Why the 1% just doesn’t get it

Why Wall Street Should Stop Whining
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-wall-street-should-stop-whining-20120208

I haven’t made time to read the original article that is alluded to in the page listed above (not sure I would be happy with my blood pressure if I did), but I have read a couple of other writers complaining about the absolute cluelessness of the original author and the people he interviewed. I decided that I liked Matt’s article best, so blogged on his. We are really in Alice’s Wonderland in that these people who have the audacity to complain that they are suffering from some trivial pay cuts when their own actions have lead to huge swaths of our population being unemployed and underwater on their mortgages (and thus unable to move to where jobs might be as would have happened in previous recessions) are still in control of our government and thus doggedly resisting any efforts to prohibit them from carrying out such destructive acts in the future. That is why our government feels so disconnected from our population, these Wall Street-ers are so totally insulated by the consequences of their actions that they feel feel comfortable making such statements.

The only thing saving these Marie Antoinette-ish ‘let them eat cake’ (though from reading the Wiki page it seems clear she never actually said that) idiots from being stormed by the 99% mob is the illusion that the 99% have anything to do with the operation of our government. If they, in their ignorance, remove or diminish that illusion, I predict very bad things are going to happen.

Finally, something amazing out of NASA

The Miraculous NASA Breakthrough That Could Save Millions of Lives
http://gizmodo.com/5882725/the-miraculous-nasa-breakthrough-that-could-save-millions-of-lives

Thanks to Erik for the link!

When I was young I was a fervent supporter of NASA because of all the amazing things they had done. Then along comes Mars probe that destroy itself because someone used miles instead of kilometers, the Hubble telescope that can’t see because they wanted to save a couple of hundred grand (on a multi-billion dollar project) and didn’t test the mirror and countless other idiocies (the space shuttle being high on that list, though when I was young, didn’t understand rocketry as well and hadn’t researched the economics it sounded like a fabulous idea). I have been favoring the chorus that NASA is unable to effectively accomplish its mission (indeed, its ‘mission’ has become clouded as well) and thus its budget should come under intense scrutiny (but I have also vacillated). However, something like the product discussed in the article above gives me reason to think that not all the money spent at NASA is totally wasted.

BTW, I had a somewhat analogous idea and always meant to talk to people about it. One of the reasons transplant tissues/organs are rejected is because our immune system identifies the cells therein as foreign and mobilizes the exact same response that protects us from viral or bacterial infections. However, if you blocked the immune system from access to the cells (done in the article by embedding the cells in a block of carbon nano-tubes; in my idea the cells would be embedded in an equivalent of dialysis tubing) then as long as the cells got the nutrients they needed to survive (the vast bulk of those nutrients are small enough to freely diffuse across the afore mentioned barriers) everyone would be happy. Of course, like so many of my ideas, I never pursued it (I have tried to get grants for biotech research and it seems clear that without a relevant PhD and an extensive track record of relevant publications AND an already existing well-funded laboratory (ain’t that a Catch-22!), one is not seriously considered at all), but what the article describes seems like something with a rather high potential for success. The only thing I could see that might be problematic is the pores on the container might get clogged by scar tissue or some other biological material thus keeping the nutrients from diffusing in and the molecule(s) of interest from diffusing out. It sure would be cool if it worked! It would solve so many chronic medical conditions.

Finally, a voting method that makes sense

The GOP’s nightmare voting scenario
From McConnell to the WSJ, right-wingers are citing absurd reasons to oppose a plan to scrap the Electoral College
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/07/the_gops_nightmare_voting_scenario/singleton/

Lots of people complain about the electoral college voting system (I used to be one of them until I read the background on the process) because they want every vote to count. Well, individually by state each vote does indeed count because each state votes the way their population votes, so all is well and good. The problem comes when certain states are ‘guaranteed’ to vote for one party or another, thus are totally ignored by the Presidential candidates (note that this only applies to the Presidential contest) because the winner has the state in his (or her) pocket and the loser has no chance, so why waste his (or her) time. I have always said that abolishing the electoral system all together and going with a pure popular vote was a total non-starter because the states with very low population would be completely ignored (I think barely a handful of states have enough voters to swamp the remaining states) and those low-population states would never ratify anything that so thoroughly marginalizes them. However, this system (I didn’t read the details, just the article above) appears to preserve the electoral system, just forces the electors to be apportioned out based on the popular vote in the state rather than winner-take-all as is the current in almost all states.

