Cronyism or Capitalism?

         

         Solyndra failed because their cylindrical technology was superior to flat panel design.  It captured more energy for a longer time during the day.        

         The tubes were more expensive to produce than flat panels, but they had advantages in efficiency, weight, and wind resistance.

         The essential material in solar panels is so expensive that panel makers needed to squeeze every milliamp possible out of their panels.

         Solyndra failed because of a huge price drop in the main component of solar panels, silicon.

                  Silicon is essentially sand.  The Earth’s crust is 28% silicon. Sand is virtually free, and the supply, for all practical purposes, is inexhaustible.  We will never run out. But silicon must be 99.99% pure to work in solar panels, and much purer to work in electronics, and it is expensive to purify silicon to that level.

         Solar-grade silicon cost $24.00 a Kg in 2004, but worldwide demand for solar panels, computers, and smart phones drove the price to $450.00 per Kg by 2008.  Predictions were that this would remain unchanged until at least 2012.  Instead, the high price of pure silicon caused massive increases in production and the price has fallen dramatically.

         The Chinese government helped the development of cheaper panels by pumping not $535 million, but billions of dollars into production companies, which are selling purified silicon and solar panels internationally.

         China subsidized far more development then did the US, and we are paying the price.  China produces 27 times more pure silicon than the US, and the gap is getting wider every day.  China and Germany lead the world in solar panel production.

        

         When the cost of pure silicon dropped to $50.00 a kilogram, an 89% drop in price, with an almost certainty of lower prices to come, the marginal efficiency of the costlier cylindrical cells became irrelevant overnight.  Solyndra made the right choice by suspending all production.

         You don’t keep making a better buggy whip when it is abundantly clear that everyone is switching to automobiles.

        

         How does Congress respond?  By attacking the Obama administration and demanding all green energy subsidies be stopped.  By attacking subsidies funded during the Obama administration.  There was no mention of subsidies on oil, natural gas, or coal, industries that are already so profitable (and ecologically damaging) that they need not, and should not be supported by taxpayers.  The Chinese couldn’t have wished for a better response.

         What is happening to solar energy development is the result of technological breakthrough and intelligent planning, not some law of economics that decrees government subsidy of business will always fail, as Republicans have insisted.

         The energy producers measure the efficiency of energy in dollars per Kilowatt, and by that measure coal, oil, and natural gas win out over solar power, which is why fossil fuel industries use that yardstick.  Quite soon, solar panels will reach that level of cost effectiveness, without releasing carbon into the environment.  Fossil fuels, on the other hand must always release billions and billion of tons of carbon annually, and steady increases in pollution are unavoidable.

         But they are leaving out human and environmental costs, which must be paid in human misery and taxpayer money later.  In effect, the carbon polluters are getting a massive tax-funded subsidy.  As a result, solar power in the United States is left in the dark.

         I don’t think it is necessary for me to explain why many of our elected officials are trying to suppress solar power, and instead subsidize coal, oil, and natural gas.  Most Americans realize that corporations are supplying the lion’s share of political campaign money.  It’s not even a conspiracy; they’re doing it in broad daylight.

        

         The true motive behind these attacks is to discredit the Obama administration by any means possible.  Almost all negative articles about Solyndra come from biased sources such as the Washington Times, Bloomberg News, News Corp (The Wall Street Journal, and Fox News), The Washington Post, and other right wing outlets such as American for Prosperity, (Aka Americans for the Prosperity of the Koch Brothers)

         Republican politicians are scrambling to put a negative spin on this bankruptcy to prove cronyism, embezzlement, lack of oversight, and presumably, that President Obama is clueless and incompetent.

         The Solyndra loan guarantee was not in essence a stimulus project; it was an energy policy project.  But since it was in the stimulus bill, the money was guaranteed during the Obama administration, and it might be fair to say with insufficient oversight.

May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

February 2006 – October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.

Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the “company’s second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location.”

November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra’s very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment.

March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.

September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years – not the 41 days that is sometimes reported.  OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be “scored.”  OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.

January – June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra’s ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors.

November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month — on time and on budget — employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.

February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company – which was a going concern – for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.

March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI): “despite the Administration’s urgency and haste to pass the bill [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] … billions of dollars have yet to be spent.”

And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL): “The whole point of the Democrat’s stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars … most of the money still hasn’t been spent.”

June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50%, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV.

August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.

