Category: Good Writing

Krugman is On Fire

No Comments

His referring to the Republican Party as The Blackmail Caucus is prize:

But are we ready to become a country in which “Nice country you got here. Shame if something were to happen to it” becomes a winning political argument? I hope not. By all means, vote for Mr. Romney if you think he offers the better policies. But arguing for Mr. Romney on the grounds that he could get things done veers dangerously close to accepting protection-racket politics, which have no place in American life.

I prefer to think of them as hostage-taking terrorists, but Krugman is eloquent and to the point.

Go Read.

I Bet Those Log Cabin Republicans Feel Stupid Now

No Comments

Yesterday, I said that the Log Cabin Republicans were idiots for believing that Mitt Rmoney would sign ENDA, which would outlaw workplace discrimination against gays.

Well if you are a gay Republican and think that Romney is going to protect your job from bigots, the news that he actively prevented sane sex parents from being listed on their children’s birth certificates:

It seemed like a minor adjustment. To comply with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in 2003, the state Registry of Vital Records and Statistics said it needed to revise its birth certificate forms for babies born to same-sex couples. The box for “father” would be relabeled “father or second parent,” reflecting the new law.

 But to then-Governor Mitt Romney, who opposed child-rearing by gay couples, the proposal symbolized unacceptable changes in traditional family structures.

 He rejected the Registry of Vital Records plan and insisted that his top legal staff individually review the circumstances of every birth to same-sex parents. Only after winning approval from Romney’s lawyers could hospital officials and town clerks across the state be permitted to cross out by hand the word “father” on individual birth certificates, and then write in “second parent,” in ink.

 ………

 Romney expressed similar beliefs during a speech in 2005 to socially conservative voters in South Carolina, as he was beginning to be viewed as a serious candidate for president.

 “Some gays are actually having children born to them,” he declared.”It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact. Every child has a right to a mother and father.”

Why on earth do gay Republicans think that Rmoney will protect them in the workplace if he wants to deny them basic rights as parents?

Seriously, Mitt Romney just sold you the Brooklyn Bridge.

BTW, as a note, Murray Waas wrote this, and I’ve always been impressed by his journalism, and he got this story despite attempts to cover this up:

In a preliminary response this month, the Department of Public Health withheld most of the documents because they reflected conversations between lawyers working for the state and “are therefore exempt from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.” The Globe subsequently obtained many of the documents from a source who requested anonymity.

Here’s a piece of advice if Murray comes calling about a story, tell him the truth, because he’ll get it anyway.

Murray Waas is now officially on my list of “People I Do Not Want to Piss Off”.

Joke Line Is a Sociopath

No Comments

Glenn Greenwald watches Morning Joe so we don’t have to, and finds this lovely quote from Joe Klein (aka Joke Line):

“If it is misused, and there is a really major possibility of abuse if you have the wrong people running the government. But: the bottom line in the end is – whose 4-year-old get killed? What we’re doing is limiting the possibility that 4-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror.”

(emphasis original)As Greenwald notes, this mimics the language used by the Times Square bomber and Osama bin Laden.

I Think that David Stockman Just Called Rmoney a C%$# Sucker

No Comments

I don’t think that Reagan’s former budget director finds Mitts business experience particularly meritorious:

Bain Capital is a product of the Great Deformation. It has garnered fabulous winnings through leveraged speculation in financial markets that have been perverted and deformed by decades of money printing and Wall Street coddling by the Fed. So Bain’s billions of profits were not rewards for capitalist creation; they were mainly windfalls collected from gambling in markets that were rigged to rise.

Nevertheless, Mitt Romney claims that his essential qualification to be president is grounded in his 15 years as head of Bain Capital, from 1984 through early 1999. According to the campaign’s narrative, it was then that he became immersed in the toils of business enterprise, learning along the way the true secrets of how to grow the economy and create jobs. The fact that Bain’s returns reputedly averaged more than 50 percent annually during this period is purportedly proof of the case—real-world validation that Romney not only was a striking business success but also has been uniquely trained and seasoned for the task of restarting the nation’s sputtering engines of capitalism.

