Friday, February 12, 2010
Tying Abortion to Corporate Personhood
Conservative Cal Thomas says of the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v Federal Election Commission: "What makes the ruling and the march ironic is that the 1973 court...downgraded a human fetus to the level of nonperson, while the modern court has invested "personhood" in corporations. Does anyone else see a contradiction or at least a moral inconsistency in these two rulings?"
Thomas is a rare conservative to admit a problem; most say it's the greatest blow for freedom since Plessy v Ferguson. Thomas is also correct to suggest the decision is judicial overreach every bit as awful as he holds Roe v Wade to be.
The very name Citizens United is Orwellian doublespeak. The ruling culminates a decades-long campaign by conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, corporate trade associations, and assorted right-wing think tanks. It is "grounded" in the 14th Amendment, which was specifically intended to establish the rights of former slaves.
And what of these corporate "persons?" For instance, when a person sells $40 billion of toxic waste that blows up the global economy, bets on who dies first, declares an emergency to accept government help, and amasses the world's largest fortune in the process, we generally hound them to the ends of the Earth and relieve them of their accounts. Yet this comic book supervillain has a name: Goldman-Sachs. The Supreme Court has announced this psychopathic "person" has the same rights accorded to me by the Constitution. Actually, it has more rights than we do: corporations quite literally get away with murder. Blackwater, too is now a "person."
This happy state of affairs comes courtesy of a movement Thomas has abetted his entire adult life. They said, 'be afraid of Big Brother!' while endowing little brothers with unelected and unaccountable power. To this end Thomas has said much of a "right to life;" but his movement has designed a world in which that right ends at birth, leaving us all on our own against the little brothers.
I find Cal Thomas to be a contradiction, or at least a moral inconsistency.
Adding: apologies for my lack of attention here lately. I've been busy.
Decision approaches in Uganda
The Ugandan Parliament now looks likely to pass the draconian anti-homosexuality law which has recently been widely discussed around the internet. According to Avaaz.org:
The bill proposes life imprisonment for anyone convicted of having same-sex relations and imposes the death penalty for “serial offenders”. NGOs working to prevent the spread of HIV could be imprisoned for up to 7 years for “promoting homosexuality”. Even members of the public face up to three years in jail if they fail to report homosexual activity to the police within 24 hours!
It is still possible that international condemnation could deter the Ugandan government from passing this. Avaaz's petition is here.
Thanks to DemWit for the information.
The bill proposes life imprisonment for anyone convicted of having same-sex relations and imposes the death penalty for “serial offenders”. NGOs working to prevent the spread of HIV could be imprisoned for up to 7 years for “promoting homosexuality”. Even members of the public face up to three years in jail if they fail to report homosexual activity to the police within 24 hours!
It is still possible that international condemnation could deter the Ugandan government from passing this. Avaaz's petition is here.
Thanks to DemWit for the information.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tea-Partying, the Myth of Intellectual Progress, Bipartisanship, and Sister Sarah
What’s depressing about the Tea-Folk is how ahistorical they seem – in spite of all the Revolutionary War paraphernalia and symbolism, a lot of what I hear coming from them could only be the result of nearly total ignorance of American history, economics, and just about everything else. They evidently believe that their multidirectional ranting substitutes for genuine reflection. I call it what it is: fashionable cynicism spiked with jump-up-and-down-at-the-tinfoil-rally enthusiasm.
A contradiction at the heart of modern conservatism (allowing for some exceptions) is that the right almost invariably opposes any assertion of authority on the government’s part if it’s meant to help anybody, but they almost invariably support all assertions of authority on the government’s part so long as that authority is directed against the people. Provided that the feds are wiretapping or torturing or clandestinely imprisoning, they should be able to do it without having to deal with annoying chatter about rights or freedoms, but let someone propose to improve access to health care for ordinary citizens, and that’s a socialist projectile aimed at the heart our liberties. This contradiction renders much of what comes from the American right as incoherent in its articulation as it is pernicious and cruel in its tendencies. Libertarians may be naïve about the virtues of untrammeled capitalism, but at least they’re ideologically consistent; one can’t say the same about the Tea-Baggers.
The growth of ’Baggery as a movement shouldn’t surprise us. There is little or no progress in the history of ideas. It’s a mistake to suppose that any idea has ever been permanently consigned to the ash-heap of history: there’s always a new crop of people whose heads are as empty as a dry teapot and easily filled to the brim with the same old nonsense – in this case, the Randian myth of the absolute individual, the blockheaded assertion that all government is inherently evil and unnecessary, or the myth of the pure free market. The same stale rhetoric based upon outmoded ideas unmediated by historical experience is easily recycled for a new generation, and it works on millions since it hits them with the force of a newly articulated idea. How many of these guvmint-bashers and pro-marketeers do you suppose have ever heard of Adam Smith, much less knew that he was a moral philosopher or read his 1776 masterpiece, The Wealth of Nations?
Nothing could be more revealing about the Tea-Types than speaker Sarah’s use at the Convention of a line I think all of us have come to associate with Trollerei: to paraphrase, “So how’s that hope and change thing workin’ out for ya?” Since originally posting a version of this piece as a comment, I’ve read that the actual line was much better – “hopey changey.” That this woman is considered competent to run for national office by even a sizeable minority testifies to the poverty of our civic life and educational system. I have seen nothing in her performances that indicates comprehension or maturity beyond the level of a particularly unpleasant middle-school student. I don’t like writing in such terms about a public figure, but her repeated insults directed at the president – a man a hundred times her better in any number of ways -- compels me to call her conduct what it is: juvenile.
Finally, the same disdain goes out to the Republican Rogues’ Gallery in Congress. I wish President Obama would stop claiming to know that certain right-wing Republicans “love America.” Getting misty-eyed when the National Anthem is sung at a ball game isn’t enough: love of country demands genuine regard for your country’s institutions and for its actual inhabitants. The faction I’m referencing have made it clear by their conduct that they care nothing for the old woman who needs health care urgently, or the child whose future may depend on a decent education, or the consumer who’s been fleeced, or the worker who can’t find anything to do. The worst crime, as far as they are concerned, is not the excessive taxation they so often decry or the over-regulation they deplore, it’s to spend any of the vast wealth collected from millions of ordinary citizens on those same citizens or to try to keep corrupt monopolists from defrauding them.
The nation’s wounds, under such people’s tenure, would be declared the result of a pre-existing condition and denied Mr. Lincoln’s “binding up,” and the soldier’s “widow and his orphan” might as well pack their bags for the nether regions at once, for all the consideration they’re likely to get from such unconscionable, filibustering louts. I ask the president kindly to stop pretending that this gaggle of obstructionist buzzards are on our side or that they are even amenable to democratic process. Much more appropriate would be an FDR-style welcoming of their hatred and a determination to proceed on the mandate bestowed in 2008.
PS – this is an augmented version of a comment I made on Capt. Fogg’s recent post.
