Saturday, July 19, 2014
The Next Time You Run Into A Creationist ...
... it will help you a great deal if you've read this first.
Space Cities?
Not in my lifetime, perhaps, but hopefully an inevitability, if we can look at the challenges that face us and find a way to replace fear with hope. This gives me hope.
One More Gubernatorial Crack In The GOP Dam Against Obamacare
And it's in Indiana. Fifty states is only a matter of time.
Yet Another Illustration Of The Law Of Unintended Consequences
Satanic prayer at public meetings? Well, why not? It might not have the "calming effect" predicted by Justice Kennedy in the Town of Greece case. But how will we ever know, unless we try?
This Doesn't Say Anything About Climate Change That I Haven't Said Before, BUT ...
... it's worth repeating again and again, until we finally admit that the "hoax" is real and that our future depends on doing something about it. The article's comments about the damage to Australia and the Great Barrier Reef are tragically ironic in the wake of this week's news that the conservative government of Australia has repealed the nation's carbon tax. Shame on them.
"Rope-A-Dope" At The Border?
Recent headlines suggest that Congress will be of no help to President Obama when it comes to solving the current humanitarian crisis at our southern border. Democrats object to his request for changes in law that would permit faster deportation of the thousands of Central American children fleeing American-made violence in their home countries. Republicans, on the other hand, see political gold in the President's request for supplemental funding to give these children the level of due process currently required under the law, and want to use that request to extract concessions for additional enforcement. As a consequence of this so-what-else-is-new division, John Boehner is on the record as lacking "optimism" about Congress' ability to grant the President's request.
And I suspect that no one is likely to be happier about that fact than Barack Obama. I'll explain why.
For months, and especially since the death of legislative attempts at comprehensive immigration reform, we've been treated to a series of media accounts and opinion pieces about the President's executive power to ease the problems of the undocumented. Some of this speculation has emerged from Obama's own lips, as well as statements made by members of his Administration. Much of it, however, has come from the chattering classes on both sides of the ideological divide. But almost all of it seemingly came to a halt with the first headlines, photos and videos of child refugees facing guns and threats from some of the more outspoken members of this "Christian" nation.
I suspect, however, that, in Obama's mind, the possibility of administrative action wasn't so much halted as paused. He has known for a long time that Boehner and the Tea Partiers would rather damage their own country than do anything for an African-American President that might even look like a favor. Likewise, he has been under tremendous pressure from his own party and from immigration advocates to slow down the record-setting pace on deportation he had been maintaining solely in a no-win effort to draw Republicans into a legislative consensus on immigration reform.
Which is why I think there is a two-fold purpose in the President's supplemental request. First, he is effectively giving Congress one last, highly visible chance to act in a sensible way about a serious immigration-related problem, knowing that they will kick it to the curb. And second, he will then pivot, turn this failure into election-year campaign fodder against a "do-nothing" Congress--and then announce a major program of administrative relief that will include some form of temporary protective status for the refugee children. He will have effectively "rope-a-doped" the Republicans, and made Congressional Democrats and the people who will vote for them in November very happy.
The media perception, at this point, seems to be that Obama is the one in a tough spot. I couldn't disagree more. It's the Republicans who have to decide whether the militia-types facing down unarmed children with semiautomatics are going to be the face of their party this fall. I have a feeling they're going to make the wrong decision--and that, ultimately, they will be the only ones harmed by it.
And I suspect that no one is likely to be happier about that fact than Barack Obama. I'll explain why.
For months, and especially since the death of legislative attempts at comprehensive immigration reform, we've been treated to a series of media accounts and opinion pieces about the President's executive power to ease the problems of the undocumented. Some of this speculation has emerged from Obama's own lips, as well as statements made by members of his Administration. Much of it, however, has come from the chattering classes on both sides of the ideological divide. But almost all of it seemingly came to a halt with the first headlines, photos and videos of child refugees facing guns and threats from some of the more outspoken members of this "Christian" nation.
