Of Course Sanford Wins in SC: Can You Spell G-E-R-R-Y-M-A-N-D-E-R?

“The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1837


As usual clueless pundits across the 24/7 “news” spectrum are scratching butts and pontificating this morning on exactly how the Repuke Ratbag Mark Sanford could “come back from the scrap heap only four years ago!” In the end, they tap danced all around the central core reason, blabbing instead about his ingenuity, or pluck, or resourcefulness and yes…..political savvy. All of which is balderdash!  In truth there’d have been no Sanford redemption except for: a)The fool claiming to be “saved by God’s grace, b) Having enough stupid voters (mostly Rs ) believe it, and c) rampant gerrymandering of key districts to award any GOOpr an automatic nearly unbeatable margin in any contest.

Sanford, as we know, caroused and cavorted with a Brazilian hottie  gf some 4 years ago – running up SC deficits on the taxpayer dime with trips to Brazil, even as he cheated on his wife. Did the SC voters remember this? Of course not - given most ‘Muricans have the memories of gnats.


Susan Jacoby, in her book ‘The Age of American Unreason’ has noted the profound lack of American historical memory. It’s actually a pathological deficiency. She ties this (Ch. 11, ‘Defining Dumbness Downward’) to an erosion of basic civic literacy that spans the political-economic spectrum. One of her most stirring quotes (from historian Arthur Schlesinger) on p. 319 refers to our deplorable memory regarding wars fought over the last four decades. As she quotes Schlesinger :


“Thirty years ago we suffered military defeat- fighting an unwinnable war against a country about which we knew nothing. Vietnam was bad enough but to repeat the same experiment thirty years later in Iraq is a strong case for national stupidity”


Well, so is the electoral "resurrection"  of Mark Sanford, despite his personal history. But maybe too many evangelicals – of which there are many in the state- really did believe this rat’s claim of “saved by God’s grace”. (Of course, mass killer/ rapist Ted Bundy made the same claim in FLA hours before his execution, but he still got fried by Old Sparky.)


Anyway, Jacoby reinforces Schlesinger’s take on American stupidity, noting (p. 310) "“two thirds of us can’t find Iraq on a map and many members of Congress don’t know a Shiite from a Sunni".  [1]”  In a nutshell, too many Americans have “become too lazy to learn what we need to know to make sound public decisions".  This is tragic, because if Americans can’t or won’t exercise their minds to think critically, especially concerning our national history, then we stand to be led into more reckless wars- not to mention make more terrible political decisions.

Ms. Jacoby also exposes the political cretinism of our leaders. On p. 284, for example, she cites the classic example of the dummy’s retort,  when during Bush Jr’s second term NBC correspondent David Gregory posed a question at a dual press conference, to French President Jacques Chirac.  The Bushster, a congenital idiot, was standing alongside Chirac, and grew vexed when Gregory posed the question in French. After a few seconds, the Texas Turkey snarled:


“Very good! The guy memorizes a few words and he plays like he’s intercontinental!”


The Bozo actually believed Gregory memorized his question in French!!

As Jacoby correctly observes, this is the classic case for intellectually- stunted people. Because they themselves lack the wherewithal to learn a foreign language, they interpret others’ correct use as an instance of “memorizing”. Of course, the very same applies to any other complex subjects – whether calculus or advanced physics – to which the generic dummy is exposed. He will always give the knee jerk reaction that anyone who is into it or uses it is “memorizing”. He simply can't believe, his pea brain is too astonished to admit it- some people can actually LEARN this material and apply it!


But would that more Americans - even if deficient in many intellectual areas- would strive to memorize at least their recent history more, then we’d have fewer political and economic tragedies. Including thoughts of attacking Iran, OR putting a tool like Mark Sanford back in office. Now, would I - if a South Carolinian- FORGIVE Sanford his trespasses? Of course! But having done that I’m not going to reward him with a frickin’ Senate seat!


