Pages

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Unserious People


November 10, 2010, 1:43 pm

OK, let’s say goodbye to the deficit commission. If you’re sincerely worried about the US fiscal future — and there’s good reason to be — you don’t propose a plan that involves large cuts in income taxes. Even if those cuts are offset by supposed elimination of tax breaks elsewhere, balancing the budget is hard enough without giving out a lot of goodies — goodies that fairly obviously, even without having the details, would go largely to the very affluent.

I mean, what’s this about? There is no — zero — evidence that income taxes at current rates are an important drag on growth.
Oh, and they’re talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer — except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.
Still, I guess this is what it takes to get compromise, if by compromise you mean something the center-right and the hard right can agree on.
Update: It’s here. And it really is that bad. The idea that co-chairs of a commission whose charge is fiscal sustainability should take it upon themselves to (a) declare that federal revenue must not exceed 21 percent of GDP — that’s right, putting a cap on receipts and (b) call for reducing the top rate from 35 to 23 is just awesome. 

Rep.Ron Paul reacts to the Debt Commission Report

Are the Wealthy only concerned about Themselves

Afghanistan Now Officially a Forever War

Kevin I pray that you are totally wrong on your prediction.  We can noy afford to be in a war that is not paid for and that are taking our soldiers away from loved ones.  This is utterly am impossible situation.

| Tue Nov. 9, 2010 10:29 PM PST
Last May, after reading about Gen. David Petraeus's ironclad promise that we could begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan by next year, I said, "Promise or not, I'll bet that next year, when the drawdown is supposed to start, Petraeus tells us we need to stay." A month later, after reading Gen. Stanley McChrystal's comments on problems with the Kandahar offensive, I said, "It sure sounds to me as if McChrystal is starting the PR campaign for this now."
But those were just guesses. Today, McClatchy's Nancy Youssef says it's a done deal:
The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to de-emphasize President Barack Obama's pledge that he'd begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011, administration and military officials have told McClatchy.
....What a year ago had been touted as an extensive December review of the strategy now also will be less expansive and will offer no major changes in strategy, the officials told McClatchy. So far, the U.S. Central Command, the military division that oversees Afghanistan operations, hasn't submitted any kind of withdrawal order for forces for the July deadline, two of those officials told McClatchy.
....Last week's midterm elections also have eased pressure on the Obama administration to begin an early withdrawal. Earlier this year, some Democrats in Congress pressed to cut off funding for Afghanistan operations. With Republicans in control of the House of Representatives beginning in January, however, there'll be less push for a drawdown. The incoming House Armed Services chairman, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., told Reuters last week that he opposed setting the date.
Roger that. Apparently Pentagon officials now consider 2014 to be the new 2011. I'm sure that will change sometime around 2013 though.

A Border Civic Network

Our Border



check it out

Find more videos like this on Our Border

Pelosi: After 'productive' Congress, fight for jobs goes on


Updated 1d 2h ago
By Nancy Pelosi
The results of last week's elections reflected the genuine frustration of the American people, who are justifiably angered by the continued high unemployment rate. While Democrats are also disappointed at the rate of job growth, it does not diminish what we have accomplished.
President Obama and this Congress were job creators from Day One, saving the country from the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. The Recovery Act created or saved more than 3 million jobs, and America is moving forward. October marks the 10th straight month of private sector job growth.
But much more needs to be done. Democrats will strive to work with the new Republican majority to create jobs, strengthen the middle class and reduce the deficit. And we will always fight to protect Social Security and Medicare, health care reform and Wall Street reform.
Congressional experts have called the 111th Congress the most productive Congress in a half-century. Our Democratic members took tough votes to support America's working families, putting the American people before politics and thinking of the next generation, not the next election.
Accomplishments
Democrats passed Wall Street reform to ensure that never again will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause joblessness on Main Street. Our small business bill is now extending credit to small business owners so they can grow and hire. And we are committed to strengthening America's manufacturers — helping them with our "Make It in America" strategy, so our workers can make it in America. We made the largest investment in student aid in our nation's history, reducing the cost of loans to families and reducing the deficit. We achieved more progress over the last four years for our veterans and military families than any time since the passage of the original GI Bill in 1944. And we did all of this while restoring fiscal discipline to the Congress by making the pay-as-you-go rules the law of the land.
We are proud to have passed historic health insurance reform that includes a Patient's Bill of Rights to lower health costs and improve quality.
Republican ideas welcome
Democrats will continue to put forward innovative ideas, engage in entrepreneurial thinking and work to create the jobs for middle class prosperity. Republicans and Democrats must work together, with President Obama, to prepare for our nation for the 21st century while creating clean energy and infrastructure jobs. As we go forward, we welcome Republican ideas about job creation.
Though they elected a new majority in Congress, Americans did not vote for the special interests. They voted for jobs. Democrats remain committed to fighting for the people's interests, not the special interests.
While the election is over, the urgent needs of the American people remain. Over the past several days, I have spoken with my Democratic colleagues about where we go from here. I have heard from Americans across our country who are relying on us to continue our fight to create jobs, hopefully in a bipartisan way, and move our nation forward.
We will begin the 112th Congress with talented new colleagues, and also with a renewed dedication to fighting every day for jobs, economic recovery and the middle class.
Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Report: 59 Million Americans Lack Health Care

WASHINGTON, Nov. 10, 2010
 

4 Million More American Adults Went Uninsured for Part of 2010 than Previous Year; Still, 5 Percent Less Kids Went Uninsured
By Joshua Norman


(CBS)  More than 59 million Americans had no health insurance for at least part of 2010, an increase of 4 million from the previous year, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported Tuesday. While the worsening economic conditions did have a direct impact on the number of Americans with coverage, the situation also meant that a far greater number of Americans are forgoing needed medical care because of costs.

