Bill Maher Nails It On Trump's Bogus "Executive Orders"

i

Bill Maher, in his Real Time intro last night, really hit the nail on its head, exposing Trump's so-called "executive orders" (which consumed 99 percent of actual work time this week, or maybe 2 hours total) as what they are: signed tweets. To call Trump's parade of signed malarkey executive orders is roughly like calling each page of Junior's scratchy algebra homework new proofs of Fermat's theorem.

But, of course, Trumpies don't wish to hear that. They'd rather loll in their delusional world that their man is accomplishing something when he isn't doing squat. Hence, they fancy  the mirage of action over actual executive effort and work. Like Trump - when he holds up each signed product in a leather binder, similar to a toddler who just completed a page in his coloring book. "Looky, Mommy! I  did do it! I did!"

But in Trump's case it's all theater. All make believe. By that I mean these glorified scrap sheets  have no force of law, none. Many Trumpies also believe the authority to write an executive order is conferred by the Constitution but this is not technically so. Let us reference the Wikipedia entry:

"There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders. The term executive power in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution refers to the office of President as the executive. They are instructed therein by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 or face impeachment. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being removal from office"

In other words, these more comport with a wish list based on appeals or pleas from a president to the legislative branch to formalize into law what he seeks to do. In Trump's case, most legal experts note these scribbles on fancy paper haven't even been vetted  by competent, qualified staff for internal consistency or by constitutional lawyers, for consistency with constitutional law.  Thus, they are at most :"executive actions" - or a lesser category to executive orders. The latter, then, have already been vetted.

Trump's signed action ("tweet")  on staunching the flow of Muslim immigrants is clearly unconstitutional, for example. He declares with solemn bull toad authority that he is preventing people from "entering via terrorist nations", yet he doesn't even name the nations of the 9/11 terrorists, including: Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab  Emirates.  The selective naming of his chosen 7 nations means there is no equal protection under the law for the selected nations' immigrants. It's like he's turning a blind eye to the sources of real terrorists.

So, any constitutional lawyer worth his salt would be able to expose Trump's signed paper as not worth much more than a piece of his gold-lined toilet paper.

Thus, the key aspect for people to bear in mind here is:

"Executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution."

Trump's other signed tweets - like for his nutty wall - are in similar legal limbo. That includes not even making the cut for internal consistency, hence not even making the grade of an executive action.

A signed tweet as Bill Maher put it? Sure! But Trumpies ought not get their panties in a twist from premature somersaults,  given most will not even see the light of day as actual deeds.

Alan Weisman on 'Real Time': You Can't Be A Real Environmentalist & Not Back Population Control!

"From the instant we're born, even the humblest among us compounds the world's mounting problems by needing food, firewood, and a roof, for starters. Literally and figuratively, we're all exhaling CO2 and pushing other species over the edge."- Alan Weisman, in 'Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth'


I've said it many times before, but now will again: if you presume to be any kind of legitimate environmentalist, I don't care whether you're a member of the Sierra Club, the Wildlife Conservancy or PETA, then you must support strong family planning and population control!  The reason is as obvious as the nose on one's face: population growth is at the core of 90 percent of our environmental problems - from the greenhouse effect, to mounting air and water pollution to reduced food quality via overuse of GMO foods and nitrogen fertilizers.

This was brought out by Alan Weisman on HBO's Real Time Friday night, when he calmly dismissed a number of tropes, based on his new book, 'Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth?'.    Among them: that one can be a conscientious environmentalist and at the same time ignore population growth or the need for dramatic family planning. This would be roughly analogous to professing one is against war, but having mostly defense industry related funds in one's investment portfolio. It doesn't add up and betrays cognitive dissonance and philosophic inconsistency.  Another is that Iran must be "backward" in family planning terms, on account of being a Muslim country. But this is total nonsense and Weisman explained to Maher why Iran leads the world in family planning programs, see e.g.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYYmHcSNWm8

"Carrying capacity" or the maximum number of people the Earth can support given its resource base, also came up for discussion.  This was highly relevant given that,  as Weisman explained, the human population is going in the wrong direction — adding 1 million more people to the planet every 41/2 days.  We are already using excess resources equivalent to 1.5 Earths, and if every manjack lived like we do in the U.S. we need five Earths! It's not just this century's projected growth to 11 billion that troubles Weisman, as he told Maher, he is also concerned about how the 7 billion of us already here are straining natural limits, from the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere to the decline of available fresh water.

Even now, 1 billion people live in water-stressed conditions, meaning that renewable water supplies have dropped below 1,700 cubic meters per capita. One notable ‘State of the World’ report (2000, pp. 46-47), warned that the ever increasing water deficits will likely spark “water wars” by 2025. We are already seeing low level water wars emerge here in the mountain West, with fracking competing for scarce water in a severely drought prone region.

Maher asked Weisman what his best estimate would be for the Earth's maximum practical population  and he ruminated for a few minutes - examining the conditions if nitrogen fertilizers could no longer be used (given their devastating effects on the environment) and came up with 2 billion. This is a realistic number (others, e.g. Richard Heinberg (The Party's Over), estimate 3 billion), and Maher's response was predictable: "So wait, we have to kill 5 billion people?"

But the solution isn't our (humans) having to "kill" anyone. Isaac Asimov,  the noted science writer,  put it best in his public lecture at Queen's Park Theater in Barbados back in 1976,
He warned that humans had two choices: decrease their population willingly to the carrying capacity limit  (e.g. by aggressive family planning and removing perks for having children, i.e. tax credits in the U.S.) to live in an equilibrium with the Earth and its resources, or let nature “increase the human death rate” (e.g. by starvation, pestilence, wars over resources etc.). Indeed, the death rate can be exponentially expanded by nature merely from the point all antibiotics cease to work. With our overuse of them, including in food - by the meat industry, we are already approaching that point. It is totally conceivable then that half the world's population could be lost within a few years if all antibiotics ceased efficacy. Add to that the spread of water borne illness, say cholera, dysentery etc. from global warming, and one can easily see a population crash  - totally out of our control. (See also the information at www.dieoff.org )

In his lecture, to get Bajans to grasp the concept of carrying capacity, Asimov invoked "the bathroom metaphor". It definitely worked in getting people to understand the debilitating, disastrous effects of too many people. As Asimov noted, if two people live in an apartment, and it comes with two bathrooms, they have a comfortable life. Either one can use the bathroom anytime he or she wants, and can remain in there as long as they desire, even reading while doing business.

One can say, that for the purpose of "Bathroom freedom" - 2 is the carrying capacity for a two -person apartment. Now, let there be twenty people occupying the same apartment, and what happens? Bathroom freedom evaporates. Visits now must be regulated by the clock, and no one may stay in for too long. Indeed, a timetable likely has to be set up for each person's bathroom use. (Don't laugh too hard at the improbability of this example, since we now know of numerous cases where immigrants have been found crammed into such conditions - but usually in a house)

The point is, that the liberating use of the bathroom which applied for two persons, no longer applies with twenty, and probably evaporated by the time there were five or six occupants of the apartment. (And we won't even go into where each - unrelated- person sleeps, if there are only two bedrooms).

