Thursday, January 01, 2015

Goodbye to the Democrats ! ?

Much has been made lately about the demise of the Democratic Party in the South.  The Democratic “Solid South” Party is now no more than a highlighted link.  Nixon’s Southern Strategy did way more than even he and his Neocon cronies could ever imagine.
But, the Solid South did not die.  It is as alive as ever, but it is now in the pocket of the GOP – a hot pocket, to be sure, a pocket that wants to dictate how the rest of the suit hangs – but the good old boy, bible thumping, holier than thou south is still solid.
However, the question that caused this posting was could the Democratic Party ever recover in the South.  How can anyone who is even an elemental student of history not look at this question and wonder what is the opinionated world coming to.
They are asking if the party that has been taken over by liberals can ever recover from this takeover and recapture the hearts and minds of the working middle class or will it go the way of the Whig Party.
The answer is yes to all their naïve questions; it will not only survive, it may be well become the majority party before mid-century.  Case in point that supports this argument:  the Republican Party’s dominance in the South.

The Republican Party
We are talking about the party that started the Civil War.
The party that burned Atlanta and was going to make Georgia howl. 
The party that controlled Congress and punished the South after the Civil War.
The party that won the 1864 presidential election for Lincoln with the soldiers’ vote.

The same soldiers that were burning and destroying whatever they could find of value in the South.  This was 1864 and the North’s military supremacy could no longer be denied by the South’s heroic stand even in spirit if not in numbers.

In the 1864 election, the Democrats ran on a ticket of letting the South goes it separate way.  A peaceful settlement of hostilities and the South could continue as it had before.  Had the Democrats won the 1864 election, there would be a Confederate States of America, today.
But the Republican Party won with the soldiers’ vote, the North defeated and occupied the South.  During what they called “Reconstruction”, they controlled how each state could reenter the United States as an equal.
How could any party that had come into existence to destroy the Southern way of life ever become the dominate party in the South is the greater, more interesting question.  Answer that one and the one about the current recovery of the Democratic Party is easy.
To quote Dustin Hoffman’s character in “Wag the Dog”, “This is nothing!” 

Sunday, August 03, 2014

Boehner’s Lawsuit: Reviving Gift to Big Government

Boehner’s political stunt of the House suing Obama is a genuine gift to big government.  That while the GOP – especially the Libertarian and Tea Party factions - is against any form of government not specifically cited in the Constitution would come up with a new form of active big government is truly amazing.  Just when the forces against big government seem to have the agenda, they go and hand those that want more government intervention into our lives a whole new legislative schema to develop.  Will wonders ever cease? 

The GOP is against any form of socialism in government such as welfare, regulation of the free market, government run business, the taxes to finance these, and the icing on the socialistic cake, Obamacare, but they are offering up a solution that grows big government.

And the GOP in their mad political rush to take down Obama, does not see this.  The National Review and Breitbart want to expand the lawsuit to include Obama’s crimes against immigration legislation.  Huff Post sees fundraising opportunities for the Democrats but does not mention opportunities for proponents of big government.  Politico, WSJournal, and the major news streams are reporting on all the aspect of the lawsuit – save one.  The lawsuit sets a precedent.  And this proactive government initiative has legs.

Oh how the Democrats could have used this.  They could have sued Bush and Cheney for lying about Saddam’s WMDs.  They could have sued Reagan over Iran-Contra.  They mind boggles at how the pro-big government forces could use this gift that is being given them by no other than House Speaker John Boehner.

How about suing Bush and Cheney, NOW, for lying to us on their security initiative as to what electronic communication the NSA was going to gather?  The lawsuit would prove once and for all that Bush truly thought the NSA was only going to watch communications going into and out of the U.S., while Cheney knew otherwise.  

And lawsuit stunt will be there, waiting in the wings, to be used when Congressional majorities and control of the White House changes parties – which it eventually will.

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Bringing the Cosmos Down to Earth

The final episode of Cosmos, aired and on the whole, I found it lacking.  I learned a few things but most of it was high school or a 101 science course.  I would have loved it many, many years ago as I did the original.  Most of today’s science or history documentaries are targeted to a younger audience.  When are they going to come up with a science channel for scientists?