I suspect, however, that, in Obama's mind, the possibility of administrative action wasn't so much halted as paused. He has known for a long time that Boehner and the Tea Partiers would rather damage their own country than do anything for an African-American President that might even look like a favor. Likewise, he has been under tremendous pressure from his own party and from immigration advocates to slow down the record-setting pace on deportation he had been maintaining solely in a no-win effort to draw Republicans into a legislative consensus on immigration reform.
Which is why I think there is a two-fold purpose in the President's supplemental request. First, he is effectively giving Congress one last, highly visible chance to act in a sensible way about a serious immigration-related problem, knowing that they will kick it to the curb. And second, he will then pivot, turn this failure into election-year campaign fodder against a "do-nothing" Congress--and then announce a major program of administrative relief that will include some form of temporary protective status for the refugee children. He will have effectively "rope-a-doped" the Republicans, and made Congressional Democrats and the people who will vote for them in November very happy.
The media perception, at this point, seems to be that Obama is the one in a tough spot. I couldn't disagree more. It's the Republicans who have to decide whether the militia-types facing down unarmed children with semiautomatics are going to be the face of their party this fall. I have a feeling they're going to make the wrong decision--and that, ultimately, they will be the only ones harmed by it.
Monday, July 14, 2014
A Tribute To J. Frank Cashen
It's rare enough to have a rooting interest in two baseball teams, as I do, especially when those two teams were matched in a memorable World Series in 1969. It's even rarer still that one man could have a major hand in changing the fortunes of both teams.
Then again, Frank Cashen was, especially in this day and age, a very rare kind of man. A Renaissance man in an age of specialists, a man who built success one brick at a time in an age of instant gratification, and a Baltimore boy who had the courage to face down the lions in New York and became king in the asphalt jungle of Big Apple baseball.
I started following the Orioles around 1964, at the age of 8, one year before Cashen became the team's executive vice president, and two years before they began a dominance of the major leagues that lasted well into the early 1970s. He engineered what was arguably the single most important trade in the team's history--getting Frank Robinson from the Cincinnati Reds--and hired Earl Weaver, who merely became one of the most successful managers in history. He drew on his experience in law, journalism and business and added to that a knowledge of baseball that proved to be crucial to the Orioles four pennants and two World Championships, and that ultimately earned him the reputation of being one of the last true general managers in baseball--one who knew enough about everything to be able to make the final decisions the right ones.
Later, after college, I started working at a civil-service job in New York City--in Queens, to be exact, seven short subway stops from Shea Stadium. Since my rooting interest in the Orioles precluded rooting for the Yankees, I adopted the Mets as "my" team for my new home town. And, not long after than, the Mets were sold for the first time in their history--and the new owners promptly hired Frank Cashen to resurrect the by-then less-than-miraculous Mets. In a way, it helped make me feel right at home, known that a fellow Baltimorean was trying to make it in the Big Apple.
And it helped that much more that, like me, Cashen wanted to succeed on his own terms, rather than being led by the short-term passions of the fans or the press. He had owners who were willing to spend big, even to the point of getting into a bidding war with the Yankees for Dave Winfield. But Cashen believed very strongly that winning teams were build from within, and not by participating in what he once referred to as an "auction of mediocrity." He knew that would take time, and he knew that it would not win him any short-term popularity contests. Despite that--and despite media coverage that was often vicious to the point of injustice--he never deviated from what he had learned through his experience in Baltimore.
I read all three major New York papers (as well as Newsday) every day, getting upset and angry each time I read the sniping comments about bow ties, crab cakes, and any other Baltimore references the so-called sophisticated Big Apple columnists could throw by way of insult at Cashen and his allegedly cautious, small-town approach. What did any of them know about running a team? Cashen, by contrast, had already accomplished everything they had accomplished during his days with the old Baltimore News-American--and presided over two World Championships with the Orioles, or twice as many as the Mets had won by that point. As a fellow native of Charm City, I felt bad for Cashen, but admired the fact that, publicly at least, he never let the insults bother him.
