lookin

AdamSmith invented dance, With talons sharp as needles. He sometimes gave The Buggs a chance, But he preferred The Beatles.

After dithering for a few years, I finally got the iPhone 5 today. Just a short line at the Apple store and, other than the hassle of changing my AT&T account from a business account to a personal account, the whole process was pretty easy. My first smart phone and, so far, it's considerably smarter than I am. By the time I figure out what all those apps are for, it will probably be time for an upgrade.

Great letter from a very articulate 12-year-old! The greed of the insurance companies is getting a little bit of a trimming, thanks to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). They're now required to spend at least 80% of their premiums on the actual delivery of health care. The other 20% can go to overhead, advertising, lobbying, and profits. This is still far in excess of the 5% or so spent by most countries with single-payer health care, but it's a step in the right direction. Those companies that violate the 80% rule are being forced to issue rebates, and 13 million of us are due to receive over a billion dollars in rebates this year. Of course, this is almost certainly one of the provisions that the Romney-Ryan ticket would seek to roll back, so their cuts in the health care budget will likely come from reductions in health care itself.

They may not be as far behind as you think. While direct corporate donations to Super PACs can be spotted through timely disclosure rules, such rules do not apply to trade associations which must identify contributions only once a year, long after their influence has been felt. The disclosure rules do apply to trade unions, however, so the trade associations enjoy a level of opacity available to few U. S. citizens or organizations. So much for free and fair elections. If you have the stomach for another article, try this one. It documents how the American Petroleum Institute scuttled any hope of passing climate legislation, even as the world endured unprecedented weather events. The API, only one of many trade groups flexing its muscle across the country, represents not only U. S. corporations but also outside interests like Saudi Arabia, whose Saudi Refining Inc. chief executive sat on the Board of the API as it was funneling money into Washington in 2010. In fact, 2010 was the first year in which spending by outside interests overshadowed spending by all political parties combined. The sources of the trade-group spending did not become apparent until well after the 2010 elections and legislative actions, just as we will not see who contributed to this year's elections and legislation until 2013. Another article in The Nation estimates that, since the Citizens United ruling, these 'trade associations' have increased their spending ten-fold and will reach nearly $800 million this year. And, as you say, these are the early days of the shift to a corporate plutocracy. What Bill Moyers characterizes as 'seeing it in spades' is not inconsistent, in my opinion, with the likelihood that we will be seeing it in steam-shovelfuls if we don't find a way to intercede.

OK, one of my faves from the '90's, Barry Watson. And he doesn't look too shabby today either. . . .

Agree completely, and will add the Supreme Court to the rout necessary to begin bringing the federal government back into the hands of the people. Not "persons", which the Court has redefined to include corporations, but actual people - the 'government by, for, and of' kind of people who used to be the ones who got to decide elections. If you can spare a half-hour or so, watch the recent Bill Moyers segment on 'The 1% Court' and/or read the article of the same name in The Nation. If Moyers' opening lines don't concern us, the war may already be lost: When five conservative members of the Supreme Court handed corporations and the super-rich the right to overwhelm our elections with tsunamis of cash, they moved America further from representative government toward outright plutocracy, where political power derived from wealth is devoted to protecting wealth. We saw it first in the mid-term elections of 2010, and we’re seeing it in spades in this year’s elections – organized money, much of it dark money, given secretly So it can’t be traced, enveloping the campaign for president, Congressional campaigns, and state legislative and judicial races. There’s never been anything like it in our history – not on this scale, and not this sinister.

Except that eating meals and going to the gentleman's room don't usually lead to the inept and ill-advised prosecution of wars and loss of life. We already know the results of letting the wrong folks get in the position to make war and, if we allow it to happen again and again, we will have only ourselves to blame.

If you think Paul Ryan's recent sabre-rattling over Iran echoes that of Cheney over Iraq, you are to be commended for your acumen. It turns out that none other than Dan Senor, the neo-conservative who advised members of the Bush II administration has been harnessed up again to guide the Republican Vice-Presidential hopeful. Senor was the advisor to Paul Bremer who was effectively the post-invasion governor of Iraq and decided it would be a good idea not only to "de-Baathify" the Iraqi government but, in one of the most boneheaded decisions of the war, to peremptorily release the million-man Iraqi army without notice and to send them into the countryside without jobs and looking for something to do. According to a recent article by Maureen Dowd, Senor is emblematic of how much trouble America blundered into in the Middle East — trillions wasted, so many lives and limbs lost — because of how little we fathom the culture and sectarian politics. We’re still stumbling in the dark. We not only don’t know who our allies and enemies are, we don’t know who our allies’ and enemies’ allies and enemies are. As the spokesman for Paul Bremer during the Iraq occupation, Senor helped perpetrate one of the biggest foreign policy bungles in American history. The clueless desert viceroys summarily disbanded the Iraqi Army, forced de-Baathification, stood frozen in denial as thugs looted ministries and museums, deluded themselves about the growing insurgency, and misled reporters with their Panglossian scenarios of progress. And this is the guy the Republicans have chosen to build up their foreign policy chops. Let's hope their economic advisors aren't also the ones who convinced Bush that a trillion-dollar war wouldn't require any new taxes and wouldn't increase the deficit.