September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE’s loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/?mobile=nc

        

Gatesgate

  

            So I am not talking about discrediting the police report.  I am talking about how reports are written to put the writer in the best light possible and the subject in the worst light.  If we could take police reports as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, we could do away with criminal courts altogether.

            All the reporting person has to do is use vague terms such as 

"tumultuous manner" to muddy the waters.

            The Daily Howler evaluates how the media is doing its job.  (Actually, how it is not doing its job!)  It doesn't report on the facts per se, but it shows how the media gets things wrong, and how they make up stories instead of gathering information, and how they pick up each other's misinformation and repeat it without ever checking for veracity. 

            People that are related to policeman or are personal friends of policemen are excused from jury duty because they tend to take the word of  a police officer over the testimony of anyone else.

            That being said, the police report says a witness described two black men with backpacks.  The woman that called 911 says she didn't say black men or backpacks, and the tapes back her up.

            The second reporting officer does not mention the woman telling the color of the men or the backpacks. 

            Again, all this is irrelevant to what the press is doing.  They are creating stories about the incident based on what they think happened, or what they want to have happened.  It is the media that has turned this into an issue of racial profiling.  Any judgment about what really happened cannot come from the scant information the news media has at hand.

            Police and judges both know that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable of all evidence.

            It is the media and Obama haters that have made this a national issue.

            Think about this.  How many times daily in America does a white cop talk to a Black man through his front door? I would guess several times a day in New York City alone.  Multiply this by all the Black communities in the country and you have a lot of incidents that never made news anywhere.

           

            This is national news only because Obama aired his opinion, which was almost as dumb as when Nixon claimed that [Charles] "Manson is guilty".  Obama should have stopped when he said he didn't know the details of the incident.  If he had, the story would be over.

               My opinion is that white men in America don't know how sensitive Black men are about the way police talk to them because they have never experienced it themselves.  Regardless of what actually happened, and what words were actually said, we should keep this in mind.

         The other side of the coin is the charge of “disorderly conduct”.  This has been a tool of officers at the scene for over a century.  The courts have given police leeway to break up or prevent riots using disorderly conduct as a misdemeanor charge, allowing them to arrest people that could conceivably incite or touch off a riot.

         The officer must consider if the disturbance is drawing a crowd, and if the crowd is becoming alarmed by what they are witnessing.

         The officer at the scene makes the judgment, the desk officer or judge make the call as to whether or not to press charges.  Just because the police release the arrestee without charging him does not indicate that the arrest was improper, but it also doesn’t indicate that is was proper.

         Do police abuse this power because of racial bias?  Of course they do.

         Do police use this power to stifle dissent?  Yes they do, and many times they infringe on 1^st Amendment rights. 

         What we do know in the Henry Gates episode is the crowd was seven  “unidentified passersby”. What we don’t know is was that too many people for safety and was how alarmed were they?
These are both judgment calls. Remember, the police don’t have to wait for a riot to start. They have been allowed to arrest someone before things get out of hand if they feel the situation warrants it.

         Did Professor Gates overreact? Probably.  Did Sergeant Crowley overreact?  Maybe.  Did President Obama overreact? Yes, as a sitting President he did, as a Black American, probably not.  Did the media overreact?  Absolutely!

        

         What bothers me is that Gates told his daughter in an interview that the police report was untrue. “Well, the police report was an act of pure fiction. One designed to protect him, Sgt. Crowley, from unethical behavior. I was astonished at the audacity of the lies in the police report, and almost the whole thing from start to finish was just pure fabrication. So yes, I felt violated all over again.”

         Now, it is not a serious abuse of police power to arrest and release someone on a disorderly conduct charge.  It is understandable that Gates could forgive Sgt. Crowley for that, and sit down and have a beer with him.  After all, most people would agree that it is bad public policy to allow citizens to shout at and insult police officers in public, and it is proper for police to demand respect, especially if that disrespect may escalate into unruly conduct.  Maybe having a beer in the White House compensates for having his constitutional rights violated.  Or maybe he exaggerated just a teensy bit, and so did Sgt. Crowley, and they are both willing to forgive and forget.        

         But writing a police report that is an act of pure fiction is a serious abuse of police power, and a serious crime, as well.  Why hasn’t Gates pursued this? More importantly, why haven’t the media pursued this?  Why haven’t reporters even attempted to find out what happened on the porch?  Why have reporters picked one side over the other and made up justifications to support their guy?  Why hasn’t someone other than Gate’s daughter asked him that question?