Such is the way overpopulation degrades the quality of living, and cheapens it for all, making it more discomfiting. "More" is definitely not merrier!

Only briefly touched on by Weisman, in his brief discourse on Iran's family planning, is the effect of excess population on jobs.   In the 1950s, unemployment rates  in the U.S. seldom hit 2% if that. A person could find work, good work, if he or she simply looked hard enough. In addition, bank savings account rates approached 5-6% so people could safely stash money away without putting it at risk, such as in the stock market.

Now, move 60-odd years into the future. The working population has more than doubled, but the rate of new job growth has remained at roughly half that. Even worse, because many of the better jobs have now shipped overseas, thanks to NAFTA, etc. where workers can be paid at half the rate and there are no benefits.

So, effectively, the number of willing workers outnumbers available jobs by nearly 2 to 1. This disparity will only grow as more and more are added to the labor force creating an even greater surplus labor army - which will dictate future wages, benefits etc.

With millions numbered among a surplus worker population, wages (and benefits) can be held to rock bottom levels  since there will be such a huge backlog of ready and willing  unemployed that virtually 'anything goes'. Guy doesn't want to work overtime for half or no pay? Fine, fire him because there's 200 waiting in line - all with families to feed and rent to pay.

The point I'm making is that conditions don't even have to deteriorate environmentally to rock bottom before the effects of over-population are felt - and really close to home!

Weisman's call to action is part and parcel of an entire milieu that connects to our foolish expansion of fracking - which won't really help save us at all (only add to the CO2 burden) and the environmental stress that will lead to more wars.

If we are serious about being environmental stewards, we can't ignore dealing with the increased human population, At the level of our nation, that means fighting to get all "more baby" tax-friendly policies eliminated, and ensuring we have support systems for existing families - including low cost child care, to allow parents to work instead of being hamstrung.  We also need to press religions like the RC Church (and Pope Francis) to drop the stance against  artificial birth control, while we encourage government to offer expanded sex education including making birth control available and dropping the foolishness of "voluntary virginity".

Salman Rushdie Is Wrong! Multiple Choice Tests Are NOT 'Stupid'!

Last night, on a segment of  HBOs' Real Time on which the new changes in the SAT were being discussed, I was confounded to see and hear Salman Rushdie blurt out: "The SAT is a stupid test because multiple choice questions are stupid!"

While Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher tried to steer him into a more sober perspective, it was clear it was a hopeless task. The SAT was mostly multiple choice, hence was 'stupid'. I have news for Rushdie: for making such a remark he is stupid.

We are talking of a test that in many cases is needed as a discriminator, given relatively few places are available in relation to the tens of thousands of applications received. This was also the point made in a New York Times magazine piece on the SAT last Sunday, but from the more comprehensive perspective that we cannot just shelve the test as some universities, i.e. Wake Forest, have done.  As one administrator noted, you can say what you will, but with limited spaces you still need a way to differentiate by outside independent testing, and hence the process is called 'differentiation'.

The basis here is analogous to discerning the quality of college grads (using the GRE, say for eligibility for grad school), only now we are looking at high school grads wanting to attend an 'elite' college. How do I know (say as an admissions officer), that an "honor roll"  HS grad from Podunk High in Mayberry, NC is in the same league as one from Stuyvesant High in NYC? They both show a 97% average, but are they really the same and do both deserve entrance into Yale?  The only way to really tell is to apply an independent assessment, and this is exactly where the SAT comes in. In a similar way, one of the only ways to differentiate the college grads is to use the GRE- since many may have attended schools that are mired in grade inflation.

Next: the best way to achieve this differentiating, given one is assessing MILLIONS, is the multiple choice aptitude test (or achievement test, as is generally the case now).  It is simply impractical and infeasible to do painstaking evaluation for actual worked out "solutions",  say to math problems, given the inefficiency and laborious,  time intensive nature of such a task.  In addition, the MC test lends itself to machine marking which means the results are obtained in an expeditious manner and the potential college attendees aren't kept in limbo for months.

My point here is that Rushdie is way off base, and indeed, multiple choice tests can be excellent if prepared using intelligent parameters, criteria. To therefore write off all such tests as 'stupid' is not only ignorant but discloses an alarming lack of awareness in a person whose writings I had long respected.

Obviously, however, multiple choice testing is not appropriate for all conditions! For example, when I taught space physics and calculus physics I NEVER ever used such tests. The student was required to work out a given problem in detail, say:

 A proton moves in a uniform electric and magnetic field, with fields given by:

E = 10 V/m (x^)

B = 0.0001 T (z^)

where '^' denotes vector direction.

a) Find the gyrofrequency and the gyro-radius

b) Find the proton's E X B drift speed

The student would then hand in roughly one and a half pages to show his approaches, techniques, how he (or she) obtained the respective solutions, and I would award marks accordingly.  But though the marking was time consuming, I'd only be grading perhaps 20 papers.  Meanwhile, an SAT patterned along an analogous format would require vastly more human labor. Machines wouldn't be able to parse subjective types of response, say if the student wrote:

a = (-r^) (v_perp^)^2/ r

as a "centrifugal" acceleration instead of a centripetal one. And so, there'd have to be extended discussions on what to allow and what not to allow in the scoring regimen.  Based on such vast manpower needs, I could see the ETS going bankrupt after just one examination cycle.

Sullivan also pointed out the 11-plus, or "common entrance examination" which btw, is still used in Barbados. Given the island only has a relatively small number of places to offer in its elite secondary schools, then the five thousand or so primary school students who take the test each year are differentiated based upon multiple choice tests, though yes there is an essay section. Manpower for marking those is generally achieved by having all the secondary school teachers come in and mark the required papers using a defined marking scheme issued by the Ministry of Education. However, somehow I don't see the ETS having millions of secondary school teachers come in and mark any kind of long form SATs, apart from the security issues.

The fact then is irrespective of whatever changes are made to the SAT they won't remove the multiple choice basis, which would be ludicrous and counterproductive. Rushdie ought to have thought that out more.  Having said that, what can be done is to remove the need to apply 'tricks' to save time and gain a higher score. In this regard, all MC questions or problems ought to have such criteria applicable that there are NO short cuts one can take apart from say using plain old common sense.

In this way the advantage of SAT prep tutorials can be removed, or at least one hopes! (Though some amount of practice is always beneficial and as I noted in an earlier post, the ETS plans to provide that with online practice tests.)