And, in the end, he didn't let them stop him from proving that his way was the way that worked, as anyone who watched the 1986 World Series knows.
Thanks, Frank, for showing that what works in Baltimore can work anywhere, even in the worlds' toughest market for sports (as well as everything else). I ultimately left civil service and the Big Apple to find success elsewhere, but I will never forget the lift you gave to my spirits, twice in my lifetime. As a Mets and Orioles fan, both of my rooting interests will always appreciate you more that I can ever say, here or elsewhere. I never met you, but perhaps we'll meet on the flip side.
In spring training, of course.
Then again, Frank Cashen was, especially in this day and age, a very rare kind of man. A Renaissance man in an age of specialists, a man who built success one brick at a time in an age of instant gratification, and a Baltimore boy who had the courage to face down the lions in New York and became king in the asphalt jungle of Big Apple baseball.
I started following the Orioles around 1964, at the age of 8, one year before Cashen became the team's executive vice president, and two years before they began a dominance of the major leagues that lasted well into the early 1970s. He engineered what was arguably the single most important trade in the team's history--getting Frank Robinson from the Cincinnati Reds--and hired Earl Weaver, who merely became one of the most successful managers in history. He drew on his experience in law, journalism and business and added to that a knowledge of baseball that proved to be crucial to the Orioles four pennants and two World Championships, and that ultimately earned him the reputation of being one of the last true general managers in baseball--one who knew enough about everything to be able to make the final decisions the right ones.
Later, after college, I started working at a civil-service job in New York City--in Queens, to be exact, seven short subway stops from Shea Stadium. Since my rooting interest in the Orioles precluded rooting for the Yankees, I adopted the Mets as "my" team for my new home town. And, not long after than, the Mets were sold for the first time in their history--and the new owners promptly hired Frank Cashen to resurrect the by-then less-than-miraculous Mets. In a way, it helped make me feel right at home, known that a fellow Baltimorean was trying to make it in the Big Apple.
And it helped that much more that, like me, Cashen wanted to succeed on his own terms, rather than being led by the short-term passions of the fans or the press. He had owners who were willing to spend big, even to the point of getting into a bidding war with the Yankees for Dave Winfield. But Cashen believed very strongly that winning teams were build from within, and not by participating in what he once referred to as an "auction of mediocrity." He knew that would take time, and he knew that it would not win him any short-term popularity contests. Despite that--and despite media coverage that was often vicious to the point of injustice--he never deviated from what he had learned through his experience in Baltimore.
I read all three major New York papers (as well as Newsday) every day, getting upset and angry each time I read the sniping comments about bow ties, crab cakes, and any other Baltimore references the so-called sophisticated Big Apple columnists could throw by way of insult at Cashen and his allegedly cautious, small-town approach. What did any of them know about running a team? Cashen, by contrast, had already accomplished everything they had accomplished during his days with the old Baltimore News-American--and presided over two World Championships with the Orioles, or twice as many as the Mets had won by that point. As a fellow native of Charm City, I felt bad for Cashen, but admired the fact that, publicly at least, he never let the insults bother him.
And, in the end, he didn't let them stop him from proving that his way was the way that worked, as anyone who watched the 1986 World Series knows.
Thanks, Frank, for showing that what works in Baltimore can work anywhere, even in the worlds' toughest market for sports (as well as everything else). I ultimately left civil service and the Big Apple to find success elsewhere, but I will never forget the lift you gave to my spirits, twice in my lifetime. As a Mets and Orioles fan, both of my rooting interests will always appreciate you more that I can ever say, here or elsewhere. I never met you, but perhaps we'll meet on the flip side.
In spring training, of course.
Saturday, July 5, 2014
Did Reagan Kill Entrepreneurialism?
Sorry, Peggy Noonan, but yes, he did. This article explains why in less time than a chapter in one of your remaindered books.
A New Source Of Energy AND Funds For Highways
A HIgh-Speed Train From China To The U.S.?