A contradiction at the heart of modern conservatism (allowing for some exceptions) is that the right almost invariably opposes any assertion of authority on the government’s part if it’s meant to help anybody, but they almost invariably support all assertions of authority on the government’s part so long as that authority is directed against the people. Provided that the feds are wiretapping or torturing or clandestinely imprisoning, they should be able to do it without having to deal with annoying chatter about rights or freedoms, but let someone propose to improve access to health care for ordinary citizens, and that’s a socialist projectile aimed at the heart our liberties. This contradiction renders much of what comes from the American right as incoherent in its articulation as it is pernicious and cruel in its tendencies. Libertarians may be naïve about the virtues of untrammeled capitalism, but at least they’re ideologically consistent; one can’t say the same about the Tea-Baggers.
The growth of ’Baggery as a movement shouldn’t surprise us. There is little or no progress in the history of ideas. It’s a mistake to suppose that any idea has ever been permanently consigned to the ash-heap of history: there’s always a new crop of people whose heads are as empty as a dry teapot and easily filled to the brim with the same old nonsense – in this case, the Randian myth of the absolute individual, the blockheaded assertion that all government is inherently evil and unnecessary, or the myth of the pure free market. The same stale rhetoric based upon outmoded ideas unmediated by historical experience is easily recycled for a new generation, and it works on millions since it hits them with the force of a newly articulated idea. How many of these guvmint-bashers and pro-marketeers do you suppose have ever heard of Adam Smith, much less knew that he was a moral philosopher or read his 1776 masterpiece, The Wealth of Nations?
Nothing could be more revealing about the Tea-Types than speaker Sarah’s use at the Convention of a line I think all of us have come to associate with Trollerei: to paraphrase, “So how’s that hope and change thing workin’ out for ya?” Since originally posting a version of this piece as a comment, I’ve read that the actual line was much better – “hopey changey.” That this woman is considered competent to run for national office by even a sizeable minority testifies to the poverty of our civic life and educational system. I have seen nothing in her performances that indicates comprehension or maturity beyond the level of a particularly unpleasant middle-school student. I don’t like writing in such terms about a public figure, but her repeated insults directed at the president – a man a hundred times her better in any number of ways -- compels me to call her conduct what it is: juvenile.
Finally, the same disdain goes out to the Republican Rogues’ Gallery in Congress. I wish President Obama would stop claiming to know that certain right-wing Republicans “love America.” Getting misty-eyed when the National Anthem is sung at a ball game isn’t enough: love of country demands genuine regard for your country’s institutions and for its actual inhabitants. The faction I’m referencing have made it clear by their conduct that they care nothing for the old woman who needs health care urgently, or the child whose future may depend on a decent education, or the consumer who’s been fleeced, or the worker who can’t find anything to do. The worst crime, as far as they are concerned, is not the excessive taxation they so often decry or the over-regulation they deplore, it’s to spend any of the vast wealth collected from millions of ordinary citizens on those same citizens or to try to keep corrupt monopolists from defrauding them.
The nation’s wounds, under such people’s tenure, would be declared the result of a pre-existing condition and denied Mr. Lincoln’s “binding up,” and the soldier’s “widow and his orphan” might as well pack their bags for the nether regions at once, for all the consideration they’re likely to get from such unconscionable, filibustering louts. I ask the president kindly to stop pretending that this gaggle of obstructionist buzzards are on our side or that they are even amenable to democratic process. Much more appropriate would be an FDR-style welcoming of their hatred and a determination to proceed on the mandate bestowed in 2008.
PS – this is an augmented version of a comment I made on Capt. Fogg’s recent post.
Hopey Changey
Can you believe there's a website called teleprompterpresident.com? The local trailer parks echo with teleprompter jokes, there are more teleprompter jokes clogging up blog comments than there are clumps of fat in Rush Limbaugh's arteries and that chattering little chipmunk Palin just can't let go of that chewy chestnut. I wonder was Abe Lincoln only a charismatic guy with some scrap paper? Yes, he was to be sure, but not only and the Small Government Conservatives slandered and murdered him anyway.
But of course the mini-skirt Moose Mom doesn't know, and doesn't care that you might know that the first time the electric note cards were used was at the 1952 Republican Convention by former President Herbert Hoover. It was the first one ever televised of course and he did it again in 1956. Whether he was charismatic or not I will leave to you and to Sarah Snickers, but Eisenhower used one from 1952 and virtually every other president, candidate
and TV talking head pundit has used one too at various levels of charisma.
That's right, George W. Bush used a Teleprompter, there he is in the picture, although I'm told "that's different" by the snarksters and flim-flam bloggers and if you remember the TV Debates, Bush even wore some kind of device worn on his back. So it's hard to know what Governor Barbie had in mind, but it's clear she doesn't feel threatened by anyone who knows more than she does -- which is most of us -- because like most irresponsible pseudo-conservative snarko-terrorists, she's always surrounded by the like-mindless who think she's a genius.
Maybe if George had used one more often or had been able to read along with the moving words, he wouldn't have given us such delights as "the childrens is learning" but we'd be so much poorer without such things as part of our culture, or whatever remains of one.
So, yes The president is a charismatic man, which of course is required for political success in the age of Television, but that's a bit like saying he's a man who wears shoes. Compared to the most educated of recent Republican candidates he's a bit more than Charismatic and of course note cards or not , when he speaks he says something -- and in respectable English as well.
But when one really can't be described as anything more than political junk food, and that's the kindest thing I can say about Sarah Palin the human Twinkie; when you're a tasteless confection of sugar, oil and starch with no ability to do anyone any good, the best you can do is just what she does. Well never mind about the hope and change -- you're hopeless and intransigent. You abandoned Alaska leaving them with record debt and some incoherent story, but it was all about a better offer, wasn't it? So isn't that all you are -- a mendacious mediocrity and charismatic candidate for What Not To Wear -- with notes scribbled on your palm?
So hows that wiggly giggly thing working out for ya, Sarah?
But of course the mini-skirt Moose Mom doesn't know, and doesn't care that you might know that the first time the electric note cards were used was at the 1952 Republican Convention by former President Herbert Hoover. It was the first one ever televised of course and he did it again in 1956. Whether he was charismatic or not I will leave to you and to Sarah Snickers, but Eisenhower used one from 1952 and virtually every other president, candidate
and TV talking head pundit has used one too at various levels of charisma.That's right, George W. Bush used a Teleprompter, there he is in the picture, although I'm told "that's different" by the snarksters and flim-flam bloggers and if you remember the TV Debates, Bush even wore some kind of device worn on his back. So it's hard to know what Governor Barbie had in mind, but it's clear she doesn't feel threatened by anyone who knows more than she does -- which is most of us -- because like most irresponsible pseudo-conservative snarko-terrorists, she's always surrounded by the like-mindless who think she's a genius.
