Harry Reid: Another Useless Punk Ass Wimp - As We Suspected.

Why is it every time the Democrats are in the minority, especially in the Senate, they lose spine, become whores....errrrr....worms, and surrender power by refusing to do what the Repukes did when they were in the minority? OBSTRUCT! (In the repukes case it was to obstruct everything, while we need the Senate Dems to block only the most odious legislation - such as the Keystone pipeline and Ryan budget)

We saw this play out before with Tom Daschle's Dems in 2002, as they all rolled over and let the Bushies have their way  - allowing his odious tax cuts to go through (fully realizing how they'd make future funding for social needs problematical) and then approved Bush's illegal invasion in the Iraq War Resolution. It was enough to make a long time liberal puke and launched my departure from the Democrats to become an Independent (member of Democratic Socialists).

According to The Hill:

Reid: 'No desire' to obstruct GOP

By Alexander Bolton

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday pledged to work with Republicans when they are in the majority and eschew the strategy of obstruction he has accused them of using against Democrats.

“I am ready, Mr. President, to work with him in good faith to make this institution function again for the American people. I saw firsthand how a strategy of destruction was debilitating to our system,” he said, addressing the Senate chair.

“I have no desire to engage in that manner,” he said. ...

With Republicans set to take control of the upper chamber in January, it has raised questions about whether Democrats might seek revenge by blocking Republican initiatives in order to run against a dysfunctional GOP Congress in 2016.

Reid said that would not happen.

“I have been able to strike compromise with my Republican colleagues and I’m ready to do it again. Regardless of how you may interpret last week’s election results, it’s clear the American people want us to join together to get things done for the middle class and all Americans,” he said. ...


So Reid is a punk ass, weak-kneed weasel. We ought to have forecast as much with his tinny little weasel voice you can barely hear when he speaks.

If this is the tone and tenor that we can expect from him come January then it's time for the Dems to replace him with someone with real balls, like Elizabeth Warren. Someone who will give no quarter to the Reepos and expect none. Someone with a spine who is willing to fight for us, and not roll over for the poppets who he refers to as "the American people" - in actual fact, those yahoos that came out in their numbers while Demos slumbered.

As one smirking chimp blogger put it, reacting to the Hill story:

"Harry Reid is up for re-election in 2016, along with 33 of his millionaire buddies. Feel like un-rewarding him? "

Damned straight! This is exactly the problem (money influx from corporations, lobbyists removing the balls of pols) and why we need to weed out useless weeds like Harry Reid, who have outlived their usefulness - to the real citizen, or the nation. If he wants to be a punk or the Reepos' bitch, let him do it on someone else's time and dime.

I don't know how much more clearly I can express myself on this!

See also (for more seedy Reid connections via his aide, David Krone):

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/us/politics/as-democrats-work-to-unify-a-top-reid-aide-causes-a-rift.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

If GOP Wins Big Tonight Will Dems Use Filibusters Come January?

There is the real prospect that the Repukes could seize control of the Senate when the dust settles after this mid-term. Right now the pukes hold 45 seats and the Dems 55 (including Bernie Sanders a socialist who votes with them), so if they gain at least 6 seats - which is possible- they would end up with a 51-49 majority in the Senate as well as a sizable majority in the House which they've held since 2010.

I don't believe this will actually happen, as I instead see the Ds hanging on by their fingernails, with a a 50-50 standoff in the Senate - the tie vote going to VP Joe Biden. So it would be a 'win' albeit a narrow won. But anything is possible. A primary indicator is the North Carolina race. If Kay Hagen wins (assuming too many African-Americans aren't hindered from voting), then look for the Dems to hold on, same if Mark Udall edges by Cory Gardener in Colorado.

But what if, as Nate Silver forecasts (75 % probability) the Repubs DO take the Senate? Then congress will be totally in their hands with only Obama the 'firewall' to act against their insanity using his veto power. (And veto he must, and veto, veto and veto - until his left hand goes into spasm.)

The good thing is that whatever advantage the Reeps manage to secure it won't be sufficient to get any of their wackier legislation passed - including rolling back the Affordable Care Act, increasing interest on private student loans (from 6.8% to 8%) or militarizing the southern border as part of "immigration reform"

However, in order to prevent these nutso laws being passed one of two things must happen: 1) The Democrats need to use the filibuster - demanding 60 vote majorities the same way the Reeps did when they were a Senate minority, and 2) If the Dems punk out with (1) and lose their cojones when it counts, then Obama must be ready with his veto pen.

Indeed, I would argue that if the Reeps do gain the Senate and hold the House (99% likely), the Democrats must become as "obstructionist" as the Reeps were when they had only 45 seats.  That means using the filibuster at every turn to block all legislation issuing from the Reep zone, including any approval of the Keystone pipeline.  After all, the Reeps will have been rewarded for their obstructionism so why not the Dems?