"Both adults and kids lost private coverage over the past decade," Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the C.D.C., said at a news conference, according to the
Reuters news agency.
There was one nugget of good news in the report: While from 2008 to 2009, the number of adults aged 18 to 64 years without insurance for at least part of the year increased 5.7 percent (from 46.0 million to 48.6 million,) the number of children less than 17 years old without coverage for at least part of the year decreased 5.0 percent, (from 10.0 million to 9.5 million.)

All these figures are likely to throw gasoline on the fire of the public health care debate awaiting next year's Congress.

Republican House Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner has said he believes Republicans were elected in order to repeal sweeping health reforms passed last year that were in part aimed at finding coverage for the uninsured. One of the ways Republicans say they plan on addressing healthcare reforms is by defunding the reform's initiatives. Regardless, many predict political gridlock during the next two year in implementing health reforms.

Another important aspect of the debate that is likely to come up again is the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, the under 18 years old version of Medicaid. Only 41 Republicans voted for the 2009 expansion of the program, and President George Bush vetoed two previous attempts at extending federal health coverage to more American children.

"As private insurance coverage fell, the safety net protected children, but did not adequately protect adults," Frieden said.

Nine percent of adults lost private insurance, and public insurance picked up just 5 percent of them, the CDC said. Frieden said 22 percent of adults aged 18 to 64 are uninsured.

The CDC analyzed data from the National Health Interview Survey or NHIS for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 and the first quarter of 2010 for its report. One of the many discoveries of this in-person survey conducted by the CDC was the shifting makeup of the uninsured population of America.

"The first myth is that it's only the poor who are uninsured," Friden said. "In fact, half of the uninsured are over the poverty level and one in three adults under 65 in the middle income range--defined arbitrarily here between $44,000 and $65,000 a year for a family of four--were uninsured at some point in the year."

WE Know Too –


By Standing on the Sidelines Centrists Just as Responsible for Fiscal Insanity

(Part 3 of 3 – )
To folks who watch politics closely, no part of the spectrum is without culpability for the fiscal situation we are in. The remaining moderates from years of ideological purification bent too far and let both parties overspend and undertax our way to where we are, and its not like moderates are invulnerable to the all too easy urge to give more and ask for less… its been a long time since we had a major politician say anything near JFK’s adage that we shouldn’t just selfishly look to what the government can do for us.
We’ve had problems with debt for generations, but have managed to keep those issues relatively small… up until the last few years. For a passionate centrist like myself, it would be very easy to merely point out that the debt problems really began to skyrocket around the same time as both parties began pushing moderates out and began working their way towards their current record level of ideological polarization… but thats not what I’m going to do here. That wouldn’t accomplish anything, and we’ll never know if things would have been different had we had more moderates in both parties.
What matters is what lies ahead of us. In a representative democracy it is up to the people themselves to rise up and put people who represent their views into office. In that… we have failed. We have elected people who have squandered our prosperity for political gain, and we continue to let both ends of the political spectrum walk all over us. Its no wonder the left and right see moderates as wishy washy… its not true, but it sure looks like it if you don’t get to know some personally and find out that its not that we don’t know what we think, its just very few of us know what it is we can do about it.
I’ve given up on both major parties, but regardless of whether you have or not, if we are to be the force that argues for fiscal sanity, we need to become a voting bloc that is as loud and clear with our views as the netroots and labor are on the left, and tea party and corporate interests are on the right. We need to unite and not be willing to vote for lesser evils that promise to do anything less than not only pay for any bill they want to pass that spends, but spend LESS and bring in more income until we get our fiscal house in order.
This is OUR generation’s great challenge. Not terrorism… which while a threat is no threat to us as a nation, and certainly not this absurd culture war between the far left and far right. Both of those issues are small in comparison to the disease that is racking our body politic from the inside over the last generation. Last generation fought and won the cold war, the previous fought for civil rights, and the one before that saved the world from totalitarianism.
If we are not the group of voters that takes the unenviable mantle of telling the American people that we have to stop taking more than we can afford, and actually have to sacrifice a little to fight two wars, pay down our debt and dig our way out of a deep recession… nobody will. If we don’t do this, what is the point of building a force in the center in the first place?

Republicans Know and Don’t Care –


 Tax Cuts we Can’t Cover a Direct Assault on Family Values

(Part 2 of 3 – )
To folks who watch politics closely, no part of the spectrum is without culpability for the fiscal situation we are in. The remaining moderates from years of ideological purification bent too far and let both parties overspend and under tax our way to where we are, and its not like moderates are invulnerable to the all too easy urge to give more and ask for less… its been a long time since we had a major politician say anything near JFK’s adage that we shouldn’t just selfishly look to what the government can do for us.
Riddle me this republicans… how can one claim that one supports family values, while acting aggressively to set up a future where your children will, not might, face taxes at levels this country has never seen, a military a fraction of its current size and grandma and grandpa have to choose between paying their rent and buying food because their social security checks are so small?
Every time the republican party cuts taxes that it does not cover with cuts in spending, they are doing just that… raising taxes on our kids, cutting our future social security checks and threatening our security.
Ballooning debt already takes up over a hundred billion dollars a year, and if nothing drastically changes, we will see just the debt payments and social welfare programs take up the entire budget at current taxation levels, cutting out every single other spending program and the military entirely, by mid century.
Weakening our defense, ruining our kids’ economic opportunities and putting grandma and grandpa into the poor house… how is that family values again?
The economics are incontrovertible… Einstein once said that compound interest was the most powerful force in the universe. Right now that is the very force we are choosing to pit against ourselves. This is insanity.