Maybe if George had used one more often or had been able to read along with the moving words, he wouldn't have given us such delights as "the childrens is learning" but we'd be so much poorer without such things as part of our culture, or whatever remains of one.
So, yes The president is a charismatic man, which of course is required for political success in the age of Television, but that's a bit like saying he's a man who wears shoes. Compared to the most educated of recent Republican candidates he's a bit more than Charismatic and of course note cards or not , when he speaks he says something -- and in respectable English as well.
But when one really can't be described as anything more than political junk food, and that's the kindest thing I can say about Sarah Palin the human Twinkie; when you're a tasteless confection of sugar, oil and starch with no ability to do anyone any good, the best you can do is just what she does. Well never mind about the hope and change -- you're hopeless and intransigent. You abandoned Alaska leaving them with record debt and some incoherent story, but it was all about a better offer, wasn't it? So isn't that all you are -- a mendacious mediocrity and charismatic candidate for What Not To Wear -- with notes scribbled on your palm?
So hows that wiggly giggly thing working out for ya, Sarah?
CHAMPIONING THE CAUSE OF NETIQUETTE IN THE FACE OF RIGHTWING HACK ATTACKS
Sorry folks. This has been a trying time. It is very difficult trying to argue the cause of Internet civility while running into a wall of relentless rightwing attacks. Here is a link to an open conversation currently in progress at Pamela’s weblog … and here is my response to those who despoil the effort (this post is self-explanatory):
(Had to get this off my chest ink the aquarium)
(Comment addressed to certain of Pam's readers)
My oldest daughter serves in the U.S. Army. She is a Major (and soon to be Lt. Colonel) assigned to the Pentagon. She served in the first Gulf War (@ KKMC), in Korea, 22 months in Kuwait, and THREE deployments in Iraq. She was awarded two Bronze Stars and 7 distinguished service citations for her effort.
During her second deployment in Iraq, her convoy was hit by a roadside IED device and attacked by insurgents. Yes, she drew her weapon and returned fire. Yes, she saw colleagues blown to bits, body parts flying everywhere, and she had PTSD for several months after her return.
DON’T TELL ME YOU HAVE A MONOPOLY ON SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY OR A PERSONAL CLAIM OF SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS.
The families of solders serving overseas make many sacrifices. Duty has kept my daughter away from every major holiday and every family milestone, including births and funerals, for the past eight (8) years. Always the missing person at the holiday dinner table, families make plenty of damn sacrifices too.
SO DON’T TELL ME YOU HAVE A MONOPOLY ON SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY OR A PERSONAL CLAIM OF SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS.
If my daughter chooses a political career after military service, will rightwing political assassins such as yourselves debunk her accomplishments and demean her character?
One would think a distinguished military career should be beyond reach of mudslinging. Did you speak out against the shameless swift boat ads that demeaned John Kerry’s character and military record?
Did you speak out when the last administration smeared former Senator Max Cleland, a war hero who lost both legs in Vietnam?
Did you speak out when Tammy Duckworth, who lost both legs in Iraq, was smeared during her run for Congress as a Democrat?
Did you speak out? Where the hell were you? In your view, are there two kinds veterans? Are Conservatives and Republicans honored for their military service, while Liberals and Democrats, including the wounded and the dead, get bashed and trashed?
What hypocrites you are!
In this post, Truth101 was trying to make the same point. Did you bother to read it? Did you bother to read this:
The man has three Purple Hearts. Yet these right wing hatemongers told us he didn't deserve them. One lady even wrote a letter to my local paper attacking him for chasing a Viet Cong through the jungle and shooting him. She said it was cowardly (…) My Dad was awarded the Purple Heart. My Mom served in the U.S. Navy in WWII. People that disrespect the valor of Purple Heart recipients don't deserve respectful discourse and a patient ear.
Obviously, you did not read what Truth101 had to say or else you might have refrained from calling him a CLASSLESS SCUMBAG!
Every time you enter Pamela’s comment thread, you turn it into your own personal soapbox. You don’t read. You don’t listen. You don’t respect others.
Your constant belligerent and bellicose rants offend me. You are juvenile, loud-mouthed hooligans with a constant anger-management problem. This post by Pamela was supposed to be about civility. You defiled it.
(Had to get this off my chest ink the aquarium)
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The Untold Story of Rising Populism on the Left
While we are bombarded with stories about Tea Partiers and the rise of Palinism (not surprising, in a way, as the most outrageously squeaky wheel gets the most media grease), here is something that we are not being informed about.
By Alan Grayson, via HuffPo
The story that everyone wants to tell is that the Democratic Party is disheartened and disintegrating. Teabagger Republicans are juiced up and on top. Or so the media says, over and over again.
But the House candidate who raised the most money in the entire country during the last FEC reporting period -- $860,000 in three months -- is not a teabagger. He is not boosted relentlessly by Fox News. He's not even a Republican. He doesn't think that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, that President Obama was born in Kenya, or that global warming is a hoax.
This House candidate also, remarkably, had the largest number of contributors. Over 15,000 individuals contributed, many of whom have given time after time, whatever they could. The House candidate who raised the most money did so without French-kissing lobbyists, without flattering the idle rich, and without reaching into his own pocket.
The House candidate who raised the most money, from the most people, is an outspoken populist who tells it like it is on the war, on jobs, and on health care. His website is called CongressmanWithGuts.com. In the 100,000 e-mails that he has received this year, the most common refrain is, "You are saying what I've been thinking."
I know who he is. Because he's me.
But no one has reported that the House candidate who raised the most money, from the most people, is a proud Democratic populist. No one.
Continue.
Cross-posted at The Middle of Nowhere.
By Alan Grayson, via HuffPo
The story that everyone wants to tell is that the Democratic Party is disheartened and disintegrating. Teabagger Republicans are juiced up and on top. Or so the media says, over and over again.
But the House candidate who raised the most money in the entire country during the last FEC reporting period -- $860,000 in three months -- is not a teabagger. He is not boosted relentlessly by Fox News. He's not even a Republican. He doesn't think that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, that President Obama was born in Kenya, or that global warming is a hoax.
This House candidate also, remarkably, had the largest number of contributors. Over 15,000 individuals contributed, many of whom have given time after time, whatever they could. The House candidate who raised the most money did so without French-kissing lobbyists, without flattering the idle rich, and without reaching into his own pocket.
The House candidate who raised the most money, from the most people, is an outspoken populist who tells it like it is on the war, on jobs, and on health care. His website is called CongressmanWithGuts.com. In the 100,000 e-mails that he has received this year, the most common refrain is, "You are saying what I've been thinking."
I know who he is. Because he's me.
But no one has reported that the House candidate who raised the most money, from the most people, is a proud Democratic populist. No one.
Continue.
Cross-posted at The Middle of Nowhere.
Sarah Palin is a lying sack of shit
Why pull any punches? Ms. Hopey - Changey may have the IQ of a Barbie doll, but is just bright enough to know, if she bothered to think at all, that she's lying like the devil about her portrayal of the year old Obama presidency and the letter and spirit of constitutional law.