Harder to figure, as Scarborough noted this a.m.,  is why Americans would reward these jerks anyway, given all they've done is block Obama's agenda at every turn.  They have contributed to the worst congress in history with their do-nothingism and have a 20 percent approval rating (this is compared to 42% for Obama in the most recent polls).

Repub pollster Frank Luntz, this morning on CBS, opined the election is not really about Obama at all, but about "Washington", but I am not sure I buy it. Tune in any time to FOX, including Hannity and O'Reilly, and all you hear and see is anti-Obama blather. It's no wonder their viewers (surveys show 47 % of repukes go to no other station) and end up brainwashed Obama haters.

If in fact it is really about Washington, as Luntz suggests, then it is the Republicans who should lose big because they are the party - via their incessant 'call in' filibusters, who've mucked it up the most. Especially as Luntz said that in his own polling what mattered to voters the most was "accountability and getting things done". Well, Katy bar the door, the Repukes fail on all counts there! Or is it people are really living in a parallels universe where the Reepos have been beyond reproach in their work?

Whatever the outcome in a potential GOP Senate takeover, 51 seats or 54 (making a 9 seat gain and the greatest since 1994 and the 'Contract On America') the Dems cannot allow themselves to be suckered into accepting that any R-takeover translates to a "mandate". It doesn't. It amounts to a temporary advantage that will likely be reversed in the next election. The same as the GOP 2002 gains were reversed in 2006.

The main thing we need is for the Democrats to stand with the people, come hell or high water, and that means filibustering whenever it's needed - which will likely be about every week!

The "Nuclear Option"? Please USE it, DEMS!

Another kerfuffle has erupted in D.C., this time around Harry Reid and the Dems "changing the filibuster rules" to allow a simple majority of 51 Senate votes to pass legislation and especially, allow eight of Obama's nominations (some of which have been pending for 2 years) to go through. Why the hell is this even an issue? ANY president merits having his nominations, especially for crucial federal agencies, positions, to be approved without obstruction. But the Repukes have made an art of impeding thanks to a bogus filibuster rule only implemented relatively recently that demands a super majority of 60.

This is plain nuts!

How has it come to be that our government is essentially tied in knots, and a measure (filibuster) once used sparingly (as intended by the Founders) is now used at every opportunity by the opposition GOP – and requiring 60 votes to pass anything? The answer is a re-interpretation and casting of the filibuster - from an actual act which one had to perform in public (e.g. reading from the D.C. phone book for 14 hours on the Senate floor) to a passive “intent to filibuster”. As comic George Carlin often framed it: “And since when did this transpire? No one has informed me, no one has told me of this new way of doing things!”

Well, it appears it transpired some years ago in some secret Senate Cloak room where a tacit agreement was made by the corporate-owned Senate sleazebags that “henceforth we shall not actually demand you to get up and filibuster- but shall stand in awe and abeyance as you merely threaten to do so. And we shall call it 'intent to filibuster' and it shall replace the actual standing up and doing!”

No wonder the government is damned near paralyzed across the board.

Now, finally, after Reid punked out back in January and refused to alter the rules when he had the optimal chance, he's determined to finally do it now. Of course, just like the Edward Snowden whistleblowing, the corporate media is going bat shit crazy with hysteria and referring to it as "the nuclear option". Nuclear what? It's the sensible option! It ought to have been done ages ago!

Does the "nuclear option" really blow up the filibuster? Hell no! It merely insists those who would tie up the business of the Senate, or block presidential nominations get off their fat duffs and actually stand and talk as the filibuster had always been intended! (Think Wendy Davis recently in the Texas State Senate over an egregious abortion bill that would prevent it even in the cases of rape and incest.)

Thus, Reid's strategy is merely to force the Reeps to actually get up off their asses and FILIBUSTER, as opposed to phoning in the "intent" from their personal spas! Make them read their bibles, the DC phone book, "War and Peace"….whatever. No MORE “intention to filibuster”!

If you threaten to filibuster, say against a bill mandating a climate change provision for EPA or a health reform bill, or a presidential nominee,  then you are obliged to actually get out on the Senate floor and do it – for 57 hours or 57 days (as the Rs had to do it in 1964 when they sought to prevent the Civil Rights Bill from passage))  The weasly acceptance of the intent to filibuster as a true filibuster destroys the basis of functional government and can no longer be tolerated.

The Republicans are lying, therefore, when they assert the Dems are "trying to destroy a centuries old tradition". NO, they are not! They are simply returning that tradition to what it always had intended: that Senators stand up and speak at length to block legislation or nominees, not merely phone in an "intent". Jeezus peace, what have we come to as a nation? Has all the remaining logic, rationality been hurled out the window? Are we no longer capable of parsing BS from actual historical facts? Evidently, for the Rs, we aren't, (But let's also make clear the Ds have been part of this "intent" meme as well, so they can't be fully let off the hook, despite their protestations.)