Finally, only one person named the central reason that Sanford would likely win the special SC election: Rachel Maddow. She pointed out the extreme gerrymandering that’s transpired since 2010 when the Repuke Tea Partyers seized control of state legislatures. In the case of the district where Sanford competed against Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the original highly Democratic areas were gerrymandered out of the district. This meant that a cakewalk was almost certain barring Sanford being caught in a restroom with a dog doing the nasty.


So, what does it all show? That Americans aim at low objects, and as Emerson noted (see top quote) this leads to the nation consuming itself and its own seed corn. Jacoby offers the solutions, but one doubts very many will accept them. They start with reading books (serious nonfiction, not just light fictional fare) and ….Voila! Newspapers! As she notes the typical newspaper reader is light years ahead of his non-reading compatriot in being familiar with national issues, policies, as well as more likely to be a critical thinker.


College students also need to cease “aiming at low objects”. Jacoby’s examples on pp. 314- 15 are telling. She observes “courses in popular culture are extremely popular”. Why? Probably because it’s easier to snatch an ‘A’ than taking a physics course! But as she implies, for any student to waste time “deconstructing” Stephen King is a waste of their college dollars. They’d instead be more justified reading Dostoevsky’s ‘Crime and Punishment’ and subjecting it to a deep analysis, not merely cartoonish barf based on Derridian “Postmodernism”.


Very likely , even given the gerrymandering, Mark Sanford never would have won last night’s election had more South Carolinians aimed higher, and not at low objects, and low expectations. On that score Alex Pareene's observation this morning at salon.com is very cogent:   “The truly disturbing thing is not that Mark Sanford won a special election in 2013, but that he was ever considered a viable running mate option in 2008 or a 2012 presidential hopeful. There’s really no hope for us, if the country insists on dividing its votes almost equally between the center-left party and the party of people who still think there’s any redeeming quality in “'Atlas Shrugged'.”

But then, as "low objects" go, Ayn Rand's books are near the bottom of the totem pole.  Well, at least they're a tad above Stephen King's novels!

---

[1] Jacoby, op. cit., 310.

Applications of Differential Equations (2): The Quantum "Box"

The quantum "box" actually called a 1-dimensional infinite square well, is perhaps the simplest quantum system to which first year students in QM are exposed. It is also an excellent case to see how differential equations are applied.

One notes the box limits are from 0 to a and this is the x -direction. Inside the box the potential V = 0 and outside, V = ¥, hence the term, "infinite square well".

From these constraints, one sees that any particle cannot be at locations, x > a or less than 0, else it would have infinite energy. As we know, energies in QM are quantized, so no infinities are possible.


Therefore, outside the interval (0,a) one has the quantum wave form:

y*y = 0

That is the product of the wave function by its complex conjugate = 0. The Schrodinger wave equation is written (for one dimension): H^ y = E y

where H^ denotes the Hamiltonian operator:

H^ =  [-iħ d/dx] ²/2m

Then the differential 1-D Schrodinger equation to solve becomes:

dy²/dx²  + K² y = 0,   where K =  Ö [2mE] / ħ

And this second order differential equation has the solution:

y = C sin Kx + D cos Kx   (C, D constants)

We set boundary conditions thus:

At x = 0+, y (0+) = D (since sin(0) = 0)

At x = 0, y (0) = 0

As a cautionary note, one must postulate that the wave function is continuous (since we want y*y to represent something physically observable).

Then:

y (0+) = y (0-) therefore D = 0

and:

y = C sin Kx

Now, at x = a+, y (a+) = 0

At x = a-, y (a-) = C sin K(a)

For continuity: y (a+) = y (a-)

Therefore: C sin K(a-) = 0    but C can't = 0, or no particle!

Therefore: sin K(a-) = 0

Þ  sin (Ö[2mE] / ħ) a = 0, and  ((Ö[2mE] / ħ) a = n π

Therefore:

 a = nπ/K and n = + 1, + 2, ..etc.

Thus:   2mE = n² π² ħ²

E = { n² π² ħ² } / 2ma²


(which yields the energy eigenvalues.)

