There you go again, "liberal media!"
Looks like once again, the famed "Liberal Media" is going through conniptions to avoid stating the obvious: that Vice-President Biden kicked Paul "Lyin' Ryan" Ryan's ass last night. To anyone watching, it was an evisceration. An embarrassment. A beheading. A smackdown. A thrashing. A thumpin', as George W. Bush might have said.
Yet today, the pundits have a different take. While Mitt Romney was unanimously declared the hands-down winner of the first Presidential debate for being aggressive and smiling into the camera, even though he lied about the issues and adopted most of the President's positions on the issues where his stance is unpopular, Biden received a different analysis.
HIS smiling and aggressive takedown of Paul Ryan, the professional pundits have declared, was "too aggressive," "contemptuous," and makes it "unclear" who was the winner. It could have gone either way, they say. So eager is the "liberal media" to avoid making the obvious observation that Biden scored a dominant victory that they actually called a poll in which 50% picked Biden the winner to 31% for Ryan "ambiguous." Based on that kind of reasoning, I guess it was also ambiguous who won the Presidency in 2008. After all, Obama only got 365 Electoral College votes to John McCain's 173. On the other hand, no one can question that in 2004, Bush won decisively over John Kerry, grabbing an overwhelming 286 votes to Kerry's measly 251.
I, for one, am thoroughly fed up with the ridiculous double standard the Media applies to Repubs and Democrats. If a Republican manages to maintain their composure, speaks articulately and avoids saying anything overtly stupid, they are declared the resounding winner. If a Democrat, on the other hand, fails to wear a large enough flag pin, glances at his watch, allows himself to be interrupted, or doesn't allow himself to be interrupted, his performance is questioned, and he is called a wimp, a bully, too aggressive, too docile, a sleepwalker, or a madman.
Note that, in either case, the issues are not considered at all in evaluating debate winners and losers by this cadre of professional pundits.
Now, let's take a look at what actually happened last night.
Joe Biden spoke clearly, coherently, forcefully, truthfully, and with conviction, making none of the gaffes that the "liberal Media" has made such hay of claiming he is prone to. He showed a thorough command of the facts and displayed an easy fluency with foreign policy, Medicare and tax policy. He has no trouble giving direct answers to the moderator's questions.
Paul Ryan, by contrast, continued a pattern he has developed (to the dismay of Republicans who now are wondering whether promoting him was a good idea after all), of failing to respond directly to questions. Similarly, he was unable to provide any specifics about his and Romney's plans, even when asked for them directly. He reiterated his prepared talking points over and over again, often even when the question was about a completely different topic. Most troubling was that, when asked what he personally, as a man and a human being, could bring to public office, he gave an answer that had nothing to do with himself. When asked whether he felt any regret for the negative nature of the campaign on both sides, he answered by repeating his attacks on Obama.
By any objective standard, Biden won the debate resoundingly. He pointed out, clearly and repeatedly, that:
- The Republicans want to voucherize Medicare.
- Romney and Ryan have no plan for Syria, even though they accuse Obama of handling it wrong.
- Romney/Ryan would cut taxes on the uber-wealthy and raise them for middle-class taxpayers.
- Romney opposed the auto bailout.
- Ryan asked for stimulus money, even though he now criticizes it.
- Romney & Ryan want to privatize Social Security and cut funding for education.
- etc, etc.
But apparently, because Biden refused to sit dumbly and look down while Ryan lied about what he had done in the past and now believes, Biden is now being called "too aggressive." How DARE he? He's a Democrat, after all!
Yes, the Liberal Media is at it again.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Latest Poll
In this day of non-stop and up-to-the-minute polling, the latest Presidential-election polls have raised a few questions, in my mind at least. Let's start with a couple of apparently innocent "facts:"
1) The pollsters keep telling us that there are very few, in fact almost no, "undecided" voters left.
2) The polls keep shifting, almost on a daily basis.
Last week, for example, Obama was said to be moving into a decisive lead in the polls, both nationally and in most of the "battleground" states, the only states that matter in this election, thanks to the Electoral College.
