Here's a Tought

Here's a thought: All through this election, substantive talks about fixing our numerous problems have been overshadowed by senseless bombast. Media, backed by finance, is reporting on things which anger and frighten voters but do little to address actual issues. The Internet, while making it easier to get information to the masses, has no filter to distinguish information from misinformation. So it has actually been easier to focus attention on divisive issues. Of course, you probably know this all ready. My question is, as we go out to vote today, does anyone know what either party's agenda would actually be if they won??

Whither Moderates?

We're nearly half way through October and the press still seems mystified by the strength of grass-roots conservatism. The race between perennial candidate and some-time witch Christine O'Donnell and her mealy eyed opponent, is a nearly perfect example of how this year's midterms continue to be weave a narrative the mainstream media just can't seem to get its head around (see here for example). Does the tea-party represent a rightward shift in the American electorate, or has the election of a black president really driven white America over the edge? What no one seems to be asking, however, is whether or not this movement might actually be a big red flag for the red-party. Considering that GOP turnout for the Delaware primary was just 32%. you would think the press would have been less impressed with O'Donnell's win than they were. Granted, 32% is pretty good for a midterm primary, but it also means that Ms. O'Donnell won by just over half of what is really a pretty paltry number. And that's 32% of registered Republicans, not the entire electorate. Libertarians and moderates, it seems never even bothered to show up. So far the tea-party phenomenon looks less like a barometer of the electorate's mood and more like an internal struggle for representation within the Republican party - something that goes on in every primary, every election.

While it is possible that the take over of the GOP by its most extreme fringes very well could mean that the party has gained conservative converts, it could also mean that the GOP has lost the confidence of moderate conservatives. And it's this latter case which could spell trouble for the GOP going forward. Even if they can win enough seats to claim victory in November, a tea-party dominated GOP is only likely to alienate moderates even further. With nowhere else to go, these voters might swell the ranks of the unaffiliated, distilling the party even further, which will alienate more voters, distilling it further and so on. In other words, the less appealing to the middle GOP candidates become, the more they risk increasing the appeal of the opposition - or worse, inciting moderates to just not show up at all. This mass of unaffiliated, generally turned-off voters would be a prime recruiting ground for a third party. It is, of course, nearly impossible to tell which scenario is currently playing out until the results in November. However, if it is the latter, then big tea-party wins will likely mean big-time trouble in 2012. The GOP is banking on the tea-party to gain influence in Congress. Maybe in this case they should have been more careful with what they wished for.

Washington Resists Calls for Big Fix on Foreclosures - BusinessWeek

Washington Resists Calls for Big Fix on Foreclosures - BusinessWeek

Here's another example of the administration closing the barn door after the cows are out. If they had gone with the so-called "bad bank" idea from the beginning, this current problem might not even exist. With a bad-bank, they could have bought up the troubled mortgage assets for less than they were worth (but more than what the bank would have gotten through foreclosure), refinanced so the owners could at least try to stay in their homes and then sold them back to the industry once the market had stabilized. Possibly even for a profit. Instead they threw that seven-trillion dollars at the bankers and shouted, "YOU FIX IT!" Predictably, throwing wads of cash at the very people who bankrupted the system didn't really accomplish much. So now, when faced with the real-world consequences of this melt-down, the administration has precious little room to maneuver. Of course, the fact that the seven-trillion dollar TARP program was Bush's swan song might lead conspiracy theorists to think this is just want the bankers wanted. But Obama had a ample chance to stop it. Instead, he chose to trust the bankers. Let's hope that TARP turns out to be Obama's Bay of Pigs - a crisis from which he'll emerge a stronger president. Just don't emulate JFK too closely, please.

"[C]orporate earnings were spectacular...the job market just stinks.”