E = { n² π² ħ² }/ 2ma² (E_n = 1, 2, 3, .....n)

Thus, E_n  is restricted to discrete values:

π² ħ²/ 2ma²,     4 π² ħ²/ 2ma² ,    9 π² ħ²/ 2ma²   etc.

Thus one sees the very basis of quantum mechanics, in the fact that energies associated with the quantum system must be quantized. Energies do not occur in unending streams but rather parceled out in "chunks" we call quanta. These differ according to the energy level in the system. One may also be concerned with where the particle is within the gien system. In this case one uses the probability density  ‖y‖². 

In general the probability P =  ‖y‖ ² dV

For a 1-dimensional system such as we're examining:  P = ‖y‖ ² dx

The probability P _ab of finding a particle between a and b:

P _ab  =     ò^b_a   ‖y‖²  dx

Problems for the Math Maven:

1) A particle m is located in an infinite well, trapped between positions x = 0 and x = L. If it is found that L = 0.2nm then determine the energy levels (E_n ) for the states n=1 and n = 2. (Take m to be the same mass as an electron).

2) What is the probability the particle will be found between x = 0 and x = L/4?

Got a Smart Phone? Fine! BUT Are You A Smart User?

The SmartPhone is the latest and greatest techno-wonder that almost every American consumer believes s/he needs to own. (I don’t, but then I have a fine desk  top on which I do most of my work.) Anyway, a recent piece in Consumer Reports (June, p. 19) discloses most SmartPhone owners know litle or nothing of protecting their interests and security when they use the device. The article shows most people don’t even take basic precautions and in many ways are ripe for the plucking- their IDs, their privacy, their online security.

Some of the issues, problems:

- Too many apps, most too intrusive

The good news is that 48 million users stopped installing them because they requested too many privileges. (This followed a 2011 UC-Berkeley study that studied hundreds of Android apps and found 1 in 3 asked for more privileges than needed)

The bad news is that while malicious apps may not lurk around every corner they’re often difficult to spot. Consumer Reports notes that one survey suggested that for 1.6 million users “what seemed to be a well-known brand name app was actually a malicious impostor”.


Advice for those who want to install any apps:

1) Install few or NO apps


2) Choose apps from a reputable brand and make sure their reviews include no credible security complaints


3) If the app uses sensitive personal info make sure it can’t be used without entering password


4) Don’t use the phone to store sensitive data like PINS or passwords


Additional precautions include:

1) Set up a Screen lock and unless you have an iPhone 5 use a pass code that contains more than four letters, numbers and symbols

2) If you use a lot of apps be sure to add a security app.


3) Back up all important data, especially as last year alone 7 million smartphones were irreparably damaged, lost or stolen and never recovered.

All of the preceding apply with special force to children with these devices. CR projects that upwards of 5 million pre-teens will use smartphones this year but in so doing they “may unwittingly disclose personal information or risk their safety."

Every pre-teen user needs to be savvy and know the safety protocols expected!

- Problems with Mobility-Size

One of the main draws of smartphones is their compact size, utility and mobility. But the latter can be a major downside if users-owners aren’t careful. Some aspects of mobility to be aware of with reasons to exercise caution:


1) Smartphones’ small size makes them easy to steal or lose. Owners nomadic transports of them also leaves them liable to a startling variety of mishaps – from dropping them on a subway, to being stolen with the owner tracked - or even ID theft, using data left on it.


2) Smartphones often contain lots of information people would prefer to keep private such as contact lists, text messages, phone numbers and appointments. With all these in play many owners consider their phones irreplaceable, yet almost 70 percent of owners haven’t backed up their data.

3) Smart phones routinely accept texts and photos sent from other phones or the internet. Text messages can also contain addresses of malicious websites. Others can add unexpected charges to one’s phone bill.