It could happen. This would revolutionize world trade and politics even more than the European discovery of the Western Hemisphere. It would certainly show how high-speed rail can expand on the connectivity the Internet has created.
Let Capitalists Truly BE Capitalists
And end senseless state subsidies. Right now.
And then I won't be tempted to talk about the hypocrisies of the Rick Perrys of the world.
And then I won't be tempted to talk about the hypocrisies of the Rick Perrys of the world.
Who Cares What Percertage Of Journalists Are Republicans?
Or Democrats, for that matter. This writer does. But it shouldn't matter, and it wouldn't matter, if journalism just got back to what it was supposed to be (and actually was) for a long time: an unbiased search for the facts. We've descended into an anti-intellectual vortex because it's easier to believe in lies than it is to thin about the truth.
If we can climb out, and go back to reporting the truth without fear or favor, it will do much more for this country than any attempt to "balance" the press with an even number of Republicans and Democrats. That effort, to the extent that it exists, is just an extension of the view that politics is just a partisan ball game. It's not. It's working for the people and getting business done on their behalf. Both reporters and elected officials need to stop worrying about who's up and who's down and get back to working they way they used to, before movement conservatism and money destroyed both professions.
If we can climb out, and go back to reporting the truth without fear or favor, it will do much more for this country than any attempt to "balance" the press with an even number of Republicans and Democrats. That effort, to the extent that it exists, is just an extension of the view that politics is just a partisan ball game. It's not. It's working for the people and getting business done on their behalf. Both reporters and elected officials need to stop worrying about who's up and who's down and get back to working they way they used to, before movement conservatism and money destroyed both professions.
Suffer The Little Children To Go On Suffering
Just over twelve months ago, the U.S. Senate passed a historic, bipartisan compromise bill that would, if passed by the House and signed by President Obama, enact comprehensive immigration reform, reform of the sort that has been sadly needed for decades. And, soon thereafter, the House, determined not to do anyone any favors except for the party that controls it, began its pass-dribble, pass-dribble approach to the issue of immigration, in a two-pronged effort to take control of both houses of Congress by discouraging the Democratic proponents of reform, while firing up the conservative opponents of it. Sadly, it worked. The Senate bill will never be taken up now by the House, whose "Speaker" has made it clear that the issue of immigration reform is dead for this year.
It would be bad enough if the state of immigration in this country was no worse than the mere death of reform efforts. Unfortunately, it's much worse than that. Now, even children running for their lives to a place of supposed safety are not immune from our dysfunctional political system. Now, even those children can be viewed by America's plutocrats, and the red-state idiots who love them, as "lucky duckies."
For decades, we have supported and armed governments in Central America that routinely torture and execute their own citizens. We have allowed any number of illegal arms to flow into the countries controlled by these government, turning them into shooting galleries. And those two reasons--not DACA, not the provisional waiver program, and not the increasingly remote prospect of immigration reform--are the only reasons that we have thousands of child refugees from those nations at our borders.
These are not competitors for American workers. They are not, in most cases, guilty of criminal or even violent conduct. They could, in perhaps the majority of cases, be eligible for asylum--and should, in any case, be given the opportunity to make their case heard before the Customs and Border Patrol puts them back into harm's way. So what is our supposedly "pro-life," nation doing? How is it responding to this opportunity to put our pro-child money--and action--where our mouths are?
With blockades. With screams on the Internet, cable and social media to "send 'em back," to "stop the invasion," to say "enough is enough." Enough of what, exactly? Compassion? Humanity? Decency? For that matter, Christianity? Unlike Jesus, we do not suffer the little children to come to us. Rather, we proclaim their "right" to be sent back to their suffering. America may be a "Christian" nation, but it's certainly not one that Jesus would recognize.
And what of our "pro-immigration" President? Is he demanding resources to give even a smidgen of due process to these would-be immigrants? Are you kidding? Even as he announces that now, he's going to get really, really serious about administrative action, he's demanding changes in the law that would make it easier to put these child back in the line of fire.