- NYTimes.com

There's a lot of finger pointing going on right now, after massive bailouts and government spending has failed to translate into new jobs. But as the above quote suggests, there's certainly one place to point it. Corporations are still seeing substantial growth in profits even as the job market continues to shrink. Why is this? In part it's because they're hoarding what capital they have (which, not incidentally, often includes the public dollars we spent to bail them out). But rather than reinvesting this into the economy, they're protecting profits by cutting costs - especially workers. Fiscal conservatives look at this like an austerity measure. The shedding of workers is just the proverbial "tightening of the belt," that we all need to do in lean times. Another way to look at it is that hoarded capital is capital which is not being circulating in the economy. That means that in order to create the liquid capital needed to get money moving again, the government has to print more of the stuff - which of course, devalues the currency and more or less defeats it's own purpose. Now, I'm no economist, but this looks to me like a damn fine argument against letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Tax hikes on the very corporate profits (i.e. hoarding) that's helping to stall job growth can and should be redirected to state and local governments to prevent those jobs from being lost as well. It's basic Keynesianism (which I know will irritate some people no end). When the economy contracts, private sector corporations - the ones who control most of the capital - begin hoarding by cutting costs and shedding jobs. This lowers demand which induces further hoarding, etc, etc. To make up for this, Keynes argued that the government should make up for it by expanding it's own work force to compensate, thus keeping people employed and demand stable. If the federal government can't do this, then that tax money should go to the states where it can protect libraries, schools, police and roads. These things create jobs. And while I'd always prefer the private sector to be the job creators, the reality is, right now, they aren't. And if they aren't who will be? This is something we need to keep in mind when people start arguing against any and all forms of taxaton. Of course people out of work and small business don't need more taxes when they are struggling. But corporations are not struggling - they're the reason you're struggling. Try to remember that the next time some one tries to scare you with the tax hike boogieman.

Democrats endorse Caprio, Cicilline -> projo.com

State Dems turn on the Brother's Lynch, endorse Providence Mayor.

From: http://ping.fm/Rr0lT

World Cup, Day 5

Well, the World Cup is in full steam now and I can officially be declared obsessed. My picks haven't been terribly accurate thus far. My call of a US/England tie was about the only longshot that's panned out. Therefore, going forward, I've decided to take a closer look at what the real experts might say about my picks.

Match 1:  New Zealand v. Slovakia
My pick: Draw
My Confidence: Low, low, low

Checking out the live odds from Footytube.com gives a rough idea of how dim my prospects are tonight. Slovakia is heavily favored against New Zealand with the chances of a draw running about 4/1 against. I suppose that isn't too terrible considering the number of draws we've all ready seen.  I'll just have to keep my fingers cross that the kiwi squad can play better than expected - but not so much better that they win. But after my Denmark v. Netherlands draw hopes were ended by an embarrassing own-goal last night I don't have a lot of faith in those odds.

Match 2:  Portugal v. Ivory Coast
My Pick: Portugal
My Confidence: Comfortable

Footy is giving Portugal a slight edge over Ivory Coast with the odds of a draw roughly equal to those for an Ivory Coast win. I've got Portugal in this one based on the Sports Illustrated Power-Rankings, but those odds are little close for my comfort. Even still, barring a considerably worse than expected performance on the part of Portugal, I should be able to sneak by with this one.

Match 3: Brazil v. DPRK
My Pick: Draw
My confidence: Irrationally high.

Bare with me on this one. Footy's odds reflect the simple truth that only a madman or a moron would bet in favor of our plucky little neighbors to the North (which means Dear Leader almost certainly is - zing!).  Generally speaking, like to think I'm neither of those things. Even so, I took the leap of faith and called it a draw. Here's why. Most of the reports I've heard about Chollima suggest they are substantially underrated in one key area - their defense. If they can manage to hold the line against Brazil they might just be able to force a draw. Of course, if Brazil scores even once, it's likely over for them. But with the odds so stacked against them, the North Koreans have got to know that all they have to do to win is not lose. Odds of a draw are running 9/1 against at best. It may be a long shot, but it's the most rational long shot I've made yet.

All tolled, I think I can make it through today with at least accurate prediction in my column. I'll be relying on the defensive skills of Chollima and good old fashioned luck for the rest.

- Frog

Matt Reis, back for the Revs?

This isn't my normal type of post, but the idea of the New England Revolution's top keeper coming off the disabled list makes me all sorts of happy. After the year these guys have been having, they need all the help they can get.

- Frog

From: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/sports/rss/mls/SIG=1271opeqd/*http%3A//sports.yahoo.com/mls/news?slug=ap-mls-revolution-goalkeepers

Woman Sues Google for Bad Directions - PCWorld

Google tells her to walk down a country road that turns out to have no sidewalks. She gets hit and tries to sue Google. Clearly their fault.

From: http://ping.fm/3joKI

Israeli army: At least 4 killed on Gaza flotilla

A humanitarian mission to Gaza was attacked by the Israeli navy. The ships were trying to bring aid to the strip which has been suffering under a blockade for months. Israeli soldiers used live rounds against the mostly unarmed protestors, killing 4 and wounding as many as 30.

From: http://ping.fm/X16bv

President Nestor Kirchner tells Ollie Stone that Bush thought war is good for the economy http://ping.fm/jobbn

With Fiends like these...

File this one under "I hate to say I told you so..." 