Check out this site for one set of definitions, although I expect there are no clear bright lines. They say that both sensual and erotic massages can have happy endings, but it looks like the difference lies in the ratio of massage to full-on sex. Again, I doubt that every practitioner will define it the same way, so more than one word may be needed to get exactly what you are looking for. (I find that Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, Please often does the trick. )

There ain't no answer. There ain't gonna be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's the answer. Personally, I don't agree with the above sentiment, anyway not enough to stop at least looking for the answer. I may not find it, but I sure intend to keep looking for it. But the quote itself is delightful. As are all of her others, if you ask me. The one that really resonates for me right now is: It is funny that men who are supposed to be scientific cannot get themselves to realise the basic principle of physics, that action and reaction are equal and opposite, that when you persecute people you always rouse them to be strong and stronger. Thanks for showing us the Stein way AdamSmith!

A most intriguing question !

Some of my best work has been done for the squeeze box.

I know where I'm using one of mine!

As much as I like Apple, I admire JKane's steadfast volleys at the company's vitals and feel honor-bound to put yet another arrow in his quiver. It turns out that, not only is there a new adapter required for the iPhone 5, but it is also losing its video-out capability and, at least for now, its ability to directly connect to a larger display. You'll need to buy the Apple TV to do that. So, yes, Apple does indeed know how to squeeze the last drop from the teats of its loyal customers though, to its credit, it generally leaves them smiling.

I don't have the answer to that question, but I am starting to come to the conclusion that we have been framing it the wrong way. Most everything I hear or read puts the blame on entire countries, rather than on specific individuals. Labeling an entire country as a 'rogue nation' or a 'hotbed of terrorism' may, in fact, only serve to perpetuate violence in the world. The reality, I believe, is that violence is perpetrated and supported by individuals who are almost invariably a small minority and who can be found in almost every country and in most of the world's major religions. Unfortunately, members of this violent minority often make their way into positions of leadership within political or religious factions, and those factions sometimes get their hands on the levers of government. I'd love to see a worldwide movement in which people of good will, who I believe form the vast majority of every country and every religion on earth, stand up and denounce those who would send them to war and cause them to kill off other people of good will. I don't know how such a movement could be formed and how it could gain the worldwide traction it deserves, but I do know that I'll be thinking about it daily until some ideas start to crop up.

Not everyone. Much more than half of my voting decision is based on the compassion shown by the candidate. I find more on the Democratic side of the ticket, so that's where I tend to vote. For me, vague promises to create jobs have never yet trumped the commitment to care for those who, in fact, are not able to get one.

Agree with all you say, except for the part about Obama 'backing down/cowering in the corner'. While you may not see a lot of fist pounding and chest thumping from this President, I think you will see a backbone that's sturdy enough to keep us moving steadily in the direction of less conflict with other nations and, eventually, less conflict at home. In my opinion, the day he starts rattling sabres tit-for-tat with the Republicans is the day they will have won the battle. And all of us will have lost the war.

Sheldon Adelson has to get something for his $100 million. If not a president, then at least a war with Iran. Just one of today's editorials in his newspaper, Israel Hayom, ends like this: Meanwhile, on the 11th anniversary of the World Trade Center bombings, Hillary Clinton remains steadfast in her administration’s efforts “to do everything we can to bring Iran to a good-faith negotiation,” and in its attempts to prevent Israel from taking Tehran’s words and deeds seriously. With such useful idiots in its corner, Iran can laugh its way straight to the bomb. Let us hope that American voters, particularly Jews, do not serve the same purpose for Obama. "All in" is pretty apt for an 'ally' that calls our Secretary of State a 'useful idiot'. Next ol' Bibi will be angling for a Cabinet position.

While part of me would like this event to fade from memory, I realize that to become desensitized to such acts anywhere in the world is a descent I hope never to make. In fact, I hope this day of mourning will serve over time to build our resolve to put such inhuman acts behind us once and for all, and wherever we find them. No one should be honored for wantonly killing others. I think we damage our souls when we do.