Democrats Know, and Don’t Care –


The Poor are the Ones Who Will Suffer the Most by Continuing to Ignore Our Debt

(Part 1 of 3 –)
To folks who watch politics closely, no part of the spectrum is without culpability for the fiscal situation we are in. The remaining moderates from years of ideological purification bent too far and let both parties overspend and undertax our way to where we are, and its not like moderates are invulnerable to the all too easy urge to give more and ask for less… its been a long time since we had a major politician say anything near JFK’s adage that we shouldn’t just selfishly look to what the government can do for us.
Democrats would do well to look to that great figure for inspiration in these times. On the left, those who refuse to even consider trimming any spending from entitlement programs refuse to see that without evening out our debt situation, when (not if) the debt starts squeezing money out of spending and forcing it towards debt repayment, it is the poor, elderly and otherwise needy that will suffer the most.
This is not conjecture, this has been the case in every country that has faced serious debt problems. Some European countries are in the situation we are going to be in not too far down the road, and are having to make the kinds of severe austerity measures that we will have no choice but to make if we don’t make tough, but much easier, choices now.
All but the most vulnerable among us must sacrifice some, and very soon, or we all will all suffer much more in the not too distant future… retirement programs will be drastically cut and taxes will be drastically raised.
The economics are incontrovertible… Einstein once said that compound interest was the most powerful force in the universe. Right now that is the very force we are choosing to pit against ourselves. This is insanity.

Release: Sanders Statement on Deficit Commission Co-Chairs’ Report


 

November 10, 2010
BURLINGTON, Vt., Nov. 10 – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today issued the following statement in response to a proposal by the co-chairmen of a White House deficit commission, Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson:
“The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan is extremely disappointing and something that should be vigorously opposed by the American people.  The huge increase in the national debt in recent years was caused by two unpaid wars, tax breaks for the wealthy, a Medicare prescription drug bill written by the pharmaceutical industry, and the Wall Street bailout.  Unlike Social Security, none of these proposals were paid for. Not only has Social Security not contributed a dime to the deficit, it has a $2.6 trillion surplus. 
“It is reprehensible to ask working people, including many who do physically-demanding labor, to work until they are 69 years of age. It also is totally impractical. As they compete for jobs with 25-year-olds, many older workers will go unemployed and have virtually no income. Frankly, there will not be too much demand within the construction industry for 69-year-old bricklayers.
“Despite all of the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security can pay every nickel owed to every eligible American for the next 29 years and after that about 80 percent of benefits. 
“If we are serious about making Social Security strong and solvent for the next 75 years, President Obama has the right solution.  On October 14, 2010, he restated a long-held position that the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, now at $106,800, should be raised.  As the president has long stated, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the system as someone who earns $106,800.
“With the richest people in this country getting richer and the middle class in decline, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the Social Security system as someone who earns $106,800.”

Happy 235th Birthday, Marine Corps



The Commandant and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps present a message for the 235th birthday of the Marine Corps

Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations

I do not know what to say about this because when it comes to the budget deficit debt i absolutely know nothing.  I am not dumb but your are talking big numbers that involve alot of people and how we all live and manage of lives, taxes, social security, medicare/medicaid, defense and discretionary spending.  
Earmarks need to go it is all pork spending, and it is the little perks for congressmen and their districts. I do not agree with them.  Some of them do not even make sense.   That at this moment is all I have to say about that.........
Megan Carpentier | November 10, 2010, 1:30PM


President Barack Obama President, with Erskine Bowles (left) and Sen. Alan Simpson (right.)



The White House's fiscal commission's co-chairs, Erskine Bowles and former-Sen. Alan Simpson today released their draft recommendations on how to reduce the country's budget deficit. But while the deficit, writ large, proved a potent political issue during the election season, the tough medicine recommended by Bowles and Simpson is likely to be met with more than a few raised eyebrows.
Their recommendations are more or less a list of the third-rail issues of American politics, including cuts in the number of federal workers; increasing the costs of participating in veterans and military health care systems; increasing the age of Social Security eligibility; and major cuts in defense and foreign policy spending. They also encompass a range of tax system reforms that have been floated by many in Washington for years to little effect, including funding tax rates reductions by eliminating many beloved credits and deductions.
Some of the recommendations:
Social Security cuts:

  • Index the retirement age to longevity -- i.e., increase the retirement age to qualify for Social Security -- to age 69 by 2075.
  • Index Social Security yearly increases to inflation rather than wages, which will generally mean lower cost of living increases and less money per average recipient.
  • "Increase progressivity of benefit formula" -- i.e., means test part of Social Security benefits by 2050.
  • Increase the Social Security contribution ceiling: while people only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of their wages today, that's only about 86% of the total potentially taxable wages. The co-chairs suggest raising the ceiling to capture 90% of wages.
Tax reform:

  • The co-chairs suggest capping both government expenditures and revenue at 21% of GDP eventually.
  • In their first plan, called "The Zero Plan," they suggest reducing the tax brackets to three personal brackets and one corporate rate while eliminated all credits and deductions. Without any credits or deductions (including the EITC and mortgage interest deductions), the 3 tax rates would be 8, 14 and 23 percent.
  • In their second plan, they would increase the personal deduction to $15,000, create 3 tax brackets (15, 25 and 35%); repeal or significantly curtail a number of popular tax deductions (including the state and local deduction and the mortgage interest deduction); and eliminate other tax expenditures.
  • The third plan would force Congress to undertake comprehensive tax reform by 2012 by raising taxes for each year Congress fails to act.
  • All their proposals limit Congress to collecting taxes on income made within the United States, reducing or eliminating taxes on American expats and revenues companies earn abroad.
  • They also suggest raising the federal gas tax by 15 cents per gallon.
Medicaid/Medicare cuts

  • Force more low-income individuals into Medicaid managed care.
  • Increase Medicaid co-pays.
  • Accelerate already-planned cuts to Medicare Advantage and home health care programs.
  • Create a cap for Medicaid/Medicare growth that would force Congress and the President to increase premiums or co-pays or raise the Medicare eligibility age (among other options) if the system encounters cost overruns over the course of 5 years.
Discretionary spending cuts

  • Eliminate all earmarks.
  • Eliminate the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
  • Freeze federal worker wage increases through 2014; eliminate 200,000 federal jobs by 2020; and eliminate 250,000 federal non-defense contractor jobs by 2015.
  • Eliminate subsidized student loans, in which the government makes interest payments while the student is in school.
  • Establish co-pays in the VA medical system and change the co-pays and deductibles for military retirees that remain in that system.
  • Eliminate NASA funding for commercial space flight.
  • Require the Smithsonian museums to start charging entrance fees and raise fees at the national parks.
  • Eliminate funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which many conservatives suggested in the wake of the firing of former NPR contributor Juan Williams.
  • Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year.
  • Create a Committee to eliminate unnecessary programs to the tune of $11 billion by 2015.
  • Merge the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration and cut its budget by 10 percent.
  • End "low-priority" Army Corps of Engineers programs to the tune of $1 billion by 2015.
  • Cut the State Department's overseas budget by 10 percent by 2015; reduce the proposed foreign aid budget by 10 percent in 2015; and cut voluntary contributions to the United Nations by 10 percent in 2015.
  • Eliminate the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which provides subsidized financing and political risk insurance for U.S. companies' investments abroad.
  • Cut $900 million in fossil fuel research funds.
  • Force airlines to increase their contributions to airline security costs and allow them to increase per-ticket security fees.
Defense spending cuts:

  • Double the number of defense contractor positions scheduled for elimination from 10 percent of current staff augmentees to 20 percent.
  • Reduce procurement by 15 percent, or $20 billion.
  • Eliminate the V-22 Osprey program.
  • Cancel the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program.
  • Halve the number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in favor of F-16s and F/A-18Es.
  • Cancel the Marine Corps F-35 program.
  • Cancel the Navy's Future Maritime Prepositioning Force.
  • Cancel the new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), the Ground Combat Vehicle, and the Joint Tactical Radio.
  • Reduce military forces in Europe and Asia by one-third.
  • Send all military children based in the U.S. to local schools.
The report also recommends tort reform as a way to reduce Medicare and Medicaid expenditure

CoChair Draft


Illustrative List 11.10

VETEREN'S DAY NOV 11 2010

Hot Comments
Veterans Day Graphics - Comments Graphics

Hot Comments
Veterans Day Graphics - Comments Graphics

Hot Comments
Veterans Day Graphics - Comments Graphics

Hot Comments
Veterans Day Graphics - Comments Graphics

Hot Comments
Veterans Day Graphics - Comments Graphics

Hot Comments
Veterans Day Graphics - Comments Graphics

Giving Back to America's Soldiers: Let's Make Veterans Day a National Day of Service


Hot Comments
Veterans Day Graphics - Comments Graphics

Arianna Huffington

Posted: November 10, 2010 12:39 PM          



Do you have anything special planned for Veterans Day? Did you even realize that tomorrow is Veterans Day?
Sadly, in much the same way that the wars we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq have been pushed to the periphery of our national conversation, the day set aside to honor America's veterans usually gets short shrift.
Despite all the lip service paid by politicians and pundits to supporting our troops, the needs and struggles of those returning home are rarely in the spotlight.
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, 107,000 veterans were homeless each night last year. That's an improvement on the 131,000 who were homeless in 2008, and the 154,000 in 2007, but it's still a very troubling figure.
And there is more bad news: veterans are twice as likely to commit suicide as the general population. According to VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, "on average, 18 veterans commit suicide each day. Five of those 18 are under VA care at the time they take their lives." And between 2005 and 2009, a soldier on active duty committed suicide every 36 hours.
What's more, roughly 300,000 vets have come home from Afghanistan and Iraq suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
As devastating as these numbers are, the flesh and blood stories behind the statistics are even more compelling -- as are the inspiring stories of the work being done by people dedicated to helping veterans.
To honor the sacrifice and service of the men and women of America's armed services, HuffPost Impact, in partnership with Causecast, is launching Salute to Service -- a week-long series highlighting the stories of veterans who have committed their time, energy, and effort to helping serve their fellow soldiers.
Starting today, Salute to Service will feature first-person blog posts from veterans who have become active in serving their community. The soldiers movingly recount their experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, what their lives were like upon returning home, and why they became involved in community service. The posts also feature a specific call to action, what each of the soldiers would like to see the rest of us do to help America's vets -- on Veterans Day and beyond.
These posts also contain a customized Salute to Service widget that makes it easy for you to take action -- either by donating, volunteering, or learning more about the remarkable organizations geared to helping vets. There's even a button that makes it possible to instantly donate 25 cents per click to a selected veterans organization.
It would be a fitting tribute if Veterans Day could become a national day of service devoted to giving back to those who have given so much in service of our country -- as well as a day that inspires us to make sure that the plight of America's vets stays on the radar all year long.
Click here to read the first Salute to Service post.
P.S. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) has launched a Facebook campaign to get the country engaged in supporting new vets. Click here to join IAVA's online march.

