Month: December 2011

A tweet from Public Policy Polling on Thursday:

Been asked about this 3x this morning, we are not doing any polling about Jeb Bush in NH or IA

Then yesterday, Dave Weigel reported that several people in New Hampshire had received polling calls in which they were asked about Jeb Bush.

And David Brooks, at the end of his regular weekly NPR segment with E.J. Dionne, speculated on the possibility of Jeb becoming the nominee.

And this guy suggests that Jeb could still win the nominee (in part because the Texas primary is delegate-rich, winner-take-all, and not scheduled until April).

What’s going on? And how amused/delighted/horrified should we be?

I see that Congress has decided to do a two-month extension of the payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits. The cost will be borne by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage originators. And the key concession from the White House is to relent on language that forces them to make an expedited decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The fascinating thing about that is that the White House has already said that if they are compelled to make a quick decision, they will reject the pipeline. So, you have the spectacle of the Republicans ostensibly going to the mat from the oil industry, but actually screwing them over. The White House issued the following statement after the deal was announced:

Statement by White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer

The President said that Congress cannot go home without preventing a tax increase on 160 million hardworking Americans, and the deal announced tonight meets that test. This is an important step towards enacting a key provision of the President’s American Jobs Act and a significant victory for the American people and the economy, because as independent analysts have said, failing to extend this tax cut would have had a damaging effect on our recovery and job growth. The President urges Congress now to finish up their business for the American people.

As for the pipeline, The Hill reports:

Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said they would not accept even a temporary extension of the payroll tax holiday without the Keystone language.

A senior White House official, however, said the president would not accept an attempt by Congress to mandate construction of the pipeline before there was an adequate review of health and safety regulations.

The official said the State Department has already said that if the review was shortened to 60 days as it is in this bill, it won’t be able to conduct the necessary review.

So the pipeline will almost certainly not be approved, the official said, proving the entire process moot.

I have a problem with the word “moot.” First, it used to mean “debatable” until Jesse Jackson went on Saturday Night Live and changed the meaning into something closer to “no longer relevant.” That’s the sense in which The Hill uses it. The language in the bill is unimportant (from the perspective of anyone who opposes the pipeline) because it won’t create the pipeline. But, if the administration is to be believed, the language will actually kill the pipeline. If that’s the case, it’s hardly moot. We’re about to watch the Republicans kill the pipeline by voting for it. Democrats who vote against the language will actually be making a failed attempt to save the pipeline.

So, one of two things is going on here. Either the Republicans are the worst allies in the history of legislative negotiations or the administration is lying and the Republicans are calling their bluff.

I don’t think the answer to that question is moot. Or, maybe it is. I have no idea what that word means anymore.

.

Presentation Chief of Staff Peter van Uhm in Amsterdam

Peter van Uhm, Chief of Defence The Netherlands, has an outstanding track record in his field since joining the army in the early ’70s. However, most people will know him from his personal tragedy. On 18 April 2008, one day after Van Uhm was appointed Chief Defence Staff, his son First Lieutenant Dennis van Uhm was killed in a roadside bombing in Uruzgan. Van Uhm’s incredibly dignified and human response has astounded many.

Instruments creating a better world

Today Van Uhm starts off with stating we all have our instruments for creating a better world: for a writer it is his/her pen, for a doctor it is his/her microscope etc. The public was slightly shocked when Van Uhm showed his instrument on stage: his gun! The uneasiness of the public is a good thing according to Van Uhm, we are not used to guns being around us, unlike in many other countries.

The personal story about why Van Uhm has chosen the gun follows. His father fought the Nazis in Nijmegen during World War II. In a critical battle, his father wasn’t able to reach the other side of the river bank and therefore couldn’t stop the Germans. His instrument, the gun, the only thing standing in between good and evil, failed him and his mission, leading to frustration for the rest of his life. Van Uhm chose the gun to stop those who do evil, to protect the vulnerable, to defend democratic values.

“The gun may be one of the most important instruments of peace and stability that we have in this world.”

A bold statement that might be contradictory. However, despite what you might think, violence has declined dramatically over the last decades and even centuries. Why? According to Harvard professor Steven Pinker one of the main drivers behind less violent societies is the spread of the constitutional state. And the introduction of the state monopoly on the legitimized use of violence. Legitimized by a democratically elected government. Legitimized by checks and balances and an independent judicial system. In other words, a state monopoly that has the use of violence well under control.

TEDx Ideas Worth Spreading plus Videos

• German footage Operation Market Garden near Arnhem and Nijmegen

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

Hello again painting fans.

This week I’ll be with the painting of the Physick Estate in Cape May, New Jersey. It is seen in the photo directly below.  I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 12×12 inch canvas.