4) Smartphones’ very small size complicates enhanced security. The small screen makes It cumbersome to type in the combination of at least SIX letters, numbers and symbols, i.e. that reasonable security requires. (Some phones do offer password alternative, but only 8 percent of owners use them)

Other issues of which users need to be aware:

1) WiFi “Hot spots”: Hot spots are public locations where WiFi is available, i.e. hotels, retail shops and airports. Before using ANY app to do business at a Hot spot, make sure you’ve checked its privacy policy to make sure any wireless transmissions are secure. (Privacy policies aren’t always clear about security practices) According to one security specialist  frmo Electronic Frontiers quoted in the CR piece: “Most consumers don’t realize that when they’re transmitting information over an open Wi-Fi network it can be intercepted.”


2) Don’t fall for text spam. They often contain malicious software or lead to a bogus site. Word to the wise? Don’t click on any unfamiliar messages.


3) Turn off location tracking. It may be a pain, but disable it unless you need it (such as for driving directions)


4) Clean out the old phone before recycling it. That means you remove any memory card and aim to restore the phone’s factory setting.

From the above one gathers that smartphone security is no better than the weakest link in a chain that includes the manufacturers, buyers and WiFi networks available to users. Once owners do all they can, it’s up to the smartphone makers to hold up their end. One major new refinement would be the ability to swipe a smartphone’s info clean if it’s stolen and moved to a remote location. Hopefully the next generation will have this feature!

Applications of Differential Equations (1): The Rocket Problem

Differential equations are among the most powerful and useful analytic tools known, and are applicable to vast areas of interest ranging from engineering to astrophysics and even cosmology. Therefore, it's useful to look at some of these applications.

For some readers it may be useful to first examine previous blogs to do with this topic, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/06/looking-at-basic-differential-equations.html

and http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/06/back-to-diferential-equations.html

One of the most powerful applications is to rocket flight, for which a diagram of the type shown is often used, say to define the launch angle q_o, as well as the final x, y- coordinates (e.g. at impact). Consider then the following problem:

Find the  x- and y-coordinates of the points on the trajectory of a rocket launched at an angle of 80 degrees with an initial velocity of 100,000 f/s if the air resistance is 0.01mv. Find the value of x and y after 10 seconds.

Data:    q = 80^o,   k = 0.01mv   v = 10⁵ fs^-1 and t = 10s

The differential equation can be written:

m(d²x/dt²) =  - k (dx/dt)/ v = - (0.01mv)x’/ v  = - 0.01mx’

Similarly:

my” = -mg – (0.01mv)y’/v  =   -mg – 0.01my’

Yielding the simultaneous pair:

x” + 0.01x’ = 0

y” + 0.01 y’ = -g

We know:

x’_o = v_o cos (q) = v_o cos (80) = (10⁵) cos 80

y’_o = v_o sin (q) = v_o sin (80) = (10⁵) sin 80

General Solutions:

x = c1 + c2 (e ^-0.01t)

y = c3 + c4((e ^-0.01t)  - 100 gt

x’ = -0.01c2 (e ^-0.01t)

y’ = -0.01c4((e ^-0.01t)  - 100 g

At t = 0, x = 0 so:

0 =  c1 + c2 (e ^-0.01t)

But:

x’_o  = v_o cos (80) = (10⁵) cos 80 =  -0. 01c2 (e ^-0.01t)

Then: c2 = - (10⁷) cos 80

So: 0 = c1 + ( - (10⁷) cos 80) or c1 =  (10⁷) cos 80

At t = 0, y = 0:

Then: 0 = c3 + c4 (e ^-0.01t)

And: y’_o  = v_o sin (80) = (10⁵) sin 80 = -0.01c4(e ^-0.01t)  - 100 g

So: c4 = -(10⁷) sin 80 – 10000g

\ c3 = - c4 (e ^-0.01t) = 10⁷ sin 80 + 10000g

To obtain the x and y-coordinates:

First, the x-coordinate:

x = c1 + c2 (e ^-0.01t) = 10⁷ cos 80 – (10⁷ cos 80)( e ^-0.01t)

x = 10⁷ cos 80 [1 - ( e ^-0.01t)] =  10⁷ (0.17365) [1 - ( e ^-0.01t)]

or:   x = 1736500 [1 - ( e ^-0.01t)]

The y-coordinate:

y = c3 + c4 ( e ^-0.01t)