          This answer is easy.  It’s because the entire system of journalism in America is broken, that’s why.  It is broken because newspapers, TV networks, TV and radio stations, are no longer independent entities.  They are owned by large corporations run by powerful CEOS, and they obey the orders of their masters.

Gravymeister Aug. 3, 2009

           

Stimulus


         Referring to the “famous” first two questions of the Republican caucus/conference, they reflect two central questions concerning government involvement in economic recovery.    

 

         I am not an economist, but there are a few things about Keynesian theory that I do understand.  Briefly, in a recession, when banks are not lending, entrepreneurs are not funding start ups, and consumers are not spending, the government can stimulate the economy by using deficit spending to put money directly into the economy as a whole.  Of course, it matters how they inject the money.   Deficit spending multiplies the effect of each dollar added to the economy.  Across the board tax cuts are not the most effective stimulus.

         Across the board tax cuts for the rich, as envisioned by Chris Matthews, are another thing altogether, whatever that phrase might mean.

         Bear in mind that Herbert Hoover in 1932 raised taxes (after he had cut them), and attempted to balance the federal budget, two policies that are considered to be the worst things one can do in a recession. 

 

        

         In congressional testimony given in July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, provided estimates of the one year multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options. The multipliers showed that increased government spending would have more of a multiplier effect than tax cuts. The most effective policy, a temporary increase in food stamps, had an estimated multiplier of 1.73. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent, had the second lowest multiplier, 0.23. A payroll tax holiday had the largest multiplier for tax cuts, 1.29. Refundable lump-sum tax rebates, the policy used in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, had the second largest multiplier for a tax cut, 1.26.[2]

 

         It seems clear from this example that the high multiplier effect from food stamps is because food stamps can be used only for consumption.  They can’t be invested or hoarded.  On the other hand, people that are already consuming as much as they want could use huge tax cuts for investing, which may encourage long term growth, but will not result in an immediate stimulus.  They could also send tax cuts to offshore bank accounts, where they will have no effect on our economy.

 

         A payroll tax holiday has an immediate stimulus effect because it puts the money into worker’s paychecks immediately.  The effects of tax reductions or credits are delayed because they come into effect the next year.  Early filers of refunds can get their money in January, for instance, but not sooner.

         One of the biggest criticisms from the tea partiers is that Obama hasn’t done anything to create  private sector jobs now.  There is little the President, or Congress for that matter, can do to stimulate job growth quickly.  The government can authorize large-scale public works, but it takes time to get the contracts written, the companies organized, and workers hired.

         The right wing is engaging in doublethink when they accuse Obama of trying to create socialism by hiring more government employees instead of creating private business.  I am sick and tired of Republicans claiming they are in favor of small business.  Would all Democrats who oppose small businesses please raise their hands?

 

         After watching the Republican-Obama conference I was pretty sure Obama knows about the multiplier effect.  The way he answered the questions seemed to indicate that he is aware of current economic theory. However, I think this talk about a spending freeze is pure propaganda. Freezing spending at a defecit level is what you want to do.  As noted above, you don’t try to balance the budget during a recession, and you have to engage in deficit spending to gain the multiplier effect.  I have no idea if Mike Pence or Paul Ryan know that much about economic theory.  Pence seems to dabble in foreign trade for the most part.  Ryan, on the other hand, is involved in Ways and Means and Budget.  This doesn’t mean he knows diddly about economics, although he should.  In fact, all politicians should know these basics and more.  It does mean Pence is very influential, however.

 

         In perusing the daily newspaper letters to the editor, it is clear that Americans are abysmally ignorant of how their economy (or their government) works.  It’s not their fault.  The above concepts are not gibberish to me because I was an econ major, and worked in consumer finance and even on Wall Street.  I don’t know if Obama or Olbermann or Maddow could educate people about these theories, but it is difficult for voters to make intelligent political decisions when they don’t have a clear grasp of the issues or the mechanisms involved.  Every week I read a letters to the editor explaining that a government budgets are exactly like a household or business budgets, and therefore the government can’t spend more than it takes in.  I don’t know about your household budget, but mine lacks the power to tax others, and does not have the right to print money.

        

         That said, I would like an immediate tax credit of $1500.00 for my 2009 taxes, and I am sure most Americans would like the same.  We did get the two $250.00 stimulus checks, and an additional $300.00 tax credit, but it wasn’t enough. (Married couples on Social Security got $800.00, $400.00 each).

 

         Should politicians and reporters start talking about the multiplier in public discourse?