The multiple choice format then is here to stay, certainly at the level of assessing students coming out of high schools (or colleges, for the GRE). We need objective ways to ensure educational attainment that can be easily compared - 'apples to apples'. Like it or not, the multiple choice format is the best we have now given the numbers entering college, or grad school, say after the first degree.

NO! The U.S. Does NOT Want a War With Russia!

A Russian Destroyer, the Moskva, leaves its base for the waters off Syria in July. Below: Obama clueless as to who the real "freedom fighters" are in Ukraine.

Q. What do you get when you cross a neocon with a Neoliberal?

A. The Shock Doctrine, 100, 000 dead ....then Wall Street stock or bond shares on the new oil or debt.

It was laughable last night seeing Bill Maher expose the Neocon asshole William Kristol for the braggart know-nothing he is, just like the rest of his ilk. In turn, Bill trotted out three of Kristol's predictions made before the invasion of Iraq including: 1) The U.S. will be vindicated when the weapons of mass destruction are discovered, 2) Very few wars in American history were better prepared for, and 3) It's 'pop psychology' to believe the Shi'ia can't get along with the Sunni.

All of which, along with the other trope - i.e. that the oil we find will pay for the war, were shown to be total nonsense and lies.

So WHY in the hell should anyone with half a grain of sense or half a brain believe these idiots when they yap for confronting the Russians over Ukraine? And yet last night, what did we behold? Obama getting up on his lectern and "warning" the Russians about "interfering in Ukraine". Are you kidding me? The U.S. interfered long before the Russians via their Neocon NED as I described in the previous blog. Is ANYONE paying attention? Is the President?

And what is he going to do when the Russians laugh at these hollow warnings? Make no mistake that going up against the Russians will not be anything like the mock "wars" of the past 14 years, based mainly on invading and occupying two nations laden with impoverished, ragtag, robed radicals who can barely muster enough supplies to make home made bombs.  The Russians, by contrast, have actual fighter jets, battle ships and tanks, as well as a well equipped army that will give the U.S. everything it can handle and more. It won't be any 'shock and awe' cakewalk like in Iraq. So why is Obama falling for this bullshit, and why hasn't he cleaned house and gotten rid of the Neocons?

And why hasn't Obama sacked the Neocon advisors putting him up to this rubbish? Why does he have ANY Neocons still in his administration? As blogger Robert Parry put it two days ago:

"the U.S. government appears nearly as divided as the Ukrainian people. While neocon holdovers in the State Department, particularly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, helped instigate the crisis, President Obama has seen his collaboration with Putin to tamp down crises in Syria and Iran put at risk"

This  sounds to me like Obama needs to do a major clean up at State. Get rid of these buggers once and for all! Send them packing! No Neocons!  Obama needs to grasp he is backing the WRONG side! And also, these "freedom fighting citizens" are mainly Neo-Nazi thugs!  See also:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/27/the-neo-nazis-of-ukraine/

Excerpt:

"The Washington-paid schemers are now reaping their just reward as they sit in craven silence while neo-nazi Muzychko wielding an Ak-47 challenges government officials to their face: “I dare you take my gun!” Only Obama, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland, Washington’s European puppets, and the Western prostitute media can describe the brutal reality of post-coup Ukraine as “the forward march of democracy.

If a democratically elected president and ruling party are so easily driven from power by armed neo-nazis, what chance do Washington’s paid stooges among the so-called “moderates” have of forming a government?"

Indeed, it is yet another display of supporting Neoliberal FASCISM! Neo -Nazis! Are you shitting me? WTF are we doing supporting Nazis? Has this country gone mad, or is the leadership now bamboozled again by the Neocons who clearly have them by the balls too?

 As I cited Mike Whitney's piece at the end of the post yesterday:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mike-whitney/54509/the-coup-in-ukraine-obamas-dumbest-plan-yet

In order to topple Yanukovych, the US had to tacitly support fanatical groups of neo-Nazi thugs and anti-Semites. And, even though “Interim Ukrainian President Oleksander Tuchynov has pledged to do everything in his power to protect the country’s Jewish community”; reports on the ground are not so encouraging. Here’s an excerpt from a statement by Natalia Vitrenko, of The Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine that suggests the situation is much worse than what is being reported in the news:

“Across the country… People are being beaten and stoned, while undesirable members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine are subject to mass intimidation and local officials see their families and children targeted by death threats if they do not support the installation of this new political power. The new Ukrainian authorities are massively burning the offices of political parties they do not like, and have publicly announced the threat of criminal prosecution and prohibition of political parties and public organizations that do not share the ideology and goals of the new regime.” (“USA and EU Are Erecting a Nazi Regime on Ukrainian Territory”, Natalia Vitrenko)

Ukraine is gradually succumbing to the loving embrace of the New World Order where it will serve as another profit-generating cog in Wall Street’s wheel. That’s the theory, at least. It hasn’t occurred to the boneheads at the New York Times or Washington Post that Ukraine is rapidly descending into Mad Max-type anarchy which could spill over its borders into neighboring countries triggering violent conflagrations, social upheaval, regional instability or–god-help-us– WW3"

It is high time to call a halt to this insanity now!

Mr. Obama, tell the Neocons burrowed within your administration to get the hell out! Tell any Neocon advisors to shut the fuck up! We do not need or want World War III - which believe me, these assholes are leading us into one fell step after another. Do not let them make you believe Russia does not have as much right to defend her doorstep as we do ours!  (And WHO can forget how Reagan dispatched several Marine regiments  and ships to the small island of Grenada in 1983 to wipe out a small (400-650) band of Cuban commie engineers - on the island to repair roads. Don't hand me any shit that WE also don't fight to protect what's near our doorstep - even if 2,000 miles away!)

Enough of this crap!

Be like JFK and act as a leader for once, and tell the warmongers and warmakers to take a long hike on a short pier.

And please, no more empty, provocative threats - unless you're also prepared to threaten the Nazis wreaking mayhem in Ukraine!  See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/daniel-patrick-welch/54546/worst-man-for-the-job-what-the-hell-is-obama-thinking

See the nationalist filth that the West, the neocons and Obama are backing here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY

Bill Maher Gets It Wrong Again - Joking on Seniors, Sex and "Entitlements"

Bill Maher, again, has it in for seniors. According to his end segment  ('New Rules') last night on REAL TIME, and quoting a HARPER's piece, the Federal yearly spending per child in this country is $3,822 while the federal yearly spending per senior is $25, 455. He continues by posing the ludicrous question:

  "What kind of world are we leaving for our grandkids, well one where Headstart, nutrition assistance and child welfare are being cut"

Then adds his little hee-haw zinger:

"These days when grandpa finds a quarter behind your ear, he keeps it!"