Except Mitt Romney was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses. He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market fostering a new product, service, or process of production. Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, gussy them up as reborn “roll-ups,” and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale—the faster the better.

It’s pretty long, but it’s well worth the read, and it is positively devastating.

Nice Catch

No Comments

Lindsay Beyerstein has a very interesting analysis of Henry Wiencek’s essay The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson in Smithsonian magazine.

Some of the facts I knew, like the fact that George Washington made far more diligent efforts to free his slaves after his death than Thomas Jefferson ever did.

What I didn’t know, and now do know, is that he kept detailed records of slave beatings, and that Monticello’s primary cash crop was slaves:

The most disturbing revelation in this story is that Jefferson didn’t just keep slaves to work on his farm. He wrote that his real business model was “the increase” of his female slaves. He was raising human beings to be auctioned off like livestock. Jefferson calculated that the children of his slaves brought in a reliable 4% return per annum. It was a great business, he recommended it to everyone.

In the movies, we know someone’s a benevolent slave-holder if they “don’t break up families.” Well, those are the movies.

The revisionist fiction is that slavery was an unprofitable institution by Jefferson’s time. Wiencek explains how Jefferson breathed new economic life into bonded servitude by devising profitable models for slave labor in factories and wheat fields as tobacco farming was being phased out.

Jefferson spurned a golden opportunity to walk away from the slave trade. An old revolutionary comrade willed Jefferson a small fortune to pay for his slaves’ release and education, but Jefferson refused, even though he was the executor of the will.

George Washington freed his slaves upon his death, but Jefferson didn’t even go that far.

Some defenders will say that it’s unfair to judge Jefferson by the standards of our day, but the fact is, Jefferson fell short of the standards of his own time. He knew it was wrong to own slaves. In fact, his writings helped to set the standards of his day.

This explains much about the political culture of Virginia.

I had always wondered how the progressive (for his day) politics of Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia became the reactionary bigotry one sees leading up to (and during, and a long time after) the Civil War.

It now appears that the Jefferson’s progressive positions, at least insofar as slavery was concerned, was nothing more than a mirage, which means that the change in Virginia’s political culture was far less extreme than one is commonly led to believe.

A Good Primer on Why the US Patent System is F%$#ed Up

No Comments

Over at Ars Technica, Timothy Lee has a couple of very good articles on what was wrong with our patent system.

The first is about how the Federal Circuit Appeals Court, which set up to be the sole appellate court for patent matters, and how is has gone completely off the rails ). He calls it a rogue court:

“It is not common in the life of the law in America for a lower court and a major segment of its bar to take on the nation’s highest court, effectively reversing some major precedents or at least substantially mitigating their impact,” notes Steven Flanders in a recent history of the patent court. “Yet this was done.”

 The Federal Circuit, he said, also took on “the quieter and subtler effort to re-educate trial judges throughout the judiciary, to make them friendlier to patent-holders (or at least to the system of patents) as well.” (Flanders, it should be noted, is an avowed supporter of the Federal Circuit and its efforts to reshape patent law).

 This dismissive attitude toward Supreme Court precedents apparently survives to this day among patent lawyers. In the wake of this year’s decision limiting patents on the practice of medicine, patent attorney Gene Quinn wondered, “How long will it take the Federal Circuit to overrule this inexplicable nonsense?” Obviously, the Federal Circuit can’t “overrule” a Supreme Court decision. But with enough persistence, it can, and often does, subvert the principles enunciated by the nation’s highest court. And when it does so, it almost always works in the direction of making patents easier to obtain and enforce.

It’s a good description of how and why our patent system has gone nuts. 

He gives a good summary of how we got there, and why the Supreme court is increasingly willing (perhaps eager) to bitch slap this court.

My only complaint is that he did not cover the seminal patent trolling case, NTP v. RIM (Blackberry), which was crucial in making both SCOTUS, and increasingly larger segments of the “Very Serious People”.  (You are seeing this in legislation about patents floating around Congress)

As some background, when NTP got an injunction against RIM, they asked RIM to cut off all commercial and residential users in the United States, and RIM’s response was that this wasn’t possible, so they would cut off all their users, including the government.