I noticed a spin or slant to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s pitch of the Cosmos.  The shows continually seem to want to explain or counter the ideas and prejudges of those that believe in the voodoo science of creationism or that science is mostly wrong in some way.

By the way, science is mostly wrong.  Since most of the universe is dark matter, and the whole concept of dark matter is theoretical, it is probably more wrong thanright.  However, the spin coming from the Cosmos show was in defense of what we do know and is no longer a theory – scientific facts.

Evolution is not a theory: it is a fact.  How particular species evolved is theoretical, but the probabilistic trail and error of successful mutation of the DNA molecule is mathematical and a fact.  How life started is still an unknown – still one of the great mysteries of science and Cosmos brushed on it.  Theories abound with no provable (repeatable) facts.  The old 1950’s lighting in a jar of swampy like water experiment produced the building blocks of life, however, no matter how many time it was done, no life was ever built.

A lot of affirmative active and pro-active spin for minorities and women.  The recognition of those discovers and developers who are hidden in history – and were unknown because of their cultural situation – is needed, so thank you Cosmos.

The special effects were great, but a lot of cartoon-like animation of noteworthy scientists was a bit much. What else has the documentarians got.  Old, bad photographs, drawings, and scenes of where they lived and worked are not much better nor are re-enactors, so cartoons of early astronomers, physicists, and scientists in general was an interesting approach.

As for the voodoo science of creationism, our ability to understand the world around us is one of God’s greatest gifts and to misuse it in voodoo creationism is an insult to God. Belief in science is a matter of fact. It can be proven and disproven.  Belief in God is a matter of faith, and it can neither be proven nor disproven with facts.  When facts are mixed with faith, the result is no longer faith. It is something else that can lead to things like ethnic cleansing, lynchings, and one notable crucifixion.

We cannot know the Giver using the gift.

As for knowing the Cosmos, we are no different than when we stopped being hunter-gathers and settled down into what would become civilizations.  Even then, those that we would call geeky or nerdy today noticed over time the sun, moon, and stars sat and rose at predictable places on the horizon.  They saw the cycle.  They were sharp enough to figure that the stars sat and rose at exactly the same point on the horizon every four years plus one day. They noticed that five stars wandered the sky in relation to the other stars, but over time, their wandering became predictable, also.

Although their math was spot on, they could not explain why.  They concocted all manner of theories to explain it.  However, their theories were hampered by the observation that from their point of view, the earth appeared to be the center of the universe, and everything revolved around the earth, and so this concept was at the center of their theories to explain the movement of observable universe.  Of course they were wrong, but they got the moon right; it does revolve around the earth.

Let us hope in our theories of the cosmos such as the big band, dark matter and energy, and particle physics, we got a higher percentage right.

Saturday, May 31, 2014

The News Hole in the NSA Spying Story

The latest stories on the great NSA’s scandal nationalistic corruptible (I’m looking for the right word here.) scheme of spying on all Americans leaves a big hole in my understanding of what is going on.  I don’t follow news events like this especially close, reading every story that comes out.  I prefer to wait for those liberally biased news organizations to sum it up for me.  Frontline had a very informative summation and at this time, NBC’s exclusive on Edward Snowden is all over the news.  What I know so far
  1. NSA pulled the data on all Americans, not just those living outside America, or communicating into or out of the U.S., but everything everywhere on everybody.
  2. NSA did not gather the data.  My email provider, my cell phone provider, AT&T, Google, Facebook, and any other major Internet service providers collected the data.  NSA just harvested the data, or as it was put in the Frontline story, “rode piggyback on what Google was doing”.
  3. Google kept quiet about what NSA was doing because it did not want users to know what Google was doing.  I suspected this spying from what my Google searches returned, but this news confirmed it, and Google wasn’t looking for terrorist.
  4. I learned a lot more about Edward Snowden than I care to know.

The fact that the NSA is spying on foreigners is not news.  That’s what they are supposed and expected to do.  That’s their job.  The particular foreigners they spied on made news but the fact they were doing it is not news.

As far as Snowden complaining within the system, others did.  The Frontline story on Snowden and the NSA, showed that even a hint of dissatisfaction with what your organization is doing is a career ender.  Several NSA staffers had their lives and families ruined or at least greatly stressed because the agencies thought they might be the ones leaking information to the New York Times and Washington Post.  And after their lives were ruined, the case against them was drop or forgotten.  Yea, why didn’t Snowden take that route?  Give me a break.