Really, Bill? You believe this bollocks? He then leads into the reason circulated by the Neoliberal media for why "Uncle Sam's  always giving first dollar to grandma"- because she votes.  He then veers off into "CDC reports" on how "fucking in nursing homes is at an all time high" and "syphilis and chlamydia in seniors has nearly tripled in the past decade".  Both citations are intended to make the gullible believe 99% of seniors are on a real sex binge joy ride in their elder years, and on under 60 y/o citizens' taxpayer dime- while the kiddies starve. Never mind that the senior percentage applicable to Bill's narrative is perhaps 1/2 of one percent, if that. Talk about taking an  exceptional incidence and turning it into a commonplace for the sake of fallacious argument!

But hey- it provides Bill with material for his last segment. Also his ending tirade about "why are so many seniors among the angriest people in the U.S.,  opposing Obamacare, etc. ....despite the fact they have government care that will pay for their ED, penis pumps etc."

Nice jokes, but again, misplaced. If Maher had taken the time to actually read and understand why so many seniors are miffed at Obamacare, he'd have learned that its financial inputs are predicated on $500b in cuts to Medicare - most of which were relatively well concealed until recently. One is cuts to Medicare providers which are causing many seniors to lose their primary care physicians. Tens of thousands of seniors with cancer who need chemotherapy have been turned away from Cancer centers (that deliver the treatments) thanks to just 2% cuts to Medicare providers.

Another is the new hidden bomb in hospital admissions, where the option is left to the hospital - according to the law- to enable the sickly senior to be admitted "under observation only".  In this case, the costs are 3 to 5 times higher than they'd have been if it had been full admission.  The senior then, after having perhaps recovered from one heart attack, almost has another when s/he sees the bill.

Leaving out Bill's exaggerations concerning the sexual exploits of seniors, let's look at some stark realities. First and foremost is that it isn't seniors "taking" from the kids - but our vastly expanded (since 9/11)military -industrial complex. This is the ‘elephant’ in the room,  laying waste to the domestic landscape:  the gross, even malignant expansion of the war and national security state. This nexus has benefited from a political establishment invested in the insane policy of perpetual war. It is this policy that has drained us dry and made the country even more vulnerable to terrorism than it would have been had we not stuck our nose in where it never belonged.

It has also left our kids hungry, and our long term unemployed without benefits, and seniors waiting for the next shoe to drop in terms of cuts (e.g. Chained CPI).  The much ballyhooed "bipartisan budget deal" in December was a perfect example, in which the military-industrial state was granted an extra $23 b while domestic needs were sacrificed. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/12/latest-budget-deal-seeks-to-preserve.html

This Military malignancy has already drained us of over $4 trillion and it may well be much more, when all the medical needs of the returned Iraq and Afghanistan vets are tended to, as well as their future disability benefits finally paid for.

Yet despite naming the ‘elephant’, Maher ignores it and wanders off the beaten path and points to seniors receiving Social Security or on Medicare STEALING "from our children"!  And he makes this oh so much more credible because he couches it in yucks about senior sex.

What the elder "sacrifice" mongers like Maher and others forget is that if those "entitlements" weren't there to provide that support, 8 out of 10 elderly would have to move in with those adult "kids". But somehow, the image of rich, greedy old farts persists ....now, thanks to Maher, having endless sex romps.....despite the fact that the AARP's own statistics show that only the uppermost quintile of seniors receive more than $50,000 a year in their retirement. The unlucky ones who don't hit that threshold are eaten alive by medical costs, and let's bear in mind Medicare only pays a fraction of those.

If even $50,000/ yr.  sounds like a lot, just think about this: One major accident, say a fall, could land a senior in a nursing home at a cost of $4,000 a month. If the senior is unlucky enough to have the gene that leads to Alzheimers, he could end up in the same position - emptying his or her bank account - to be warehoused in some home. Likely ending up bankrupt. One wonders how this never got onto Maher's joke tableaux, but perhaps it was too serious to blend in. Far easier to hack for cheap laughs.

Are seniors really "cavalier" and "coasting nice and easy" like Bill claims? Hardly! According to the latest Newsletter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare the "grand bargain" bollocks is still on hold, and with it the yen to implement the chained CPI. As the NL puts it:

"This cost of living adjustment is not a 'technical tweak' but a benefit cut for the oldest and most vulnerable Americans."

Indeed. It reduces the cost of living adjustment down by 0.3 percentage points annually. That translates into a cut in benefits of 3 percent for those who have been retired ten years, 6 percent after 20 years, and 9 percent after 30 years. The people who have been retired the longest and are, therefore, the poorest, will see the largest cuts. After ten years, the senior will lose the equivalent of one whole monthly S.S. payment - and given inflation isn't going away (especially for prescription drugs, fuel, food) this could be disastrous.

And now, based on Bill's jokes, many ponder taking food out of poor seniors' mouths???

Just so we are clear on this, let me also provide a quote from the American Prospect article: 'Stealing From Poor, Making Rich Richer':

"Social Security isn't broke, but millions of retirees who depend on it are, and many more would be broke without it. The average retired worker's Social Security benefit is just $922 a month--about $11,000 a year. Disabled workers average just $862.

One out of three seniors depends on Social Security for 90 to 100 percent of their income. Two out of three seniors depend on it for more than half their income. Even with Social Security, many seniors must choose between eating and heating, paying the mortgage or paying for medicine."

The next time Bill Maher, David Brooks, Robert Samuelson, Tom Brokaw, Richard Haas or anyone else thinks of playing the "generational war" meme they need to be reminded of the following:

- Seven million children currently live with grandparents - who depend on Social Security to care for them

- 8.5 million other children (including college kids that find themselves jobless and live at home) who live with elder parents that depend on Social Security to make do.

- The tens of millions of 50-plus Americans who, through their tax dollars and Social Security monies, pensions, provide voluntary contributions to support public schools, child health programs, grandparent guardianship programs as well as other charities that care for homeless kids (e.g. Covenant House).

 Concocting war between the generations, pitting young against old, therefore serves no useful or moral purpose. It is merely a cheap, malicious tactic to take attention from the REAL problem: the malignant growth of the Military Industrial Complex to the detriment of all of us outside it!

Obama & Bill Maher: Mental Captives of the NSA - Security State

"Obama’s remarks about the importance of privacy obscured that he has not closed any door on the world’s most powerful surveillance agency." - Spencer Ackerman, UK Guardian, today

Well, the feedback is now in, after Obama's  NSA speech yesterday, and as Anthony Romero of the ACLU put it:

Today the president proposed a handful of incremental reforms, but unfortunately he missed this opportunity to stop all forms of bulk collection of innocent Americans’ data.

Obama's incremental reforms include: 1) NSA will no longer  hold Americans' phone records - though it will take months or years to accomplish (oh, and the gov't can still access your records if it needs to);  2) there will be "new restrictions" on spying on our allies, although a loophole is allowed (i.e. dependent on the definition of "close ally" and also the electronic spying can be done if a higher authority approves it); 3) there will be a "privacy advocate" or panel to appear before the "special" court in cases where a mass surveillance order are pending. The advocate/s would presumably argue robustly to "lay off" bulk collection in certain cases.  It's a bit of an advance considering that previously no public input was permitted as to who would be included in NSA  bulk surveillance.

