Conservatives on the attack

Republicans have been trying to kill Social Security since its birth. The program's success undermines their ideological belief that government by definition can do nothing right. Today Paul Krugman examines the math behind their claim that the program faces financial deficit unless something is done to trim benefits. Let us hope that Congress reads The New York Times.

Raising the retirement age or cutting the benefit pay-out are the reforms favored by the Right. Of course, another way to react to a supposed looming deficit would be to lift the cap on earnings from its current level of $106, 800. Or, we could reduce our bloated defense budget and re-direct the savings to Social Security.

Unfortunate timing

Just as Congress leaves for its summer recess, two government reports have been issued concerning global warming. In the year of the great Gulf of Mexico Oil Well Catastrophe, in a decade that continues to be much warmer than normal, in a time when the planet's atmosphere is perhaps at the tipping point toward a larger catastrophe, Congress was unable to pass a modest carbon tax. Conservatives - Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats - simply cannot summon the will to address this issue. As any student of the American legislative process knows, the Congress will always take the path of least resistance. With campaign donations from the carbon industry in play, legislators seem unwilling to address our larger needs in this mid-term election year. Until the public opinion is marshaled to do battle with the deniers and their corporate sponsors, the planet will continue to bake.

How did the climate change deniers come to dominate the discourse? No doubt economic insecurity is a factor: with unemployment numbers still rising, public sentiment can easily be marshaled to oppose anything that might cost coal miners and oil rig drillers some jobs. But the famed "paranoid style of American politics" phenomenon may also be at work. As Richard Hofstadter famously articulated in his seminal work, Americans have a long history of courting the irrational in our politics. It is so much easier to give in to the paranoia than to reason together. No wonder Congress was so hot to get out of town.

Let the market place decide

Today Paul Krugman identifies who is to blame for the failed cap and trade legislation. In his New York Times op-ed piece he skewers the usual suspects, delightfully eviscerating the maverick, John McCain. But his comments about the culpability of the energy industry are especially interesting. He points out that EM actively supports climate change deniers. This is evidently a well-known fact about the company - witness this article from the U.K. Guardian last year. But it was news to me.

The only way to change such corporate misbehavior is to affect the company's bottom line. I will no longer purchase its products: I estimate that I buy about $1800 worth of its gasoline a year. Driving less and walking and biking more more have failed to impress EM. Contributing money to environmental groups hasn't moved the company either. Today I will cut this credit card in half and mail it to the company to protest its hypocrisy.

Imagine what a market-place solution to climate change might look like. I imagine that Nike and Adidas are already working on wearable air-conditioned suits for comfort in the coming dystopia (picture a lighter weight version of the outfit Neil Armstrong wore as he stepped onto the moon). But what if we could change corporate behavior before things get much worse?

I wish I could cut the deniers in half, too. Don't they have children (and grandchildren?)

Faux News

Today I reported as spam an opinion expressed about an editorial in The Boston Globe. I did so because the writer suggested a link to the Wall Street Journal to back up the claim that there is no such thing as global warming. You might think my reaction extreme, but it is has been some time now since the WSJ could be considered a reputable news source. Purchased by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation a couple of years ago, it can no longer be seen as a serious source for reputable journalism. You see, it is tainted by association with another holding of the company, Fox News.

Journalists are not supposed to have an agenda. Journalists who twist the facts to fit that agenda should be fired. As that is par-for the course at Fox, however, no one is ever removed for violating the journalistic canon. Witness the contretemps over the Shirley Sherrod story. Fox News is an infotainment outlet. It's employees are masters of the procrustean argument. The company, owned by an extremely wealthy Australian conservative has an ax to grind, an agenda to push. It is a willing servant of the Republican party, of the tea-baggers and the right wing of the American political spectrum. It is to journalism what BP is to environmentalism.

Climate Change and Dystopia

(picture credit www.beanos.com)

If you read The Road (or cheated and only saw the film) you know what dystopia looks like. In fact, our current cinema and published fiction assaults us with such images (consider The Book of Eli or Children of Men as cases in point). Although much of the American public wishes to deny this possible future, serious thinkers Bill McKibben have been contemplating the worst case scenarios for over 20 years.

Were it not for Hollywood we might find it near impossible to imagine what life on a hot, dry Earth might look like. I think I'll sponsor a Dystopian film Festival at my workplace to spread the bad news. This looks like as good a list as any from which to make my selections.

oh..Netherlands!

( photo is from a Reuters report)
An all-European World Cup Final, played in South Africa, was one for the ages. Spain played a lovely game, and the Dutch looked more like a team at the bottom of the EPL table, fighting relegation. Setting a record for yellow cards, and finally losing a player to a red card, the Dutch determined that their only chance at victory was to play an ugly, physical game. Too bad, as they have some brilliant players, most especially Arjen Robben.

I rooted for the Dutch. Nearly two decades ago I read a book about Dutch soccer tactics and strategy, and taught the approach to my youth soccer teams. I had this weird nostalgia for those long-ago days, I guess.

In the "silver-lining" department, the U.S. National team beat the Spanish side in last year's Confederation Cup. So I guess this means that we have arrived as a soccer nation?

Ok, I admit it, I am partisan!

Financial Reform legislation is on the brink of passage. As one might expect, the bill is less than perfect, as some of the worst practices permitted during the Bush "market-based" years have survived the push for new regulatory powers for the people of this nation. I haven't read the bill, but only press reports, and I can't pretend that I would have understood much of it anyway. However, I do think I understand the partisan politics associated with the negotiations.

The Boston Globe reported today that our junior Senator, Scott Brown, is withholding support, "citing $19 billion in new bank taxes inserted at the last minute". As far as I knew, the bill always included some kind of attention to revenue, but I suppose it was a surprise to him. With this in mind, I fired off the following missive to him this morning:

I am displeased with your opposition to taxing big banks and hedge funds. Do you recall that taxpayers bailed out the former? Is it possible that your ties to Mitt Romney, and by extension to Bain Capital, might have something to do with your desire to protect hedge funds? Were I to run against you in 2012 I would certainly make that charge.
I know that you and your party are deficit hawks. But how can we reduce the deficit to pay for your party's 2 wars and 8 years of lax regulation unless revenue is raised? With this opposition you once again confirm what I have believed about you all along: you are a doctrinaire, conventional Republican. I am not disappointed, however, as this is what I expected from you.

Let's see: a tax on hedge funds - does the average middle-class voter care about a tax imposed on an industry that serves the interests of the richest of the rich, the group who most benefitted from the Bush tax cuts? I doubt it, but nice try, Sen. Brown.