This week, however, after a debate in which Mitt Romney was universally declared the winner, even though, in my humble and apparently irrelevant opinion, he lost badly (see related post) - the polls have shifted dramatically in Romney's favor, to the point where he is, depending on which poll you believe, currently tied with Obama, or even in the lead.
Here's the question:
Since there are so few undecided voters out there, how exactly can the polls shift so dramatically from day to day? Since presumably different people are being polled each time, it hardly seems credible that the minimal number of who supposedly still haven't made up their mind are present in sufficient numbers to swing the entire poll results. It made absolutely no sense until it dawned on me:
The pollsters must only be recording results from self-proclaimed undecided voters. Here's how I imagine a typical conversation between a pollster and a voter:
POLLSTER: Hello, have you made up your mind yet who you are going to vote for?
VOTER: Yes, I -
POLLSTER: Thank you, have a nice day.
-Click-
POLLSTER: Hello, have you made up your mind yet who you are going to vote for?
VOTER: Well, I just can't make up my mind...
POLLSTER: If the election were today,...
etc, etc. it's the only explanation that can explain the "facts." Clearly pollsters have no interest in the opinion of already-decided voters, since their votes cannot change and therefore cannot provide the endless intrigue of a "neck and neck" election, which sells more papers and magazines, keeps people logged onto websites, and so on. This could also explain why the media had decided long in advance that Romney would be declared the winner of the first debate (again, see other post).
Of course, this analysis still leaves open the question of which polls, if any, can be believed, and who can be expected to win this election. Will it be close enough that Republican voter fraud and malfeasance will be able to decide the outcome, as in Ohio in 2004? Or will it be another Obama landslide, like in 2008? Stay tuned.
1) The pollsters keep telling us that there are very few, in fact almost no, "undecided" voters left.
2) The polls keep shifting, almost on a daily basis.
Last week, for example, Obama was said to be moving into a decisive lead in the polls, both nationally and in most of the "battleground" states, the only states that matter in this election, thanks to the Electoral College.
This week, however, after a debate in which Mitt Romney was universally declared the winner, even though, in my humble and apparently irrelevant opinion, he lost badly (see related post) - the polls have shifted dramatically in Romney's favor, to the point where he is, depending on which poll you believe, currently tied with Obama, or even in the lead.
Here's the question:
Since there are so few undecided voters out there, how exactly can the polls shift so dramatically from day to day? Since presumably different people are being polled each time, it hardly seems credible that the minimal number of who supposedly still haven't made up their mind are present in sufficient numbers to swing the entire poll results. It made absolutely no sense until it dawned on me:
The pollsters must only be recording results from self-proclaimed undecided voters. Here's how I imagine a typical conversation between a pollster and a voter:
POLLSTER: Hello, have you made up your mind yet who you are going to vote for?
VOTER: Yes, I -
POLLSTER: Thank you, have a nice day.
-Click-
POLLSTER: Hello, have you made up your mind yet who you are going to vote for?
VOTER: Well, I just can't make up my mind...
POLLSTER: If the election were today,...
etc, etc. it's the only explanation that can explain the "facts." Clearly pollsters have no interest in the opinion of already-decided voters, since their votes cannot change and therefore cannot provide the endless intrigue of a "neck and neck" election, which sells more papers and magazines, keeps people logged onto websites, and so on. This could also explain why the media had decided long in advance that Romney would be declared the winner of the first debate (again, see other post).
Of course, this analysis still leaves open the question of which polls, if any, can be believed, and who can be expected to win this election. Will it be close enough that Republican voter fraud and malfeasance will be able to decide the outcome, as in Ohio in 2004? Or will it be another Obama landslide, like in 2008? Stay tuned.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
An Open Letter to President Obama
Dear President Obama,
During your election campaign in 2008, you spoke eloquently about the need for a "new energy future," one unencumbered by addiction to foreign oil and marked by investment in "alternative" sources of energy, such as solar power, wind turbines, geothermal power and wave generation. You vowed that, if elected President, you would push strongly for investment in these areas. You reiterated this point again in the powerful State of the Union address that you delivered in 2010.
