Monday, June 13, 2005
Kissinger on China
When Henry Kissinger has something to say about China, we should probably lend an ear.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Light in the loafers?
It occured to me that a few weeks ago, the religious right was going after SpongeBob SquarePants because he appeared to be gay. SpongeBob's gayness could be debated, but they went after him anyway.
So where was the attack on the obvious icon? C-3PO is about as gay as they come, but the right won't go after him. Why? Is it because the gender of his companion R2-D2 isn't clear? Have you ever seen 3PO's package? It's ginormous!
Pretend you're in the Senate, and discuss.
So where was the attack on the obvious icon? C-3PO is about as gay as they come, but the right won't go after him. Why? Is it because the gender of his companion R2-D2 isn't clear? Have you ever seen 3PO's package? It's ginormous!
Pretend you're in the Senate, and discuss.
Ritual And Cats
This is not about bizarre Satanist rituals of animal sacrifice, but it is about something just as curious: rituals performed by animals.
The cat I'm sitting has an odd habit: prior to drinking, he moves his dish across the floor. The water splashes a little, and then he drinks. I've talked with other cat owners, and this is common.
What the heck is up with that? The cat's owner has a drinking fountain (but not enough time to bring it over with the cat on his rush to the airport), which usually keeps the water moving. The owner (and the above website) claims that cats like moving water. In nature, he says, moving water is in a river, which is healthy to drink, while stagnant water is often unhealthy. The cat is led by evolutionary self-preservation to prefer moving water.
Fine, so buy a fountain, the water moves and the cat is happy to find moving water. But why the high holy heck would a cat move the water himself before drinking it? It doesn't improve his health at all, whether he does this in my kitchen or in the Serengeti. If the point of drinking moving water is to select healthy water, it doesn't make the water in his dish any healthier to shove his bowl across my floor.
About the only reasonable, if anthropomorphic, argument I can think of is that the cat is engaging in a pre-meal ritual. In this ritual, Max has to make the water physicallly ripple prior to drinking it. He has no idea why this is, but it must be done to sate his evolutionarily self-preservational psyche.
Alternatively, cats have bad eyesight, can't see the clear liquid in the bowl, and so splashes it about to see if it's there. However, he could just stick his face in, and find out THAT way, which seems a simpler, and so more likely approach.
By moving its own water prior to drinking it might seem like the cat is engaging in a pre-drinking ritual -- a useless yet meaningful activity.
I'm just concerned that I'm going to come home one night, and find Max set up burning candles on a sheet-covered altar, draped in a gold embroidered robe and red beanie, incense drifting, arms raised heavens-ward before scarfing his cat chow.
So, now I'm curious to see if Paul Krugman writes about *this* this week.
The cat I'm sitting has an odd habit: prior to drinking, he moves his dish across the floor. The water splashes a little, and then he drinks. I've talked with other cat owners, and this is common.
What the heck is up with that? The cat's owner has a drinking fountain (but not enough time to bring it over with the cat on his rush to the airport), which usually keeps the water moving. The owner (and the above website) claims that cats like moving water. In nature, he says, moving water is in a river, which is healthy to drink, while stagnant water is often unhealthy. The cat is led by evolutionary self-preservation to prefer moving water.
Fine, so buy a fountain, the water moves and the cat is happy to find moving water. But why the high holy heck would a cat move the water himself before drinking it? It doesn't improve his health at all, whether he does this in my kitchen or in the Serengeti. If the point of drinking moving water is to select healthy water, it doesn't make the water in his dish any healthier to shove his bowl across my floor.
About the only reasonable, if anthropomorphic, argument I can think of is that the cat is engaging in a pre-meal ritual. In this ritual, Max has to make the water physicallly ripple prior to drinking it. He has no idea why this is, but it must be done to sate his evolutionarily self-preservational psyche.
Alternatively, cats have bad eyesight, can't see the clear liquid in the bowl, and so splashes it about to see if it's there. However, he could just stick his face in, and find out THAT way, which seems a simpler, and so more likely approach.
By moving its own water prior to drinking it might seem like the cat is engaging in a pre-drinking ritual -- a useless yet meaningful activity.