Or:  y = 10⁷ sin 80 + 10000g – (10⁷ sin 80 + 10000g(e ^-0.01t))

y = 10⁷ sin 80 + 10000g(1 - e ^-0.01t) – 100 gt

y = [10⁷ (0.9848) + 320,000](1 - e ^-0.01t) – 100 gt

y = 1016800(1 - e ^-0.01t) – 100 gt

After 10 seconds:

x = 1736500 [1 - ( e ^-0.01t)] = x = 1736500 [1 - ( e ^-0.01(10))]

x = 165, 200 ft. (» 31. 3 miles)

y = 1016800(1 - e ^-0.01(10)) – 100(32)(10)

y =  930,580 ft.  ( » 177 miles)

Problem for the Math Maven:

Re-work the problem but obtain the coordinates in kilometers, instead of miles. (Hint: you will use an initial velocity of  30,300 m/s instead of 100,000 f/s. Also you will use g = 10 ms^-2   instead of g = 32 fs^-2) What differences did you find in your final values - from those in the blog problem - and how might you account for them? (Convert  either miles to km, or vice versa, to compare).

Looking For Community Economic Boosts? Be Careful What You Wish For!

In The Sunday Denver Post, the two page article, ‘In Gung-Ho Greeley, Anger Wells Up Over Drilling Near Homes’ (pp. 1-2 B) we have a modern morality tale and cautionary note for any communities thinking they will “cash in” on the fracking or shale oil drilling craze sweeping the nation. The reason is that the immediate economic gains are rarely if ever balanced by the later humongous costs exacted on the communities.


The Post article notes that “for the first time in decades” the residents of Greeley, COLO. are now “fighting to keep oil and gas wells away from their homes”. Well, they ought to have thought of that BEFORE they let the Oil-Gas men in, believing that once they’d drilled beyond the confines of the town they’d leave the immediate urban environment and neighborhood locations alone. Well, it doesn’t work like that! Once the oil men had their fill (drilling more than 20, 000 wells in the region beyond Greeley- as noted by the map on p. 2B) they began encroaching on the town and then drilling inside it.

This is what transpires when a community that hitherto had “proved most receptive to oil and gas drilling” suddenly learns that the payback can be negative as well as positive. And so, the residents of Greeley's Fox Run neighborhood are up in arms, trying to prevent wells being drilled within 350’ of their homes.


Residents, if they’d checked the data (i.e. from the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission) ought to have seen their number was coming up. State data on such geological maps (shown on p. 2B) would have clearly shown over 20,000 wells were drilled outside Greeley in Weld County, while the city’s actual 47 square mile limits remained relatively untapped. This brought to mind for me what one Louisiana Oil man once told me over 45 years ago – when I took a college hiatus to work at a New Orleans Petroleum Corp.: “Thar’ Ain’t NO such things as Virgin Oil fields! That's an Oxymoron!”

Indeed, so that once “virgin” Greeley then had to get drilled once the land exterior to it had been emptied. There are now 427 wells in Greeley proper with “with plans to drill several hundred more”. Long term, the gung-ho city manager expects at least 1, 665 wells inside the city’s growth area. When Mineral Resources, Inc. launched its Fox Run project, no surprise that residents felt “blind sided”. Who wouldn’t? According to Ross Johnson, quoted in the Post article:


“I never imagined I’d have to worry about mineral rights and the potential for drilling right next to my home. I mean we are right in the city”

Hazel Stephens, quoted in the same article, was even more blunt:

"This is just getting out of control! An industrial zone does not belong in a residential area!"

And yet, as the Post notes, drilling technology pushes limits and lets companies drill right under homes.

This is no joke. As first time home buyers in Colorado back in 2000, we were astonished to see from the title/ deed that while we owned the home and putatively the land – yard, we did not own the “mineral rights” underneath it. The wording made clear that for any minerals found or discovered beneath our property, the state would have first ‘dubs’ in getting to it, or excavating it say by drilling.  We had absolutely no legal say in the matter.