Throughout your Presidency, you have repeatedly claimed that, although fossil fuels and nuclear power are, in your view, parts of the energy picture for the foreseeable future, you are a strong believer and advocate for the development of energy alternatives, not only in order to decrease America's dependence on foreign oil, and not just because of the enormous potential for jobs and economic growth that investment in the alternative energy sector could provide, but also because of the necessity of reducing, immediately and drastically, the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels. Global warming is an urgent problem of global proportions, as you argued during your election campaign, and as you have reiterated at times during your presidency. Your action requiring American car manufacturers to raise fuel efficiency standards is an acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem and a significant move in the right direction.
That brings me to the Keystone XL pipeline for transporting bitumen from Alberta's oil sands to Texas to be refined.
Bitumen, or "tar," is a viscous, sticky oil-like substance that has been used foe centuries as an adhesive and building material, but not as oil, because it is not the same as crude oil. To be burned like oil it first needs to be mixed with lighter hydrocarbons. It is nothing like "light sweet crude," the oil in reserves in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, etc. The process of transforming bitumen into liquid fuel
requires energy for steam injection and refining, a process which generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of final product as the "production" of conventional oil.
Alberta's "tar sands" contain something like 85% of the world's reserves of bitumen, an amount that equals the world's total reserves of conventional crude oil. This kind of resource has only recently become thought of as profitable. It requires huge inputs of energy and water, but as conventional crude becomes more scarce, it will undoubtedly only become more profitable to extract unconventional oil and natural gas.
The reason why we have come to this point is because we have passed the era of peak oil. That is to say, global production of conventional oil has peaked and is now on the decline. We have passed through the era of easy oil - reserves that could be tapped simply by drilling into the ground, and releasing the pressure holding the oil in place - and into the era of hard oil. This is why we are now drilling for oil 5 miles beneath the surface of the ocean, which is what led to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This is why the government of Canada is now so actively pursuing the extraction of oil from the Alberta Tar Sands.
But Canada has no refineries capable of transforming bitumen from the tar sands into usable liquid oil anywhere near where the resource lies, beneath Alberta's boreal forests. Hence, the Keystone XL pipeline project, to bring the bitumen to the refineries of Texas to be transformed into a product the oil companies can transport and sell.
For months, thousands of Americans of every political persuasion bombarded the White House with demands that you reject this pipeline, which would carry the oil through the Ogalalla Aquifer, the groundwater resource accessed by eight U.S. states, from South Dakota to Texas, for drinking water. The project has been opposed by Republican governors, ranchers, farmers and civilians of every kind, as well as many environmental groups. Of course, you have also been lobbied intensely by the Canadian government and by oil industry representatives, for this project to go forward.
Many breathed a huge sigh of relief when, a month ago, you declared no decision on the pipeline this year. Now, however, it seems that, thanks to your political opponents in Congress, the issue has been raised from the dead and you must, again, issue a decision on it in the near future.
When considering what decision to make, keep in mind that this project isn't just about job creation or the economy. Yes, it would create a relatively small number of short-term jobs, and yes, it would increase profits for the oil industry, which some feel convinced somehow benefits everyone else as well. But it would also create, not just temporarily, but in the long term and for the foreseeable future, a drastic increase in greenhouse gas emissions just when we need to be working hard to achieve the exact opposite.
More to the point, approval of this pipeline represents a strong and enduring commitment to the very sources of dirty energy that you so eloquently and forcefully argued against as a presidential candidate. This is a watershed moment.
If, as Americans have loudly and clearly demanded, you stand by your promise to veto this project, you will reinforce your commitment to a clean energy future and a definitive move away from reliance on foreign oil.
If, on the other hand, you cave to the pressure of oil industry lobbyists and political calculations, you risk not just losing the support of Americans concerned about the environment that carried you into office, but also the health of our natural resources and the balance of the global climate. Make the right choice.
Seth Needler
Portland, Oregon
During your election campaign in 2008, you spoke eloquently about the need for a "new energy future," one unencumbered by addiction to foreign oil and marked by investment in "alternative" sources of energy, such as solar power, wind turbines, geothermal power and wave generation. You vowed that, if elected President, you would push strongly for investment in these areas. You reiterated this point again in the powerful State of the Union address that you delivered in 2010.