I'm just concerned that I'm going to come home one night, and find Max set up burning candles on a sheet-covered altar, draped in a gold embroidered robe and red beanie, incense drifting, arms raised heavens-ward before scarfing his cat chow.
So, now I'm curious to see if Paul Krugman writes about *this* this week.
Friday, June 10, 2005
White House Council of Economic Advisors Has Zero Members
Today, its Chairman stepped down, leaving the council with exactly zero members.
Bush has nominated a new chair to the Senate. He's been approved by the Banking Committee but has to be approved by the full Senate.
So today -- rather symbollicaly, don't you think -- the White House's Council of Economic Advisors has zero members.
Back to the Days of the Robber Baron Monopolists
Today, top news stories include the fact that the US Justicie department decided to drop that $130B judgement to zilch. Paul Krugman writes that Bush Administration policies have all been directed back to turning our country away from one with a social safety net and a robust middle class to one with a few very, very rich and powerful people, and the rest poor people.
So, which group are you intending to belong to?
So, which group are you intending to belong to?
First Dem Presidential Runner -- Virginia Gov. Mark Warner
The race begins. Speaking of which, anybody else see Colin Powell on The Daily Show last night? Just two days after Newt Gingerich. Neither of them declared.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
New Slant on Mortgage Spam
One of the odd aspects of buying a first house in this Age of the Internet is that it gives you a whole new perspective on the vast "mortgage loan application" category of spam. For example, here is the actual text of an email I received from our real-life lender last week:
Subject: WOOO HOOOO!!!And you know - out of sheer habit I nearly deleted it...
The rates are in for today!!!!! 5.125% NO POINTS and NO ORIGINATION!!!!! Betcha I beat whoever the other bank is!
North Korea Says It Is Open to Resuming Six-Party Negotiations, Hopes the US will Provide Tasty Snacks
They're ready again. And they don't want to make a nuisance of themselves -- but could the US bring tasty snacks, like last time? Maybe some finger sandwiches? And, hey, since they'll be in town, maybe Bush could throw a Texas BBQ! Some ribs, and creamy potato salad, with some of Laura's Hot Apple Pie that Tony Blair goes on and on about!
North Korea promises to bring a dip.
And this time, not Kim Jong-Il! (Good joke last time, though! Ha ha!)
North Korea promises to bring a dip.
And this time, not Kim Jong-Il! (Good joke last time, though! Ha ha!)
Breaking!
The New York Times Editorial Board has determined that America's Music industry is more interested in churning out money-making blockbusters than how the music actually sounds!
Shocked! Gambling! Shocked!
Shocked! Gambling! Shocked!
Monday, June 06, 2005
Serra Great
An exhibit by Richard Serra, which was at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Arts a few years ago, has made its way to the Guggenheim Bilbao. At least one critic is now calling it one of the greatest works of art of the past 50 years.
We know, of course, that this critic is not a Caltech student, since every Caltech student knows how a Serra sculpture interrupts a good frisbee lawn.
Oh, but I'm not bitter.
We know, of course, that this critic is not a Caltech student, since every Caltech student knows how a Serra sculpture interrupts a good frisbee lawn.
Oh, but I'm not bitter.
Bush's War on the Middle Class
Bob makes an excellent point in the post below. Just to drive the point home, you may wish to peruse this article in the NYT today about changes the Department of Education has made to the college financial aid formula since 2000.
According to the article, two primary changes are working together to drive up the size of the annual parental contribution by thousands of dollars for median income families:
Note the coincidences here (because in politics, coincidences are about as likely as the tooth fairy): (1) States with higher income tax are inevitably blue states; and (2) The change in the inflation forecast, just like the Pell Grant rules revision, serves to decrease government spending - useful in these times of roaring budget deficits.
Putting it all together: Bush is soaking the middle class (esp. those in Blue States) in order to make up for a budget that has been busted by income and estate tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%.
According to the article, two primary changes are working together to drive up the size of the annual parental contribution by thousands of dollars for median income families:
- The Pell Grant system has substantially reduced its deduction for state income taxes, as an explicit cost-cutting measure;
- The DOE has significantly reduced its long-term inflation forecast from years past.