Will actual filibustering make things messy and take longer to get to the objective? Of course, but that’s the way it was meant to be – and WHY it’s historically been used so infrequently. When you make filibustering neat and tidy – so any idiot can invoke it any time and by long distance-  you not only trivialize it but tie up government to serve a bastardized agenda via whim or special (read: corporate) interest mandate.

Reid is supposed to have more "meetings" with the 'pukes and Mitchie McConnell, but he and his lot must not now punk out like they did 7 months ago! Ignore the media's howling "nuclear" this and that, and just do it! The Dems finally need to return the filibuster to what it was meant to be: an actual ACTION requiring active participation - using phone books, bibles, long novels…whatever. Where REAL Senators had to stand up and babble on for hours or days, not even being able to use restrooms (well, ok- they could relieve themselves in glasses.)

Do not let the Reeps or the media force you to back down, Harry! Grow a pair for once and fight for that "nuclear option" because in the end it's the only common sense option to get out of protracted government dysfunction and paralysis!

M-Brane - Mailbag

Once more letters-questions from readers, in no particular order, and my answers.

Q. I noticed that you ended the Introduction to Basic Physics series at Radioactivity but I was hoping to see some relativity (special, not general) and a bit of atomic physics, quantum mechanics. Any chance of seeing those in the future?- Caleb Shay, Aurora, CO

A. Not really. For one thing, the atomic physics and quantum physics were covered in at least ten blogs (including problem solutions) last year. Also, one can't legitimately consider them as part of 'basic physics' because of the areas of inquiry and more esoteric basis - such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the Correspondence Principle, the Principle of Superposition, quantized energy levels etc.

Much the same applies to relativity, though more to general than special. I am considering including a separate 'Introduction to Special Relativity' series - perhaps by the fall. This will focus exclusively on the special theory and its repercussions. Some of this has actually already been dealt with in several recent blogs under 'Where do people conjure this stuff up?'.

Q. You seem to blame the Republicans (GOP) for a lot of what's going wrong now, even resorting to calling them 'repukes' on many occasions when you write on things political or economic. Isn't this kinda yellow journalism, and not very objective? Also what's with all the anger when you write these things, isn't that odd coming from an otherwise purported rationalist who does astrophysics, astronomy, physics etc.? Molly, in Orlando, FL

A. Okay you have a number of questions, but let me take the last first. I blame the Republicans for a lot of our problems because the ARE responsible for 90% of them! They essentially obstructed everything Obama proposed during his first two years in office and got rewarded by a House victory! Evidently, it pays to be an obstructionist! Now, though they came in vowing to deal with the deficit, they are really using it to start a major fracas over raising the debt ceiling. They are actually willing to crash this economy again for brownie points given by the Tea Baggers!

Paul Krugman in his most recent column (NY Times) has the best explanation for this fell behavior: because the Repugs regard ALL democratic presidencies as illegitimate! If they so regard them, then clearly they'll not be disposed to deal from an honest and forthright position - but rather cynically and with the aim of destroying that presidency (as so many wish to do with Obama's) even as they "deal". Right now many tea baggers, and especially Eric Cantor, are prepared to go so far as to destroy the country in a default melt down rather than raise the debt ceiling!

And YES! This stuff infuriates me! I can't help but show my anger, and it will come out in my blogs from time to time (in the occasional f-bombs, for example)! I get angry when I detect perpetrated stupidity combined with cynical manipulation that has the potential to destroy what's left of this nation. (And contrary to the rants of some reich wing bloggers, I do not "hate" this country, but love it enough to want to save it for future generations!) I firmly believe the only way to achieve that is returning to the higher moral purpose that WE - the American People - are ALL in this together. And hence, we have to make shared sacrifices together!

That means we absolutely must have re-distributive income tax policies in order to avoid even greater chasms of inequality opening up. While our Founders have expressed the yearning for "domestic tranquility" this is impossible if massive economic chasms exist that allow a tiny minority to have 80% or more of the wealth and resources while the majority flounders.

Moreover, I am not unusual here! Top economists, including Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, totally agree with me that progressive taxes must be returned or our nation is for the crapper. No less than the arch capitalist Adam Smith (in his 'Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations') saw it that way too, as I quote below from that masterful work:

"Is the improvement of the circumstances of the lower ranks of people to be regarded as an advantage or an inconveniency to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, laborers and workmen of various kinds make up the far greater part of every political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole.