Throughout your Presidency, you have repeatedly claimed that, although fossil fuels and nuclear power are, in your view, parts of the energy picture for the foreseeable future, you are a strong believer and advocate for the development of energy alternatives, not only in order to decrease America's dependence on foreign oil, and not just because of the enormous potential for jobs and economic growth that investment in the alternative energy sector could provide, but also because of the necessity of reducing, immediately and drastically, the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels. Global warming is an urgent problem of global proportions, as you argued during your election campaign, and as you have reiterated at times during your presidency. Your action requiring American car manufacturers to raise fuel efficiency standards is an acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem and a significant move in the right direction.
That brings me to the Keystone XL pipeline for transporting bitumen from Alberta's oil sands to Texas to be refined.
Bitumen, or "tar," is a viscous, sticky oil-like substance that has been used foe centuries as an adhesive and building material, but not as oil, because it is not the same as crude oil. To be burned like oil it first needs to be mixed with lighter hydrocarbons. It is nothing like "light sweet crude," the oil in reserves in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, etc. The process of transforming bitumen into liquid fuel
requires energy for steam injection and refining, a process which generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of final product as the "production" of conventional oil.
Alberta's "tar sands" contain something like 85% of the world's reserves of bitumen, an amount that equals the world's total reserves of conventional crude oil. This kind of resource has only recently become thought of as profitable. It requires huge inputs of energy and water, but as conventional crude becomes more scarce, it will undoubtedly only become more profitable to extract unconventional oil and natural gas.
The reason why we have come to this point is because we have passed the era of peak oil. That is to say, global production of conventional oil has peaked and is now on the decline. We have passed through the era of easy oil - reserves that could be tapped simply by drilling into the ground, and releasing the pressure holding the oil in place - and into the era of hard oil. This is why we are now drilling for oil 5 miles beneath the surface of the ocean, which is what led to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This is why the government of Canada is now so actively pursuing the extraction of oil from the Alberta Tar Sands.
But Canada has no refineries capable of transforming bitumen from the tar sands into usable liquid oil anywhere near where the resource lies, beneath Alberta's boreal forests. Hence, the Keystone XL pipeline project, to bring the bitumen to the refineries of Texas to be transformed into a product the oil companies can transport and sell.
For months, thousands of Americans of every political persuasion bombarded the White House with demands that you reject this pipeline, which would carry the oil through the Ogalalla Aquifer, the groundwater resource accessed by eight U.S. states, from South Dakota to Texas, for drinking water. The project has been opposed by Republican governors, ranchers, farmers and civilians of every kind, as well as many environmental groups. Of course, you have also been lobbied intensely by the Canadian government and by oil industry representatives, for this project to go forward.
Many breathed a huge sigh of relief when, a month ago, you declared no decision on the pipeline this year. Now, however, it seems that, thanks to your political opponents in Congress, the issue has been raised from the dead and you must, again, issue a decision on it in the near future.
When considering what decision to make, keep in mind that this project isn't just about job creation or the economy. Yes, it would create a relatively small number of short-term jobs, and yes, it would increase profits for the oil industry, which some feel convinced somehow benefits everyone else as well. But it would also create, not just temporarily, but in the long term and for the foreseeable future, a drastic increase in greenhouse gas emissions just when we need to be working hard to achieve the exact opposite.
More to the point, approval of this pipeline represents a strong and enduring commitment to the very sources of dirty energy that you so eloquently and forcefully argued against as a presidential candidate. This is a watershed moment.
If, as Americans have loudly and clearly demanded, you stand by your promise to veto this project, you will reinforce your commitment to a clean energy future and a definitive move away from reliance on foreign oil.
If, on the other hand, you cave to the pressure of oil industry lobbyists and political calculations, you risk not just losing the support of Americans concerned about the environment that carried you into office, but also the health of our natural resources and the balance of the global climate. Make the right choice.
Seth Needler
Portland, Oregon
Thursday, July 28, 2011
What, another right-wing lie??