Note the coincidences here (because in politics, coincidences are about as likely as the tooth fairy): (1) States with higher income tax are inevitably blue states; and (2) The change in the inflation forecast, just like the Pell Grant rules revision, serves to decrease government spending - useful in these times of roaring budget deficits.
Putting it all together: Bush is soaking the middle class (esp. those in Blue States) in order to make up for a budget that has been busted by income and estate tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%.
The Winner Take All Society
I hope you've been following the NYTimes is running a series on Class Matters in America.
This comes against the backdrop of Bush's re-shuffling of the social contract, where government's interaction with the wealthy favors them much more, and helps to preserve their wealth and keep it over generations. Bush has decreased taxes for the wealthy, such that now, everyone paying over $10M pays a lower *fraction* of their indcome in taxes than those at $100K (a regressive tax, people). And, by doing away with estate taxes, wealth will now be inherited, meaning future generations need worry less about meritocracy -- a return to demands for the Gentleman's Cs in classes at Yale.
Since World War II, the US has given a very nice deal to the working class and the middle class -- indeed, the middle class has dominated society and politics for half a century. To the extent that the wealthy determine the direction of politics, you can see that, now that the Cold War is over, the need for all those working people is somewhat diminished. Thus, the social contract which offered respect to these classes is going to be adjusted. This is to say, the heyday of the middle and working class is over. Now is the time to be rich -- and not just a little rich, but extremely rich. Welcome to the age of hegemony, where the winners dominate and rule over those weak enough to be dominated and ruled.
Thus, the political trends favoring the wealthy established under Bush will continue, and deepen. And why wouldn't they? The very words "class warfare", thrown about by Republicans at any Democrat who suggests that a regressive tax systsem is unfair, sting sufficiently to discredit the argument, regardless of the merits. Within our own generation, it will be much harder to retire as a member of the middle class, and the middle class will be leaving much less to their children.
This comes against the backdrop of Bush's re-shuffling of the social contract, where government's interaction with the wealthy favors them much more, and helps to preserve their wealth and keep it over generations. Bush has decreased taxes for the wealthy, such that now, everyone paying over $10M pays a lower *fraction* of their indcome in taxes than those at $100K (a regressive tax, people). And, by doing away with estate taxes, wealth will now be inherited, meaning future generations need worry less about meritocracy -- a return to demands for the Gentleman's Cs in classes at Yale.
Since World War II, the US has given a very nice deal to the working class and the middle class -- indeed, the middle class has dominated society and politics for half a century. To the extent that the wealthy determine the direction of politics, you can see that, now that the Cold War is over, the need for all those working people is somewhat diminished. Thus, the social contract which offered respect to these classes is going to be adjusted. This is to say, the heyday of the middle and working class is over. Now is the time to be rich -- and not just a little rich, but extremely rich. Welcome to the age of hegemony, where the winners dominate and rule over those weak enough to be dominated and ruled.
Thus, the political trends favoring the wealthy established under Bush will continue, and deepen. And why wouldn't they? The very words "class warfare", thrown about by Republicans at any Democrat who suggests that a regressive tax systsem is unfair, sting sufficiently to discredit the argument, regardless of the merits. Within our own generation, it will be much harder to retire as a member of the middle class, and the middle class will be leaving much less to their children.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Why I Think Rehnquist Will Not Retire
In a somewhat vulgar display, public discusions over who might step onto the Supreme Court have begun. Chief Justice Renquist, with cancer, is thought likely to announce his retirement at the end of this session, in a few weeks.
Rehnquist voted, in what many consider to be a jurisprudentially dubious decision, to effect Bush's win in 2000. Subsequently, some think him a Republican partisan.
However, I think Rehnquist, as Chief Justice, thinks historically about the importance of checks and balances. He sees the archly powerful executive under Bush, and how the Senate has been cowed into being his right hand through the very personally weak Majority Leader Bill Frist -- who owes his political life to Bush. And, he sees that when the court hands down decisions, like the one last summer, that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have rights of appeal in Federal Courts, the Executive Branch just plain ignores them, as it has been doing for the Gitmo decision all this year, playing it off in courts as if the Supreme Court decision did not exist.