This would mean is that people like Congressmen, their aides, and Supreme Court Justices and their clerks would lose access to their “Crackberries”.

As a result, the consequences of patent trolling suddenly got real for them, and they realized that the Federal Circuit Appeals Court is full of a bunch of extremist nutcases.  (I’m sure that there is an obscure legal term for this in Latin, but I’m an engineer, not a lawyer, dammit.*)

I emailed him about this and he noted that he had included a number of injunctions from patent trolls, including the Blackberry case, but ended up on the cutting room floor.

Additionally, he writes a good article on the International Trade Commission, which routinely prevents products from being imported on the basis of (frequently bogus) patent claims:

If you follow the smartphone patent wars, you’ve probably heard of the International Trade Commission (ITC), which seems to get dragged into every high-profile patent dispute over the devices. Just this month, Motorola asked the ITC to ban various Apple products from the US, and the ITC separately ruled that Apple doesn’t infringe some Samsung patents. But how did this obscure Washington bureaucracy become a major front in the patent wars?

The ITC has the authority to police “unfair methods of competition” by importers, a phrase interpreted to include patent infringement. Because virtually all mobile devices are manufactured overseas, getting the ITC to ban the importation of a device can be just as effective as getting an injunction from a regular court.

A new study from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggests that the ITC’s patent-enforcement process is tilted in favor of patent holders—and especially patent trolls. The author, K. William Watson, argues that the inherently discriminatory nature of ITC patent enforcement—ITC cases can only be brought against imported products, not domestically produced ones—violates America’s obligations under World Trade Organization rules not to discriminate against foreign products. He says Congress should eliminate the provision of trade law, known as Section 337, that gives the ITC authority over patent issues.

Go read both articles.

*I LOVE IT when I get to go all Doctor McCoy!!!

From the Department of Well, Duh

No Comments

It’s the truth, and it is something that our political elites refuse to say, which means that it is a good thing to say, but Glenn Greenwald’s observation that the real problem with Iran having the bomb is that it would prevent us attacking them on our whim:

Every now and then, they reveal the real reason: Iranian nuclear weapons would prevent the US from attacking Iran at will, and that is what is intolerable. The latest person to unwittingly reveal the real reason for viewing an Iranian nuclear capacity as unacceptable was GOP Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the US’s most reliable and bloodthirsty warmongers.

 On Monday, Graham spoke in North Augusta, South Carolina, and was asked about the way in which sanctions were harming ordinary Iranians. Ayman Hossam Fadel was present and recorded the exchange. Answering that question, Graham praised President Obama for threatening Iran with war over nuclear weapons, decreed that “the Iranian people should be willing to suffer now for a better future,” and then – invoking the trite neocon script that is hauled out whenever new wars are being justified – analogized Iranian nukes to Hitler in the 1930s. But in the middle of his answer, he explained the real reason Iranian nuclear weapons should be feared:

“They have two goals: one, regime survival. The best way for the regime surviving, in their mind, is having a nuclear weapon, because when you have a nuclear weapon, nobody attacks you.”

Graham added that the second regime goal is “influence”, that “people listen to you” when you have a nuclear weapon. In other words, we cannot let Iran acquire nuclear weapons because if they get them, we can no longer attack them when we want to and can no longer bully them in their own region.

Let me be clear here:  I do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I also don’t want Israel to have nuclear weapons, or India, or Pakistan, or China, or the UK, or France, or Russia, or the United States of America.

The desire for a credible deterrent is a rational response to US hegemony:

Whatever one thinks of Iran, the signal the US has sent to the world is unmistakable: any rational government should acquire nuclear weapons. The Iranians undoubtedly watched the US treatment of two dictators who gave up their quest for nuclear weapons – Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi – and drew the only reasoned lesson: the only way a country can protect itself from US attack, other than full-scale obeisance, is to acquire nuclear weapons.