One of the favorite "arguments" (if that word doesn't connote too much thoughtfulness to be applied to such statements) of tea party enthusiasts is that the government, just like Americans, needs to live "within its means."
Since when do Americans live within their means?
The last time I checked, which was about 5 minutes ago, the average amount of personal debt held by Americans, which includes mortgages, car loans, student loans and credit card debt, was almost $52,000. By contrast, Americans' average annual savings is only about $7,000 per family. In other words, Americans live on credit, and have been for some time, just like the Federal government, only more so.
So, the idea that Americans balance their budget and live within their means is, like everything else these tea party enthusiasts make up, well, made up. What a surprise.
Since when do Americans live within their means?
The last time I checked, which was about 5 minutes ago, the average amount of personal debt held by Americans, which includes mortgages, car loans, student loans and credit card debt, was almost $52,000. By contrast, Americans' average annual savings is only about $7,000 per family. In other words, Americans live on credit, and have been for some time, just like the Federal government, only more so.
So, the idea that Americans balance their budget and live within their means is, like everything else these tea party enthusiasts make up, well, made up. What a surprise.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Let's Mess With Texas
When I was in New Orleans at Jazz Fest recently, my wife and I had a good laugh at a t-shirt we saw for sale in a store that said, over a logo of the state of Texas, "Let's Mess With Texas."
Last night, a friend and I brainstormed the following scenario: Let the Tea Party and their followers have Texas, and let Texas secede from the United States, as they have actually proposed doing.
The Tea Party and the Republican politicians under their immediate control have been strongly advocating for a drastic reduction of the Federal government ("Get your government hands off my Medicare!"). Why not let these morons test their theory for real? Here's how it would work:
All Tea Party members and other Republicans who claim to want a dissolution of government would go to Texas, signing a pledge to stay there for a minimum 10-year period. During that time, they would also have to pledge to do no business with any other states (that would violate their no-government philosophy). They would be able to receive no imports from the United States, and would also not be able to access any infrastructure services emanating from the United States (no telephone, Internet, radio or television broadcasting, U.S. mail, water, sewage treatment, garbage collection, electricity generation, etc. All of these would have to be provided within Texas, or through direct commerce with other countries but without any assistance from the U.S. government. They would also, of course, have to provide all of their own education, transportation, law-enforcement, emergency and medical services within state. Needless to say, the citizens of Texas would have to build their own roads, grow their own fruit and vegetables, raise their own meat, etc. Luckily Texas is wealthy in natural resources, particularly oil. However, the benefits of any pipelines importing or exporting oil through the U.S. would have to be foregone.
It would, of course, be entirely up to these citizens of Texas to determine whether or not to maintain a state governing body, or whether to take up a tax collection.
After 10 years, we would evaluate the success of the experiment. If, as the Tea Party caucus claims, no taxes and a lack of government spur employment and wealth, Texas would be overflowing with money and wealth, and have virtually no unemployment. In that event, we others would agree to let Texas take over the rest of the states, kick out all non-whites, imprison all poor people, and confiscate their property for immediate transfer to a Billionnaire Asset Acquisition Fund.
If not, and the experiment proved to no one's surprise to be a miserable and demoralizing failure, then the Texas secession would be declared permanent and all its citizens would be henceforth treated as illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Last night, a friend and I brainstormed the following scenario: Let the Tea Party and their followers have Texas, and let Texas secede from the United States, as they have actually proposed doing.
The Tea Party and the Republican politicians under their immediate control have been strongly advocating for a drastic reduction of the Federal government ("Get your government hands off my Medicare!"). Why not let these morons test their theory for real? Here's how it would work:
All Tea Party members and other Republicans who claim to want a dissolution of government would go to Texas, signing a pledge to stay there for a minimum 10-year period. During that time, they would also have to pledge to do no business with any other states (that would violate their no-government philosophy). They would be able to receive no imports from the United States, and would also not be able to access any infrastructure services emanating from the United States (no telephone, Internet, radio or television broadcasting, U.S. mail, water, sewage treatment, garbage collection, electricity generation, etc. All of these would have to be provided within Texas, or through direct commerce with other countries but without any assistance from the U.S. government. They would also, of course, have to provide all of their own education, transportation, law-enforcement, emergency and medical services within state. Needless to say, the citizens of Texas would have to build their own roads, grow their own fruit and vegetables, raise their own meat, etc. Luckily Texas is wealthy in natural resources, particularly oil. However, the benefits of any pipelines importing or exporting oil through the U.S. would have to be foregone.