So why does this matter and what difference would it make? Well certain states, while reliably ‘blue’ or ‘red’, are often so by fairly small margins, thus the ‘loser’ would pick up a lot more electoral votes in such cases than they do now when they get zero, even if they lose by a single vote (as a consequence, ‘landslides’ would probably cease to exist). Thus, when there is a 51/49 split, each (presuming, naturally, we still only have two parties, though with a system like this third parties might actually get a boost because such a vote wouldn’t be totally thrown away as it is now) each candidate would get half, though perhaps if the number of electors is odd one gets a single additional one. This way the power of the tiny (population) states is preserved intact, so there is no concern about losing that power, but big states that are reliably blue/red now become ‘battle ground’ states instead of the moronic situation we have now. As things stand now, there is virtually no campaigning (after the primaries) in California or New York, for instance, with this change the candidates will be forced to show the flag in these states regularly or risk failing to turn out their voters.

I think this approach makes a great deal of sense and the idea that the GOP is resisting it so determinedly tells me that they feel they have a lot to lose, which makes me think that they really aren’t representing the country any more and have already focused their entire attention on the battle ground states. Basically, the GOP, in addition to working to disenfranchise the poor and elderly, regular voters for Democrats (note that I do NOT support the idea of letting anyone and everyone vote, rather the total opposite; see Poll Tax), are insisting that Republicans in huge blue states like California and New York continue their disenfranchisement. That hardly seems representative to me! How did these assholes wind up in charge? Oh yea, it is because they bought their way in, that’s right!

A slow day…

Inside the new hate
Right-wing rhetoric seems to have reached new heights of xenophobia. But is that true? An expert explains
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/inside_the_new_hate/singleton/

Not much is grabbing me today in the news articles I have been reading (and I have slipped in a bit of work as well, so perhaps haven’t been as comprehensive in my reading efforts), but this one I thought might be of interest. It is a phone interview with a guy who has studied hate speech and how it has evolved. It was interesting to hear what he had to say and he doesn’t appear to have any specific agenda.

He may talk better, but he is just as stupid

as the last guy before him:

Obama’s Drift Toward War With Iran
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/obama-iran-war_b_1250668.html

I have talked a time or twain about the manufacturing of the basis for a new war with Iran, so this isn’t such a new topic for me. However, reading this article (presuming it isn’t full of BS, one can never be sure about anything in politics any more) it seems clear that as clueless and idiotic as Bush was/is, Obama, while he may sound articulate and intelligent, is just as much of a dumbass as the last guy. Since we likely will have this guy or Romney in office in a year it is important to understand how they think since they are going to be running our country. I am convinced that if Romney isn’t actually a Mormon mole determined to take over our government and de-securalize it, he is just an empty shirt who has no principles and just wants to add President of the United States after his name. So its “Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, here I am, Stuck in the middle with you.”

So, if there are any (potential) Obama supporters out there amongst my reader(s), I suggest reading the article as a way to get a glimpse on how our Great President’s mind works (or fails to work, as appears to me).

BTW, regarding Romney, it seems that even empty shirts occasionally have smart things to say. It seems Romney supports the idea of pegging the minimum wage to inflation (why is it our moron government can’t make this the default with everything?) so that it can adjust without an act of Congress. It seems like such an obvious idea, yet the conservative anti-government types are quick to trot out the same old hackneyed discussions that it will cause the number of jobs to decrease. Even if we accept that minimum wages cause jobs to be lost (something clearly arguable and I while I have mostly argued that it will, there are legitimate arguments for why it won’t), I think it is impossible to (rationally) argue that causing the wage to be pegged to inflation could cause any incremental increase in job loss since the net result would be nada (though, I suppose, one could argue that as inflation eats away at the wage hiring might incrementally increase as a consequence, though I think that is BS).

Idiocy all around

Contador loses Tour de France title as court overturns drug acquittal
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/06/sport/cycling-contador-cas-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

