire but with the Republican field this weak anything can happen and a result here could potentially change the race. I’ll be staying up to watch the results unless they go unusually late, and will post here later when the results are known. If anyone finds out before I get to it, feel free to post in the comments.
*Update*: It looks like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum essentially tied, with Ron Paul in third place and Gingrich in fourth. The result is surprising in a few ways but not shocking. Very tired here, more later.
*Update 2*: Although I typically don’t see Iowa or New Hampshire as being as important as people make out, I think these results will have a major winnowing effect on the campaign. It turns Santorum into a serious candidate, pretty much obliterates Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman, but in the end makes a long-term Romney victory look all the more likely. Romney did not work as hard as his rivals in Iowa, intentionally reduced expectations there, and won anyway–with a narrow margin but a win nonetheless. Newt Gingrich stays alive and may be able to use this to propel him to better fundraising and to place himself as the main alternative to Romney in future campaigns if he can knock out Santorum. Rick Santorum is now the wild card in the race. As with most observers, I cannot take Ron Paul seriously in the long run. My view is that at this point it is now essentially a three-way race between Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich, although New Hampshire and South Carolina will tell us if I’m correct about that.
{ 12 comments }
I’ve been hearing a lot lately that it’s really evil to spend other people’s money.
I heartily agree. I therefore propose that we do away with any corporation which is run by people who do not own it.
Stop the spending other people’s money: abolish publicly-traded corporations!
;-)
(Yes that’s a joke, but the Comedy Impaired won’t get it.)
{ 2 comments }
Sensible liberal commentator William Galston writes in The New Republic:
Regardless of partisanship, substantial majorities of Americans saw expanding the economy and increasing equality of opportunity as extremely or very important. Not so for reducing income and wealth gaps—21 percent of Republicans and 43 percent of independents. Only Democrats gave this goal a high priority, by a margin of 72 to 27.When Gallup asked a sample of Americans in 1998 whether the gap between the rich and the poor was a problem that needed to be fixed, 52 percent said yes, while 45 percent regarded it as an acceptable part of the economic system. Today, those numbers are reversed: Only 45 percent see the gap as in need of fixing, while 52 percent don’t. Again, Democrats are the outliers: 62 percent of them want it fixed, versus 24 percent of Republicans and 47 percent of independents.
A third Gallup survey asked Americans to state whether they saw big business, big government, or big labor as the biggest threat to the country in the future. In March of 2009, 55 percent felt most threatened by big government, and 32 percent by big business. As of December 2011, a near-record 64 percent saw big government as the greatest threat, versus on 26 percent for big business. As Obama nears the end of his third year in office, the people are more likely to fear government, and less likely to fear business, than they were at the beginning of his administration.
Sensible conservative commentator Michael Barone writes for Creators Syndicate in response that the issue is that most people care more about economic growth, not so-called “class warfare.”
I am inclined to agree with Barone’s point, but I think both men are missing the subtle nuances of poll questions. There are plenty of people who are mistrustful of government but for different reasons. Many on the left and some centrists have a growing fear of Big Government in areas of civil rights (see, for example, Greg Teetsell’s latest column at The Truth Barrier), as the Obama administration has had a tendency to solidify rather than peel back Bush administration anti-terrorism security policies. There are others who have grown fearful of government only inasmuch as they see the government acting to help and solidify the power of big business but not acting to help everyday people and small businesses. So while the electorate is likely going to respond better in November to those who concentrate on economic growth versus concerns of income inequality, this may miss the bigger picture: someone who views government as a threat right now is not necessarily going run to someone who pledges “smaller government” as a fix. Voters are unlikely to flock to the GOP if the GOP is still seen as caring more about the wealthy than it does about ordinary people.
Furthermore, you can worry about income inequality in the long-term without thinking it should be the top priority of the moment; the poll results cited do not say that people don’t care about income inequality, just that a number of people have begun seeing that as lower in priority than they used to. Speaking for myself (and I know many who agree with me), while I do think that addressing the income-inequality question is important, I would put it lower on my priority list right now than things like growth and stability. That does not, however, mean I think it’s irrelevant, nor does it mean I will be voting Republican in November–in fact, I probably won’t be.
I also think income inequality is less important than income instability, which isn’t a question the pollsters are asking at all. I believe that wealth is power, and the wealthy will always be powerful whether government is big or small. Give government more power, and the wealthy will concentrate on doing what they can to control government. Give government less power, and the wealthy will seek to expand their control of every area where government leaves them alone. Either way, the wealthy get more powerful. This is why my eyes cross in frustration every time I encounter someone who tries to tell me that if I want to make wealthy people less powerful, I should want smaller government; I’m sorry to be rude, but that’s bullsh**. They’ll be even more powerful if you strip away the few government protections we have left.
When it comes to the wealthy, they’re no better or worse as people than the rest of us, but the natural tendency in most humans is to seek more power, and wealth is power. The accumulation of wealth is the accumulation of power, and that is true if you have big government, small government, or practically no government at all. In fact, if anything, I think the most effective way to give more power to the wealthy is “smaller government.”