Why fool around, why worry about any one's "sensitivities?" She's a damned malicious liar and it's made no more palatable by her giggling, faux-adolescent presentation. Addressing the Tea Party Rebellion Saturday, she insisted that the administration has unconstitutionally given the right to a fair trial to a "terrorist" because apparently the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to any one of a group Sarah selects. The supreme court disagrees with Palin however, and with the Bush administration and I'll bet some of them have actually read the damned thing.
In 2008, the court ruled that you can't arbitrarily deprive anyone of a trial, dispense with the presumption of innocence and remove Habeas Corpus by crying War over and over and of course Sarah, in denial of the truth accused the president of "politicizing" the Christmas attempt by not crying war nearly enough -- which by the logic of stupidity means not politicizing an act is politicizing it. Don't worry, if that doesn't make sense you're probably not stupid.
Prattling on in full lying sack of shit mode, that "Paliney" thing on the podium continued to prevaricate by criticizing the treatment of Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who according to her wasn't properly questioned because he "lawyered up" and wasn't cooperating. The facts are quite dramatically otherwise of course. Umar has been gushing facts and giving up names like an open faucet and without any unlawful means of interrogation, but worse than being a damned liar, Sarah Palin is actively engaged in undermining the foundations of American justice by promoting the idea that justice can be waived by using the magic word "war" and that a fair trial gets in the way of justice.
How, in the name of God is there anyone left anywhere who doesn't see the horns and cloven hooves and smell the sulphur? What's to prevent someone from characterizing her assault on truth, justice and due process, her campaign against the government and against the Constitution as a war? What's to prevent her or us from torture, rendition, secret and indefinite imprisonment if some ambitious president declares he an enemy combatant?
Even Fox is showing signs that they're becoming frightened by the monster they've produced and should we be any less fearful of the beast?
Why fool around, why worry about any one's "sensitivities?" She's a damned malicious liar and it's made no more palatable by her giggling, faux-adolescent presentation. Addressing the Tea Party Rebellion Saturday, she insisted that the administration has unconstitutionally given the right to a fair trial to a "terrorist" because apparently the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to any one of a group Sarah selects. The supreme court disagrees with Palin however, and with the Bush administration and I'll bet some of them have actually read the damned thing.
In 2008, the court ruled that you can't arbitrarily deprive anyone of a trial, dispense with the presumption of innocence and remove Habeas Corpus by crying War over and over and of course Sarah, in denial of the truth accused the president of "politicizing" the Christmas attempt by not crying war nearly enough -- which by the logic of stupidity means not politicizing an act is politicizing it. Don't worry, if that doesn't make sense you're probably not stupid.
Prattling on in full lying sack of shit mode, that "Paliney" thing on the podium continued to prevaricate by criticizing the treatment of Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who according to her wasn't properly questioned because he "lawyered up" and wasn't cooperating. The facts are quite dramatically otherwise of course. Umar has been gushing facts and giving up names like an open faucet and without any unlawful means of interrogation, but worse than being a damned liar, Sarah Palin is actively engaged in undermining the foundations of American justice by promoting the idea that justice can be waived by using the magic word "war" and that a fair trial gets in the way of justice.
How, in the name of God is there anyone left anywhere who doesn't see the horns and cloven hooves and smell the sulphur? What's to prevent someone from characterizing her assault on truth, justice and due process, her campaign against the government and against the Constitution as a war? What's to prevent her or us from torture, rendition, secret and indefinite imprisonment if some ambitious president declares he an enemy combatant?
Even Fox is showing signs that they're becoming frightened by the monster they've produced and should we be any less fearful of the beast?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Gagging the Fox
A friend at the Field Museum in Chicago once attributed the phrase "rotten enough to gag a maggot" to a staff taxidermist presented with a reeking and putrefying elephant hide. I can't confirm or deny it, but it's a useful concept and it came to mind when Fox News Host Brian Kilmeade dared this morning to say that Sarah Palin had gone beyond the snark limit in dismissing President Obama as a "charismatic guy with a teleprompter." Of course saying that while reading from notes written on her palm and bellowing to a snarling crowd seemingly taken right out of some medieval painting of Jesus in torment might just be expected to make even a Foxman gag at her unrestrained roguery. Was his stomach already upset at her dishonest hypocrisy evident in damning Rahm Emanuel and Excusing Rush Limbaugh for using the word "retard" as a noun?
Kilmeade evoked the Fox of the previous administration in saying
Can it be that Palin has become an embarrassment to Fox as well as to the human race or is this just the view of one talking head whose gag reflex has been triggered? It will be interesting to watch this develop.
Kilmeade evoked the Fox of the previous administration in saying
"The only thing I was uncomfortable with [was] when she said it is bigger than any guy with charisma and a teleprompter. That guy is still president. I think you got to -- you got to -- you're no longer the candidate. He's not the guy you're running against. I think you got to give that title its due even if you don't respect the policies."Indeed, although the Fox of today isn't noted for recognizing the similarity or often the identity of Bush Vs. Obama policies, the Fox of the previous administration was fond of criticizing Bush's critics for questioning his wars, questioning his unconstitutional acts and policies, or the state of the economy or anything else for that matter. Remember when the FOX theme of the day was that the economy was robust and "Liberals" were only pretending otherwise? Well we won't get an apology for that one, but it seems at least one Foxer remembers the idea of respecting the President at some basic level, remembers their taunts that disrespecting the president was "hating America."
Can it be that Palin has become an embarrassment to Fox as well as to the human race or is this just the view of one talking head whose gag reflex has been triggered? It will be interesting to watch this develop.
HELA CELLS WHO?
Since February is Black History Month, I wanted to call attention to some of the lesser known figures in American history whose contributions have helped shape our nation or some aspect of our society.By happy accident I found out about a book being launched this month that addresses some issues concerning the medical and research fields as well as tells a surprising story. More on this in a moment.
First, though, we need to explore the background of HeLa cells and their purpose. HeLa cells are an “immortal” line of cells used in research. They are called immortal due to their ability to divide and grow indefinitely as long as they were kept in culture medium conductive to cell growth.
In 1951 when the original cells were obtained, cancer research was in its infancy and a researcher named Dr.George Gey was having trouble finding suitable cells to work with. All that changed when a doctor a John Hopkins Hospital provided him with a tissue biopsy from a malignant cervical tumor of a rare glandular type that the physician had never seen before.
These cells proved to be faster growing and more prolific than any cell line then or since. HeLa cells have been the mainstay of cancer research as well as providing detailed studies of how cells work. They were also crucial in developing vaccines and treatments for polio, Parkinson’s, HIV and a host of other diseases.