         I think they should.  Hopefully, it would encourage the public to ask relevant questions of their lawmakers, possibly even look up things for themselves, and dispel some of the outright lies we are being fed daily.  Of course, our lawmakers and news media prefer the situation the way it is now, where they can lie and mislead with virtually no risk of discovery.  Like the radio and TV hosts, they can continue to push our hot buttons to keep us off balance.

Rush has 400,000,000 good reasons to keep up his antics.

        

Gravymeister, Feb. 4, 2010

The Budget Deficit

26 Jul 2004, reply to your question on the Balanced Budget Amendment.

The balanced budget amendment is a bad idea for many reasons.  Number one is the one pointed out that it removes the options that Keynesian economics allow for combating recession.  Most lawmakers and government officials today have a crude understanding of the concept of using government deficit spending to help the country out of a recession.  However, politicians do not see the economy the same way economists do.  Politicians are always trying to violate economic laws to gain a political advantage.  This is not new.

Number two is the discomfort many of us have towards amending the constitution.  Some amendments have been good, but they were essentially designed to change social issues, not economic ones.  If Congress cannot change the laws of economics by legislation, how can they change them by Constitutional Amendment?

Number three is that it has been tried, some of you were asking about something having been done in the past.  I think you were referring to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollins act.  There are a number of hits about this on the Internet, so I will not go into detail here.

Number four is that the amendment will require a supermajority to make law.  It takes a supermajority of both houses and state legislature to amend the Constitution, as it should.  The problem is that it takes the same supermajority to undo an amendment, which is even harder to achieve.  Technically, Congress can't pass a law overthrowing the principal of simple majority rule.  (The filibuster rule is a convention, not a law.)  Some states, such as California and Arizona have passed laws that require a supermajority to undo, and with predictably disastrous results.  I will leave that question to the Constitutional lawyers.

Number five is the political consequences of concentrating power in fewer and fewer hands.  Suppose you have an economic committee of 15 members.  They will decide on all legislation going to Congress. Suppose eight of them secretly decide to vote together.  You now have eight people deciding the economic fate of the country.  Now suppose five of the eight secretly decide to vote as a bloc.  You get the point.  By the way, this is not fantasy, but the normal way democratic governments operate.

The problem, as I see it, is not that we are burdened with a collection of bad laws and bad policies.  There will always be bad laws and bad policies.  This applies to all governments, at all times of history.  By taking potshots at dozens, or hundreds of issues, we scatter our resources and dissipate our strength.  We need to make this a one-issue campaign.  We need to focus on the one great challenge facing the lower and middle-class in America today, i.e. the class war.

Before you start thinking about Communism and the class struggle, I’d like to ask a few questions.

First, name three economists.  Is Karl Marx on that list?  Chances are he is the only economist most Americans could name, even though they probably wouldn’t think of Marx as an economist unless they were given a hint.  (To be fair, many Americans might name Alan Greenspan, but he is known primarily for being a lightning rod, and besides, nobody can understand what he says, anyway!)

Most economists wrote about the struggle between the workers and the owners of the means of production. Capitalist economists naturally assumed there would always be conflict between the working class and the owners.  But Marx made that the focal point of his life’s work.  Although a prolific writer, his one book, Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, caused a paradigm shift in Human thought.  It brought about a fundamental change in the way the ordinary person looked at himself and the Human Race.

Karl Marx has had more influence on our generation, and on human beings alive in the past century, than any other man in history.  He teachings go alongside with those of Jesus, Copernicus, Darwin, Freud. Einstein, in changing the way we perceive ourselves as living creatures.

Think of the Cold war, and the emotional grip it has had on all humanity.  Think of the economic, political, military, social, and diplomatic consequences of the Second World War and the Cold War.  Think of the resources used by all sides of WWII and the Cold War, and how else they could have been used.  Think of the hatreds and fears that so many lived with, and millions died for, because of the wars.

Marx said that the inevitable abuses by the capitalists would bring about a class war, with the workers revolting against the capitalists, taking over ownership of the means of production, and creating a classless society.  He said this would happen because of the internal contradictions of capitalism.

The Communist takeovers of countries rarely followed his scenario, however.  Most of the communist revolutions happened in agrarian societies, by the peasants against the landlords.  But the real exceptions were the highly mechanized leaders of the industrial revolution.  By Marx’s predictions they should have been the first to fall.  Instead they prevailed.  Had these industrialized nations continued on their path of concentrating all power and wealth in the hand of a tiny minority, the merciless exploitation of the working class, and the political powerlessness of the middle class, we might indeed have seen communist revolutions following the predictions of Marx.