I repeat: these children are looking for safety. And the United States, with the reputation of being the richest, most compassionate nation on Earth, is turning its back on them. Actually viewing them as a threat to its very existence.
Better that these child should incorporate. Then we would welcome them with open arms. Except that I would tell them to go to the Cayman Islands. You deserve better than what the United States has become.
It would be bad enough if the state of immigration in this country was no worse than the mere death of reform efforts. Unfortunately, it's much worse than that. Now, even children running for their lives to a place of supposed safety are not immune from our dysfunctional political system. Now, even those children can be viewed by America's plutocrats, and the red-state idiots who love them, as "lucky duckies."
For decades, we have supported and armed governments in Central America that routinely torture and execute their own citizens. We have allowed any number of illegal arms to flow into the countries controlled by these government, turning them into shooting galleries. And those two reasons--not DACA, not the provisional waiver program, and not the increasingly remote prospect of immigration reform--are the only reasons that we have thousands of child refugees from those nations at our borders.
These are not competitors for American workers. They are not, in most cases, guilty of criminal or even violent conduct. They could, in perhaps the majority of cases, be eligible for asylum--and should, in any case, be given the opportunity to make their case heard before the Customs and Border Patrol puts them back into harm's way. So what is our supposedly "pro-life," nation doing? How is it responding to this opportunity to put our pro-child money--and action--where our mouths are?
With blockades. With screams on the Internet, cable and social media to "send 'em back," to "stop the invasion," to say "enough is enough." Enough of what, exactly? Compassion? Humanity? Decency? For that matter, Christianity? Unlike Jesus, we do not suffer the little children to come to us. Rather, we proclaim their "right" to be sent back to their suffering. America may be a "Christian" nation, but it's certainly not one that Jesus would recognize.
And what of our "pro-immigration" President? Is he demanding resources to give even a smidgen of due process to these would-be immigrants? Are you kidding? Even as he announces that now, he's going to get really, really serious about administrative action, he's demanding changes in the law that would make it easier to put these child back in the line of fire.
I repeat: these children are looking for safety. And the United States, with the reputation of being the richest, most compassionate nation on Earth, is turning its back on them. Actually viewing them as a threat to its very existence.
Better that these child should incorporate. Then we would welcome them with open arms. Except that I would tell them to go to the Cayman Islands. You deserve better than what the United States has become.
From A Nation Of Suckers To A Nation Of Bullies?
So now, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court has clarified the landscape of contemporary America. Corporations, originally just a fictitious legal "person" created for purposes of containing liability, are now supernatural entities with the traditional protections of corporations, but also with the rights of individuals to buy elections (remember, per Justice Roberts, it isn't a bribe if you spend it before Election Day) and the rights of individuals to inflict as much religion on the public as you can get away with, especially if you can do so with a "captive audience" such as your employees. And women? They don't even have the right to control their own health decisions. They don't even have the right to a "buffer zone" to help them implement those decisions--even though the Court itself feels the need to grant one for itself.
This demonstrates that the Court, despite having three female members, possesses an institutional terror of women. And how have they responded? With a series of decisions that have the practical effect of advancing institutional power over individual power. Contrary to the ridiculous rhetoric from the right celebrating the Hobby Lobby decision as a victory for religious freedom, nothing could be further from the truth. Hobby Lobby takes all of us further down the slippery slope that leads us, at its bottom to a nation where for-profit and non-profit Corporate America controls all of America. And at that bottom, "limited" government is very limited indeed--to serving as a weapon that Corporate America can use against all of us.
How did we get here? Putting it simply, by believing the conservative lies about their advocacy of "limited government. By translating that belief into thirty years of voting for the GOP's vision of "limited government," despite massive and obvious evidence that this vision has always been a fraud. By doing so not as a matter of principle, but as a matter of convenience--because, as history teaches us (if we're willing to learn), it is easier for humans to believe than it is to think. This is why, as I have written previously, we have traditionally been a nation of suckers. Unfortunately, if a nation is dominated long enough by suckers, it allows the bullies to move in, set up shop, and eventually take over completely.