Kevin Spacey as Jack Abramoff in 'Casino Jack'

B-Rating America

November 10, 2010, 9:12 am

Paul Krugman

OK, actually A+ rating America. Via Calculated Risk, China has created a new, independent rating agency — and it has now sharply downgraded the United States:
Dagong has downgraded the local and foreign currency long term sovereign credit rating of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as “United States” ) from “AA” to “A+“, which reflects its deteriorating debt repayment capability and drastic decline of the government’s intention of debt repayment.
The serious defects in the United States economic development and management model will lead to the long-term recession of its national economy, fundamentally lowering the national solvency. The new round of quantitative easing monetary policy adopted by the Federal Reserve has brought about an obvious trend of depreciation of the U.S. dollar, and the continuation and deepening of credit crisis in the U.S. Such a move entirely encroaches on the interests of the creditors, indicating the decline of the U.S. government’s intention of debt repayment. Analysis shows that the crisis confronting the U.S. cannot be ultimately resolved through currency depreciation. On the contrary, it is likely that an overall crisis might be triggered by the U.S. government’s policy to continuously depreciate the U.S. dollar against the will of creditors.
Way to build credibility, guys — just in case anyone wondered whether Dagong would be truly independent, or just a tool for Chinese policy ….  

Two Whales, 400 Years Apart

Have you seen the fourth film from Star Trek 'The Voyage Home' (1986) and the demise of the Whale.  Are we heading toward the reality?  We can not afford that reality, ever.  There has to be a way to save a species, no matter what that species is.  Tigers, Polar bears, Elephants and I could go on, but you know what I am talking about. Are our future generations only going to see these magnificent animals in zoos or history museums. That would be a shame...... 

| Wed Nov. 10, 2010 1:34 PM PST
"Beached wale near Beverwijk, 1601." Jan Saenredam. 1602. Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

"Beached wale near Beverwijk, 1601." Jan Saenredam. 1602. Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
This 1602 engraving by Dutch artist Jan Saenredam records the actual beaching of a sperm whale at Beverwijk on 19 December 1601. Crowds of curious onlookers are gathering—some arriving by foot, some by horse and carriage, some splashing through the shallows offshore. 
 
 
 
The scene heaves with the industry of Lilliputian townsmen scaling the impromptu mountain with hobnails, hands, and knees. In this close-up you can see two men probe the whale's eye with a sword.
 
 
Saenredam's engraving records in Latin the whale's measurements: 60 feet long by 14 feet high, with a circumference of 36 feet, the flukes 14 feet wide and the lower jaw of 12 feet long. That's the uppermost known size of sperm whales. In life, he might have weighed some 60 tons.
   
 
 
The artist pictures himself in the left foreground sketching the whale. His assistants are creating a windbreak from his outstretched cloak. 
 
In front of Saenredam's self-portrait you can see the whale's shredded tongue—a characteristic signature of killer whales. Some orcas seem to favor tongue above all other whale meat and might only consume that and leave all the rest untouched. 
 
The state of the tongue in this picture indicates the sperm whale was probably dead before beaching. 


The small inset view of the dead whale also shows the peeled skin characteristic of the work of killer whales.

The whale wears what looks like a tow line around his tailstock. So maybe some townspeople rowed him ashore. Or are they planning to row him offshore (since he appears to be getting stinky already)?  Seems like the two men behind the tailstock are taking the measurements. Maybe they're planning to divvy the whale up. Even if the meat's rotting, it would be of value to, say, swine farmers.  The spermaceti oil alone would provide a huge windfall for the town—or whoever "owned" the carcass. Would love to know how they worked that out. A large bull sperm whale might possess three tons of waxy spermaceti. Here's some of what I wrote about that in Deep Blue Home:
This was the treasure lusted after by whalemen of old, an elixir for nineteenth-century medicine and technology as ubiquitous as petroleum products are today and used for many of the same purposes: lubricants and rust-proofing in watches, lenses, and scientific instruments; oils for transmissions and engines; waxy elements in lotions, ointments, glycerines, pomades, detergents; as well as additives to vitamins and medicinal compounds. Spermaceti was, in the words of the eminent whale researchers Hal Whitehead and Linda Weilgart of Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, the oil that lubricated the Industrial Revolution.[i] It was also the finest fuel for candles and such a standard of its day that candlepower—once an official unit of illumination—was calibrated against the light emitted in the course of an hour by burning a spermaceti candle.

Meanwhile, these two jaunty fellows are arriving on scene with a flensing knife, ready to disassemble the remains.