It would, of course, be entirely up to these citizens of Texas to determine whether or not to maintain a state governing body, or whether to take up a tax collection.
After 10 years, we would evaluate the success of the experiment. If, as the Tea Party caucus claims, no taxes and a lack of government spur employment and wealth, Texas would be overflowing with money and wealth, and have virtually no unemployment. In that event, we others would agree to let Texas take over the rest of the states, kick out all non-whites, imprison all poor people, and confiscate their property for immediate transfer to a Billionnaire Asset Acquisition Fund.
If not, and the experiment proved to no one's surprise to be a miserable and demoralizing failure, then the Texas secession would be declared permanent and all its citizens would be henceforth treated as illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Fox News Must Die
To sort of paraphrase Louis Farakkhan: Fox News must die in order for America to truly live.
Ask yourself this: How did the Republicans manage to change the terms of the debate, such that now apparently a majority of Americans think the debt crisis should be solved by a "combination of spending cuts and revenue increases," as the media keeps constantly reminding us?
Why do Republicans, like Grover Norquist, whose "I will never vote to raise taxes on Billionnaires" pledge the majority of Congressional Republicans have signed, keep telling us over and over again that lower taxes are the solution to the poor economy and the high rate of unemployment? Everybody with half a brain knows that not only is that not true, it is the exact opposite of the truth.
The Republicans had 8 consecutive years during the Bush Administration, when they controlled both houses of Congress, to prove the efficacy of that idea and they failed miserably, creating the economic collapse that we are in the midst of now. Even though we now have incontrovertible evidence that the Republican ideology of government is wrong, average Americans keep voting to allow Republicans to keep taking money away from average Americans and handing it over to America's wealthiest 400 "citizens," whose combined wealth exceeds that of half of the country.
Ask yourself this: How did the Republicans manage to change the terms of the debate, such that now apparently a majority of Americans think the debt crisis should be solved by a "combination of spending cuts and revenue increases," as the media keeps constantly reminding us?
Why do Republicans, like Grover Norquist, whose "I will never vote to raise taxes on Billionnaires" pledge the majority of Congressional Republicans have signed, keep telling us over and over again that lower taxes are the solution to the poor economy and the high rate of unemployment? Everybody with half a brain knows that not only is that not true, it is the exact opposite of the truth.
The Republicans had 8 consecutive years during the Bush Administration, when they controlled both houses of Congress, to prove the efficacy of that idea and they failed miserably, creating the economic collapse that we are in the midst of now. Even though we now have incontrovertible evidence that the Republican ideology of government is wrong, average Americans keep voting to allow Republicans to keep taking money away from average Americans and handing it over to America's wealthiest 400 "citizens," whose combined wealth exceeds that of half of the country.
How do Republicans, despite demonstrably having the worst ideas and the worst candidates for public office, get to keep dictating the terms of the debate in Congress?
The answer, of course, is Fox News.
For decades, Fox News has been poisoning the American air waves with its hate-filled rhetoric and outright lies. It's "red-blooded American" bullshit is just that, a cover for a truly profound and deep-seated hatred of America and American values.
But now, for the first time, there is just a shred of hope that Fox may get brought down. The Murdoch empire is sustaining painful hits in Britain. All it would take is one politician with a pair of balls, and even a tiny pair at that, to get the ball rolling (no pun intended) here. An investigation of Fox News would almost certainly produce even more dirt than that of News of the World. If there is anything other than high gas prices that can get Americans riled, the hacking of phone records of 9/11 victims must be it. I have no doubt that Fox News, which is already known to have done that, has done many other, equally reprehensible things.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Bonuses for Billionnaires
Dammit, Kristof, you've beaten me to the punch again! I should have written this myself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21kristof.html
I certainly couldn't say it better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21kristof.html
I certainly couldn't say it better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)