Category: Rants

I am not exactly a grizzled veteran as a teacher, but I do have a few years under my belt at this point. While I am not yet as good at it as I need to be, I'm beyond the point of having trainwreck moments in the classroom. It's rare that I am at a loss for words or without a clear plan of what to cover that day. Today that happened, although the story isn't as entertaining as you might hope.

In my campaigns class we are talking about positioning the candidate – creating a brand and carving out a niche relative to the other candidates. We discussed this using the 2012 GOP field as examples. You know, Mitt Romney is the successful businessman with enough leadership skills to win elections in Massachusetts.
buy abilify generic buy abilify online over the counter

Tim Pawlenty is a non-Mormon, less blow dried Romney. Huckabee is the flag-bearer for evangelical Christians. Haley Barbour is the good ol' boy party insider. Ron Paul is the libertarian. You get the idea.

Then we got to Sarah Palin.

No one was sure what to say about which issue Palin "owns" or the niche she carved out. Someone half-jokingly said "woman." When no one put forward a serious answer it fell to me to make the point. And suddenly I realized that I have absolutely no idea how to explain what Sarah Palin stands for…
buy synthroid online https://www.mabvi.org/wp-content/themes/mabvi/images/new/synthroid.html no prescription

at least not in a classroom setting. What issue does she have any mastery over? What issue does she even talk about consistently, even if not well? Where is she located in ideological space? How can we even vaguely describe what she stands for?

This stuck with me for some time after class. Is it the social issues? Lots of Republican politicians have identical positions or stronger. She certainly has next to no grasp of foreign or economic policy.
buy viagra online https://www.mabvi.org/wp-content/themes/mabvi/images/new/viagra.html no prescription

Yet we have to admit that she has a loyal following even if the mainstream GOP is waking up to the reality that she's poison. What are Palin and the Palin Crowd really about? We all intuitively understand it, but it's pretty difficult to put into words.

I came up with two answers, neither entirely satisfactory.

First, if Barack Obama says the sky is blue, she says it's green. Palin is about complete and consistent opposition to all things Obama. She loudly leads the charge against the dark-skinned secret Muslim usurper and underminer of the Constitution. She represents Real 'Mericans who know what a Real 'Merican looks like, and Barry Obama ain't it.

Second, and tied to the first point, Palin is essentially the American equivalent of European and Asian ultra-nationalist movements. Palin is about the politics of blood, of national identity. Sarah Palin isn't about a policy or an ideology; she is about American exceptionalism and restoring Real America to its rightful place in the world (and Real Americans to their rightful place in America, of course). To support Palin is to demand that the American social order of the 1950s (or earlier) be restored, that white folk with no fancy book-learnin' be placed once again on the altar and worshipped for their salt-of-the-Earthiness. A vote for Palin is a vote to return to the Disneyland, Leave It to Beaver fantasy of an idealized white Christian America of years past – mowed lawns, picket fences, two Ford freedom, and so on. This is to be Ours, as We are Americans and You are not.

Now if I can only think of a neutral classroom-appropriate way of describing Palinism as an American spin on the platform of your average Central Asian nationalist party. But honestly, what else is it but an affirmation that We are the chosen people and all would be righted if only our society was structured around that fact?

Sometimes I am reminded that I've been doing this for a long, long time. Like when I remember an old post on an obscure subject, search it out, and discover that it's from 2005.

Yes, many years ago I wrote about why I was not impressed by the dire predictions from right-wing thinkers about the military growth of China. That old post was mostly an excuse to show a funny video of a shitty Chinese SUV being crash tested and crumpling like a Dixie cup in a 40 mph collision. While no one can question the manufacturing capacity of China, the nation's business and economic culture has yet to show that it can innovate or build things that aren't disposable.

While we don't hear much these days about the Chinese military taking over the world (with knockoffs of 1980s Soviet designs) we do spend quite a bit of time worrying that they will conquer America and the rest of the Western world economically. We constantly fear that they will take not only manual labor but white collar jobs as more Chinese students receive educations identical to their American, Japanese, and European counterparts. Alarmingly, Chinese industry is starting to make inroads into high-tech areas of manufacturing – aerospace, precision electronics, etc. – previously thought to be off limits. Most recently, the media has run a number of alarming "Oh no, the Chinamen are a-comin'!" stories about Chinese automaker BYD, which is set to become the first Chinese car company to go on sale in the U.S. next year with its rumored low cost, long range (~150 miles) electric car.