Though these two flensers seem to have gotten there ahead of them.
 
  
We know about the whale's decay thanks to the man at the centerpiece of Saenredam's engraving—the figure of the Count of Nassau-Dietz, a hero in Holland's war of independence against Spain.  Handkerchief held to war-weary nose, he stands alongside the whale's unsheathed penis, averting his eyes. A delicate hero, outsized.
 

According to BibliOddyssey (warning: prepare to disappear down an absorbing blogger-hole), Saenredam's engraving is actually a disaster allegory:
This elaborate illustration... belongs to a narrow genre of disaster allegories—of which Saenredam's print is perhaps the finest example—that found a receptive audience, chiefly in the 17th century. Beached whales were regarded as significant... because beachings were a part of the folklore, seen as bad omens and associated with disasters and tragedies... In a series of slightly obscure vignettes, Saenredam alludes to other circumstances that are associated with or thought to be attributable to the whale's appearance on the coast. In the far background we have both solar and lunar eclipses which occurred shortly after the whale's appearance and, like comets and other irregularly occurring natural phenomena, were seen by contemporary observers as harbingers of doom. An unhappy face has been caricatured onto the moon(s). An angel bearing the coat of arms of Amsterdam, watched over by the ominous looking father time, is shot by death and falls from the sky, and may represent the epidemic of plague fatalities in the capital in the first couple of years of the 17th century. In the cartouche below the lion, the cartographic wind symbol can be seen blowing the land away in reference to an earthquake that occurred at the beginning of 1602.

The Latin verse at the foot of the print is by the Dutch poet Dirk Schrevel. I've started to work through a Google translation but it's going to take me a while. If you want to explore this image further, there's a high-resolution zoomable view of it at Beeldebank.
For a modern image of a sperm whale, complete with radically evolved thinking since 1601, check out this video of Bryant Austin's powerful work.


Trailer: In the Eye of the Whale from MMCTA on Vimeo.

House sergeant-at-arms ordered Pelosi plane

Security needs cited; speaker was hounded by GOP claims of extravagance                      


The Air Force transport plane decried by Republicans as an extravagance for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was requested by the House sergeant-at-arms as a matter of security, he said Thursday.
“I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue,” Bill Livingood said in a news release. He said because Pelosi lives in California he was compelled “to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security.”
Republicans had taken issue with the size of the plane Pelosi would need to fly in to reach her hometown of San Francisco without refueling. There are three Air Force airplanes that have the fuel capacity to make the trip nonstop, with the largest being a C-32 plane, a military version of the Boeing 757-200.
‘This is a silly story’
The White House on Thursday defended Pelosi.
“This is a silly story, and I think it’s been unfair to the speaker,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said.
Pelosi speculated to reporters that Department of Defense officials were distorting the story as retribution for her stance against the war and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
“There are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department, and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard,” she said
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Pentagon agreed to provide the House speaker, who is second in the line of presidential succession, with a military plane for added security during trips back home. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, flew in a small commuter-sized Air Force jet.
‘I’m going commercial’ Pelosi said she would be happy to fly on commercial airliners but said the House sergeant-at-arms office urged her to continue Hastert’s practice of using Air Force transport. She said she was informed on her first trip home that her plane would not make it across the country.
“I said well, that’s fine, I’m going commercial,” she told Fox News. “I’m not asking to go on that plane. If you need to take me there for security purposes, you’re going to have to get a plane that goes across the country, because I’m going home to my family.”
Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, the No. 3 Republican leader, called the push for a large transport plane “an extravagance of power that the taxpayers won’t swallow.”
“It’s important we see what the specific request was,” Putnam said.
But Snow on Thursday said the negotiations over Pelosi’s transport have been conducted solely by the House sergeant-at-arms and the Pentagon, with no direct involvement by the speaker or her office — or the White House.
The guidelines provided by the Pentagon say Pelosi could be accompanied by family members, provided they pay the government coach fare. The plane could not be used for travel to political events. Members of Congress could accompany her on the plane if the travel is cleared by the House ethics committee.
The Associated Press and NBC News contributed to this report.   

Newsmax Poll: Gates, Buffett, and Trump Could Beat Obama in 2012 Race

Tuesday, 09 Nov 2010 07:00 PM

By Jim Meyers
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and billionaire investor Warren Buffett have no political experience or aspirations, but both would defeat President Barack Obama in a head-to-head race for the presidency, according to a new Newsmax/SurveyUSA poll.

The poll also found that such well-known business figures as Donald Trump, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally are within striking distance of defeating Obama.

Newsmax conducted the survey to find out how several well-known political and "dark-horse" celebrity figures, ranging from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin to Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck, would fare if they ran against Obama for the White House.

The survey of 1,000 registered voters was conducted Nov. 3-4, after Republicans won the House and gained six seats in the Senate in the midterm elections — results widely interpreted as a rejection of Obama and raising questions about his chances for re-election in 2012.

In the Newsmax poll, respondents were asked: “If there were an election for president of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Bill Gates and Barack Obama, whom would you vote for?” They also were asked that question with other leading business figures in place of Gates.

Overall, Gates received 55 percent of the votes to Obama’s 45 percent, and Buffett outpolled Obama 52-48 percent.

The results suggest that Americans lack confidence in Obama’s ability to deal with economic issues, and that he could be vulnerable to a figure from outside the political world in 2012.