The Fascists also promised to bring about the end of class warfare, by combining political power and business ownership into the ruling class, they would effectively declare that the ruling class had won the struggle. 

But the battle between the classes did not escalate into the economic Armageddon predicted by Marx.  Even the staunchest supporters of laissez-faire capitalism realized that the role of the government must include more than simply preventing monopolies and enforcing business contracts.  It must also help smooth out fluctuations in the business cycle by controlling taxes, deficit spending, and money supply.  This philosophy was convincingly demonstrated by the worldwide depression that occurred between WWI and WWII.  No matter what the political system, ideology, religion, all suffered the consequences.  (Except the very rich and the very powerful, of course.)  The only brief period that the plutocracy received a body blow was at the turn of the century, when Teddy Roosevelt challenged the monopoly trusts, and Woodrow Wilson pushed through progressive reforms.   

The options of communism and fascism were ruled out as solutions to the class struggle by most Americans except the most ideologically hide-bound.  In two years, 1938-39, two men, Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler convinced most of the world that communism and fascism were hideous evils.  It is interesting to note that during the violent labor unrest of the 30’s, we saw the birth of the public relations industry, and businesses lined up to rehabilitate their tarnished image with the public.  They had no intentions of reforming, mind you; they only wanted the population to think they had reformed. 

During the 1930’s, the population of the US had decided, upon seeing the abuses that capitalists would commit if not held in check, allowed much government regulation of business, and much freedom to labor unions.  This trend started to reverse itself as early as 1947.  Congress fought for laws liberalizing business and restricting the power of labor unions.  The class war had been re-engaged in earnest.  In the 50’s we saw corporate reputations raised to giddy heights, while labor unions became identified with mobsters.  Question.  If labor leaders were on the take, (and they were) then who was paying them off?    Corruption requires two or more parties. 

The ideal situation was for governments to indoctrinate and regiment the population so they make good employees.  Also to make the population pay for this by taxing themselves.  Big business would be protected and assisted in acquiring new resources by drafting armies of citizens and paying for them with tax money.  Naturally, the upper classes would not carry their fair burden of combat or taxes.  They would give the orders, however, since they knew best how to give them.

This class war suffered a minor stumble during the Vietnam War, when many poor and middle-class Americans refused to co-operate and essentially mutinied against the ruling class.  The draft lottery, which took away the advantages enjoyed by the wealthy, brought about the speedy end of the war. The draft was ended, and business went back to usual.  Now, the people would have to pay for a professional army, and taxes had to go up.  But not taxes for the rich.  During the Reagan years we saw huge gains by the rich and powerful.  The Clinton years brought even more concentration of wealth into fewer hands, and a very real loss of income to the lower and middle-classes.  Bush carried this to grotesque extremes.  And now, President Bush, like Warren Buffet, wants to declare, “Our Class Won.”

            Make no mistake, the crises and conflicts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, immigration, taxation, bank and market regulation, racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, union voting, are all battles in the class war.  They all use emotion to drive them, and they all result in making the working class pay more and more of the costs of government while asking the wealthy to pay less of the cost and receive more of the benefits. 

I am not he only person that believes we are in a major battle in the class war.   Ralph Nader agrees.  Mario Cuomo agrees.  Michael Moore agrees, Howard Dean and Al Gore agree.  I don’t think John Kerry sees it, though.  He made his fortune, and his wife is even richer.  They think this is a battle over the invasion of Iraq, or who gets to marry whom, or who  gets to decide if a woman can have an abortion. 

Do you remember one of “Dubya’s” campaign planks, that of “allowing” us to invest in mutual funds instead of Social Security?  You notice how quickly that went away.  Wall Street investors do not need Social Security:  They have provided themselves with a comfortable retirement plan, and they intend to divert the money coming into the Social Security fund to Wall Street as soon as they win the next election.  They have already declared union pension funds and savings deposits to be fair game.  During Reagan’s term we saw the rich steal trillions from both.  Some thieves that went to jail in a great fanfare of righteous indignation were soon released quietly, on technicalities, and then given full Presidential pardons.

Like the poet Dylan (Bob) said,  “Steal a little and they throw you in jail. Steal a lot and they make you a king.”


July, 2004

The Wiz

Barack Obama, April 6, 2008 Private fundraiser at the Getty Mansion, San Francisco.

Speaking about unemployment in Pennsylvania.