I Have a New Favorite Abraham Lincoln Quote

1 Comment

And it is from the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Stephen Douglas was arguing for “Popular Sovereignty”, where he argued that the new territories could ignore the Dredd Scott case, because they would be acting as independently of the Federal Government.

To say that Lincoln thought that this was weak tea is an understatement, because of the sweeping nature of the Supreme Court decision:

Has it not got down as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death?

Heh.

Imagine that. People were making fun of homeopathy 170 years ago.

Read this Series

No Comments

Naked Capitalism is doing a series analyzing private equity, and their first article, which explains how private equity exists solely through a massive infusion of government money:

This is the first in a series of postings on the private equity industry (“PE”) and will serve as an introduction to private equity investing.

Private equity practitioners, including most famously Mitt Romney, often depict their sector as the epitome of private enterprise. These claims are false. Private equity firms not only depend directly and substantially on government support, they have also actively cultivated links to the state.

Some readers may know that private equity relies heavily on tax subsidies. Private equity firms engage in debt-leveraged buyouts of public and private companies, and the interest charges on this debt are tax deductible. But most members of the public do not know that close to half the investment capital in private equity funds is contributed directly by government entities. In this respect, private equity is little different than companies like Fannie, Freddie, and Solyndra that are regularly criticized in the media as recipients of government subsidies.

Their decisions to invest government funds in private equity reflect assumptions by government officials that have gone unchallenged and, we contend, are quite likely incorrect. Moreover, virtually all of the important details of the private equity investments made by these state investors are kept secret at the insistence of PE firms, in striking contrast to every other type of government contract.

………

This is not surprising.

Private equity, even when compared to hedge funds, are remarkably opaque, with no prospectus, and little information given to investors.

Even the payoff date is not revealed to investors.

Of course for a public pension manager, they will be gone when it all turns to sh%$.

They’ll probably working for a private equity fund.

If you are investing other people’s money (as in the contributions of state employees) and someone lies to you about possible return on investment, and this would allow your bosses in the governors’ mansions and the state houses to balance the budget, you are inclined to be quite credulous.

God Bless The Onion

No Comments

I Misspoke—What I Meant To Say Is ‘I Am Dumb As Dog Sh%$ And I Am A Terrible Human Being’

By Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) August 20, 2012

As a politician, I often find myself in situations where, unfortunately, I express a certain thought or idea poorly, or find my words taken out of context. Indeed, that is what happened this weekend. Upon reviewing the impromptu remarks I made Sunday afternoon, I can now see that I used the wrong words in the wrong way. I would now like to set the record straight with the American people and clear up some confusion about what it was I intended to convey.

You see, what I said was, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” But what I meant to say was, “I am a worthless, moronic sack of sh%$ and an utterly irredeemable human being who needs to shut up and go away forever.”

(%$ mine)

They owe me a screen cleaner.

Read the Rude Pundit

No Comments

Read his full throated endorsement of Harry Reid’s accusation against Mitt Romney. (NSFW)

I completely agree with his sentiments.

H/t Cthulhu* at the Stellar Parthenon BBS.

*No, not the unspeakably malevolent super-being, the contributor to the Stellar Parthenon.†
†OK, I’ve never seen the two of them together, so Cthulhu might actually be the Cthulhu, but the mere fact that he is on a BBS, interacting with humans‡ would seem to mitigate against this.
‡Yes, I know, this is the internet, where no one knows if you are a dog.

Yet Another Reason Not to Give to the DCCC

No Comments

A detailed examination of how they spending their money reveals that DCCC chair, and former Blue Dog, Steve Israel, is favoring long shot conservatives over more competitive real Democrats:

Monday morning the DCCC was strutting around like a rooster bragging about the campaign to hold Republicans accountable, running an ad (below) called “The Millionaires,” against 23 “Republican Members of Congress who are about to vote for another tax cut for millionaires at the expense of the middle class and seniors.” Let’s not even get into the cynicism of the DCCC backing Blue Dogs who vote with the GOP on this and leave that for the day after the vote itself (when we can replay a tape of Debbie Wasserman Schultz defending anti-family ConservaDems because she’s so proud of her “Big Tent party”).