The Newsmax poll also found that Obama would be in a tough battle if matched against several other prominent businessmen.

In a head-to-head race between Obama and Trump, the entrepreneur would get nearly half the vote, 47 percent. Trump polled strongly among Republicans and conservatives, and got 50 percent of the vote among independents.

Ford CEO Mulally most likely is unfamiliar to many respondents in the poll. Nevertheless, Mulally also received 47 percent of the vote, including a majority of men, Republicans and conservatives.

Bloomberg, also a billionaire businessman, was not far behind Trump and Mulally, with 44 percent of the vote overall.

Still, Gates appeared the strongest vote-getter. Gates outpolled Obama among the younger age groups, which were considered solid Obama territory. Voters 18 to 54 gave Gates 57 percent, and those 35 to 49 favored Gates with 59 percent.

Gates polled strongly among Republicans (83 percent) and conservatives (84 percent), and even beat Obama among independents, 58 percent to 42 percent.

Buffett also polled strongly among Republicans (78 percent) and conservatives (81 percent), and beat out Obama with 58 percent of the vote among independents as well.

Buffett was ahead or even with Obama in the younger age groups, but Obama polled strongly among women voters, getting 56 percent of the vote.

Newsmax will reveal the results of hypothetical races between Obama and other famous Americans in the coming days.

SurveyUSA is an independent research company that conducts public opinion polls for media and academic institutions, and conducts private market research for commercial clients and nonprofit organizations.

Click below to see other Newsmax 2012 poll results:

Continuation of Discussion between Lawence O'Donnell and Salon's Glenn Greenwald

Andy Card:there is no adult who has the maturity of Washington around President Obama right now

Democrats do the lame duck dash

'mystery missile' a dud?

Republicans and the Young

— By Kevin Drum

| Wed Nov. 10, 2010 10:11 AM PST
Over at FrumForum, Nils August Andresen tries to figure out why university students have become so anti-Republican even though they themselves haven't gotten especially more liberal over the past few decades. A changing ethnic mix might be part of it, but:
Let me advance another hypothesis. Today’s top students are motivated less by enthusiasm for Democrats and much more by revulsion from Republicans. It’s not the students who have changed so much. It’s the Republicans.
....Under Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, Republicans championed science and knowledge. But over the past 30 years, national Republicans have formed an intensifying alliance with religious conservatives more skeptical of science and knowledge....Educated people may also be extra-sensitive to policy positions that do not make logical sense. While individual elements of the Republican platform can make sense on their own, the combination of demands to reduce the deficit, plus increase Medicare spending, plus opposing reform meant to save costs, plus uncompromising insistence on tax cuts just does not add up. Granted, Democrats have also behaved irresponsibly in opposition. Still, I think it’s fair to say that over the past decade, the Republicans have convinced educated America that they are the less policy serious party.
Just to be clear: my guess is that this is primarily a reaction to social conservatism. Students at top universities just can't stomach the anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-civil rights, anti-religious-tolerance attitude of the current GOP. But Andresen's conjecture about "policy positions that do not make logical sense" may have something to it too. In the mid-70s, for example, liberal interest groups engaged in their own version of magical thinking by pushing hard for the passage of the Humphrey-Hawkins full employment act, which essentially tried to mandate low unemployment by fiat. Jimmy Carter eventually managed to water it down into a purely symbolic piece of legislation, but the sheer spectacle of liberal lunacy on display for months on end probably turned off a lot of smart students. Liberals eventually learned their lesson on this score — overlearned it, in fact — but their place in the magical thinking department was immediately taken over by supply-side Republicans, who have gotten ever more hardened and ever balmier during the past couple of decades.
I doubt that this is the main cause of the defection of the elite university vote, but it could be part of it. Older voters might be willing to accept Republican incoherence simply because it's in their interest to do so and they don't really care if the arguments make sense, but younger voters don't have that same motivation. Republican magical thinking doesn't really benefit them, so they're just repelled by it.
(Via Jon Chait.)

Which Industries Won and Lost in Election 2010?

By Michael Beckel on November 10, 2010 1:12 PM      


Imagine that every member of Congress represents the industry or special interests that have contributed the most to his or her campaign coffers.

Which industries and special interests, then, lost or won seats in Congress during the 2010 midterm election?

Several traditionally Democratic allies lost ground, a preliminary analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics shows.

Public sector unions and industrial unions, for instance, lost one seat a piece: Democratic Reps. Diane Watson of California and Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, respectively.

Transportation unions lost three seats -- Democratic Reps. Brian Baird of Washington, David Obey of Wisconsin and Jim Oberstar of Minnesota.

And the women's issues interest bloc also lost three seats -- Democratic Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Betsy Markey of Colorado and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio.

The biggest loser, however, in the House was the legal community. Lawyers and law firms saw 30 top beneficiaries leave office or go down to defeat, while only 15 top beneficiaries won -- a net loss of 15 seats, the Center's research shows.

Lawmakers supported the most by Democratic/liberal interests also experienced a setback. No new, incoming lawmakers will count these interests as their top donors; meanwhile, 10 lawmakers who counted these interests has their top donor won’t be returning.

Retired people, who traditionally lean Republican in their giving, meanwhile, were the biggest winner in the House.

Politicians whose top donors are retired people will occupy at least 26 new House seats. Only six lawmakers who counted retired people as their top donors will not be returning to work in the 112th Congress. This is a net gain of 20 seats for retired interests, according to the Center's analysis.