Maybe it was just the uniform?

Looks like the artificial flavor lab is working overtime at Nabisco. There was an interesting segment on 60 Minutes last week about flavor chemists. One of the best in the business said the goal is to develop a flavor that leaves the consumer wanting more. When asked if he meant an addictive flavor, he agreed wholeheartedly. When asked if such addictive flavors might lead to overeating, he said he didn't think so.

I'll educate you, my pretty!

Every once in a while, say every century or so, I don't think it would hurt organized religions to sit down and take a good look at the things they think God has told them to do and figure out if the current list is still a pretty good reflection of how God wants them to live their lives. I wonder if circumcision would still make the cut, you should pardon the expression. There might even be one or two other things that could drop off the list. . . . On the other hand, they could also take a fresh look at some of the old standbys written with the finger of God, like "Thou Shalt Not Kill" which seems to have lost a lot of its luster in the last few millenia and might be due for a comeback. Maybe it's just me, but a guy who thumps his chest about the right to get his kid clipped and then goes upstairs and shtupps the nanny, or lobs a bomb at a school bus in the name of God, seems to have a screw loose somewhere.

Thanks all for the thoughtful responses. The New York Times poll is actually the FiveThirtyEight poll I mentioned above. They joined forces last year, one more reason I give some credence to it. From Nate Silver's NYT blog today: On Friday, we began to see reasonably clear signs that President Obama would receive some kind of bounce in the polls from the Democratic convention. Mr. Obama had another strong day in the polls on Saturday, making further gains in each of four national tracking polls. The question now is not whether Mr. Obama will get a bounce in the polls, but how substantial it will be. Some of the data, in fact, suggests that the conventions may have changed the composition of the race, making Mr. Obama a reasonably clear favorite as we enter the stretch run of the campaign. . . . In fact, Mr. Romney has never held a lead over Mr. Obama by any substantive margin in the polls. The Real Clear Politics average of polls put Mr. Romney ahead by a fraction of a percentage point at one point in October 2011, and he pulled into an exact tie at one point late in the week of his convention, after it was over, but he has never done better than that. That makes this an extremely odd election. You would figure that at some point over the past year, Mr. Romney would have pulled into the lead in the polls, given how close it has usually been. John McCain held occasional leads in 2008; John Kerry led for much of the summer in 2004; and Michael Dukakis had moments where he was well ahead of George H.W. Bush in the spring and summer of 1988. But Mr. Romney, if there have been moments when his polls were ever-so-slightly stronger or weaker, has never really had his moment in the sun. . . . Certainly, Mr. Romney will win his fair share of independent voters because of the economy — and if there are substantive signs of economic decline in October and November, probably enough to win him the election. But unless there is some change of course, it looks increasingly as though he lacks the appeal to the voting blocks that might allow him to win 51 percent of the vote rather than 49 percent. . . . I will acknowledge that there is the risk of jumping the gun with this analysis. Our forecast model began to see Mr. Romney’s subpar convention bounce as a bearish indicator for him early during his convention week. Now that Mr. Obama appears to be making gains when Mr. Romney did not, it has become more entrenched in seeing Mr. Obama as the favorite — enough so that it now gives him almost a 4-in-5 chance of victory. Taking the temperature of voters around the party conventions is tricky: it is a period when a lot of undecided voters start to tune in for the first time, but it is also associated with volatile polling. Every election is different, and no statistical method to analyze them is beyond reproach. But in the immediate term, it seems like the upside case for Mr. Romney is that Mr. Obama’s polls cool off quickly — and soon revert to where they were before the conventions, with Mr. Obama about two points ahead in the polling average. That’s certainly a very winnable election for Mr. Romney, but nevertheless one where he is the modest underdog. And Mr. Romney’s downside case is that Mr. Obama’s polling bounce will be a little stickier, and that Mr. Obama will already be fairly close to having achieved 50 percent of the vote with precious few undecided voters left in the race. That would make Mr. Romney a clear underdog — perhaps even one who needs some foreign policy or economic crisis to intervene to give him much of a chance at winning. One of the commenters remarked on just such a possible foreign policy crisis, mentioning Canada's closing of its Iranian embassy on Friday and the opening of a window of opportunity for Israel to attack Iran before our November election. I can't yet sink to that level of cynicism, although scoring my daily fix of optimism is not the cakewalk it once was.

"Side effects are the next big hurdle," she said. Well, duh! PS: Anyone else think AdamSmith will check in, perhaps with a black widow story, before day's end?