No society can be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is equity that those who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to themselves be tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged"

Note those words carefully! Note the insistence that it is "equity" to have a share of one's own production! Socialist? Hell NO! Smith was the Father of all Capitalists! But Smith would recoil at today's America, in which the richest garner the bulk of tax breaks, subsidies and cuts, while the poorest are threatened with cut benefits! Those who provide the labor do not garner their fair share, and very often must work TWO or more back breaking jobs merely to afford a modest place to live and some food. And even then must often rely on the kindness of strangers to get them through the month - if food stamps programs have been cut or curtailed in their area.

These policies of inequality have been driven almost exclusively by the REPUKES, and even now as they call for cuts in "entitlements" spending among the same laboring class that Smith refererenced! Even while they're prepared to award even more large tax cuts for their rich benefactors.

As Obama himself put it, this isn't right, can never be! That one can be okay with awarding monstrous new tax breaks for the wealthiest few on the backs of poor, fixed income elderly or the disabled. If one isn't outraged at this, then he's either brainwashed, comatose or not paying enough attention. I am, so evince outrage even as I expect conscious others to share it!

So yes, my vexation will show through when I blog on these issues. Further, this is a BLOG not a newspaper run by the suits of corporate America! Hence its warp and woof is NOT to be invested in a false objectivity that in effect conceals the true perpetrators. If people want this false objectivity I expect they will go read the content at www.nytimes.com or similar sites. I expect they come here to read MY particular takes.

Lastly, my anger in these topics is not really incongruous with my rationality in other topics, such as astronomy or physics. The reason is that those topics or issues which impinge on people's very lives must have the potential to awaken and energize one's emotional radar and zones else he's not really alive, more like a cyborg.

Only an ice-cold, emotionless cyborg could sit back in cool detachment and ponder the impending economic holocaust if millions of people lose the only safety net(s) standing between them and starvation, malnutrition or death because of lack of ability to afford medical care. So no, if I blog on those issues that can have those potential effects, don't expect me to emulate any 'Spock'-ist character or a robot, or zombie. If you want that sort of thing, better visit a repuke blog or maybe usatoday.com.

Q. I notice the frequency of religious topics has fallen off in a major way. I am very interested in those. Any explanation? When can we expect some more?-- Andy, in Reno, NV

I felt that for a long time the blog was over-weighted by the religious topics (mostly because of responding to my pastor brother in his blog) and I deliberately wanted to pare down those contributions because I didn't want the blog to become identified as an "atheist" or religious-oriented one in the sense of discussion or debates.

Having said that, I am considering a 2-part blog either next month or in September on the major inconsistencies of the Bible and how they show it to be an inferior source of truth. I will also be proposing a syncretic approach to spiritual or religious pursuits, rather than anchoring oneself to one limited faith - which is almost certainly the path to profound spiritual error.

Oh, I also plan a blog, either later this month or next, on what the foremost atheist, Sir A.J. Ayer, observed during his near death experience.

Q. I noticed your evangelist brother has a recent blog up with a guest column from syndicated columnist Larry Elder, also a black man. However, you haven't gone after him like you have Thomas Sowell who you referred to as "Uncle Tom" Sowell. Any reason for not pursuing this new Uncle Tom?- Katy, Boise, ID


Actually, I didn't see the point. Elder is small change compared to the reach of Tom Sowell. Yes, Elder is an Uncle Tom, according to the definition of a person who spreads disinformation (especially political or economic) to undermine his own race, for his own economic advancement (e.g. being paid by Mr. Corporate Whiteman to do so!) But he's not worth the effort especially when it means essentially recycling the same arguments used to rebut Sowell's codswallop.

So all I will say is that if people really wish to see how I would rebut Elder, then check out all the arguments used to rebut Sowell. There is a vast amount of overlap.


Q. What's your view of the end of the Shuttle program which is going to end on Thursday with the landing of Atlantis? After which we'll have to hitch rides with the Russians to the International Space Station? - Russ, in Alameda, CA

All I can really say is that JFK - who dared us to beat the Russians to the Moon- must be turning over in his grave to see how far we've fallen. Truly sad. The Shuttle, while it had some defects, remained the best option for ferrying cargo to the ISS. Meanwhile, the Russian Soyuz craft is cramped, and can only carry two astronauts at a time compared to the 7 for the Shuttle. The SHuttle had advanced cargo bays, e.g. the 'Leonardo', and was designed for the array of space tasks that will be faced in the next five -six years.

As I said, had we not squandered so much money on two ridiculous occupations, we wouldn't be in this mess. What our occupation in Afghanistan alone is pissing away in three months would fund a healthy mission to Mars!

Q. That new profile image of you with the giant telescope, where was that taken and what was the occasion? - Bert, Alamagordo, NM

That was taken ca. 1984, using the Celeston 14" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope at the Harry Bayley Observatory in Barbados. At the time I was monitoring solar prominences in H-alpha (the 6563 A line of the solar spectrum). So I was actually using an H-alpha filter to record my observations of the prominences. I decided to replace the original photo because the new one resonates more with 'Copernicus'.