Here's the problem. Even when they wade into high-end manufacturing, Chinese business culture seems to be built on three basic principles:

1. Steal old designs from Western manufacturers
2. Reverse engineer it down to the last screw, and make a cheap, cut-rate version of every component
3. Assemble a final product without the slightest regard for safety and durability

What comes next is the real golden rule of Chinese business strategy: It doesn't matter how much it sucks because someone will buy it. Someone will always buy it if it's cheap enough. Is that someone the American or European consumer? That's pretty doubtful. It turns out (thanks again, Wikileaks!) that the Warren Buffett-backed BYD isn't much different from other Chinese automakers without American capitalist patrons. The EV design complies with "Chinese intellectual property law" – which, if you know anything about Chinese industry, is about the funniest phrase imaginable. Can it beat a lawsuit in a U.S. courtroom? Oh, and apparently the doors fall off if you slam them too hard.

European buyers have already had a brief experience with Chinese automaker Brilliance Automotive, whose death traps were sold between 2008 and 2010 on the continent. Western consumers will buy a Chinese t-shirt, Chinese plastic crap from Wal-Mart, and even Chinese consumer electronics…because all of those products, even a relatively expensive TV, are considered essentially disposable in our society. If a TV works for 3 years and then craps out, we just buy another one. A car is a major purchase for the non-wealthy (and the wealthy sure as hell aren't going to buy a Chinese compact car) and it's hard to see the market, even if prices are ridiculously low, for cars that work for a year and then give up the ghost.

Then again, that worked for GM, Ford, and Chrysler for 40 years. *rimshot*

Rather than end on that hugely hilarious joke, lest we get carried away mocking the limits of China's ability to conquer the U.S. economically we should note well what the Koreans have done in a very short timeframe. Ten years ago Korean cars – Hyundai, Kia, Daewoo, etc. – were the crap stuck to the bottom of the shoe of the auto industry. In a very, very short amount of time those manufacturers have figured out how to make great products and first Ford/GM and now Toyota & Honda are scared shitless of Hyundai and its avalanche of cheap, high quality products. China could figure things out someday and make a similar turnaround. But until we see some sign of that happening, it's probably safe to scale back the "China's taking over the world!" hysteria.

On Friday and Saturday the United States engaged in yet another round of essentially the only thing we're good at anymore in international affairs: pulverizing a hot, sandy, minimally developed country with a barrage of high-tech firepower launched from hundreds of miles away. It comes from over the horizon and by the time you know it's there, it's already too late. Since Gulf War I, American foreign policy has been built around the ability to launch precision airstrikes and missile attacks at a moment's notice, combining the two characteristics so politically desirable these days: maximum destruction and minimum losses. Air strikes and distant missile launches expose American servicepeople to very little risk, so anything that can be accomplished with no (American) body count…well, if you were President, why wouldn't you do it?

The cruise missile is what really makes this possible, and none are more advanced than the Tomahawk. With a 1,250+ mile range, the missile goes from the decks of a U.S. Navy ship to a faraway target in about an hour. Just fire it and forget about it. Neat toy, if you're into that sort of thing. And boy are we into it.

Over the weekend the U.S. contributed to the U.N. declared suppression of Libyan air power with, among other things, 124 Tomahawk missiles. In 2011 dollars the unit replacement cost is about $750,000. Apiece. So in the span of a few hours and for reasons that very few non-AEI employed Americans would find compelling, Uncle Sam just spent $93 million dollars.

That doesn't count the thousands of gallons of aviation fuel and other ordnance dropped on Libya, the cost of repositioning assets, the $1.02 billion B-2 bombers used for daytime strikes, and so on. Even if American involvement in the conflict is brief, there is little doubt that the total monetary cost of our military action will approach or even exceed a quarter of a billion dollars. As usual, this money gets spent without thirty seconds of debate in Congress and with nothing but glee from the voting public. Hoo boy, can't wait until the Wings Over Libya on the Military Channel brings us the nose camera footage.