………

Who are these Republicans? Not many people have heard of any of them. They’re basically all a bunch of backbenchers without any power or influence, mostly pathetic freshmen. Fine… someone has to go after them. It’s a shame though, that that’s all the DCCC goes after! But let’s look at the Democrats running in these districts for a second.

………

So what would a progressive campaign look like instead of this attempt by “ex”-Blue Dog Steve Israel to restock the House Democratic caucus with conservatives?

………

The progressive target list, unlike the DCCC target list, includes vulnerable senior Republicans (Goliaths) like Paul Ryan and Buck McKeon, whose district’s Obama won, as well as vulnerable Republican incumbents with national reputations as especially hateful assholes, like Eric Cantor, Joe Pitts, Mike Coffman, Patrick McHenry, Ed Royce, and Mike Rogers. No one ever even heard of any of the DCCC targets beyond maybe the congresswoman in Palm Springs who used to be married to Sonny Bono after Cher and now lives with her braindead husband– a candidate for the U.S. Senate– in Florida. It’s a pretty unheroic list of targets– and not even one where there are many “sure things.” In fact, some of these people have absolutely no chance of winning whatsoever, like the poor schlemiels running against Vicky Hartzler (MO-04), Larry Bucshon (IN-08), Tim Murphy (PA-18), Kristi Noem (SD-AL), and Scott DesJarlais (TN-04). The money the DCCC will waste in those 5 districts alone could probably make the difference in defeating Paul Ryan, Buck McKeon and Ed Royce, 3 seats ripe for the plucking that the DCCC refuses to contest.

One lesson to be learned here is that while the Blue Dogs, and to a slightly lesser degree the New Dems, may not like Republicans, but they hate real Democrats.

Pick and choose your candidates, and vote for, and donate to, real Democrats.

If you delegate this to Steve Israel and the DCCC, we will get an affirmative action program for DINOs.

Interesting Point About Religion

2 Comments

One of the things that honks me off is the phrase, “Judeo Christian”.

I consider it to be code words for “White European”.

Jews are not Christian.

More than the whole “Jesus thing”, there are profound differences in how textual analysis is applied to scriptures, attitudes toward sex in marriage, the application of historical data to the analysis, and the acknowledgement of the oft contradictory character of the writings.

In any case, I came across a rather interesting analysis of one of the more troubling parts of Torah, the divine instructions to engage in what essentially was genocide in the conquest of Canaan following the exodus from Egypt.

Dr. Science of Obsidian Wings, a Jew by choice, compares two blog posts, one from an Evangelical Christian minister, and one from a Reconstructionist Jewish Rabbi, and puts to words a core difference in the intellectual approaches that I have always found difficult to put to words:

The two ministers come across as reasonably similar in personality and emotional tone — I suspect they would get along quite well. Both read the Bible in historical-critical context, but they insist that it is necessary to read the Bible, not to just follow your bliss. Neither is willing to accept the “genocide commandments” as-is, but neither is willing to just throw them out or ignore them, either.

And they approach this text from different perspectives: asking different questions, using different tools. I was brought up as a Christian (in a Catholic/Lutheran family) but am now a practicing Jew, so I find a compare/contrast very illuminating. In this case, the Christian asks about the character or personality of God; the Jew asks what we Jews should *do*.

(Emphasis mine)

At its core, this is why fundamentalism is not really a part of normative Judaism.  (Maimonides made the point nearly 900 years ago that a strictly literal interpretation is not compatible with a meaningful study of Torah.)

If you view scriptures as instructions on how to conduct your life on a daily basis, it is impossible to take scripture literally, because the myriad contradictions and inconsistencies become manifest, thus you need to put your brain in gear, and ask yourself, “What does this mean, and what do I have to do?”

It’s why the term Orthodoxy, meaning literally one way of thinking, is really not an accurate description of observant Jews.  Their practice of religion is very nearly the same, they are all a bunch of guys in black hats, but when you ask them why, or attempt to get an opinion on a part of Tanach (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) you will find them coming to this from distinctly different viewpoints.  (See Orthopraxy)