There is a reason they are called HeLa cells; it is in honor of the young black woman from Baltimore, wife and mother of five who unknowingly provided the tissue sample. Her name was Henrietta Lacks and she would die only a few months later at the age of 31 from the very tumor that has indirectly saved the lives of millions.Henrietta came from a little burg in Virginia called Clover that no longer exists. Neither she nor her family were aware of her valuable contribution until 20+ years after her death. For her family the notion that something of Henrietta lived on was a difficult concept and they struggled to understand the complexity of cell propagation and research.
Seems like there might be an ethical issue here, but today as back then, there is no requirement for medical personnel to get permission to use any discarded material from surgery, diagnosis or therapy. The material is deemed to belong to the physician and the medical facility.
Henrietta might have passed through history and disappeared entirely, remembered erroneously throughout the years as either Helen Lane or Helen Larsen; aliases used by the medical community to mask her true identity. But enter science journalist, Rebecca Skloot who became interested in the back story about HeLa cells. Skloot has written a book called “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” that tells the story not only of the amazing HeLa cells but also of Henrietta then and her family’s journey after her death.
Most of us probably owe her or have a loved one who owes Henrietta their life. And now, through this book,Henrietta herself will be as immortal as her cells.
Henrietta is a part of all of us; may her memory live forever.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Das Unbehagen in der Kultur
I've had enough of American TEA to be able to say with confidence that it has noting to do with any tax burden, real or imagined. What it seems to be is a collection of people searching for some rationalization for angers they don't full understand: anger about the demands of civilization, anger about the need for tolerance, being forced to live in a heterogeneous culture, a changing culture, a culture demanding more understanding and more education and more responsibility than they feel capable of. Not all of them are stupid or ignorant, but without the stupid and ignorant, they'd hardly make enough noise to be heard, even with the complicity and amplification provided by Fox News. They're much like the discontents Freud discussed, like the bomb bearing discontents abroad we tell ourselves hate us for "our freedoms."
Tom Tancredo has latched on to the Tea Party movement after being ousted from office by his constituents, in part because he needs to believe he wasn't rejected by his real constituents, but by an undesirable element who shouldn't be allowed to vote. That this disjointed movement contains many people who believe this is a Protestant white man's country and that others should feel grateful just to be allowed here and should not vote or be otherwise uppity is obvious. Hence when Tancredo told the Tea Party Thursday that President Obama was elected only because
Mr. Obama's educational and intellectual capabilities and achievements are an obvious irritation to the sort of people Tancredo hopes to ingratiate himself with and when Tancredo allows them to feel warmly supported in their belief that the Harvard Scholar is stupid (he's black after all) and his success due to the stupidity of voters, their inhibitions melt away. They can tell themselves that they've been right all along for opposing civil rights for anyone but true (WASP) Americans and that the success of the civil rights movement has meant disaster for America. Not of course, the disaster of insidious economic policy, corruption, contrived and unnecessary wars and upside down tax structure, but the disaster of having a black president.
Ironically, so far only the darkness of Mr. Obama's complexion and the ability to speak clearly make him stand out among the presidents of the last century, but it's progress -- the idea of progress itself that motivates the snarling in the street. The golden era of laissez faire, white man's paradise they long for exists only in that nebulous Disneyland of the Conservative mind, where we didn't have wild, whipsaw boom-bust cycles, 40% poverty levels, massive social injustice, violence and all the rest of the real world long since buried under snowdrifts of revisionist rhetoric. In that world, black men don't vote, black people can't be trusted to vote, because they're stupider than the crackers and red-necks and bigots and reactionaries who carry signs and dream about a world that is friendly to their sociopathology and acknowledges their privilege and entitlement.
Does it say anything important about Tancredo's argument that the election was swayed by a host of illiterates if in the real world, Obama was heavily favored by educated people? Does it say anything about the real agenda of the Tancredo conservatives if he isn't hooted off the stage for wanting to bring back a shameful era? Sure it does, and that's why one should be forced to flunk a civics and literacy examination if not an IQ test in order to join the party.
Tom Tancredo has latched on to the Tea Party movement after being ousted from office by his constituents, in part because he needs to believe he wasn't rejected by his real constituents, but by an undesirable element who shouldn't be allowed to vote. That this disjointed movement contains many people who believe this is a Protestant white man's country and that others should feel grateful just to be allowed here and should not vote or be otherwise uppity is obvious. Hence when Tancredo told the Tea Party Thursday that President Obama was elected only because
"we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country,"it fell on grateful ears.
Mr. Obama's educational and intellectual capabilities and achievements are an obvious irritation to the sort of people Tancredo hopes to ingratiate himself with and when Tancredo allows them to feel warmly supported in their belief that the Harvard Scholar is stupid (he's black after all) and his success due to the stupidity of voters, their inhibitions melt away. They can tell themselves that they've been right all along for opposing civil rights for anyone but true (WASP) Americans and that the success of the civil rights movement has meant disaster for America. Not of course, the disaster of insidious economic policy, corruption, contrived and unnecessary wars and upside down tax structure, but the disaster of having a black president.
Ironically, so far only the darkness of Mr. Obama's complexion and the ability to speak clearly make him stand out among the presidents of the last century, but it's progress -- the idea of progress itself that motivates the snarling in the street. The golden era of laissez faire, white man's paradise they long for exists only in that nebulous Disneyland of the Conservative mind, where we didn't have wild, whipsaw boom-bust cycles, 40% poverty levels, massive social injustice, violence and all the rest of the real world long since buried under snowdrifts of revisionist rhetoric. In that world, black men don't vote, black people can't be trusted to vote, because they're stupider than the crackers and red-necks and bigots and reactionaries who carry signs and dream about a world that is friendly to their sociopathology and acknowledges their privilege and entitlement.
Does it say anything important about Tancredo's argument that the election was swayed by a host of illiterates if in the real world, Obama was heavily favored by educated people? Does it say anything about the real agenda of the Tancredo conservatives if he isn't hooted off the stage for wanting to bring back a shameful era? Sure it does, and that's why one should be forced to flunk a civics and literacy examination if not an IQ test in order to join the party.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
A Larger View of Things
Time to put things in perspective. Literally.
Take a look at this nifty presentation, The Scale of the Universe, that takes us from the infinitesimal (the Planck length -- 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 m -- we are told that any length shorter than that makes "no physical sense" -- sure...)
Simon Hakansson's rendition of quantum foam somewhere on the level of the Planck length.
Take a look at this nifty presentation, The Scale of the Universe, that takes us from the infinitesimal (the Planck length -- 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 m -- we are told that any length shorter than that makes "no physical sense" -- sure...)
Simon Hakansson's rendition of quantum foam somewhere on the level of the Planck length.to the unimaginably vast (the estimated size of the Universe -- 93,000,000,000 light years -- yeah, wrap your mind around that!)
Photo of the Andromeda Galaxy by Martin Mika taken in our backyard.
and everything in-between:
The Vitruvian Man by Da Vinci, ca. 1487.
Enjoy and marvel.
Crossposted from The Middle of Nowhere.