I don’t normally report on doping here, though I have an interest in it and follow the cycling doping blog Rant Your Head Off (even have a post there), but the article above prompted me to write something here. I have not been a fan of Contador, he always seemed a bit too sure of himself (though I have been a fan of Armstrong who is at least as full of himself as Contador is) and really didn’t like him taking off after Andy Schleck’s chain came off during the Tour in question (as I recall, the final margin on that Tour was almost exactly the same as the margin for that stage, meaning they might have tied if it hasn’t been for that issue), but that is besides the point. He is a great competitor and even if he dopes, I strongly suspect that all that does is bring him on par with his competitors. (BTW, if you read the post I allude to above, you will see that I am convinced the vast majority of the enhancement of so-called performance enhancing drugs is due to the placebo effect.) My objection is the laughably inconsistent attempt to look for dopers, then draconian punishment for people testing positive. So, Contador loses his previous win at the Tour (and his subsequent win at the Giro (if these names don’t ring any bells, then you clearly aren’t into professional cycling and should have already moved on to something else ;-)), but isn’t banned from competing in the future. Meaning, his punishment is ‘retroactive’, yet as I recall he was competing (and winning on occasion) while he was now retroactively banned, which seems rather nonsensical. It is well established that competitors need to compete in order to maintain their edge, so while Contador is indeed suffering (financially as well as personally, losing a Tour after you won it can effect people deeply (see Michael Rasmussen, though he didn’t actually win it, he likely would have)), he has had the benefit of being in competition at the highest level, unlike most people who are banned and must somehow try to motivate themselves for two years to train at the highest level. So, at the end of all this stupid crap, Contador isn’t actually being banned at all. 100% failure from all angles on this one!

Of course, the supposed positive drug test is also nonsensical on the surface, the amount detected was so low as to be irrelevant, but the whole drug testing regime is nonsensical (to be polite; I already use too many blue words here) anyway. What makes the whole thing stick in my craw is how ridiculously erratic the whole process is. I didn’t watch the Tour after Landis was called out (yes, he admitted doping, but I read the science very closely and he certainly wasn’t guilty of what he was charged with, making mockery of the process) and it took me a while to get joy from watching again, now this crap. I wanted to see how Schleck would stack up to a focused Contador (in the last Tour, Contador was trying to win too many grand tours in one year and thus wasn’t peaking for the Tour) and see if Evans could hold them both off, now that won’t happen. Maybe by the time the Tour rolls around I will be past this, but if it were on now I doubt I would tune in.

Much like the TSA, the anti-doping efforts are all about window dressing!

Money is the problem and transparency is NOT the solution

Forgetting a key lesson from Watergate?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/04/politics/watergate-reform/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

Yes, corrupt money will find its way around any roadblock you care to put in front of it, power attracts the corruptible after all. However, when you legalize corruption, as we have done here in the US by allowing monied interests to buy politicians out in the open and for all to view (who thinks that, in the unlikely event that Gingrich wins the nomination, he won’t remain beholden to Sheldon Adelson for giving him millions for his campaign?), you simply have legitimized that this sort of behavior is OK. If you prohibit money from being speech (I don’t want to even read those arguments, just thinking about that sort of topic in our supposed democracy gives me a headache) and make it a criminal offense to give large sums of money to politicians (this _used to be_ called bribery, which, if I recall, was a crime at one time), then when it is discovered those rich fat cats get to do some hard time and potentially lose their slot in the top 1% (along with the corrupt politicians, of course!). Making our corrupt system more transparent is idiocy in the extreme. I have to wonder if they really are that dumb or if they are in the pay of the oligarchy and just preaching to the sheeple (it being so easy to do, of course).

This is how science goes

at least when there isn’t fraud involved…

Arsenic-based life finding fails follow-up
Tests see no evidence that microbe uses element in cellular machinery
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338090/title/Arsenic-based_life_finding_fails_follow-up

It was really interesting when it was first reported that an organism could thrive in an environment with such a high concentration of arsenic that it would be immediately fatal to any other organism. It seems that too many people jumped too quickly to conclusions that different biochemistry was involved and more sensitive tests have shown that the organism was ‘just’ able to keep the arsenic out of its system (still quite amazing, though, just amazing in a different way). I never read the original paper, but I have seen the original author on science shows (she is very easy on the eyes!) and she makes some pretty clear claims about her expectation of alternate biochemistry, so I can see how the community would treat this current report as a repudiation of her work. There is growing anticipation of the discovery of an alternative biochemistry growing somewhere in/on our planet, as, based on our understandings of the origin of life, we would expect that there be a decent chance that in some fringe environments there would be some ‘left over’ remnants of the beginning of life when we would expect a nearly infinite variety of life biochemistries. So Dr. Wolfe-Simon’s report wasn’t greeted with as much skepticism as one might have thought as an outsider looking in on science.