Reminds me of the story on Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers in 1971, and his treason declared a mistrial after Nixon’s White House Plumbers involvement came out during the Watergate Scandal.  Those were some juicy news days.  That news round is also an example of how the current NSA spying could get ugly.  That power in the hands of the wrong politicians could lead to one of those scary Orwellian worlds.  Snowden could always come back to the U.S. and depend on the government to screw up the case against him just as they did Ellsberg.

Besides, what’s he got to look forward to other than prison or life in Russia?  There’s a difference?  Just wait until the notoriety or usefulness wears off.

Although not the biggest new hole in this story, NSA is not the top dog spy in the hut for intelligence.  From what I’ve read and seen on TV, that would go to Russia, Britain, or Israel.  I love the story of the Russian bug in the U.S. Great Seal that British intelligence had to explain how it worked to the American intelligence after they finally found it.  And you’re worried about NSA’s technique?

The great big hole in this story, the “news” that could make Snowden a traitor and NSA heroes instead of what appears to be in the current spin would be how effective was NSA’s spying on all of us Americans.  How many terrorists were stopped before they could kill Americans?  NSA did not stop the Boston Bombers, the Shoe Bomber, or the Underwear Bomber.  Did their work lead to the catching of anybody?  All I ever heard in that Frontline piece was they stopped a terrorist who was going to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch.

That’s it!  For all that spying, all that riding piggyback on Google, all the listening in on phone calls, text messages, and email, all we got is one crazy that the NYPD would have gotten anyway.  I’ve seen several stories of attempts to blow up Time Square.  Did NSA contribute anything in catching the perpetrators?  I thought it was old fashion police or FBI sting work, but if NSA helped in anyway, now is the time to speak up. 

Some reporter should ask that question, or the more significant question news-wise: how effective was all that spying?  Specifics please.  Who or even how many terrorists did you catch? 

Sunday, February 09, 2014

Say’s Law Holds True - Eventually

Paul Krugman’s Jan 16th column lamented a recent re-validation of Say’s Law in regards to Europe’s recovery from America’s 2008 stock market crash.
His juicy quote was from François Hollande, the president of France: “It is upon supply that we need to act,” and he further declared that “supply actually creates demand.”
Krugman reference another site (blog) that drew the same conclusion on Say’s Law.  Here I learned Say was French, and that Say’s Law is taught as gospel at the college where Hollande went.  I couldn’t believe it:  Says Law is still taught – and not just mentioned like the old theory that the world is flat and the center of the universe – and Hollande had a college education.  Say's staying power is still being discussed, follow along with Google.

What Krugman and Francesco Saraceno, the other economist whose site is hyperlinked above, don’t get is that Say’s Law will hold true.  Supply will create a demand in the long, long run.

Supply does create demand – eventually – but it will be a sluggish, struggling economy, which by the way, we may very well be seeing lo these five and a half years from the last crash.  Current economic reports are showing Say’s Law doing its best.  A subsistence economy is all the supply siders are going to get us. 

Basically, those that have been able to hold on to a job and feel they have weather the economic recession will venture into the economy and make necessary purchases to sustain their subsistence position.  It’s not much of an economy but it is Say’s at his best.

If supply side economics was effectively valid, merchants should act like it is December all year round.  Increased inventory, employees, and hours, plus bargain   prices and sales specials would create the annual Christmas demand all year round – that is if supply created the boom in sales at the end of the year and not the demand.  The annual Christmas business boom is Keynesian demand and not Say’s Law of supply side economics. 

In the U.S., social security, welfare payments, unemployment relief, food stamps, and all the other government assistance even including Obama’s underfunded stimulus package kept the recession from becoming Great Depression II.  Times have changed since the Great Depression and the constant and automatic government payments affect the economy in ways the latest pundits fail to notice.

It’s the demand not the supply that counts.  If you have the means to produce supply, which in the current political fashion is referred to as “job creators”, you would be stupid to invest in today’s economy.  Hold your money, put it in derivatives, invest off shore as one notable presidential candidate did, but do not invest it in developing supply until the supply side economy slowly, sluggishly turns around.

As long as the U.S. and Europe stay with Say, we can expect only a subsistence economy.