Oh, last but not least, Obama is promising privacy protection for foreign citizens of Europe etc., who can now expect their emails will no longer be logged, or their Twitter messages, Facebook pages.  Excuse me, let me back up: There won't be any such spying "unless there is a compelling national security purpose for the United States."

While these give a nod to civil libertarians, the 8 ton "elephant" in the room (concealed by a lot of fulsome privacy rhetoric)  remains bulk collection of metadata, which represents the most grievous violation of the 4th amendment. (See my previous post) Thus, Obama punted on what would have been the most significant advance and the real indicator that he respects the 4th.  Meanwhile, he has continued his dismissive tone toward Snowden, noting that the whistleblower's (Obama obviously doesn't believe he's one) disclosures have harmed U.S national security. This despite the fact Obama wouldn't have even had to present a nominal appearance of civil liberties defense had Snowden not done what he did.

Indeed, mounting a full-throated defense of the NSA, Obama actually said:

"They're not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls, or read your emails. We cannot unilaterally disarm out intelligence agencies."

Of course, no one is asking him to do that. What we are insisting on is that we revert back to the original surveillance standards under the 1978 FISA law, which required specific warrants issued and out in the open, vetted by open courts, not secret rubber-stampers. From this, it's clear either Obama doesn't get it or he doesn't want to, or he's a mental -psychological captive of the security statists. 

To reinforce my point,  Obama did not once mention that even  judges on the FISA-"Redux" courts (redone after a pitiful congress made legal Bush's original warrantless wiretaps) have found the NSA has consistently and repeatedly overstepped its bounds. Hell, even the original authors of the Patriot Act  (Sens. Jim Sensenbrenner and Patrick Leahy) have said so! 

However, as I noted in my last blog post, Obama can perhaps be forgiven, certainly if he's an unwilling mental captive. He surely knows how the security state thwarted the administrations of Eisenhower and Kennedy using nefarious tricks. In the case of Ike it was the 1960 Big Four Summit, blown up by the U-2 incident contrived by Richard Bissell and the CIA. In Kennedy's case, it was the S. Vietnam coup and overthrow of the Diems, engineered by the CIA (unknown to JFK) cutting off all funds from the Commodity Import Aid Program. (For much more on this, see James Douglass': JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.)

In effect, Obama knows he only has three years of his 2nd term left. He wants to leave with some kind of a legacy, especially if the Affordable Care Act meets expectations. What he doesn't need, and certainly fears, is the security state undermining him - possibly by launching a bogus terror attack, along the lines of the 'Operation Northwoods" template. If you don't know what Northwoods is, you need to google it!

So therefore giving them what they want is in his own best interests, to at least have a good chance of his presidency ending on a solid upbeat note.

As for Bill Maher, after his HBO show ('REAL TIME') last night - namely the interview with Glenn Greenwood (who published a series of articles on Edward Snowden's released files in the UK Guardian)  I must include him as a mental captive of the security state as well.  I refer to his reactions to specific Snowden statements as "bat shit crazy" - even after Greenwald corrected him and noted that HIS reactions to Snowden's statements as "bat shit crazy" were what was bat shit crazy.

But then, what can we expect of a guy who, in his Nov. 22 show, claimed that any conspiracy thinking was in the same category as god belief. Now, THAT is bat shit crazy! (In my Nov. 23rd blog post : 'What Have We Learned This Past Week',  I skewered Bill's take, as well as that of his guest, Katty Kay.)

Bill at one point asked Glenn Greenwald:

"Wouldn't you agree that every time Edward Snowden opens his mouth he says something completely bat shit nuts. He reminds me a lot of Ron Paul. I agree with what he says, I nod along, then he says something totally batshit."


When Greenwald pressed for specific examples, Maher replied that Snowden said:

"These programs were never about terrorism they were about social control and diplomatic manipulation."

Maher adding: "That's crazy. They were about stopping terrorists."

He also gave another Snowden quote:

"They can use this material to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made and find every friend you've ever discussed something with."

Then asked Greenwald, 'This is nuts, right?'

To which Greenwald replied:

"No, Bill, what's nuts is the fact that you think that's nuts. Let me explain why. A lot of the stories we've reported have nothing to do with terrorism. They're about spying on economic summits in Latin America, oil companies in Brazil, democratically elected leaders of our closest allies who have nothing to do with terrorism. His point is that, of course, some of this is directed at terrorism, but this massive system that's been built, the huge bulk of it, has nothing to do with national security. It has to to do with the reasons why the people in political power always want to surveil various populations because it does give them greater power.

As for slowing down the internet, that comes right from documents that we've published, because the NSA collects everything and then stores it for a long enough time so that in their words, it 'slows down the internet' so they can go back at any time and see your entire history. Where you browsed, what kind of search terms you entered, to whom you've been speaking or emailing, I mean look, he's a 29-year old who's not a trained politician. He doesn't have aides whispering in his ear- what he should say, he's not adept at that. That's what makes him so impressive. It was an act of conscience that he just stepped forward as an ordinary person."

Maher still couldn't get the implications into his head, retorting that Snowden's claim that they know every friend you've ever discussed anything with is 'fucking nuts' and "we'll just have to agree to disagree on what's fucking nuts." Yeah, right. Bill,  you need to wake up and smell the coffee. That means stepping out of your Denial domain.

The main point missed by Bill is that Snowden's statements are entirely consistent with the NSA bulk collection of  data, including one's email address books (which we now know the NSA has, globally) and its long term storage - as well as the long term phone records and their storage. If they have the records of those, then they fucking A- DO know who all your friends are, in terms of which names on their email, phone lists match those with whom you've communicated the most. This isn't relativity or rocket science.

The fact that Maher didn't appreciate or get this, discloses he's either lost a step, or has not done enough homework on exactly how far reaching the NSA programs are.

I still have faith in Bill and am hoping that in some future show he retracts his BS, admits he was talking out of his ass regarding his opinions of Snowden, and rejoins the "good guy" branch of  libertarians. In the meantime, along with Obama, I will have to classify him as a mental captive of the security state.

See also:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/obama-nsa-speech-surveillance-reforms-fight

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/17/obamas_nsa_reforms_the_devil_in_the_details/

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mary-shaw/53710/amnesty-says-nsa-revisions-fall-short

Horace Cooper: Another Moron Exposed on Bill Maher's 'REAL TIME'!

We need to really thank Bill Maher, on his 'Real 'Time show, for highlighting the dolted Morons for the rest of us. Such was the case Friday night, as Horace Cooper - Conservo commentator and goofball, was exposed as belonging to this elite group. I will say that I only pegged Cooper as a semi-Moron until he opened his yap about climate change. (As Maher pointed out, he sat on the wrong side of every other issue under discussion, so why not this too?)