So, I guess I’m one of the people that both men cite as supposedly losing interest in the income-inequality question. But as the poll clearly shows, those of us who worry about income inequality are found among Republicans as well as Democrats and independents, and most people do worry about it to some extent even if they don’t see it as most important right now. Furthermore, I am mistrustful of the government, but not in the areas conservatives harp on; to me, their message on that increasingly rings hollow.
What I think is most important economically right now isn’t economic inequality of opportunity (although there’s plenty of that), but rather, income instability. That appears to be the #1 issue that most politicians are not addressing at all. I think it cries out for attention, because even people making OK livings these days often don’t feel they can count on that long-term. Worrying about a world of two classes, the haves and the have-nots, seems almost irrelevant; the concern is a world with a class of people who have confidence in their futures versus those who don’t, a world divided between those who have power over their own lives versus those who do not. When you have three squares a day and a roof over your head and a job, but you worry constantly that you may lose everything at any moment, or that you will never get ahead unless you act as a toady or suckup and yes-man to powerful people who control your destiny, you aren’t exactly happy even if you aren’t begging for food.
Conservatives these days tend to contemptuously dismiss such concerns as “envy” and “class warfare,” and to treat “competition” as a wonderful thing that always makes life better–as if living a life in which you must constantly look over your shoulder and run in fear is something most people crave. This is part of why many conservatives look so ideologically blind to a lot of us. That also helps explain why, despite a teetering and creeky economy, the Obama administration still has a very good chance of winning re-election. The notion that “envy” and “class warfare” are what primarily drives these concerns is nonsense, and conservatives who endless repeat these canards aren’t winning many points with everyday people. I also think this is why, despite growing mistrust of government, there is no massive groundswell of support for anti-government rhetoric from Republicans; instead, most of the country is feeling insecure, like the rug could be pulled out from under them at any moment, and neither party seems to be addressing that concern very well at all. “Let’s just cut taxes more and let big business do whatever it wants to do” is not an answer that exactly excites most people. But it’s not clear what Democrats have to offer on that score either.
“I don’t need to be rich, I just want to stop being afraid” is probably how an awful lot of people think. And it’s not terrorism most people are afraid of anymore, it’s having, and keeping, a job they can live with in dignity.
Speaking for myself (and I know many others who feel the same way), I couldn’t care less if my neighbor makes ten times as much money as I do. I don’t envy or hate him for that; what I might resent is if he’s gotten that way through manipulation and cunning rather than honest hard work, or if he’s jiggered things so he’s safe no matter what happens to the rest of us–and I don’t care whether he’s jiggered it using government power levers or corporate power levers or stock market power levers. But otherwise: you make more than me? Hey good for you, maybe you’re more clever or work harder or a little luckier, and that’s great. As long as you didn’t step on people or cheat to get there, bully for you. But when most people don’t feel economically secure–and I suspect most people don’t these days–you’ve got a problem. And I don’t think any candidate in either party is addressing that very well at all. I think the one who addresses that most effectively is the one most likely to win in November.
{ 4 comments }
I haven’t done this in a few years, but I used to make annual predictions just for the heck of it. Life has been, sometimes slowly sometimes quickly, getting better and better, and I’m feeling up to it again. So, here for review next year at this time, are my predictions for 2012:
1) Mitt Romney wins the Republican Presidential primary, and is a very serious challenge to Obama in November as Romney has the ability to be competitive in states Republicans normally have a lot of trouble with.
2) If Romney is not the Republican nominee, Barack Obama wins a non-landslide but fairly comfortable re-election victory. If Romney is the Republican nominee, it’s a coin-toss who wins.
3) The outcome of the Presidential race has very limited impact on Congressional elections, as neither Presidential candidate has much in the way of coattails. Republicans make further gains in the Congress, likely reaching a high water mark for the decade for them.
4) The national economy will continue to slowly improve but in a very hesitant and frustrating way.
5) World economic affairs get more and more turbulent, which is part of why America’s recovery remains slow and halting. Republicans cannot capitalize on this very effectively since beyond the rabid Obama-hating base almost no one believes Democrats are the cause of our economic woes, nor does anyone really believe anymore that excessive regulation and taxation are the cause of most of our economic strife. Prominent figures in both political parties begin to openly wonder if either left or right have any real answers.
6) Ryan Gosling gets an Oscar nomination for “Drive.” He does not win.
7) The so-called Rapture once again does not happen. Neither does the world end in any other manner, with the remote possible exception of a massive meteor strike.
8) A friend of mine with some rather impressive new technology faces some major frustrations but his invention works, and the world may begin a new era as a result (although almost no one will know about it for a few more years).
9) Iraq starts to look to more people like it’s building an alliance with Iran. It never gets much past looking like it, as irritation with Iran’s meddling grows in Iraq.