When last seen, the painting appeared as it does in the photo directly below.

Since that time I have continued to work on the painting.

Sometimes I need to compare the painting with the photo from the previous week to accurately guage my progress.  This is one of those times.  Although I’ve revised nearly every part of the house this week, it will likely require a look back to see how far things have come.

I’ve now completed much of the surface.  I may revise the tower widows to be less white but I’m pleased with most of the structure.  Note that the front-facing dormer window in the upper left has actually been moved to the left so that it sits in line above the large windows directly below.  I’ve also revised all the darker blue trim lines.  These are now in proportion to the other elements.  I almost forgot the most visible change, the highlights on the roof.  The painting will be lit from the left as in the photo.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

     

That’s about it for now. Next week I’ll have more progress to show you. See you then. As always, feel free to add photos of your own work in the comments section below.

Earlier paintings in this series can be seen here.

I had my say about the Hitch here. I don’t feel the loss. Now, here’s someone whose loss I’ll mourn, and who’s actually leaving behind something worthwhile:

Etta James, best known for her rendition of the ballad “At Last,” is terminally ill, her doctor told TMZ today. He asked fans to pray for the 73-year-old singer, who has been suffering from leukemia and dementia….

I still don’t know how to upload videos here, so watch a classic performance here. No, it’s not “At Last” — it’s “Something’s Got a Hold on Me,” live in ’62, and when she’s done singing, the song is sung.

This will be the 16th consecutive year that, in Eat the State! and the various other venues where I’ve written, I’ve compiled — usually with the help of my colleague Maria Tomchick — lists of the most overhyped and the most underreported stories of the year. (The list from 2010 is here.) In general, the overhyped stories are an opportunity for merciless ridicule, and the underreported ones are some combination of inspirational and profoundly depressing.

This year, I have a secret weapon: you, the Frog Pond, as savvy a bunch of commenters as there is on the Interwebs. Got any suggestions? Overhyped. Underreported. Leave ’em in the comments.

The debate was a bit of a mixed bag with no clear-cut winners or losers.

Here is the breakdown:

Newt Gingrich–Newt had horrible moments and great moments. When Newt goes on and on explaining why he was paid $1.6 million by a federal entity to NOT be a lobbyist, he doesn’t pass the laugh test. And when he prattles on about what a celebrity he is and how he can make $60,000 a speech he makes Mitt Romney look like a full-time homeless advocate. But Newt also had great moments. Let’s face it; there is no one better in the Republican field at expressing contempt for Obama, Liberals and the judiciary than Newt. There is a huge faction of the GOP that feels contempt for all things Democratic and Newt oozes their contempt better than Oprah exudes empathy for housewives. Newt held his own for the evening.

Mitt Romney-Mitt was Mitt, calm, cool and collected. He didn’t make any $10,000 betting blunders but he also didn’t land any strong blows toward Gingrich. Romney’s worst moment was when Fox’s Chris Wallace read chapter and verse on all the liberal positions Romney has expressed, specifically on gay rights. Watching Romney dance away from his past while claiming to not be dancing away from his past is always a fun show, and it’s a reminder why the majority of the conservative party does not trust or like Romney.

Jon Huntsman–Jon opened really strongly. He gave a nice slam against Donald Trump and not turning himself into a pretzel by pandering to interest groups or The Donald. It was a clever jab at both Newt and Romney. Huntsman also gave a great message on banking reform that was both conservative and populist and courageous. He didn’t do or say much of anytime else of interest in the debate. Still, more and more eyes are looking at Huntsman as party leaders hope and pray that Gingrich will collapse and the Party will have to move on to the next non-Mitt.

Ron Paul–Ron was consistent, as always. Yes, Paul had some of the biggest applause lines of the night. And he also had people gasping at his foreign policy views. Paul was audacious and honest when he labeled Gingrich’s cashing in on Freddie Mac as “Fascism.” Every liberal Democrat and moderate in the country fell in love with Paul when he labeled Gingrich’s money-making escapades “Fascism.” Unfortunately for Paul, they don’t get to vote in Republican primaries or caucuses.

Rick Perry–Rick has a good night anytime he can remember his name. Perry had some sprightly moments and got in the sound bite of the night claiming he wants to be like “Tim Tebow.” Had Perry debated like this in his first few debates, chances are he’d still be the front-runner. But now, Perry just seems like a “Forrest Gump” character, albeit one who doesn’t like gays.
Michele Bachmann–Michelle had a good night and fired off some great shots against Newt. Her problem is that both the high brow and the low brow wings of the Republican Party have written her off. She’s never recovered from earlier demagogic stumbles and it just doesn’t matter what she does in debates any longer.