You live here in Colorado, this is what you get! But most of us - when we buy homes in this beautiful state - gamble that our particular number will never come up. It may happen to others, but never us.


Well, the Greeley-Fox Run homeowners also made such bets, and they lost. But they aren’t taking it lying down now. They have formed the association “Greeley Communities United” to fight back and demand the oilers-frackers  back off and not pollute their air, water with carcinogens like benzene. (In 1985 the then Greeley City Council passed an ordinance prohibiting drilling inside the town but it was overturned by the State Supreme Court in 1992. The reason? No town or community had the legal basis to usurp the state's mineral rights which trumped all else.)

Most heart breaking to Fox Run residents may be to learn that while a new state buffer zone rule requires 500 ft. setbacks between wells and occupied buildings by August 1st this year, the distances can be set closer (350') if  Oil companies secure written consent from any property owners before then.

Meanwhile, Mineral Resources, Inc. has provided a palliative, in terms of  assurances,  that they will do their best to prevent the worst. According to one spokesperson quoted in the Post piece, "95 percent of methane and other air pollution will be captured to minimize potential harm". Also they will do their level best not to contaminate water so residents end up with prostate, breast, liver, colon and other cancers. So, I guess all the Fox Run people - especially on the anti-drilling association- ought to be thankful.

The real nasty news is that when the oil, natural gas finally runs out, as it surely must (as a finite resource) the home owners of Greeley will be left with homes worth only half or less the urban pre-drilling value, if that. Their community may have benefited from a short term economic infusion (thousands of jobs and $3.3 million in "direct economic gain") but at an immense long term cost.

Be careful what you wish for!

CFR Prez Richard Haass: Oldsters "Stealing from Our Children!"

Richard Haass clearly HAAAAAS NO sense, or powers of minimal perception, or discrimination. In his TIME essay (‘Bringing it all back home’, March 13, p. 19) this president of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR – a hotshot group of elites that weighs in on foreign policy) clearly names the proverbial elephant in the room. That is, the ‘elephant’ responsible for drowning us in debt-deficits and leaving our domestic needs unattended and the country in tatters. In his own words:

“Many participants in the foreign policy debate appear to have forgotten the injunction of former President John Quincy Adams that America ‘goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy’.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan (as of 2009) was a war of necessity; more important neither was a justifiable war of choice.. In both cases, the interests at stake were decidedly less than vital.”


Here he names the ‘elephant’ laying waste to the domestic landscape:  the gross, even malignant expansion of the Military Industrial- Complex. The Complex and political establishment invested in the insane policy of perpetual war, 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. Indeed, even now the drone missions are increasing Terrorism like a cancer, even as Guantanamo is.


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’ clearly, Haass wanders off the beaten path and points to seniors receiving Social Security or on Medicare STEALING "from our children"! He states in another paragraph that we haven’t attended to those domestic priorities left orphans by our overseas meddling. True enough! Then he adds: we've been “lurching from crisis to crisis almost going off fiscal cliffs…..stealing from our children by refusing to rein in spending on Medicare and retirement”.


How did this inept bozo mess up so badly? First he commits the equivocation and conflation error by using ambiguous verbiage that fails to distinguish the actual culpable agents (i.,e. Repuke Tea Baggers) who created the fiscal cliff panic and (2011) debt ceiling crisis  from those CITIZENS who are Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. People who had NADA to do with either of the former! Second, he compounds this equivocation error by accusing the willfully conflated group  (innocent older citizens) of committing theft on future generations! This goes beyond a lack of temperance to total lack of basic common sense.

Perhaps a fact or two may assist this chuckle head. Fact one: 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. This arrived thanks to the brutal sledge hammer of the “Sequester”. Meanwhile, let us note the insane military weapons brigade has had to suffer NO cuts at all ZERO! Not one! They managed to finagle an exception.

Haass is also evidently oblivious to the fact that Social Security hasn’t contributed to the deficit and indeed, legally is forbidden by law to do so. Indeed, more than $2.3 trillion of Social Security monies have been raided by congress over the past 15 years. Hence, the claim that it is “stealing” from our children is absolute balderdash.