But teachers sure do make a lot of money, amirite? Maybe we should spend another week on that $60 million NPR got last year.

The phrase "company town" is loosely applied to any locale dominated by a single employer. But real company towns – the kind built, managed, and subject to the paternalistic control of private enterprise – have been an important part of American economic history. From Gary, IN (U.S. Steel) to Pullman, IL (now part of Chicago) to Hershey, PA to Alcoa, TN to the hundreds of textile mill towns of the South and coal mining towns throughout Appalachia, municipalities founded without incorporation or elected government are more numerous than many Americans realize.
online pharmacy aciphex best drugstore for you

To live in these places meant to depend entirely on the munificence of one's corporate nobleman for the services one usually gets from local government. It usually meant getting paid in company scrip usable that limited one's economic transactions to company-owned banks, stores, and so on.
online pharmacy flexeril best drugstore for you

Some company towns, notably Hershey, PA, were considered relatively swell places to live. Most, as in the case of Appalachian coal company towns, were efficient means of brutal exploitation and debt peonage.

Michigan's widely reported 'Financial Martial Law' bill, soon to be signed into law by teabagging mannequin Rick Snyder, is portrayed by leftists as another salvo in the ongoing Republican war against teachers and public sector unions. I find that conclusion overly linear and too simplistic.
buy Nootropil online buybloinfo.com no prescription

This legislation – which allows the Governor to declare financial emergencies and appoint individuals or corporations to serve as city managers with the power to dissolve local elected councils and nullify employment contracts for public servants – is the first step in an effort to do away with municipal and local government altogether in favor of quite literally having private enterprises replacing government and contracting out its functions to the lowest bidder. How beautiful it will be: Wackenhut cops and local jails, Waste Management goons collecting trash, utilities sold off to Aqua America and Exelon, tax assessments mailed to homeowners from a financial services boiler room in Bangalore, and municipal employees of all types fired and replaced by temps from Manpower, Inc.

Gives a new and literal meaning to the phrase "company town," doesn't it? And the kicker is that the Governor is empowered to pay the new city managers any amount he sees fit before turning over total control so that they may further profit from a variety of harebrained privatization schemes.

This legislation speaks to the ideas that have kept right-wingers' hearts aflutter since the early Reagan years. It's not removing government from the private sector; it's replacing government with the private sector. For-profit education corporations running the schools. Private military/security outfits as cops. Subscription-only fire protection and ambulance service. City property auctioned off to developers (with zoning laws created ad hoc by unelected city managers; sure, you can bury nuclear waste here!) No pesky citizens, city councils, or local laws to get in the way. Corporate owner-governments that can charge you whatever they're bold enough to charge for services and utilities. And there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it. Your government will be a board of directors in some office park in Arlington, VA.

What a beautiful vision. It's like watching the Koch brothers masturbate.

At the height of the nuclear war scare in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, American and Soviet military planners engaged in a spate of "civil defense" planning. This hole-digging mentality, parodied most famously in Dr. Strangelove (and possibly the best, most incisive episode of The Twilight Zone), meant digging nuclear fallout shelters and creating structures capable of surviving the blast of a nuclear warhead. Civil defense planners found that it is possible to design a structure at a reasonable cost to survive a nuclear explosion on the order of one megaton. To withstand a larger explosion, the design rapidly became prohibitively expensive. NORAD's famous Cheyenne Mountain complex, for example, can withstand a five to seven megaton blast within a 2 mile radius. And that thing is dug into a goddamn mountain. The moral of the story, of course, is that no matter how much "defense" the Americans or Soviets built, all the other side had to do was build a bigger bomb. Five to seven megatons? Great; hey NORAD, here's our 10 megaton warhead.

So safety can be engineered up to a certain point, beyond which additional safety is theoretically possible but economically impractical. The result is that almost any system (excepting those that are fail-safe or passively safe) is vulnerable to an adverse event that is either unforeseeable or highly unlikely. The World Trade Center was designed to withstand a hit from a 707, but not fully fueled 767s. New Orleans was engineered to survive a glancing hit from a Category 3 hurricane, but not the accompanying storm surge. The Banqiao Dam was designed to withstand a 1-in-1000 years flood, not the 1-in-2000 years flood that breached it in 1975. Your car's frame, restraints, and airbags are designed to protect you in a normal highway accident, but not if you drive head-on into a concrete pillar at 100 mph. History tells us that you can plan for a lot but it is neither possible or economically feasible to plan for everything even with the best intentions.