Leadership PACs were the next biggest winner in the House, with a net gain of 12 seats, after seeing 18 politicians who counted leadership PACs as their top donors win, while six lost.

The special interest bloc of Republican/conservative interests, furthermore, gained four seats in the House, after seeing five new politicians elected and one defeated at the polls.

And the mining industry gained two new seats -- Republicans Bill Johnson and Bob Gibbs, who both in defeated Democratic incumbents in Ohio.

Notably, the oil and gas industry’s representation in the new Congress will not change, according to the Center’s research. While three lawmakers who count the oil and gas industry as their top donor will not be returning to the House in January, three new ones will take their place.

Thanks to the oil and gas industry, Republicans Steve Pearce of New Mexico, Bill Flores of Texas and Mike Pompeo of Kansas will be joining the 112th Congress while oil-backed Reps. Harry Teague (D-N.M.), Mary Fallin (R-Okla.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas) are leaving.

Below is a table showing all industry representation changes in the House. A download-able version of this table and the itemized data behind it is available at the bottom of the page.

House Top Industries ChangingNew IncomingOutgoing MembersNet Gain/Loss
Retired26620
Leadership PACs18612
Republican/Conservative514
Health Professionals14122
Mining202
Misc Business202
Real Estate321
Securities & Investment211
Misc Finance101
Special Trade Contractors101
Oil & Gas330
Automotive01-1
Computers/Internet01-1
Defense Aerospace01-1
Electric Utilities01-1
Industrial Unions01-1
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing01-1
Misc Services01-1
Public Sector Unions01-1
Insurance03-3
Transportation Unions03-3
Women's Issues03-3
Crop Production & Basic Processing26-4
Democratic/Liberal010-10
Lawyers/Law Firms1530-15

On the Senate side of Congress, the special interest bloc of retired people again proved to be a big winner. 

Here, five politicians with retired people as their top industry backer were elected last week. Three lawmakers backed by retired people, meanwhile, won’t be returning to work in January -- yielding a net gain of two seats for retired people.

Health professionals, the business services industry, Republican/conservative interests, Democratic/liberal interests, leadership PACs, the crop production industry and the oil and gas industry all gained one seat a piece in the Senate.

Lobbyists, public sector unions and the pharmaceutical industry, meanwhile, each lost one seat a piece: Sens. George LeMieux (R-Fla.), Roland Burris (D-Ill.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), respectively.

LeMieux, who was appointed to his by Republican Gov. Charlie Crist after Mel Martinez retired last year, is the outgoing favorite of lobbyists. Since he was not running to retain the seat himself, LeMieux did not register a campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission, but he did raise more than $220,000 for his leadership PAC, with one-tenth of that sum coming from lobbyists. He is also reportedly mulling a 2012 bid against Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).

Burris, who was appointed to fill President Barack Obama’s Senate seat by Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, raised a measly $102,000 since last year and decided to drop his bid for retaining the seat due to poor fund-raising. Two public sector unions accounted for $10,000 of his sum, the most of any industry.

Sens.-elect Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), whose top donors so far have been leadership PACs and Democratic/liberal interests, will be replacing “placeholder” senators who did not have leadership PACs of their own or campaign committees.

As in the House, lawyers and law firms were the biggest losers. These interests lost a net of four seats in the Senate. Five incumbents whose top industry donor has been lawyers and law firms are headed for the exits, while just one new member was elected whose top financial backers have been lawyers and law firms.

Here is a table showing all industry representation changes in the Senate. A download-able version of this table and the itemized data behind it is available at the bottom of the page.

Senate Top Industries ChangingNew IncomingOutgoing MembersNet Gain/Loss
Retired532
Health Professionals101
Business Services101
Republican/Conservative101
Democratic/Liberal101
Leadership PACs101
Crop Production & Basic Processing101
Oil & Gas101
Securities & Investment220
Insurance110
Lobbyists01-1
Public Sector Unions01-1
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products01-1
Lawyers/Law Firms15-4

Not unsurprisingly, Democratic-leaning interest groups and their allies generally lost seats in both chambers of Congress, while traditionally Republican-aligned interests and industries gained ground.

On Nov. 2, Republicans won 35 open seat House races, some of which were held by Republicans and some of which were held by Democrats. Additionally, at least 50 Republican challengers won on Election Day, the Center’s analysis shows -- yielding a net loss of at least 60 seats for Democrats. Five House races still remained undecided as of today.

Overall, more House incumbents lost during the 2010 elections than at any other time since 1948, as the Center for Responsive Politics previously reported. Still, 85 percent of incumbents are headed back to work in the U.S. House in January.

In the Senate, Republicans saw a net gain of six seats, shy of the eleven seats they needed to take control of the chamber. Only one Senate race is still undecided -- as conservative attorney Joe Miller battles incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who forged ahead with a write-in campaign after Miller beat her in a Republican primary.

This preliminary analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics is based on the career top contributors to candidate committees and leadership PACs of the out-going members of the 111th Congress and the new members of the 112th Congress.

The analysis based on campaign finance reports filed before the election for the 94 settled House races where an incumbent was not reelected and the 16 settled Senate races where an incumbent was not reelected. Top industry backers to lawmakers could change over time as the Center processes additional data.

Download these charts, the full list of new incoming members, outgoing members and their top industries here: Industry 2010 Winners.xls

Center for Responsive Politics senior researcher Douglas Weber contributed to this report.