As for Medicare, Haass needs to direct his CFR gaze to the Medicare Advantage (privatized) program passed by the Bushies in 2003. That privatized version has sent traditional Medicare into insolvency by spending at least $12 billion more per year, while passing additional costs to the premiums paid by standard Medicare beneficiaries.

So, it is reckless in the extreme for Haass – whatever his position in the CFR- to employ such loose, unfactual rhetoric. In fact, he owes seniors on Medicare an apology –especially now we see first hand what even minimal cuts will do.


But in spreading such misbegotten tropes Haass is by no means alone. In the same TIME issue, the Neoliberal clown Joe Klein (author of ‘Primary Colors’) goes off his own deep end in playing the false equivalence game. He actually puts those of us challenging Obama on the Chained CPI issue (for Social Security) in the same "extremist" league as the NRA - which recently shot down a weak gun control law! Is he nuts, or just high?

Klein begins his essay referencing political demagoguery, i.e. “by well funded extremist groups to thwart the will of the overwhelming majority”. In this he accurately names the NRA, which was largely responsible for recently  killing a very tame bill for universal background checks –  with which 90% of Americans approved.

Had he remained focused on that example and expatiated on it, he’d have been fine and I’d not have had to append the clown label. But he didn’t. NO, he then decided to jump on a high horse and pair “demagogue DEMS” with the NRA! This was by using the case of Howard Dean’s brother who recently sent out a letter headed ‘Disgusted’ with the subtitle: ‘President Obama’s Budget Has Left me Disgusted’. This was in reference to Obama's ridiculous inclusion of the "Chained CPI" in his recent budget.


Klein responded in his predictably Neoliberal pundit vernacular:

“Really? WHY? Because the President called for very modest cuts in old age entitlements”.


Errrr NO, Clown! Those were not “very modest cuts”! The Chained-CPI 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. A 1% "bump" isn't going to make much of a difference. This is a cut. And it's substantial. After just ten years a senior will lose an entire month’s benefits – perhaps equal to half what he or she must pay for meds!


Even more noisome to me, but what you'd expect from the coddled  'Wine and brie' DC Elites Klein represents, is a pernicious belief that 70-year-olds who are living on $25k- 35k a year won't feel a cut in their incomes, which just goes to show how detached they are from the way people really live. You factor in ONE major medical emergency or say a breast cancer requiring tamoxifen or long term chemo, and the affected senior is not merely reduced to cat food but out and out garbage! Meanwhile, the rich bastards continue to insist on the gold-plated toilets, special health spas, and trips to St. Kitts over the weekend for 18 holes. It's a god damned disgrace!


Contrary to Klein’s take, Dean’s brother was spot on. It is Klein who is wrong, as much as Richard Haass. The very fact Klein could pair the NRA’s recent antics with Jim Dean’s letter in terms of demagoguery and extremism is as insane as it is odious. Indeed, if TIME had any consistent journalistic standards it would send this overpaid hack packing. Then maybe he could pen another pot-boiler novel, say like 'Primary ASSHoles'


It also shows me that the Neoliberals have now resorted to such warped rhetoric that they can’t even be taken seriously any more. Klein clearly shows, like Haass, that when one ceases to invoke facts and recklessly equates the NRA’s antics to opposition against the Chained CPI or Medicare cuts, there is no longer substance to arguments. In this case, the essays attempted are merely propaganda pieces designed to sway weak minds, or maybe fellow Neolibs.

Despite that, we all need to be aware of how this entrenched political Elite continues to make up lies as it attempts to destroy our social insurance infrastructure. If you want to see the swine really behind it all, including the Reinhart-Rogoff paper that attempted to academically justify austerity - while the rich live high off the low-tax hog - go to www.petersonPyramid.org )

The next time Haass or any other overpaid, self-important hack 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!

Haass, having identified the actual "bad guy" in his piece, the Perpetual War mongers, ought to be ashamed of himself for implicating seniors as contributing to the nation's crises. A President of the CFR, one would have thought, would know better.