Cooper interjected at one point, believe it or not: that: "true science must always challenge the status quo or accepted version". He then went on to claim that at one time the "flat Earth" was the true accepted "science" and the spherical Earthers had to challenge it! Huh?    In other words, this dolt was comparing the currently accepted science of global warming (based on thousands of papers published in peer-reviewed journals)  to the flat Earth view!

In fact, as far back as 240 B.C. it was known by the much more enlightened Greek astronomers, in particular Eratosthenes, that the Earth was spherical, not flat. This was opposed to the primitive flat Earth perceptions (NOT science!)  embraced by the sheep herder tribes of Judea, many of whom scribbled down their Bronze Age myths in the Bible. In Eratosthenes’ case, around 240 B.C., he had to first decide what exactly he had to measure to assess sphericity as opposed to circularity. This is where a key assumption entered: that the Earth was spherical and the Sun distant enough that its rays at Earth were essentially parallel.

 
Eratosthenes thereby performed a measurement of the angle of elevation of the Sun at noon at Alexandria, and at Syene. This value could then be used to obtain Earth’s circumference, at 250,000 stadia or about 24,900 miles. The repeat of the experiment from thousands of different directions, orientations, shows sphericity not just circularity. Why? Because if Eratasothenes (or any of his thousands or millions of followers – who repeat the experiment even today at assorted universities) were measuring a circle, they’d have to be on the circle’s EDGE to obtain its circumference . Cut out a circle from cardboard and examine it. Any distance on the circle itself would be a chord, not a circumference. One would have to stand or situate exactly ON THE EDGE to get the circumference. No untrained, non-mathematical ancient mind would remotely contemplate this, because to him one would “fall off” at the edge. (Gravitational physics would need another 2500 years to be developed by Galileo and Newton)

Thus, the very act of measuring a circumference using a shadow angle (and trigonometry) on any part or place of Earth implicitly presumes its sphericity , since the extension of all such measuring lines leads to a circle that can be oriented around any direction across Earth. What then is the sphere? Technically – as we see from calculus, it is the integration of an infinite number of conic sections that are each circles – which results in a sphere (see diagram below).

















How did the ancient Greek astronomers (e.g. Eratosthenes) break out of this and arrive at sphericity? In Eratosthenes’ case, around 240 B.C., he had to first decide what exactly he had to measure to assess sphericity as opposed to circularity. This is where a key assumption entered: that the Earth was spherical and the Sun distant enough that its rays at Earth were essentially parallel.

Recall here that roundness (circularity) and sphericity are two different properties. One (circularity) applies to a simple two dimensional surface or geometry. Indeed, the property of circles was investigated by Sumerian and Egyptian mathematicians long before any of the biblical authors emerged from their caves. This is why one biblical reference often cited by literalists (Isaiah 40:22: "“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." ) cannot be assumed to mean the ancient Judean sheep herders knew anything about the Earth's sphericity. No, they only possessed a crude 2-dimensional perception: i.e. of themselves situated at the center of a circular FLAT disk with edges.

Thus, mathematically to advance, we take a circle – say defined by:

x² + y² = 4

And rotate it around the x-axis to generate a sphere. This is done by using calculus to integrate: p(4 - x²)dx from (-2) to +2. Thus, in the process of rotation an infinite series of circles is generated, to obtain a sphere with radius 2 and volume 33.427 cubic units. That the integration yields cubic units – proves that the result is a sphere since circles lack volume as geometrically defined.

Of course, one could never expect a numbnut like Cooper to know any of this, but then he ought not have compared the flat Earth paradigm to current climate science, which is actually ass-backwards. It is the current denial paradigm which is evocative of the flat Earth in relation to global warming-  which is the true analog to the spherical Earth.

In one sentence, then, Cooper exposed himself as a full moron whose bloviations on anything to do with climate change can be ignored, just as an earlier Maher guest ('Kennedy' ) claimed warming was due to 'Sunspots!" ( see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-lisa-kennedy-aka-kennedy-is-moron.html )  Meanwhile, co-panelist Dan Neil of the WSJ at least got in one of the last words when he pointedly noted that he could see the effects of global warming-climate change by merely observing the manifestations outside, in the environs he inhabits. Which makes one wonder what peculiar environs Cooper inhabits that he can't see them.

Thanks, Bill, for every now and then clearly showing whose voices we need to ignore on which subjects! (As we've since learned to ignore Niall Ferguson's on "no evidence of water contamination"  from fracking!)

Welcome, Millennials and Other New Brane Space Readers! But....There's Much More Material Here Besides 'Abby Huntsman's Hijinks'!

Scanning over the blog statistics the past week I see almost one thousand new Brane Space readers, which is very gratifying - especially considering I don't do "Facebook" - so it's clear certain stories are spreading via word of mouth or links sent to others via e-mail.  The one which has attracted the most reads by far, however, is the April 6th entry:  'Bernie Sanders Schools Millennial Moron Abby Huntsman on Bill Maher's REAL TIME'. 

When I put that blog up last Friday night, almost as an afterthought , I figured it might attract some eyeballs but not anywhere near 856 at last count. (But this is still far fewer than the 3,700 hits for last June's Venus transit of the Sun.) 

The blog itself referenced Millennials, Generation Ys and Huntsman as perhaps (hopefully!) an outlier example of what author Mark Bauerlein has called "the dumbest generation". He referenced this as pertaining to those embedded almost entirely in social media like Twitter and Facebook and hence seldom leaving those solipsist, self-referenced cocoons to read or explore any other venues, subjects or areas - especially which may appear too challenging at first glance.

What I hope, however, is that if Millennials are pouring in to read the post on Abby Huntsman, they will also move eyeballs to the right column and check out all the other blogs, articles which will be seen to be of an eclectic variety.  The emphasis then is on diverse content, and much of it is expressly designed for a college level or college age audience.

As I wrote in my inaugural blog (in 2007) launching Brane Space.

"The name for this blog implies multi-dimensional (or multi-faceted) content in time. I will blog on aspects of science (especially astronomy, astrophysics, quantum mechanics etc.) as well as on pseudo-science (astrology, Velikovskianism etc.), philosophy, religion, mathematics and even economics. Most of the time the blogging will simply reflect ruminations on current events, developments or scientific discoveries, but sometimes the writing will embody current worries......whether of economic malaise and dollar decline, or global warming, or perhaps when the next major asteroid may strike Earth....My main goal is to provide captivating content that enlightens and maybe entertains as well."

I suppose in many ways the 'Abby Huntsman' blog was "entertaining" - but I hope new blog readers, especially many Millennials (because they appear to be most interested in a fellow Millennial) will understand that only eating ice cream without any veggies, will not be conducive to health. In this case, one's mental health, intellect, .....the point Bauerlein made in his book, i.e.