"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This was said before a houseful of San Francisco millionaires, who understood what he meant.

His comment was the type a sociology professor might make to his students.

Obama was raked over the coals for this comment by both the right and the left, as an example of how out of touch he is with average Americans.

Hard times do in fact spur people to cling more fiercely to their faith, and become more nationalistic, militaristic, and more xenophobic.  The people in the room all understood that.  If Obama had phrased it that way, in a more academic language, he probably would have gotten away with it.

But Obama committed the unforgivable sin.  He let the people peek behind the curtain, and catch a glimpse of the Wizard of Oz with his hands on the levers.

People don’t want to know that they are pawns.  They want to think that they control their destiny.  They resent being shown the truth of how easily they are manipulated by those in power.  They resent being analyzed by the elite.

Any hint of this manipulation arouses their most reptilian fears.

Those who would rule have known this for millennia.  They don’t let on that they are exploiting the fears of the masses.  Quite the contrary, they claim they are protecting them from all the dangers that they and their ilk are only too willing to visit upon them.  

Hermann Goering to Gustav Gilbert, 18 April 1946 in Goering’s cell at Nuremberg Germany

“Why, of course, the people don’t want war.  Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?  Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.”

Gilbert: “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”

Goering: “Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

We intellectuals (real and pseudo) all know this is how the world works, but the poor slob on the farm doesn’t.  After all, we all sat through Soc 101, and farmboy didn’t.  He thinks if he obeys the law, and works hard, tomorrow will be better than yesterday. Woe betide the person that argues with him.

Realpolitik or Machiavellian intrigue?

I think my favorite line from Primary Colors (a seriously underrated movie), is when campaign Manager Henry Burton questions candidate Jack Stanton’s hypocrisy. The reply.  “You can’t help anybody if you don’t get elected."

Part of Obama’s problem is that the dangers the Democrats warn us about are less immediate and tangible than the terrors that the Republicans have made into a political catechism.

Bush talked of the yellowcake that Saddam Hussein sought.  (A lie, but it worked nonetheless).

Condoleeza Rice warned of a smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud.

Democrats warn of eroding civil liberties, foreclosures, cost of medical care, loss of world prestige, global warming, environmental catastrophe, etc.

Now, the latter may be more imminent, and more certain if the Republicans hold onto power, but the former, (nuked US cities) is so horrifying that it trumps the weak sister arguments of the Democrats.  If Republicans convince voters that President Obama's warnings about the dire consequences of Neocon policies are the results of simplistic elitist thinking, the abuses of the Bush administration will return with a vengeance.

August 21, 2008

Reply to an RN

         Thank you for your confidence.  I hope I can live up to it.  Before I reply I want to share with you something my brother Jack wrote a while back.

Other than being able to read a tele-prompter very well, what has Obama DONE?  Basically, he ran unopposed for his Senate seat (Jack Ryan scandal), and has done nothing in the Senate except run for president. 

See his hilarious attempt to speak off the cuff and try to explain why paying up front for wellness was better than paying to cure someone after they got sick.  At least I THINK that's what he was trying to say.  Also note that it is the liberals that in most cases have passed laws barring insurance payments for preventive medicine.  (See New York)

OK.  Jack is obviously referring to the same Bristol, Va. tape.  I mention this because I don’t think Jack, or millions of others that despise Sen. Obama, normally follow his speeches.  They get propaganda pieces like this one in their e-mails, and this information becomes incorporated into their persona.  (More on that later.)
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48LS-Z3Wdhs

         Read his attached: note that that it is the liberals that in most cases have passed laws barring insurance payments for preventive medicine.

         He provides no documentation for this statement other than a cryptic See New York.

        

         As a health care professional, are you aware of any laws barring insurance companies from paying for preventive medicine? I know this is true for Medicare (which is reimbursed by the government), but it does not forbid HMO’s and other insurers from authorizing screening if they want to.  My insurance pays for a full physical, two dental cleanings with exams, and one eye test per year.  My primary care physician can request additional tests based on risk factors for a person my age.

         I point this out to illustrate how conservatives hold on to so much false information.

Semantic memory refers to the memory of meanings, understandings, and other concept-based knowledge unrelated to specific experiences. The conscious recollection of factual information and general knowledge about the world,[1] generally thought to be independent of context and personal relevance.