Fast forward to today and note what is happening in Fukushima at the nuclear facility. The reactors were designed to withstand an earthquake, but not an 8.9 earthquake followed by a tsunami. It would be easy enough to write this off as an unforeseeable event for which no reasonable enterprise could prepare. A disaster of this scale certainly supports that logic. Unfortunately, if we look more closely we see that a chain of human and engineering mistakes undermine the attempts to make nuclear power safe.

Two caveats. First, I am a fan of nuclear power, at least in comparison to coal- and gas-burning generation. Most liberals are reflexively against it (more on that in a moment). Second, I'm not a certified expert on this topic, but merely someone who has done a lot of reading. If at any point I misrepresent something feel free to correct me.

Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) like Fukushima are an obsolete technology from the late 1960s. BWRs, like any other nuclear reactor that relies on a supply of pumped coolants to prevent overheating, are inherently dangerous. Recent events illustrate this. Fukushima has backup generators to provide power to the cooling supply in the event of a grid failure, but…what happens if the backup generators are also damaged? That is the question no one asks during planning. It is the equivalent of "What happens if the Russkies build a bigger bomb?" The answer is always "Well, then I guess we're fucked." Someone translate that into Japanese, please.

Fukushima is better designed than Chernobyl (which was the RMBK-type reactor that was so dangerous Brezhnev couldn't even give them away to Third World countries) in that its defense-in-depth is stronger. What they share in common is two alarming design flaws. First, control rods have to be inserted mechanically from the bottom, which is not possible when power fails. Were they lowered in from above, gravity could do the work even in the absence of power. Second, the reactor continues to produce an incredible amount of heat after it has shut down. The reactors in Fukushima were long ago shut down, yet they continue to require extensive cooling to keep them subcritical. Modern nuclear technology does not replicate these flaws and thus, in my opinion, is a viable alternative to fossil fuel power. However, 99% of the operational reactors were built in the 1970s and feature the inherent limitations of that outdated technology.

The last step in any catastrophe is almost always human error. In Fukushima – again, this is my moderately informed opinion rather than fact – the people in charge attempted to save the economic value of the reactors rather than immediately recognizing the magnitude of the crisis and initiating their last-ditch safety measure: flooding the reactors with boron carbide and seawater, which would cool but also destroy them for good. They attempted less extreme measures – running the normal cooling systems on battery power, etc. – so that the reactors could be used to produce power again in the future. Accordingly, by the time they initiated the last resort plan involving seawater the reactors were already too hot, partially melted (as evidenced by airborne cesium), and beyond the point at which they could be cooled without adverse consequences if at all. It was, in a word, shocking to hear that 24 hours after the quake the Japanese authorities had yet to flood the reactors; the consequences are now apparent and will be increasingly so in the coming days.

Aside from the immediate tragedy – workers and residents exposed to radiation, thousands of gallons of radioactive liquid waste produced, etc. – the saddest thing about this is that it takes nuclear power off the table for a few decades much as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl did in the 1980s. It can be safe, but not with archaic 1960s technology that is fail-deadly and full of design flaws. Reactors operate here in the U.S. and around the world with very small margins of error. They are dangerous, and their "safe" operation depends on the assumption that nothing will happen to the reactor beyond what it is engineered to withstand. The more problems emerge from old Generation II designs, the lower the odds that advanced, passively safe, low-waste Gen IV reactors will ever go on line.

If forced to pick only one thing, the worst part of the explosive growth of right-wing talk radio since the 1980s is the way that it makes listeners (and now viewers and blog readers) feel like they are somewhere between moderately and well informed. Glenn Beck's schtick revolves around a constant barrage of "facts" that make the viewers feel like they are learning something. Limbaugh has been successful with this tactic as well. The hosts inundate the airwaves with what seem to be facts: out-of-context, cherry picked Founders' quotes, misrepresented statistics, assertions based on no or flimsy supporting evidence, and molehills turned into mountains. The end result is that talking to the average conservative is less like being pedantically lectured by Buckley or George Will and more like being blasted with a wave of hysteria-of-the-day catchphrases and talking points of which the speaker has no substantive understanding (Card check! George Soros! Van Jones! 10th Amendment! Death panels! Caliphate! FHA loans! ACORN!)