PRODUCTIVITY UP, WAGES DOWN! BYE, BYE, MISS AMERICAN PIE …
Earlier this week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its fourth quarter report on Productivity and Costs. The result: Continuing productivity gains for the business sector and continuing wage erosion for American workers.
According to the BLS quarterly report, non-farm labor productivity increased at an annual rate of 6.2 percent during the fourth quarter 2009. This gain in productivity reflects increases of 7.2 percent in output and 1.0 percent in hours worked.
Unit labor costs fell 4.4 percent during the same period, the largest decline in unit labor costs since 2002. High unemployment has shrunk the US labor market and created a surge in productivity, as businesses squeeze more output from fewer workers. The implications are not good for an economic recovery any time soon. Rises in productivity hamper job creation as employers decide that they can run their companies with fewer workers.
These results are grim news for American workers who will work harder, longer hours while taking home less money. Of course, higher productivity means more profit in the pockets of corporate owners and their CEOs, who serve themselves larger and larger slices of the American pie while workers get less and less. As our country slides deeper and deeper into banana republic status, I wonder when our citizens will finally wake up.
According to the BLS quarterly report, non-farm labor productivity increased at an annual rate of 6.2 percent during the fourth quarter 2009. This gain in productivity reflects increases of 7.2 percent in output and 1.0 percent in hours worked.
Unit labor costs fell 4.4 percent during the same period, the largest decline in unit labor costs since 2002. High unemployment has shrunk the US labor market and created a surge in productivity, as businesses squeeze more output from fewer workers. The implications are not good for an economic recovery any time soon. Rises in productivity hamper job creation as employers decide that they can run their companies with fewer workers.
These results are grim news for American workers who will work harder, longer hours while taking home less money. Of course, higher productivity means more profit in the pockets of corporate owners and their CEOs, who serve themselves larger and larger slices of the American pie while workers get less and less. As our country slides deeper and deeper into banana republic status, I wonder when our citizens will finally wake up.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
THE GREENSBORO FOUR
It is now February and in honor of Black History Month I thought I’d post on a local event that had a huge impact on civil rights in North Carolina and eventually influenced the direction of the civil rights struggle nationwide. They would come to be known as The Greensboro Four.Most people are aware of the marches in the South involving Dr King and other well known civil rights leaders of the day, but few outside of North Carolina are aware of the courage and determination of a few local college students to bring equal rights and dignity to the black community.
On Feb 1, 1960, these four young men, Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, Ezell Blair Jr (now known as Jibreel Khazan) and David Richmond (now deceased), all students at North Carolina A&T aka Aggies, walked into a segregated Woolworths and sat down at the lunch counter and thereby sparked a movement that would spread across the nation as others quietly sat down in nonviolent protest against the inequality of “colored” and “white” public designations.They were scared but determined and eventually admired by many from both sides of the color line. Soon a local high school class joined them to help fill all the seats at the counter, every day. As one high school student recalled, their teacher made them bring their books with them as they were still responsible for doing their homework.
In late July, 1960 they finally won the right to be served as the manager relented and opened the counter to African-Americans. It would be great if I could now tell you “and then all the citizens of North Carolina realized how unfair and unconstitutional the laws and practices of the day were and so abolished them.”
But change comes slowly and on Nov 3, 1979 there came a clash on Greensboro streets between the KKK and a communist party rally that would end in five deaths. At the time, there were no convictions but many unanswered questions remained.
The struggle has been long and sometimes violent but this week on Feb 1, 2010, 50 years to the day that the Greensboro Four walked into that Woolworths, the International Civil Rights Center & Museum opened on that very site.
Fifteen years in the making, there were times when it looked like the project was dead, only to be revived once again. Many hands, hearts and wallets contributed to the reality of this museum. Because of the surprise snow storm that hit the area before the grand opening on Monday, city crews worked through the weekend to clear all snow from the street and sidewalks.On Monday, the three surviving students cut the ribbon and took their rightful place in American history.
Rogue Vogue
Was the huge vogue for Going Rogue helped along by having SarahPAC purchase thousands of copies of the best seller? Campaign contributors' money and funds from right-wing publications were used to produce and promote the book by giving out free copies while she got royalty checks.
"Irregardless" as a Sarah fan might say, it did help her legally transmute PAC money into a royalty check and since she walked off the job and isn't running for another position of public trust, the conversion apparently wasn't illegal. For those of us still interested in why she quit the Governorship, perhaps the ability to pocket all that PAC cash and avoid going to jail for it might help us to understand.
Perhaps some will remember that before she donned the robes of roguery, it wasn't a particularly nice way to describe anyone. Certainly not as nice or as honorable as Maverick, the title she was forced to relinquish after threats from the descendants of the eponymous cattleman, but who can doubt that the robes fit?
Meanwhile, back at that rogues' paradise called Facebook, Sarah has been channeling the wolves she used to strafe from various aircraft and attempting to sink her teeth into the Obama administration by going after Rahm Emanuel for using the word "retarded" in an internal strategy session -- as though it had been directed at Down's syndrome children and the Special Olympics and not at the stupidity of a co-worker. No, Sarah, retarded is not like the "N word" and although you'd love it to be, and although Mr. Emanuel has already been put in the position of having to apologize to the Special Olympics organization, you haven't said much about the "witches" you've praised your beloved pastor for persecuting. There are no Witches, only innocent people who don't share your religion -- there are people whose cognitive skills fall behind the norm no matter what euphemism you prefer. There are people who are stupid and there are people who are inexcusably and viciously retarding the progress of our country toward Liberty and Justice for all.
"Irregardless" as a Sarah fan might say, it did help her legally transmute PAC money into a royalty check and since she walked off the job and isn't running for another position of public trust, the conversion apparently wasn't illegal. For those of us still interested in why she quit the Governorship, perhaps the ability to pocket all that PAC cash and avoid going to jail for it might help us to understand.
Perhaps some will remember that before she donned the robes of roguery, it wasn't a particularly nice way to describe anyone. Certainly not as nice or as honorable as Maverick, the title she was forced to relinquish after threats from the descendants of the eponymous cattleman, but who can doubt that the robes fit?
Meanwhile, back at that rogues' paradise called Facebook, Sarah has been channeling the wolves she used to strafe from various aircraft and attempting to sink her teeth into the Obama administration by going after Rahm Emanuel for using the word "retarded" in an internal strategy session -- as though it had been directed at Down's syndrome children and the Special Olympics and not at the stupidity of a co-worker. No, Sarah, retarded is not like the "N word" and although you'd love it to be, and although Mr. Emanuel has already been put in the position of having to apologize to the Special Olympics organization, you haven't said much about the "witches" you've praised your beloved pastor for persecuting. There are no Witches, only innocent people who don't share your religion -- there are people whose cognitive skills fall behind the norm no matter what euphemism you prefer. There are people who are stupid and there are people who are inexcusably and viciously retarding the progress of our country toward Liberty and Justice for all.