The illusion-of-truth effect states that a person is more likely to believe a familiar statement than an unfamiliar one. In a 1977 experiment participants were asked to read 60 plausible statements every two weeks and to rate them based on their validity. A few of those statements (some of them true, others false) were presented more than once in different sessions. Results showed that participants were more likely to rate as true statements they had previously heard (even if they didn't consciously remember having heard them), regardless of the actual validity of the statement.

As the illusion-of-truth effect occurs even without explicit knowledge, it is a direct result of implicit memory. Some participants rated previously heard sentences as true even when they were previously told that they were false.[4] The illusion-of-truth effect shows in some ways the potential dangers of implicit memory as it can lead to unconscious decisions about a statement's veracity.

Implicit memory is a type of memory in which previous experiences aid in the performance of a task without conscious awareness of these previous experiences. It is debated whether implicit attitudes (that is, attitudes people have without being consciously aware of them) belong under the category of implicit memory or if they are a related but different phenomenon. In some ways, implicit attitudes resemble procedural memory as they rely on an implicit, unconscious piece of knowledge that was previously learned.[7]

        

Experiments on the hippocampus reveal that if a person receives information that is questionable, they may not fully accept it at the time.  However, with each subsequent exposure, the skepticism disappears, and the memory becomes as real as it were recently experienced.

         To be sure, everybody does this, but this is why so many conservatives are incapable of accepting facts that are staring them in the face.  Many believe that “cutting taxes increases revenues”, and that the fix for unemployment is to make the tax cuts permanent, and the cure for the housing mess is less regulation of banks and mortgage brokers!  (McCain actually said both these things recently!)  Conservatives keep shouting that US healthcare is the finest system in the world, and that all the other systems are miserable failures.

        

         Now to the e-mail.  First, let’s call a duck a duck.  This email is not an information piece.  It is a propaganda tract to discourage voters from voting for a Democrat.  It is written by Republicans to sway independents and undecided voters.  My cousin Bill and my brother Jack would never, under any circumstances, vote for Barack Obama, but they send this type of material out claiming it is logical proof of why they hold their opinions.

         The video clip shows Barack Obama losing his train of thought on one occasion, after he admits not having much sleep in the last 24 hours.  This is after 18 months on the campaign trail!

         This email attempts to prove that Barack Obama cannot speak a coherent sentence without a teleprompter.  It makes a broad sweeping statement about a man’s abilities, and backs it up with a carefully selected 1 minute 13 seconds of videotape.

         It does not show the thousands of instances when he answers impromptu questions eloquently.

         It does not mention that the audience loved his speech, and barely noticed the clumsy handling of the example of preventive medicine.

         The conclusion is that Obama is not qualified to be President because he can’t speak unless he is reading a script.

         In my opinion, it proves none of the above.  The only thing it proves is that even Barack Obama can lose his train of thought during a speech, something that happens to all public speakers, then, take a minute to recover.

         As you mention in your letter, the implication is that he is as bad as George W. Bush.  This is 1:13 min.  Bush has hours and hours of nonsense on tape. There is no logical connection between this and the malapropisms of George Bush. This point is without merit.

         As to explaining why he has turned down debates with John McCain, it does not address that issue at all, it only seems to.

         You mention that it brings back your memories of past debates.  I don’t know what those memories were, but let me say this.

         There were no debates.  A debate is “a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.”  The candidates were pilloried in front of a bunch of no-nothing, primping fools that were out to practice gotcha journalism to make themselves look smart at the expense of people that were their intellectual and moral superiors.  I give this as an example:        

Note:  orange and blue are my comments.  Black and red are the questions posed by Brian Williams, NBC News anchor, at the Democratic debate April 2007.  I have selected these questions.

These are real questions asked of Democratic candidates at the debate:

Senator Clinton, your party’s leader in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, recently said the war in Iraq is lost.  A letter to today’s USA Today calls his comments “treasonous” and says if General Patton were alive today, Patton would “wipe his boots” with Senator Reid.

Do you agree with the position of your leader in the Senate?

Gee, Hillary, are you and Harry both traitors, or is just Harry?

MODERATOR:  Senator Obama, you have called this war in Iraq, quote, “dumb,” close quote.  How do you square that position with those who have sacrificed so much?  And why have you voted for appropriations for it in the past? Senator Obama, you go first. 

Obama called the war Dumb before the invasion, but I guess it just proves he doesn’t care about the troops over there. And wow, is he ever the flip-flopper!

You’ve promised in your campaign a new kind of politics, but just this week the Chicago Sun-Times reported on questionable ties you have with a donor who was charged last year for demanding kickbacks on Illinois business deals.