I can respect people who have ridiculous ideologies as long as he or she understands it. Believe it or not I count among my friends hardcore libertarians, young Earth creationists, tinfoil hat/HAARP Mind Control types, anarchists, Stalinists, and even a few vegans. It is not difficult to form a relationship of mutual respect with someone who has arrived at a belief system, even a silly one, after some careful thought. I would much rather listen to Jonah Goldberg – a tool, but one who has a half-decent understanding of the ideology and viewpoint he is supposed to represent – than some guy yelling a bunch of phrases he heard on Beck last night.

The biggest single source of annoyance is Beck's obsession with George Soros for the past year. Teabaggers seem to roam the Earth shouting "George Soros!" at predetermined intervals. Whenever something happens George Soros is responsible. Whenever new facts come to light that debunk some right-wing myth, the information comes from some Soros-funded group that exists to spread disinformation (Note: everything on the internet is funded by George Soros). Media Matters? Soros. NPR? Soros. Al Jazeera? Soros. MSNBC? Soros. Highlights? Soros.

Pretty annoying, right? Well it isn't less ridiculous if we replace "Soros" with "Koch."

Since the widely circulated and well done Koch exposé in the New Yorker by Jane Mayer in August 2010 progressives and liberals have suddenly discovered that the Koches are responsible for most of what ails the United States. This, in my opinion, reflects a lack of real understanding of the role they play in politics. Are they big money donors? Yes. Have they been active in astroturfing and faux-populist groups like FreedomWorks and the tea party? Yes. Are they trying to manipulate politics for their own benefit? Sure are. But there are lots of plutocrats diving headlong into the political process, spending what appears to be an unlimited sum of money to achieve their goals. I don't mean to imply that the Koches shouldn't be criticized or that they are not responsible for extensive shadiness that should be brought into the light. But it appears that the new rhetorical crutch of the lightly informed left winger is to pepper statements with "Koch brothers" and blame all of the world's ills on their devious machinations.

I'd like to say "Come on, we're better than that" but unfortunately this underscores the reality that large numbers of people irrespective of ideology are quite enthusiastic in their political beliefs despite being lightly armed with only whatever bits and pieces of information they heard someone else yelling recently.

In the 1990s I was a pretty staunch Republican. While I stuck with it until nearly the end of the decade, by the early Clinton years it was already becoming clear that the party and I were headed for divorce. Even as a college undergraduate with my head rooted firmly in my own ass I was somehow self-aware enough to notice that the party was being taken over by Southern voters, Southern candidates, and Southern ideas. Of course this process had started many years prior, before I was even born, but it did not come to fruition until the Gingrich-Armey-Gramm takeover in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Again, despite the fact that I was not exactly thinking clearly in those days this "Southernization" was both alarming and puzzling.

Why, I often asked similarly skeptical Republicans, was the party being remade in the image of the shittiest part of the country? Why are we being lectured by people who live in Dogpatch? Granted I lived in the upper Midwest at the time and my knowledge of the South was based on a loose collection of macro-level statistics and popular stereotypes; luckily the point held.

Fast forward 15 years and I find myself living in the Deep South. The South, in a word, blows. Yes, it has mild winters, some nice people, the occasional nice town, and so on. But on the whole this region of the country is beyond backward. The quasi-feudal social structure, the proud ignorance, the crushing rural poverty, the crumbling infrastructure, the naked political corruption, the good ol' boy networks, the seething racism…it is not exactly the guiding light of the modern world. Yes, the South has lots of jobs these days – low paying, no benefit, at-will employment as far as your imagination can see. Most people don't realize until after they arrive that "Low cost of living" is newspeak for "Low costs resulting from low demand, as this place blows mightily and no one with alternatives wants to live here."