And turn that nation into a nation of bullies. Which, sadly is what we are today.
Perhaps you are sitting around on this holiday weekend consoling yourself with the thought that "surely, this can't get worse." Or, worse, the thought that "well, it doesn't directly affect me, so why should I worry about it?" Or, worse still, ultimately shrug and say "what can I do?"
Here are your answer: Yes, it can get worse, unless you do something about it because, if you don't, it will affect you. Corporate America isn't interested in your freedom. It doesn't see you as a person. It certainly doesn't see you as having any rights. It sees you as existing only for it. We, the People, have managed to do something that, according to philosophers, God is unable to do--build a boulder bigger than ourselves. And that boulder is Corporate America.
Keeping the U.S. Senate out of Republican hands has never been more important than it is now. And it is far more possible to accomplish this than the polls and the current punditry might indicate. There is an outrage level about Hobby Lobby on the left that equals and may even exceed the right-wing anger over Roe v. Wade. Even religious voices are denouncing the decision, as well they should, since religion traditionally has found its strongest home in the individual consciousness now threatened. I have never been more confident that this outrage is going to translate into organizing and voting in November. Especially considering the current lack of public confidence in the Court.
Don't be the person they come for when there is no one to stand for you. Stand for others first. Organize and vote with progressives, even if you are not one. There is no safety for you in the world the Supreme Court is creating. A nation of bullies is a nation that always seeks new victims--even those who consider themselves allies.
This demonstrates that the Court, despite having three female members, possesses an institutional terror of women. And how have they responded? With a series of decisions that have the practical effect of advancing institutional power over individual power. Contrary to the ridiculous rhetoric from the right celebrating the Hobby Lobby decision as a victory for religious freedom, nothing could be further from the truth. Hobby Lobby takes all of us further down the slippery slope that leads us, at its bottom to a nation where for-profit and non-profit Corporate America controls all of America. And at that bottom, "limited" government is very limited indeed--to serving as a weapon that Corporate America can use against all of us.
How did we get here? Putting it simply, by believing the conservative lies about their advocacy of "limited government. By translating that belief into thirty years of voting for the GOP's vision of "limited government," despite massive and obvious evidence that this vision has always been a fraud. By doing so not as a matter of principle, but as a matter of convenience--because, as history teaches us (if we're willing to learn), it is easier for humans to believe than it is to think. This is why, as I have written previously, we have traditionally been a nation of suckers. Unfortunately, if a nation is dominated long enough by suckers, it allows the bullies to move in, set up shop, and eventually take over completely.
And turn that nation into a nation of bullies. Which, sadly is what we are today.
Perhaps you are sitting around on this holiday weekend consoling yourself with the thought that "surely, this can't get worse." Or, worse, the thought that "well, it doesn't directly affect me, so why should I worry about it?" Or, worse still, ultimately shrug and say "what can I do?"
Here are your answer: Yes, it can get worse, unless you do something about it because, if you don't, it will affect you. Corporate America isn't interested in your freedom. It doesn't see you as a person. It certainly doesn't see you as having any rights. It sees you as existing only for it. We, the People, have managed to do something that, according to philosophers, God is unable to do--build a boulder bigger than ourselves. And that boulder is Corporate America.
Keeping the U.S. Senate out of Republican hands has never been more important than it is now. And it is far more possible to accomplish this than the polls and the current punditry might indicate. There is an outrage level about Hobby Lobby on the left that equals and may even exceed the right-wing anger over Roe v. Wade. Even religious voices are denouncing the decision, as well they should, since religion traditionally has found its strongest home in the individual consciousness now threatened. I have never been more confident that this outrage is going to translate into organizing and voting in November. Especially considering the current lack of public confidence in the Court.
Don't be the person they come for when there is no one to stand for you. Stand for others first. Organize and vote with progressives, even if you are not one. There is no safety for you in the world the Supreme Court is creating. A nation of bullies is a nation that always seeks new victims--even those who consider themselves allies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)