"For education to happen, people must encounter worthwhile things outside their sphere of interest and brainpower. Knowledge grows, skills improve, tastes refine and conscience ripens only if the experiences bear a degree of unfamiliarity"

So, enjoy the Abby blog, but don't let the other content -unfamiliar though it may be-  turn you off!

What Sen. Bernie Sanders Didn't Get To Say on Bill Maher's REAL TIME

Here's a brief piece of advice to Bill Maher, host of HBO's REAL TIME: Next time you deign to have a  guest of Sen. Bernie Sanders' gravitas and caliber on your show, please don't 'bring in the clowns' with the likes of Abby Huntsman, and Wall Street Journal flack, Steve Moore. Many left blogs that noted the show described it as a "mess" on account of mixing up an informed Senator with two yahoos, or maybe one yahoo and one bimbo. As it was, Sen. Sanders was repeatedly shouted down or cut off in mid-sentence by one of other of the two guest morons, and what help Bill did deliver - in terms of explaining more about the "Chained CPI" was too little, too late. It got so bad and so hard to watch, that wifey had to bail out after three minutes - using unprintable names to describe both Huntsman and Moore, which I will not repeat here.

But what I will do is produce here a key segment of a speech Sen. Sanders gave, and which elements might have served to educate millions (especially of the Gen. Y group Huntsman belongs to) had he been able to get a word in edgewise, as opposed to having to resort to animated hand motions (which wifey and I interpreted as efforts to maybe shut capitalist troll Moore up!)

Anyway, here's what Bernie would have said in completeness, had he had the chance:

I am terribly disappointed and will do everything in my power to block President Obama’s proposal to cut benefits for Social Security recipients through a chained consumer price index. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, I also am especially concerned about the impact this change would have on disabled veterans and their survivors.


The Senate just last month went on record in opposition to the president’s approach. In poll after poll, the American people are overwhelmingly against cutting Social Security. And organizations representing a broad spectrum of millions of Americans from the AFL-CIO to the American Legion to AARP to NOW have urged the president not to make this terrible mistake.

This is not a minor tweak, as its proponents contend. Under Obama’s proposal, according to the Social Security Administration, 65-year-old retirees would lose more than $650 a year by their 75th birthday, and more than $1,000 a year would be cut from their benefits once they reach 85. The proposed change would also affect more than 3.2 million disabled veterans receiving disability compensation benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans who started receiving V.A. disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits reduced by $1,425 a year at age 45, $2,341 at age 55 and $3,231 at age 65. Benefits for more than 350,000 surviving spouses and children would also be cut.

I remember when Obama said he was concerned about retirees struggling to get by and was unequivocal in his opposition to cutting cost-of-living adjustments. On September 6, 2008, then Sen. Obama spoke to the AARP 50th anniversary convention. ‘John McCain’s campaign has gone even further suggesting that the best answer for the growing pressure on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear. I will not do either.’

I also hope the president follows up on another suggestion that he made during that campaign and gets behind my legislation to raise the cap on income subject to the payroll tax, extending the life of Social Security for generations to come without the need to cut benefits or raise taxes on the middle class.

Yes, we must move forward on deficit reduction, but it must not be done on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in this country.

-----
Bravo to Sen. Sanders! If we had more Socialists in Congress we might actually be able to make this a nation of, by and for the PEOPLE - as opposed to corporations and the Neoliberal Imperative.

Bernie Sanders Schools Millennial Moron Abby Huntsman on Bill Maher

Here is a cautionary note for any up and coming "Millennials" (aka Generation Ys) seeking to make a bigger and brighter name for themselves over the tube: Educate yourselves first! Abby Huntsman's pathetic appearance last night on Bill Maher's Real Time, reminded me why we have books like Mark Bauerlein's  The Dumbest Generation  widely circulating.

Huntsman, much like the woefully ignorant 'Kennedy' (aka Lisa Kennedy) last year on Maher's show ( in regard to global warming - who spouted "Sunspots!" as the reason)  had to be schooled by Sen. Bernie Sanders on the details of the Chained CPI (i.e. Obama's proposed cut via changing the cost of living to inflation index for seniors on Social Security). She also had no clue, not one, that the federal budget game isn't stacking her Gen Y bunch against my Boomers, but rather BOTH our groups against the Military Industrial Complex, which is sucking us all dry.

But instead of being informed, demonstrating some scintilla of education, she whined about "My generation - what're they gonna do?" like a sniveling nitwit. Bernie tried his best to educate this star of  'Huffpost Live' - in the brief spans of time allotted to him - between her interruptions, as well as those of the congenital moron Stephen Moore. But it seemed at times she was more invested in getting her two cents in than in listening to what the elder statesman Sen. Sanders had to say - given he has about 40 years more experience in the political -economic world. 

I know not all Millennials are clones of either Kennedy or Ms. Huntsman, but so far the feature performances are not inspiring.

Regarding 'The Dumbest Generation', readers may recall from a blog three years ago that it revealed how a whole generation of youth (mainly Generation Y'ers) were being dumbed down by their aversion to reading anything of substance, and their addiction to digital crap, and socializing via Twitter, Facebook, etc. Wasting time when they ought to have been developing their minds by accessing the (written) works for politics, science, history, economics etc.  As soon as I listened to Huntsman for five minutes, after her first interruption of Sen. Sanders, I pegged her in this category of hyper-social networking twits.

The problem with the hyper-networked bunch is that they erect confected and artificial solipsist worlds in which all the things that bother and bore them are blocked out. In the case of Huntsman, it could well be that she simply didn't care enough to really learn why the Chained CPI is a terrible idea or why her generation isn't losing to us older farts, but rather both of our generations are losing out to the rich fuckers and the war mongering assholes. But her narative, that we (older folks on Social Security) are "taking from" her gen's mouths, and grabbing their jobs - while corporations sit on $1.7 trillion in capital - discloses she's in the same brain league as Kennedy.

Of course, this is exactly the strategy of the Neoliberal scumballs and parasites who are all about "divide and conquer". Regrettably, Abby Huntsman, by her obtuse reaction to Sen. Sanders, shows she's bought this hook, line and sinker. She actually believes in her heart of hearts that we old farts would rather her generation fall behind than that we miss out on our 'goodies' (Never mind Obama plans to cut them!)

Meanwhile, Abby's take on letting the Keystone XL pipeline go through was equally uninformed (adding 'Well, we all have to take risks, like when we walk across the street!' which had Maher falling out of his chair in a pseudo-mock demo) . Abby then  interjected  "bestiality" in a discussion of same sex marriage. One is left to wonder if she really got all those brains from dad, Jon Huntsman.