Same old, same old
Seems "the most liberal Senator in all of American History" is even more of a hide bound conservative than I imagined, if it's true that he intends to beef up the misbegotten War on Drugs rather than admit that the 73 year old enterprise has succeeded on doing to drug use, to organized crime and public safety what the Volstead act did when it made private alcohol sales and consumption a crime.
President Barack Obama's new drug czar, former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske told us just 8 months ago that the idiocy was over, that "We're not at war with people in this country" but action speaks louder than words.
The new budget for fiscal 2011's war on drugs is increased and the emphasis is still on "enforcement" which means more spitting on constitutional rights, more interference with private matters, more clogging up of courts, more disrupted families, more crime, more prisons training more harmless people to be criminals and more ruining the lives of innocent people. In fact it's more of George W. Bush and it's more of what has only made things worse and worse. Even so, that 15.5 billion dollar budget vastly understates the cost to the nation as much as that of our former administration because it ignores the huge cost of incarceration and due process.
From "the war on drugs is over" to
President Barack Obama's new drug czar, former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske told us just 8 months ago that the idiocy was over, that "We're not at war with people in this country" but action speaks louder than words.
The new budget for fiscal 2011's war on drugs is increased and the emphasis is still on "enforcement" which means more spitting on constitutional rights, more interference with private matters, more clogging up of courts, more disrupted families, more crime, more prisons training more harmless people to be criminals and more ruining the lives of innocent people. In fact it's more of George W. Bush and it's more of what has only made things worse and worse. Even so, that 15.5 billion dollar budget vastly understates the cost to the nation as much as that of our former administration because it ignores the huge cost of incarceration and due process.
From "the war on drugs is over" to
"In a time of tight budgets and fiscal restraint, these new investments are targeted at reducing Americans' drug use and the substantial costs associated with the health and social consequences of drug abuse"took us only 8 months and a return to doing what always fails; a return to pseudomoralistic prohibitions, fraudulent medical data and a continuation of being the biggest jailer in the world makes liars out of the idiots shouting "Liberal" as much as it makes liars of our administration.
ACADEMIC POPULARITY CONTESTS: PART TWO
The Tilburg University Survey of Top Schools in Economics has one noteworthy entry (or aberration depending on viewpoint): The University of Chicago, home of Milton Friedman and the Disaster School of Supply-Side Economics … ranked #2 worldwide:
The University of Chicago is the birthplace of tax cuts for the wealthy, an economy theory that results in boom and bust cycles, and the stuff that makes Banana Republics possible. To illustrate my point, this graph shows the relationship between marginal income tax rates and the income gap between rich and poor for the past 90 years (source):
As the graph illustrates, the greater the gap between rich and poor, the more unstable economies will become. In 1928, the year before Black Monday triggered the Great Depression, the top 0.01 percent (the elite) averaged 892 times more income than the bottom 90 percent. From the post-war period until the Reagan era, higher marginal income tax rates for the rich meant more money in the pockets of the middle class … resulting in real economic growth. By 2006, however, middle class wages had shrunk, inflationary rises in cost of living had consumed all marginal income, and middle class savings rates turned negative. The top 0.01 percent averaged 976 times more income than the bottom 90 percent, thus reenacting the same conditions that triggered the Great Depression. Here is another view of the same data (source):
Arthur Laffer is a "supply-side" economist who served on Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board from 1981 to 1989. Laffer is best known for the Laffer Curve, an illustration of tax elasticity, which claims that a decrease in tax rates will result in an increase in tax revenues. What began as a thought experiment on a paper napkin over lunch has turned into a mantra and marching orders for Banana Republicans ever since.
According to theory, tax revenues would be zero if tax rates were either 0% or 100%. If the tax rate is zero, there is no tax revenue because there are no taxes. If the tax rate is 100%, there are no taxes because citizens would not want to work. Assuming everything is taken from them, citizens would resort to barter or an off-the-books economy. As taxes increase from zero percent, revenues will rise but once taxes get too high, revenues will fall because there is a disincentive to work.
One problem with Laffer’s thought experiment is that the equilibrium point (the lowest possible tax that yields the highest possible revenue) can never be clearly established. There are always concerns about the costs of wars, federal budget deficits, and the servicing of public debt. Since the equilibrium point varies with public opinion, what matters more is the range of marginal taxation, not a fixed point to be taken literally.
In fact, historical data contradicts Laffer’s thought experiment. In the 8 years following Reagan’s tax cuts, personal income tax revenues rose from $353 million in 1982 to $516 million by 1989, an increase of 46%. During the same time interval, the federal deficit more than doubled.
In contrast, Clinton’s tax increases resulted in a personal income tax revenue increase from $586 million in 1993 to $1.137 billion by 2000, an increase of 94%. The Reagan era produced gigantic budget deficits. In contrast, the Clinton years yielded a federal budget surplus during a period of unprecedented economic growth (source).
Bottom line: The middle class is the economic engine that drives the economy. Marginal income tax policies that favor the wealthy and punish the middle class set the stage for disastrous consequences, as we have recently experienced. Thus, the Republican mantra of lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes, do not always achieve a desired economic outcome. As we enter into yet another public debate on tax policy and federal deficits, it is useful to keep past economic policy failures in mind.
For another perspective, please refer to my post of February 10, 2009: A Ghost of Depression Past.
H/T to Brad Delong for posting the Tilburg Ranking.
Click on image to enlarge.
The University of Chicago is the birthplace of tax cuts for the wealthy, an economy theory that results in boom and bust cycles, and the stuff that makes Banana Republics possible. To illustrate my point, this graph shows the relationship between marginal income tax rates and the income gap between rich and poor for the past 90 years (source):
Click on image to enlarge.
As the graph illustrates, the greater the gap between rich and poor, the more unstable economies will become. In 1928, the year before Black Monday triggered the Great Depression, the top 0.01 percent (the elite) averaged 892 times more income than the bottom 90 percent. From the post-war period until the Reagan era, higher marginal income tax rates for the rich meant more money in the pockets of the middle class … resulting in real economic growth. By 2006, however, middle class wages had shrunk, inflationary rises in cost of living had consumed all marginal income, and middle class savings rates turned negative. The top 0.01 percent averaged 976 times more income than the bottom 90 percent, thus reenacting the same conditions that triggered the Great Depression. Here is another view of the same data (source):
Click on image to enlarge.
Arthur Laffer is a "supply-side" economist who served on Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board from 1981 to 1989. Laffer is best known for the Laffer Curve, an illustration of tax elasticity, which claims that a decrease in tax rates will result in an increase in tax revenues. What began as a thought experiment on a paper napkin over lunch has turned into a mantra and marching orders for Banana Republicans ever since.
Click on image to enlarge.