It's no secret that the corporate news has been over-estimating the tea-baggers for months now. Their particular brand of white middle-class populist angst has scared the Dickens out of the "liberal" media and given the Murdoch's of the world that malicious gleam in their eyes. But their political calculus - mid-term elections + national crisis + populist anger equals opposition party landslide - has been flawed from the start. The reasons for this are pretty straight forward. First and foremost, there's Obama. Our first black president won the seat by galvanizing young people and minorities. A pair that not only leans Democratic, but when added to the traditional Democratic base can form a considerable majority. And while it's true that the people who make up this block are very inconsistant voters, Obama's ability to organize them throws the whole calculation off. The results in November may well hinge on whether or not he can get them to vote. The press seems to be betting they won't, but the only thing you can say for certain is that nothing this year is certain.

The second, and perhaps more important factor, are the tea-baggers themselves. The media has been falling over itself in the race to proclaim the movement as king-maker. But conventional wisdom on the left has long supposed that you only have to give these people so much rope before they hang themselves. Now it seems some in the media are finally starting to come around to this idea. First there was Rand Paul and the flap over his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act (???). The media had a field day with this one, and the GOP - still desperate to peel off some of Obama's minority voters - had to go into damage control mode. Then there's the race in North Carolina. There the GOP is trying to undo the early success of candidate Tim D'Annunzio. This tea-bagger darling nearly won the nomination, but failed to secure enough votes to avoid a run-off. Now the state party is pulling out all the stops to keep this guy off the ballot. What is it about D'Annunzio that has the GOP so spooked? Well, there's the claims of a former heroin addiction and his arrest for burglary. But there's crazier things than that. There's his belief that God would drop a 1,000 foot pyramid on Green Land. Or that the Ark of the Covenant would be found in Arizona. These are things that might seem like no big thing to some voters - say, 48% of the 30% of North Carolina GOP voters who turn up for a primary. But in a general election? Boy, that would be fun to watch.

As the primaries unfold around the country, there certainly is a narrative that's emerging. But it's not the one pundits seemed to be expecting. Instead of an invigorated GOP channeling populist anger into a sweeping victory, it's about those same populists altering the make-up of the Republican party. In primary after primary, the very voters the GOP tried to use to its advantage are threatening to split the party in two - moderate, practical conservatives on one hand, ideologically pure conservatives on the other. There may still time for the party to regain control of it's electorate. But the way things are going, the story arc in November might just be about how tea-baggers managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

- Frog

Whither the tea-baggers...

Recent elections seem to be challenging the cable-news narrative of a great Republican wave in November. First, John Murtha's seat was held decisively by the Democrats, after weeks of speculation that it would be another Scott Brown level catastrophe. Then, Arlen Specter lost his first election battle in years - not to the other party, but to the left wing of his own (adopted) party. This, more than anything, fails to fit into the GOP-takes-all story arc. It's true that anti-incumbent sentiment is running high, but I still fail to see how that translates directly into GOP gains this November.

The challenge facing both parties - but especially the Republicans - is how to fit an increasingly compartmentalized electorate into the two party big-tent system. As information is increasingly available and decentralized it becomes easier for individuals to find a like-minded community. The more these associational groups emerge and try to make their voices heard, the more difficult it will be for the two parties to find their message. Not to get too far ahead of myself here, but we may just be witnessing the biggest shift in our political make-up since the beginning of the 20th century. That era saw a huge upswing in 3rd party politics - which was only interrupted by national crises. Without the presence of a strong ideological enemy (the Depression, the Nazi's, the Commies, etc) it's just possible that the American party system might break up for good. This of course, remains to be seen. But if tea-bagger candidates fail to win big in November, it's hard to imagine that they'll just take all that impotent rage and go home. If it can't fit in the GOP tent, where can it?

Suicide season in Seoul??

It's an odd news day here in Seoul. ABC is carrying not one, but two suicide related articles. The first, about the suicide of the 72 year old head of the Doosan Group (who own my favorite Korean baseball team, by the way) and the second about a string of apparently organized suicides across the city. I've heard from multiple sources about the absurdly high suicide rate, but these are the first incidents I've seen make the papers since I've been here.

According the the article the suicide rate in 2008 was 35 per day. That's right, I said per day. And what is the main culprit according the National Statistics office? The economic downturn. Apparently, the theory goes, children are so spoiled by their work-a-holic parents that they can't deal with competition. Of course, it has nothing to do with soul crushing academic standards or a corporate culture that prevents parents from seeing their kids more than a few hours a week (in a particularly galling part, the article mentions that corporations are trying to combat this by insisting their workers leave by 6pm at least once a month. Once a month? My, how very altruistic of you). If this is reflective of anything it's reflective of the way Korea can't seem to reconcile individualistic capitalism with traditionally powerful family obligations. I've heard numerous stories from teachers here about students who have been tracked into occupations they loath, simply because they did well on some test in the eighth grade. If the government really wants to tackle this problem, it's got to start preaching less about personal obligations and creating more personal opportunities.