Sadly, if Facebook “friending”, texting, tweeting and video gaming is what defines a group's limited universe, then their overall education (which must exist beyond any classroom) will be a casualty. As author Bauerlein notes (p. 138):

"For education to happen, people must encounter worthwhile things outside their sphere of interest and brainpower. Knowledge grows, skills improve, tastes refine and conscience ripens only if the experiences bear a degree of unfamiliarity"


What that means, as he further observes, is one must move through and beyond the initial knee-jerk reaction: “I don’t get it! That’s not for me, not my cup of tea!”  Even if it's a blog on the chained CPI, or 'order and disorder' and evolution, or even complex numbers. At least make a minimal effort to learn.

Bauerlein again (ibid.):

“Nobody savors the process, but mature adults realize the benefits. Adolescents don’t and digital connections save them the labor of self-improvement…..the screen and cell bombard adolescents with youth trifles and the sporadic brush with challenging subjects that recall their shortcomings are quickly offset by a few minutes back in virtual comfort zones"

And – as the author warns, the “opportunity costs are high”. Imagine instead of wasting hours and days on pseudo-socializing (which I define in terms of digital contacts-communication, rather than face-to-face or the famous “bull sessions” such as we used to partake of in the 60s) the young adult pursued actual knowledge aims – learning the conjugation of Russian verbs, or Latin, or how to integrate around a pole using residue calculus, or …just learning about what’s transpiring now at the interface of politics and ecoomics, say in terms of financial implications of the sequester, or the history of the deficit and the debt ceiling.  Oh....and how U.S. taxes are at the lowest percentage of GDP in over a generation!


‘AWWWWWW……BOOOOOOOOORRRRRING!’

Well, yes, to the undeveloped and raw mind. But getting beyond that reaction is what molds and defines the adult. It is, if you will, the sine qua non rite of passage to adulthood in a civilization which generally foregoes such rites.

One hopes Abby Huntsman will learn and actually apply that next time she gets a prime time gig. Assuming she does get one! But given how often superficial looks get a pass in our  consumer, 24/7 Bimbo-Himbo corporate media culture, I wouldn't be surprised if her star rises even further after her just concluded 'brainiac' performance!

Has Bill Maher Bought into the “Entitlement Spending Crisis”?

A crowd in D.C. two years ago protests against possible Social Security cuts. Bill Maher somehow thinks that cutting "entitlements" like Social Security will free up more $$$ for those under 18. He's dreaming! What needs to be cut - pared down in HALF- is the Military-Industrial Complex and  Military Welfare State.

Bill Maher comes off as an intelligent host of HBO’s REAL TIME, and in most instances his intellect manages to side on the right side of issues. However, in a disturbing few moments last night one wondered if maybe he had too many tokes before his show. In one exchange, which included guest Sam Harris, Bill opined:


“Do we really want to be spending $4 on every adult over 65, to only $1 on every child under 18?”

Guest Sam Harris, a putative, proclaimed liberal, didn’t help matters by suggesting Social Security be “means tested”, so that no high earners could receive benefits.

First, let me hammer Bill before going on to Sam Harris. The issue again, isn’t “ entitlements” such as Social Security, but rather out of control “defense spending” which is really EMPIRE building! I mean, c’mon already! Do we REALLY need 702 military 'installations' in 63 foreign countries with 4,471 bases altogether? This, according to the Defense Department's 2012 annual budget statement.


Clearly, if you’re spending so much on this nonsense there will be little left for humane spending, including on social insurance. Nor will there be sufficient funding for education, teachers. Bill, before disengaging mouth, ought to have considered what spending $0.3b each on 2,335 F-35 bombers would have accomplished for schools, services, paying teachers. Instead, he became an instant Neoliberal moron by parroting their usual lines, almost right out of Bob Woodward’s playbook.


So what Bill actually did with his reckless comment, is disclose being hostage to the false choice paradigm – which he’s often accused others of promoting! Had he done a tad more research, such as into former defense analyst Chuck Spinney’s research, showing that the jump in military spending in 2004-05 by 2% of GDP would mean “war on social programs” – he might have been more temperate. He’d also then have recognized that spending on seniors – whether via Medicare or Social Security, is not counterpoised against spending on education and services for youth. Instead, it is bloated military spending which is gobbling up so much of the budget pie it leaves little for other needs. See also: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-military-industrial-complex-still.html

Bill also appears oblivious to the fact that aging Boomers in their 50s -early 60s) have actually suffered the most in the past decade and hence need the social insurance lifeline the most. Studies have found that Americans in their 50s and early 60s — those near retirement age who do not yet have access to Medicare and Social Security — have lost the most earnings power of any age group. This according to Sentier Research, a data analysis company.  Their income fell 10% even as their retirement savings and home values fell sharply at the worst possible time: just before they needed to cash out. They are supporting both aged parents and unemployed young-adult children, earning them the inauspicious nickname “Generation Squeeze.”  Meanwhile, a recent study by economists at Wellesley College found that people who lost their jobs in the few years before becoming eligible for Social Security lost up to three years from their life expectancy, largely because they no longer had access to affordable health care.

Does Bill really want to cut the social insurance floor out from under them to save the military industrial complex and defense contractors?  These besieged Boomers – above all- NEED those “entitlements”!


Hence, if Bill had been even remotely with it, instead of Neoliberal grand standing, he’d have been able to offer a REAL solution: i.e. that closing 50% of all the overseas military bases, installations, would save $500 BILLION a year! (DoD estimates put the cost of sustaining all the bases at $1 trillion a year). THAT money would then be more than enough to help all the under 18 segment of the population, as opposed to pissing more good money after bad on useless bases – many of which are in WWII former opponent nations, like Japan and Germany.


Now, as for Sam Harris, while his “means testing” proposal sounds rational and reasonable at first blush, it also shows a disarming lapse in grasping political dynamics. The fact is that when social programs are means-tested, they instantly become altered to WELFARE in political perceptions. And we have already seen what happened to welfare in the 1996 ‘Welfare to Work’ act. Think it couldn’t happen with Social Security? Think again!


Think of this now: when all economic demographics pay in and can also obtain benefits, they will be more likely to see the program as worth preserving. On the other hand, when some of these, especially in the upper tiers, have their benefits cut off by a means –test, they will be less likely to offer further political support. After all, they’re not benefiting, so why should they? To them, Social Security becomes just another "welfare" program to be cut!

When enough economically powerful demographics or quintiles are sliced off, the voting interests also mutate and this will include the directions of money contributions. These political campaign contributions will then pitch toward those enclaves favoring “entitlement cuts” or maybe even balancing access to Social Security with work (The same way my own state of Colo. requires indigent seniors to work in exchange for receiving breaks on their property taxes. For example, if you get a $1500 break on your property taxes you can expect to work for 500 hrs. at $3.00 /hr)

The conclusion is that Sam Harris is just as wrong with his means testing proposal as Bill Maher is with his entitlement cuts to loosen funds for the under-18 year old set.

Hopefully both these guys will move away from their unwarranted Neoliberal enchantment in the near future.