Even if he is a partisan, he likely guards the separation of powers, and its checks and balances very closely. Seeing the Bushies 2 for 3 probably makes him worry about their aggressive Congressional posturing to go for 3 for 3.
So, I think Rehnquist will do a gut check, and ask himself -- can I keep doing this for 3 more years?
Rehnquist voted, in what many consider to be a jurisprudentially dubious decision, to effect Bush's win in 2000. Subsequently, some think him a Republican partisan.
However, I think Rehnquist, as Chief Justice, thinks historically about the importance of checks and balances. He sees the archly powerful executive under Bush, and how the Senate has been cowed into being his right hand through the very personally weak Majority Leader Bill Frist -- who owes his political life to Bush. And, he sees that when the court hands down decisions, like the one last summer, that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have rights of appeal in Federal Courts, the Executive Branch just plain ignores them, as it has been doing for the Gitmo decision all this year, playing it off in courts as if the Supreme Court decision did not exist.
Even if he is a partisan, he likely guards the separation of powers, and its checks and balances very closely. Seeing the Bushies 2 for 3 probably makes him worry about their aggressive Congressional posturing to go for 3 for 3.
So, I think Rehnquist will do a gut check, and ask himself -- can I keep doing this for 3 more years?
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Bolton Demanded Illegal Firing of Iraq Weapons Inspector in pre-war 2002
Apparently, Bush's nominee for ambassador to the UN John Bolton orchestrated the firing of a UN civil servant chemical weapons inspector, because the inspector was trying to send UN weapons inspectors to Baghdad, which might have defused the pre-Iraq war crisis and demonstrated what the world now knows to be fact: there were no WMD in Iraq. Oh, and the UN declared the unusual firing unlawful.
This is a man with no sense, who acts in contempt of democratic rules. He's anti-democratic.
This is a man with no sense, who acts in contempt of democratic rules. He's anti-democratic.
The End Of The Free Credit Report?
Remember how excited we all were when Congress passed a law requiring Equifax, Experian and Trans Union to provide a free credit report to all consumers who request one, once yearly? The FTC required they set up
a website
www.annualcreditreport.com where they would accept those requests. Well, go to that link now, and it's a dead link. The FTC thinks that link should be live and functioning. Of course, maybe you could call the number the FTC gives which goes to the same group: 877-322-8228, and sure enough, a computer recording answers. They give you two options: If you are calling from your home phone, press 1; if you are calling from another phone, press 2. So, I pressed 1 (calling from my home phone), and the response "Thank you for calling Annual Credit Report. Goodbye." and they hung up. So I called back, and pressed 2. They ask me to enter my home phone number (which I did) and the response was "Thank you for calling Annual Credit Report. Goodbye." and they hung up.
So, it looks like the credit reporting companies have decided not to provide that service anymore.
Isn't that illegal?
a website
www.annualcreditreport.com where they would accept those requests. Well, go to that link now, and it's a dead link. The FTC thinks that link should be live and functioning. Of course, maybe you could call the number the FTC gives which goes to the same group: 877-322-8228, and sure enough, a computer recording answers. They give you two options: If you are calling from your home phone, press 1; if you are calling from another phone, press 2. So, I pressed 1 (calling from my home phone), and the response "Thank you for calling Annual Credit Report. Goodbye." and they hung up. So I called back, and pressed 2. They ask me to enter my home phone number (which I did) and the response was "Thank you for calling Annual Credit Report. Goodbye." and they hung up.
So, it looks like the credit reporting companies have decided not to provide that service anymore.
Isn't that illegal?
Friday, June 03, 2005
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Bill Clinton Wants to Lead, Again.
The idea makes me breathless: He wants to be Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The very suggestion makes stark the contrast with Bush's UN ambassador nominee John Bolton. Are Bill Clinton and John Bolton even the same species?
The very suggestion makes stark the contrast with Bush's UN ambassador nominee John Bolton. Are Bill Clinton and John Bolton even the same species?
Buchanan: Felt, as "Deep Throat", is a traitor
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)