The PTR strikes again

M.E. sent the following.

"I was listening to NPR with half an ear a few days ago and I heard a report of a Texas Republican congressman who was a signatory to the pledge not to increase taxes. Unfortunately, I didn’t pay enough attention to catch his name.

Anyway, he expressed the view that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire was a tax increase and therefore he was against it. However, allowing the 2% reduction of SS taxes to lapse was not a tax increase so he would support it.

Party for The Rich for absolute sure!"

Hurricane Irene

So far so good: damage everywhere seems far less than anticipated. The National Weather Service pretty much makes statistical predictions, with words such as "likely" or "60% chance of". Local stations and even national stations, as usual, hype everything, and their motives are clear: get people to think that they have to stay tuned every second lest they miss some critical words that might seal -- or enable them to unseal --  their fate. And of course, people who stay tuned to forecasts also stay tuned to advertisements. (See my blog from Feb. 2010 about Commercialization of Weather Reports.)

Nothing too terrible about all this: the pattern for years has been that every strong storm is a possible "storm-of-the-century." Well, of course, every century has a storm of the century, plus centuries  can, conveniently, be measured from any starting day you wish...

Anyway, I hope that wherever you are you got far less damage than you were warned about, and maybe, even, a little excitement as well.

Conservatives and promiscuity

Conservatives are against the vaccine for the human papilloma virus (a cause of cervical cancer) because it would encourage promiscuity. In other words, sexual diseases are a punishment from the god(s) for premarital and extramarital sex. (The fact that married folks also get these diseases falls under the heading "the god(s) work in mysterious ways.")

Similarly, in their eyes AIDS is a punishment for homosexual sex.

Some conservatives even believe that pregnancy (outside of marriage) is itself a punishment for premarital and extramarital sex. Thus, use of condoms and other birth-control devices are, in their opinion, immoral because they diminish the risk of pregnancy out of wedlock, hence encourage promiscuous behavior.

Given that the vast majority of Americans commit the sin of premarital or extramarital intercourse at some time(s) in their lives, you would think that this kind of anti-human thinking would make these "conservatives" extremely unpopular. The very concept that disease and even pregnancy is a punishment for anything is so medieval that one wonders why holding this view isn't a major negative in elections.

Are we becoming crazy?

Qaddafi, Libya, and presidential war powers

It would be tempting to say, in defense of President Obama's military aid to insurgents in Libya: "Told ya so." Col. Qaddafi is certainly an unappealing dictator, and many of Obama's critics were Republicans who would (and did) criticize him for any actions (or non-actions) he took on this or any issue. Unlike some U.S. military actions, this one was not unilateral, or even totally dominated by our forces. Furthermore, U.N. resolution #1973 allows members to take all actions necessary to safeguard civilians in Libya who may be under attack.  Finally, the usual  constitutional arguments about the President being "commander in chief were made by both the Obama administration and others who have used this argument in the past.

I don't buy it, nor am I impressed by the "nothing-succeeds-like-success" rationale. First on all, while the President may be "commander-in-chief", we know that the Congress is given the war making power by the Constitution. Commander-in-chief means that, under conditions of war, the President's orders supersede those of any military leader, regardless of rank. If the framers of our Constitution thought that that meant he could initiate conflict they wouldn't have given Congress that power. I am not a scholar of the Constitution, but I know that many such scholars -- though not all -- subscribe to this view. The fact that American presidents have failed since WWII to ask Congress for a declaration of war when engaging in armed international conflict has, I believe, turned out to be a very bad thing, with the disasters of Viet Nam and Iraq being only the most notorious examples. This is not to say that Congress would show much reluctance to undertake bloody adventures, but at least we would have a more extensive and public debate.

(For a list of military actions and authorizations or non-authorizations thereof, see this Wikipedia summary.)

Also, such a debate might have led to a discussion of how an approved action might be financed.


It is important to point out that none of the wars that presidents have undertaken since the last formal declaration -- in 1941 -- have been, in any way, such emergencies that a formal request to Congress would have caused a security problem. This is true even for the case of Afghanistan in 2001. At any time of dire threat, an emergency session of Congress could easily and quickly have been called.