The title says it all:

The privatization trap
From schools to prisons, outsourcing government’s works typically ends with cronyism, waste and unaccountability
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/the_privatization_trap/singleton/

Once again I have had to resist the urge to copy the post in its entirety and embedding it here. I strongly urge my readers to check out the full article. I believe in the underlying concept of efficient government, but the way we are doing privatization is nothing like what I have in mind (I will try to discuss my thoughts on this subject at some point), we are just melding the absolute worse from a corrupt government and crony capitalism.

Privatization is one of the few political projects that enjoys bipartisan support: Conservatives cheer the rollback of the state, and liberals like to claim that the virtues of the free market are being used towards the egalitarian ends of public policy. The fraud and waste that often come with outsourcing these services has been well-documented. The private management in Iraq and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and the lobbying efforts of corporate prisons have all provided horror stories of what happens when cronyism guides decision-making on behalf of the state. But privatization as standard government practice has problems that go far beyond the abuses of any single incident.

Rather than solving problems with government, privatization often amplifies those issues to new extremes. Instead of unleashing market innovation, it often introduces new parasitic partners into the decision-making process. Instead of providing a check on the power of the government, it allows the state to circumvent constitutional and democratic accountability measures by merging with the private sector. And ultimately, the practice replaces the set of choices and constraints found in democracy, with another set found in the marketplace. Today’s political conversation is blind to these problems out of a mistaken faith in the efficiency and fundamental equality of markets, contrasted to the ineffectiveness and corruptibility of the state.

What advocates miss is that the logic of markets creates private-sector coalitions capable of extracting just as much from taxpayers as the state. Corporations, lobbyists and other market actors can have just as much political agency as the government, and privatization can mobilize businesses to rewrite market practices.

The real solution, in my mind, is much like what is stated below…

We need new arguments for the government, with all its strengths and weaknesses, to be allowed to do its jobs knowing that it won’t always be perfect. The alternative is government by cronyism, delegated marketplace winners exploiting what works about markets with none of the normal checks we expect on a functioning democracy. There are no doubt weaknesses in the current functions of government, but for those who resist privatization, that is a call to political reform rather than one of abandoning the public arena altogether.

We, as a democratic nation (gee, did I just type that? what about the oligarchy? but hey, this blog does discuss lots of fantastic notions and a man can dream, can’t he?), need to accept the impossibility of perfection in our government and have clear, transparent and open conversations about which places we can tolerate higher levels of incompetence and those where we can’t and design accordingly. There probably is no ‘good’ for of government (to paraphrase Sir Winston, “democracy sucks, it is just better than any alternative”), there is probably only ‘good enough for the majority without being evil on the minority’.

The government monopoly on gambling

Thanks to bls for pointing this out:

..about using gambling to encourage saving (and then banning it)?
http://johnpapola.com/2010/11/gambling-to-encourage-savings/

It seems clear to me that lotteries were put in place by our government as a way to levy a substantial regressive tax on poor people. The advertising is _clearly_ targeting poor people and heavily promoting their infinitesimal chance of winning as their ticket out of the gutter. When the mob ran numbers (which is _exactly_ what the lotto is) they generally returned 90% or better of the money to the ‘players’ (gamblers), yet when our government takes over now players are lucky to get 30% back (often at least 30% is (supposedly targeted, but generally winds up in the general fund) siphoned off for things taxes are supposed to pay for, then winners get to pay federal, state and local taxes on the money that people have already paid taxes on prior to betting, all at the highest rate, of course). That is why, of course, that the government prohibits any competition, they know that if they allowed the competition they would be driven right out of business.

There are so many evils committed by our government (I use the collective term here, even though the lotteries are done by states, because the federal government, if it gave a damn, could trivially shut these things down). While this is a minor one in comparison, I decided to air it a bit on my blog just to show the pervasiveness of the issue.

Now, to the specifics of the article… I agree with the idea that it is best to leverage known, established behaviors when attempting to alter people’s behavior and while the interest returned on the sorts of things described are quite below what is achievable by making rational investment decisions, (unlike the lottery) it does return a positive rate and any savings (heck, even if the money actually shrinks due to inflation, having the savings as a cushion for bad times might keep more people from joining the growing ranks of the destitute) is good savings. I like the idea of using the same concept to encourage the bullet-proof youth market to get health insurance as well. The intelligent people (seemingly fewer every day, though I am sure that is an illusion; people have always been morons) will invest directly, or purchase insurance at lower prices, etc., but if we can widen the safety net for stupid bullet proof people (yes, I know I used to be one of them, why do people keep thinking that changes my attitude today?), then it is all good.