Petitions, petitions everywhere and not a drop of ink...

A couple of interesting action items today (to use to the parlance of the corporate douche-bag). First PAC Repower America has a petition circulating to urge your senators to sign on to the Kerry-Liberman energy bill. And while I've heard more than few things that make the current version of the bill seem a little milquetoast, time is running out for the Dem majority. So if this is of interest to you, act now, cause this offer won't last long.

Second, and perhaps of interest to netizens, is the ACLU's ongoing petition to urge Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to take the idea of respecting consumers' privacy a little more seriously. Maybe if we can remind ol' Zuckie that, given an alternative, FB users can and will defect on mass, it might just give him enough pause to backtrack on some his more flippant privacy violations. For while people might put up with it at the moment, developers are all ready betting that FB's users would flock to a more privacy-friendly social networking model. Mr. Zuckerberg is a relatively young guy, but he can't of forgotten what his own site did to Mayspace and Friendster. On the other hand, wild success does seem to affect the short term memory. If that's the case, sign the petition and see if we can jog it for him.

- Frog

Video game and cartoons used to shock school children about violence | Education | The Guardian

This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a while (outside of a teabagger rally, anyway). Exposing kids to violent images in an effort to keep them from becoming desensitized is completely pointless. First it assumes that playing violent video games when you're a teen will desensitize you to actual violence - which it doesn't. There hasn't been a study I've heard of that suggests a causal link between game violence and real violence. Second, even if it did, where are they getting the idea that showing them stills will prevent desensitization? My cousin in the marine corps told me that part of their training was to watch slide-shows and videos of bodies and battle scenes, specifically so they would become desensitized. This is essentially the same plan the US government used to get kids to "just say no," to drugs in the 1980's. Show them the drugs, teach the street names and they won't be interested. No really. It worked wonders, I swear.

Video game and cartoons used to shock school children about violence | Education | The Guardian

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Egypt's state of emergency extended

An interesting view on the state of civil society in Egypt. It's a common misconception in the West that civil unrest in the Middle East is primarily a fight between Islam and secular values. But this article sheds a little light on what is really going on. It's easy to forget that Egypt has been living under a presidential regime with "emergency" powers pretty much continuously since 1967. A 43 year emergency? Wow, that is emergent. This pattern of civil suppression is pretty consistent through countries that seem to attract Islamist movements. Egypt seems to fare better than most, but that's likely due to the fact that they have managed to develop a civil society that at least seems able to mount a token opposition, and may even be able to get the decrees reversed - finally. Contrast this with places like Saudi Arabia - where civil society has no such freedom of expression - and it becomes easier to see why political Islam can be so appealing.

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Egypt's state of emergency extended

Online Electric Car Debuts

A shuttle bus that runs wirelessly by following a track of magnets embedded in the roadway. Now that is a cool idea.

Online Electric Car Debuts

What happened to Majority Rule?

One of the refrains I keep hearing over and over is the lament that the majority party in Congress can’t seem to get their act together enough to actually get anything done. Looking back on the Bush years, it seems that the GOP, for all their faults at least knew how to ram things down our collective throats. Why can’t the Dems figure out how to do the same for things that actually matter – to most of us – like healthcare and Wall Street reform? The answer I suspect has more to do with the man who sits in the Oval Office than the woman in the Speaker’s chair. In nearly every way Obama has been the anti-Bush, even going so far as to something Bush would never have dreamed of doing – treating Congress like it matters. Now, this a personal hypothesis but it breaks down like this; Bush-Cheney operated on the theory that the executive was first and foremost the head of his party and they tried to use their (GOP) congressional majorities as a blunt instrument for pursuing their own agenda. This really pisses off the minority party (DEMS). The new president comes in with solid majorities in both houses, vaguely outlines his agenda and lets the Congress work out the details for themselves. All hell breaks loose. The majority wants to give the minority the high hard finger but the process of filling out Obama’s MadLibs agenda breaks down amid intra-party squabbling. Meanwhile the GOP twiddle their thumbs and just show up to say “no”.  Obama expressed a certain amount of naiveté in thinking he could rely on Congress and it’s costing him. If he doesn’t regain control of his party soon, it may cost them too.