Aren’t you practicing the very same kind of politics that many of the others on this stage have engaged in?

There was no wrongdoing, and the moderator, the nightly anchor for NBC news, knows this perfectly well.

And, incidentally, all you other Democrats are just as crooked as that gangster pal of Obama.

Senator Clinton, recent national polls indicate the majority of the general public has an unfavorable view of you, right now, at this point in time. 

Not true, and Williams knows it.

Why do you think Republicans are looking forward to running against you with so much zeal?

Are they?  And how do you know they are?

MODERATOR:  Our most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll indicated a majority of Americans approved of last week’s Supreme Court decision to make so-called partial birth or late-term abortions illegal. 

“Partial birth abortion” is neither a legal nor a medical term.  It is an inflammatory term guaranteed to evoke a negative response.  This is a classic example of “push polling”.

Late term abortions are not “partial birth abortions”.

According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 53% of U.S. residents support the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the partial-birth abortion ban. The poll also found that 55% of respondents think abortion decisions should be "left up to the woman and her doctor"

Most of the people on this stage put out statements and criticized the ruling.  A lot of American families find this just a hideous topic for a discussion.

Do American families discuss this at all?  Or is it only you baby murdering Democrats that enjoy speaking out about this “hideous topic”?

Is this case, do you think, of the Supreme Court and the public with opinions in one place, and yet a lot of elected officials in another?

The majority of Americans support a woman’s right to abortion, 65% believe the decision should be between a woman and her doctor.

MODERATOR:  Time is up, Senator.

Senator Biden, from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, what three nations, other than Iraq, represent, to you, the biggest threat to the United States?

Gee, I thought we were allies with the Iraqi government.  Our leaders go to Baghdad, and their leaders come to the White House.

MODERATOR:  Governor, thank you. 

We are all out of time. 

Senator Clinton, a friend of yours from back home, said this week:  Quote, “the Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.” 

Another quote:  “America will be safer with a Republican president.” 

How do you think, Senator, that it happened that that notion of Republicans as protectors in a post 9/11 world has taken on so?

Rasmussen poll:  49% of Americans think Democrats are better on national security than the Republicans  (42%.)

It happens because lying hacks like you say it on national TV  --  DS

I can assure you that the Republicans did not get any leading and loaded and false questions at their debate.  They might as well have been on “Larry King Live” - DS

As you can see, the last thing reporters get to are items of substance.  (They eventually did.)

Clearly, it would be suicide for a candidate to call our so-called press what they really are, a gaggle of clowns and buffoons.  That’s why Obama won’t “debate”, and why he can’t give the real reason.  (By the way, Obama did quite well in this TV appearance.)

      

       I have noticed that the “news” shows are interviewing stand-up comics for their take on events and people in the news.  The “real” news shows are looking more and more like The Daily Show and the Colbert Report.  And get this; these comedy shows actually get more facts across to the public than the “real” news shows.

       So, no, this snippet of tape does not prove that Barack Obama is dumber than George Bush, or that he is incapable of forming a coherent sentence unless he is reading from a teleprompter, or that he is afraid of facing John McCain in a fair debate.

       So why do Republicans stick to the same script to the bitter end.  Because it works.  It put a moron in the White House twice!

         This email follows the script started by the Republicans back in 1989. This is the script that conservatives are incapable of recognizing as a propaganda ploy, no matter how many times they are shown it, or how the evidence is presented to them.  "There are none so blind as those who will not see".  It goes like this:

1.   Big government can’t fix anything.  Big government is the problem, not the solution.

2.  All Democrats are elitists, and have only contempt for people not like them.
(Credit to Bob Somerby)

I remember the old saying; “You’re going to learn this if I have to beat it into your head!”  Well, the right wing has been beating these lies into our heads for decades.

To be sure it is not just the Republican propaganda hacks that regurgitate this script.  The media has been piling on just as vigorously, and many of the script followers purport to be liberals

From Neal Gabler: And it is the liberal politicians who continue to pay the price for the liberal journalists' self-promotion cum self-preservation. Beating up on well-educated, well-spoken liberals is probably the surest means of proving one's Everyman credentials and protecting one's personal brand without also, by the way, losing one's Beltway bona fides. Going on about faith and religion is another.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/29/opinion/op-gabler29

Paul Krugman had this to say a few days ago. (8/07):

What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”

www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html?th&emc=th

       I hope this answers your question.  Feel free to share this with anyone else.  (Except Karl Rove.)

      

       August 2007