I emphasize this not to pick on the South – it is entirely possible that I will be stuck living here for the rest of my life, in fact – but to underscore the simple fact that America does not want to be taking its political and economic lead from the states that rank 47th through 50th in every metric that reasonably reflects social development and quality of life. Maybe, just maybe, it doesn't make a lot of sense to model one's public schools, correctional system, tax structure, and macroeconomic policies on those of Mississippi.

Mike brings our attention to a brief but excellent writeup on this point from Ed Kilgore. There's nothing being proposed in Wisconsin that isn't already standard operating procedure in places like Texas and Mississippi. What Scott Walker is essentially doing is attempting to turn Wisconsin into Northern Alabama. If any message is capable of cutting through the din of disinformation and faux-populist rhetoric coming from the far right it is this: This is the way the laws are in Mississippi. Do you want our state to turn into Mississippi?

The average – which is to say angry and scared – working or middle class voter on the Teabagging bandwagon isn't going to be persuaded by the rhetoric of fairness and retellings of the historical accomplishments of the labor movement; no, this kind of political attack is best countered simply, directly, and unambiguously: "This is the way things run in Alabama. What about living in Alabama is appealing to you?
online pharmacy singulair best drugstore for you

What has convinced you that we should be more like the Deep South? Perhaps the teen pregnancy rate? The high school dropout rate? The poverty? The empty libraries? The 49th ranked standardized test scores? Please, be as specific as you can."

Do Michigan, Illinois, and the others have problems? Maybe even huge problems? Yes. Following the trail blazed by America's loser states is hardly the solution.

In semi-local news, Atlanta residents are up in arms over multi-thousand dollar water bills as CNN reports. The story is rather misleadingly headlined to suggest that the actual cost of water has increased dramatically when in fact the root cause appears to be incorrect usage data and billing errors resulting from a new, "efficient" computerized meter system that allowed the utilities to fire their human meter readers. Let's hear it for privatization, sub-subcontracting, and cost-saving automation! Roger "Every time the cost of labor goes up $1/hour, 1000 more robots become economical" Smith is smiling from beyond the grave.

I was hopeful upon seeing the headline that the national media might draw some attention to the underlying fact that Atlanta already has the most expensive water in the country – largely on account of the fact that the city is rapidly running out of water. As the 2007 Southeastern drought proved, the exploding population in cities like Atlanta, Augusta, Greenville, Columbia, Chattanooga, and Birmingham has taxed the very limited fresh water resources available in this area of the country. Atlanta's situation in turn highlights a growing problem among major cities across the Sun Belt. Ask Americans if they are worried about resource depletion and they are likely to mention oil or natural gas.
buy clomid online rxbuywithoutprescriptiononline.net no prescription

While petroleum and its byproducts are being depleted at an alarming rate, the fact is that we as a country are going to have to deal with a fresh water shortage long before the gasoline and diesel stop arriving in our ports.

People who live in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and other major Southwestern cities that are already running out of water (having pumped the Colorado River down to a trickle) know that this is not mere alarmist fearmongering. It's far more likely that the cost of a gallon of water will triple or quintuple by 2020 for Arizonans than a gallon of gasoline. And America's issues in this area pale in comparison to many points on the globe.
https://beautybeforeage.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/jpeg/albuterol.html

Africa and the rest of the developing world already know well that potable water is a scarce commodity – not to mention a potent weapon. China, which is rapidly pissing through its supply of everything, has already reached the crisis stage.

It is hard for most people to conceive of water depletion. There's so much, like, rain and stuff, not to mention the great big oceans. There is a kernel of truth here – Western Australia has proven that large scale ocean water desalinization can meet the needs of an urban area. The problem is that desalinization is terribly expensive and requires substantial investments in infrastructure. We like making long term investments in infrastructure here in America, right? Right? It's also a very energy intensive process, meaning that either the current energy supply will be further stressed or unpopular/unproven technologies like solar and nuclear must provide the electric power.
https://beautybeforeage.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/jpeg/symbicort.html

So what do you think, will state and municipal governments across Red America recognize the severity of the impending, or in some cases current, problem and make the billion-plus dollar investments to secure future water supplies? Or will they forsake investments in the name of "austerity" and try to patch up the status quo with duct tape and coathangers?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Just another reason to feel optimistic about the future.