According to theory, tax revenues would be zero if tax rates were either 0% or 100%. If the tax rate is zero, there is no tax revenue because there are no taxes. If the tax rate is 100%, there are no taxes because citizens would not want to work. Assuming everything is taken from them, citizens would resort to barter or an off-the-books economy. As taxes increase from zero percent, revenues will rise but once taxes get too high, revenues will fall because there is a disincentive to work.
One problem with Laffer’s thought experiment is that the equilibrium point (the lowest possible tax that yields the highest possible revenue) can never be clearly established. There are always concerns about the costs of wars, federal budget deficits, and the servicing of public debt. Since the equilibrium point varies with public opinion, what matters more is the range of marginal taxation, not a fixed point to be taken literally.
In fact, historical data contradicts Laffer’s thought experiment. In the 8 years following Reagan’s tax cuts, personal income tax revenues rose from $353 million in 1982 to $516 million by 1989, an increase of 46%. During the same time interval, the federal deficit more than doubled.
In contrast, Clinton’s tax increases resulted in a personal income tax revenue increase from $586 million in 1993 to $1.137 billion by 2000, an increase of 94%. The Reagan era produced gigantic budget deficits. In contrast, the Clinton years yielded a federal budget surplus during a period of unprecedented economic growth (source).
Bottom line: The middle class is the economic engine that drives the economy. Marginal income tax policies that favor the wealthy and punish the middle class set the stage for disastrous consequences, as we have recently experienced. Thus, the Republican mantra of lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes, do not always achieve a desired economic outcome. As we enter into yet another public debate on tax policy and federal deficits, it is useful to keep past economic policy failures in mind.
For another perspective, please refer to my post of February 10, 2009: A Ghost of Depression Past.
H/T to Brad Delong for posting the Tilburg Ranking.
Monday, February 1, 2010
ACADEMIC POPULARITY CONTESTS: PART ONE
Two academic rankings are in the news this week, one from Shanghai University, Ranking of Top Schools in the World, and the other from Tilburg University, Survey of Top Economics Schools. School rankings always seemed silly to me. Inasmuch as there are research schools (scored according to how many publications pour out the publication tap) and teaching schools (scored by admissions competitiveness), selection criteria do not always measure the quality of education or the percentage of students served. At best, there is always an elitist Simon Scowl favoring one factor or the other (with neither of special significance).
Despite concerns about our country losing a competitive edge across various sectors, it is gratifying to note our high marks in higher education. We have 55% of the world’s top 100 schools and 30% of the world’s top 500 schools. The United Kingdom ranks second with 11% and 8%, respectively.
However, raw numbers can be misleading. If one considers the ratio of top schools to served populations, these rankings change significantly. Among the top 100 schools, the U.S. (Octopus score = 12) falls below Switzerland (30) and Denmark (20). Among the top 500 schools, the U.S. (Octopus score = 7) ranks below Sweden (16), Switzerland (16), Israel (14), United Kingdom (12), Australia (10), Canada (8), and Denmark (8), respectively. Why are these ratios more important than raw numbers? Countries with higher ratios are educating more students ... by a factor of more than two to one in some aforesaid countries. Although our worldwide ranking is respectable, there are still other countries doing a better job.
H/T to Infidel753 for posting the Shanghai Ranking.
Despite concerns about our country losing a competitive edge across various sectors, it is gratifying to note our high marks in higher education. We have 55% of the world’s top 100 schools and 30% of the world’s top 500 schools. The United Kingdom ranks second with 11% and 8%, respectively.
However, raw numbers can be misleading. If one considers the ratio of top schools to served populations, these rankings change significantly. Among the top 100 schools, the U.S. (Octopus score = 12) falls below Switzerland (30) and Denmark (20). Among the top 500 schools, the U.S. (Octopus score = 7) ranks below Sweden (16), Switzerland (16), Israel (14), United Kingdom (12), Australia (10), Canada (8), and Denmark (8), respectively. Why are these ratios more important than raw numbers? Countries with higher ratios are educating more students ... by a factor of more than two to one in some aforesaid countries. Although our worldwide ranking is respectable, there are still other countries doing a better job.
H/T to Infidel753 for posting the Shanghai Ranking.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY OCTOPUS!
Here on the sunny beach where the ocean plays its eternal song against the ever shifting sands, we are preparing for a celebration of the birth (hatch?) day of our own Octopus (sorry, I don’t have the capability to correctly spell out your new moniker).The bonfire is stoking and the crustaceans are awaiting to meet their fate in the flames. The seaweed and coral cake has been decorated and….
THE GIFTS! Enough for every one of your eight tentacles!HAPPY, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, OCTOPUS!
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The French confection
Bob Greene made me laugh this morning, writing about the magazine ad for a Hermès suitcase priced at $27,100. He thought at first it was a joke until the Hermès store in Naples Florida told him that it wasn't even their most expensive bag, which of course is diamond encrusted. This one isn't. It's trimmed in "Evercalf" leather which I suspect to be much like the "rich Corinthian" leather of Chrysler Cordoba fame, which means most of the cost -- at least $27,000 of it -- is in the trademarked name for a perfectly ordinary 
material. Otherwise it's just a canvas bag, or "officer canvas" as they call it, which means you may have to salute it if you're wearing a Hermès hat.
Why? Greene keeps asking, although I know and you know exactly why anyone would actually buy one at a time when more Americans are cramming their things into shopping carts and Hefty bags and wandering the streets. It's precisely because it cost $27,100 and you can't afford to toss that kind of money away on nonsense, hand stitched or not.
It's not the sort of bag most people would really notice, except that it doesn't have the silly handle and wheels that make our airports seem like farmyards full of goat carts, but then it's designed for another purpose, it's designed both to remind you and to help you forget that there are people -- millions of people trying to support families on one Hermès suitcase a year.
Hey, don't get angry. It's your money and you're taxed enough already. Under Reagan's tax structure you'd have had to make do with Louis Vuitton or perish the thought, Hartmann, so the country owes it to you and you needed to buy it now, before that Marxist in the White House restores the tax rates of that prince of Capitalism -- right?
material. Otherwise it's just a canvas bag, or "officer canvas" as they call it, which means you may have to salute it if you're wearing a Hermès hat.Why? Greene keeps asking, although I know and you know exactly why anyone would actually buy one at a time when more Americans are cramming their things into shopping carts and Hefty bags and wandering the streets. It's precisely because it cost $27,100 and you can't afford to toss that kind of money away on nonsense, hand stitched or not.
It's not the sort of bag most people would really notice, except that it doesn't have the silly handle and wheels that make our airports seem like farmyards full of goat carts, but then it's designed for another purpose, it's designed both to remind you and to help you forget that there are people -- millions of people trying to support families on one Hermès suitcase a year.
Hey, don't get angry. It's your money and you're taxed enough already. Under Reagan's tax structure you'd have had to make do with Louis Vuitton or perish the thought, Hartmann, so the country owes it to you and you needed to buy it now, before that Marxist in the White House restores the tax rates of that prince of Capitalism -- right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)