Rick Santorum–Rick still looks and sounds like a 2-term congressman. On paper, Santorum could and should be a frontrunner (at least for 3 weeks) but he has all the charisma of a three-week old tuna fish sandwich.

That’s what Jerry Brown called climate change skeptics. Actually he was a little more precise in his remarks: he called them political lemmings whose “cult-like behavior…would take us over the cliff.”

Brown made his comments addressing a high level climate conference at California Academy of Sciences. Also in attendance were the last Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Schwarzenegger, and Virgin Group founder Richard Branson, the popular billionaire who has made climate issues a focus of his philanthropic activities. That the current Democratic Governor, Mr. Brown and Schwatzenegger would be on the same side when it comes to the threat climate change poses is hardly surprising. After all, California has experienced and is experiencing severe negative climate effects now, and all legitimate studies conducted by scientists (other than hack denialists funded by Big Oil) predict that the effects on our nation’s climate, people and economy will become more severe the longer we do nothing to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Brown said climate change has lengthened the state’s fire season and quickened its snowmelt, affecting agriculture and taxing public infrastructure.

He acknowledged Californians have been “squeezed” by the flagging economy, but he said investment is necessary to stem the effect of global warming. Brown is expected next year to propose a peripheral canal or other way to move water through or around the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

“It will cost money,” he said. “But if we don’t do that, and the levees collapse in one of these extreme events, we could run out of fresh water.”

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/12/15/133268/calif-gov-brown-calls-doubters.html#ixzz1giCutNiU

If the world was governed by reason and logic former governors of Texas, Arizona and other states hard hit by severe droughts, wildfires, floods and other extreme weather events would join Brown and Schwartzenegger in seeking ways to mitigate the now unlikely unstoppable consequences of climate change. But, of course we don’t live in that world.

We live in a world where formerly relatively moderate Republicans like Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, and even that crazed bomb thrower Newt Gingrinch, all of whom formerly agreed that climate change was one of the most important issues facing the world, have changed their tune. Of course, they are Republicans who rely heavily on money from the fossil fuel industries to support their presidential runs. As for Rick Perry, well no governor of Texas has attacked the science of climate change more than he has, despite the severe drought and worst wildfire years on record for his state. Texas politicians are owned by Big Oil to a far greater extent than the even US Congress, as Dick Durbin admitted, is owned by Wall Street.

Furthermore, the hard core Republican base has been convinced by a massive disinformation campaign, led in no small part by Fox News, to a degree I still find hard to believe, that man made global warming is a hoax and a conspiracy foisted upon us by Al Gore and money grubbing scientists. No GOP candidate for any office (outside the State of Maine perhaps) can embrace the reality of the danger posed by climate change without losing a majority of GOP voters to other Republican candidates who will toe the “party” line on this issue.

So yes, Brown is right to call these republican political figures “political lemmings.” And undoubtedly the fact that Schwartzenneger cannot run for the Presidency has a lot to do with the fact that he signed into law the most extensive environmental legislation regarding climate by any state in America.

But whether Republican politicians are acting out of political self interest or political necessity in promoting the lies and deceits of the climate change deniers is beside the point. Other than the few Progressives in Congress what has the Obama administration done to address this issue. Oh, admittedly they are not as bad as the Bush administration, but that isn’t saying much. After Obama failed in 2009 and 2010 to pass a climate change bill through Congress, his administration pushed this issue to the back burner, the one that has been turned off.

In some respects its hard to blame him, considering the reluctance of so many Democrats in the House and Senate to push hard for that legislation. Many ran scared, fearing a backlash in the 2010 elections, but that merely showed voters how lacking in their conviction and how weak Congressional Democrats really were. And of course, many conservadems (those inimitable Blue Dogs) simply wouldn’t pass anything that they believed might hurt their re-election chances, much less a climate change bill. Not that it helped them any when the mid-terms were held — they still lost.

It seems there are a lot of political lemmings running around these days when to comes to climate issues. What once used to be a somewhat bi-partisan issue, has now become the third rail in American politics, though in a negative way. We see that cutting social security and medicare are no longer sacrosanct (thanks most recently to Ron Wyden for reminding of us of that new reality), but outside California and perhaps a few other states, and certainly at the Federal level, no one seems willing to touch the hot potato (no pun intended) of Climate Change, other than to talk about it endlessly.

And that, my friends, makes lemmings of us all, willing or not.

Today, I need to travel, shop, and rest. So, you won’t see me around too much. I did watch the debate last night and Michele Bachmann frightened me. It’s a good thing she’s not going to be our next president. What were your impressions? I thought Newt got beat up a little. Oh, and then there is Congress. How are they coming in wrapping up their business?