10) So-called “global terrorism” continues to recede as the fight for reform in the Middle East causes most people in the region to focus their energy on that rather than incoherent blaming of American and/or Israel for their woes.
11) Israel once again is not wiped from the map, and continues to see slowly improving relations and fortunes with the Palestinians.
12) Islamophobia in America, already receding, recedes even more visibly, and people like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller start having more and more trouble maintaining their income trying to ride that dying horse, even with an occasional flareup of Muslims Behaving Badly here and there.
13) There will be at least another crazed shooter in America who kills a bunch of people, or tries to, just because he’s nuts. This does not give new energy to the dying gun-control movement.
14) NASA once again does nothing of great significance in space, although they continue to produce interesting stuff at home at places like JPL.
15) A move to start metering internet service will continue to sputter but will not die.
16) Growing frustration with Corporate America will become more tangible as more and more people notice that the managerial class which controls national and multinational conglomerates have far too much power and that this concentration of power is not healthy for anyone. Unions, nevertheless, make no major gains in the private sector. Nevertheless pressure will increase on Congress to do something about corporate overreach. Proposed solutions from the major parties will differ in response.
17) America continues its struggle in Afghanistan, where progress will remain frustratingly two-steps-forward-one-step-back but overall positive.
18) First self-driving car becomes available for sale, although it will be so expensive only someone very rich or a large corporation will be able to buy one.
19) The new version of Windows leads more and more people to conclude that Microsoft thinks the PC as we know it is going to disappear.
20) More and more people will conclude that Microsoft is right about that (even though it won’t, it’ll just start to recede from certain areas).
21) Linux sees some improved market share because of 19 and 20, although it still doesn’t get much past 2-3% of the desktop market.
22) Apple comes out with some cool new stuff, but confidence in the company’s future will erode and Macs will lose a smidge of market share.
23) No government in the Middle East truly “becomes Democratic” (as defined by Freedom House standards) but many reform toward more democratic institutions.
24) North Korea becomes quiescent as internal struggles for power and Kim Jong Il’s need for attention no longer dominate that state.
25) Fidel Castro finally dies. Raul has trouble keeping a lid on things.
26) Obamacare is largely but not entirely upheld by the Supreme Court, but almost no one will be happy about it because still no one–at all–will understand the ramifications of the reforms, or all the ramifications of the decision for that matter.
27) Once again, no country ranked as a Democracy by Freedom House will go to war with any other country that is so-ranked. It has never happened, and it will continue to not-happen.
28) America’s student loan crisis grows as the default rate escalates and more people realize they (or others they care about) have gone tens of thousands of dollars into negative net worth for the equivalent of a High School diploma, and pressure on Congress to loosen bankruptcy rules on these loans will increase. Nevertheless, blame for this will be pointed at everybody except the nation’s colleges and universities.
29) Experimental evidence will continue to suggest that we may be wrong about the speed of light.
30) Global Warming will continue to not-happen and those receiving funding to study this nonexistent phenomenon, while never really being held accountable for their shenanigans, will increasingly look for different areas of work and to escape from the public eye, because neither the general population nor most of the political class will care about them anymore.
31) I will begin writing regularly on this blog again, for the first time in years.
Well I think that’s enough. Anyone want to make some of their own? We’ll want to remember to look back on this in a year, so be careful. :-)
{ 0 comments }
Via Slashdot, Verizon has decided to charge a $2 fee to people who pay their bill online or by telephone. Various justifications are offered up, but the one that makes the most sense is they want people to move to auto-pay and hope users will stop scrutinizing their bills so much.
My question is, with Verizon making this change can I choose to change providers and skip the early termination fee?
Pretty stupid move on their part, if you ask me.
UPDATE: and less than 24 hours later, Verizon caves to customer pressure
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
Not in the mood to write this week. Thought I’d give you some Shatner instead:
That’s from his new album, Seeking Major Tom. That’s Warren Haynes on guitar on that particular track, for those who know who that is. He’s one of my favorites for sure. ;-)
I don’t know what this one’s from but it’s cool:
I love The Shat! 80 years old and kicking ass!
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
These are very annoying. Good way to get rid of unwanted guests I’d say.
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
Vivaldi:
Bach:
Feel free to share anything you like. And Merry Christmas!
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
It was with horror when I realized this was a humorous article. I demand that the government build this thing for real, at once!
(Thanks Dwayne.)
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
I see that some terrorists have decided to get active in Iraq again.
I find it unsurprising, even a bit predictable; the government there now faces the challenge of proving it can govern effectively without assistance–or that it knows how and when to ask for assistance, and from whom. My bet is that if this is handled calmly, and without mass bruality, the terrorists will find themselves even more unpopular than they already were, because blaming the Americans will no longer be a viable option. (Oh, sure, some people will always blame us for just about anything, but that will increasingly ring hollow under the current circumstances.)
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
All I want for Christmas is a new job.
Well, that and my family to continue to grow in love and closeness.
Thank you. :-)
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