After the Vietnam debacle, a "Presidential War Powers Act" (1973) was passed by Congress to ensure that at least some Congressional consultation would be made by a president within 60 days of the introduction of American forces. Some wars, such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, have been approved by Congress in this sense: not formal declarations of war, but authorizations to the then presidents to introduce American troops. I don't think this is adequate in any way. Once presidents put troops "in harms way" it is nearly impossible to get a jingoistic Congress -- or jingoistic public, for that matter -- to reverse the decision.

In fact, President Obama neither asked for a declaration of war nor invoked the War Powers Act. He and his advisors has deemed it sufficient that the U.N. passed Resolution 1973 authorizing a "no-fly zone" and other actions to "protect civilians under threat of attack." What is interesting is that U.N. resolutions have the force of law in the U.S. by virtue of the terms of our membership in the organization. However, what if a U.N. resolution conflicts with the will of Congress in a matter of war? I am certain that the politics of this country are such that a president can not cede decisions on war and peace to the U.N. In reality, U.N. resolutions simply do not replace either the Constitution or the War Powers Act. For Obama to claim otherwise would mean that he could, say, bomb Israel if the U.N. passed a resolution requiring such activity -- and do this without consulting Congress -- at least for 60 days.

Yes, I hold Obama, his administration, and the Democratic Party to standards higher than I demand of the Republicans. Of course! Who would want this country run by Republican standards -- say those of Bush, Yoo, Cheney and the doctrine of the "unitary presidency"?

We don't need yet another hyperthyroidal president, even if his policies, in the short term, achieve aims we desire.

Class Warfare

In case you missed it, here is Jon Stewart's review of Fox News on Class Warfare. Warning: this compendium contains totally disgusting views expressed by Fox pigs. It may leave you fuming and/or totally nauseated.

Jon Stewart on Class Warfare (via HuffPo).

Might as well watch the Red Sox

There is simply nothing substantial being said by any of the major characters on the American political scene. The Republicans are, as usual, beneath contempt, making dumb statements about climate change, the EPA, and financial stuff. The slavish media cover it all as if there were any content to report on. Meanwhile, Obama is "campaigning", pitting hot air against hot air. We'll have to wait until after Labor Day to hear a major speech (so he bills it) about the economy, as if he and his advisers and speech writers somehow didn't suspect that there has been a problem there.

So, for all the blather, the country (and a lot of the capitalist world) is playing losing economics.

Meanwhile, the Sox of late are playing losing baseball.

But, at least it's not BS. At the end of the game, the team with the most runs wins: I've never heard of Final Score Deniers.  And: you don't have to listen to the opinions of know-nothings (though you can if you are crazy). The views of anyone except, maybe, the managers and a few others, don't hardly matter for beans (Boston baked beans, that is).

So, for American politics, these are the dogsh*t days of summer (extendable indefinitely). Might as well watch the Red Sox (or your favorite home-town team).

Why doesn't he DO something?

I've been in Central Maine for a week. During that time there was nonsense in Iowa and the promise of even more nonsense with Texas governor Rick Perry joining the Republican fun. I had a few unkind words to say about his state last February. He will surely trot out the myth that Texas is an example of successful conservative principles at play. Yes, Texas has created a lot of (mostly low-paying) jobs, but not enough for its population increase. As several economists, including Paul Krugman (here and most recently, here) have pointed out, the "Texas miracle" simply isn't. The state's unemployment rate is greater than New York's and much greater than Massachusetts' -- both hotbeds of godless Leninism. And the situation with education and health in the Lone Star state is even worse.

Of course, like other Republicans, Perry will not let facts get in the way of his story. Why can't we just let him and his state secede already, as he has patriotically suggested? (Interestingly, while Texas pretty much gets back all the taxes it pays to the Feds, California, New York and Massachusetts get back only about 80 cents per dollar; yet, they still are all firmly in the Union ranks).


But I digress. What I really wanted to say is, if some polling company asked me what sort of job Obama was doing, I'd have to say a pretty poor one. He talks. And talks. And talks. Believe me -- and I know this from experience -- he's a one man faculty meeting.

Why doesn't he submit legislation? I keep waiting for him get on the news and say: "My friends, today I submitted the following legislation to Congress to deal with our economic problems..."

But no: all  he is doing now is campaigning against some at-this-point unknown Republican presidential opponent.

What's the matter with this guy? Does he do anything beside talk? Yeah, so your uncle has offed your dad and is sleeping with your mother; will you do anything about it, or just tell us more and more about how you don't think it's a good idea?