Tag Archives: policy

Nonpartisanship – Republican Style

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service recently authored a report to examine the potential effects of tax policy on the economy. Senate Republicans, apparently not happy with the results of the research, successfully pressured the CRS to bury the report.  The issue?

The nonpartisan CRS study found that lowering tax rates on the wealthy had no discernible effect on increasing economic growth or improving economic conditions in the U.S.  In other words…the CRS found that “trickle-down” economics is complete bullshit.  Senate Republicans, finding the report completely undermines the entire tax philosophy of their party, strenuously objected to the report content and pressured for the report to be withdrawn.

Such is life in the Republican Party.  Find a poll you don’t agree with?  You simply don’t believe the poll, and start denigrating the poll’s maker.  Don’t agree with the science of climate change?  You start attacking the science and the scientists who produce it.  Don’t like a nonpartisan report on tax policy?  You try to bury it, before the facts come out and the public sees yet more evidence that your entire party is built on a host of lies. 

THIS is the government under Republican “leadership”.  Facts?  Facts be damned, Republican Party ideology, no matter how freaking twisted it is, is the overarching concern.  So why not a Romney as president, Republicans?  You’ve already shown yourselves to be a deceitful twisted bunch.  Having Romney as president?  He’ll fit right in with this bunch.

Pathetic.  It has to be awfully damned embarrassing to be a Republican right now.

Republicans’ New Math

Mitt Romney this week came out with a pledge to achieve energy independence by 2020.  ”Independence” for Romney means only using North American sources of energy.  Given that we would still rely heavily on Canadian and/or Mexican energy imports, Romney’s pledge is hollow to begin with.  It doesn’t matter if oil flows from Canada’s tar sands or Saudi Arabia’s wells, it still means we’re importing oil from a foreign country.

With that point aside, you have to marvel at what Romney and the Republicans have accomplished in the field of mathematics during this election cycle.  They’ve completely written the basic tenets underlying mathematics with the policy proposals they’ve suggested.  Romney pledges to reach energy “independence” in just 7 years…shocking pledge in its own right, but even more shocking when he pledges  to do so without supporting any changes to fuel standards. 

Republicans certainly don’t have a good grasp of the basic concept of supply and demand.  Romney’s energy promise doesn’t address reducing energy USE…it’s all about trying to increase supply.  After all, as Romney states,  he wouldn’t want to TELL people what kind of car they should drive.  This is AMERICA, after all!  Dadgumit, if you want to drive a massive SUV that gets 12 MPG, that’s your god-given right as an AMERICAN!

Sounds good…if you’re a right-wing, wacko Republican who thinks the entire world is just there for your own personal short-term enjoyment.  But in reality, it’s simply impossible to expect energy “independence” without also cutting energy use…even when you use Romney’s definition of “independence” that includes importing Canadian and Mexican energy sources.

Romney and Republicans aren’t exactly breaking new ground with this policy announcement though.  After all, this is the same party that insists we can balance budgets by simply shrinking government, without any additional taxes or revenues coming in.  This despite every serious economist on the planet pronouncing the impossibility of doing so, unless the Federal government should somehow come under Ron Paul’s control and consist solely of the military and very little else. 

It’s the Republicans’ “New Math”.  Republicans have already abandoned science.  They might as well abandon basic mathematics or any other form of reason as well.

The “Redneck Vote” – Exploiting Americans’ Own Bigotry and Hatred

Obama

A black president, showing mercy towards illegal immigrants. It's the worst nightmare for the "Redneck Vote". So, they'll vote Republican, and effectively vote to kill their own futures.

Republican politicians are outraged.  Oh, they’re not REALLY “outraged”, they’re “outraged” as only Republicans can be, a completely fake, manufactured form of “outrage.”  It’s the same kind of fake “outrage” they express every time Obama or any other Democrat opens their mouth.  So what has Republican politicians “outraged” this time?  Obama’s statements this week that the administration’s policy will be not to pursue deportation of young illegal immigrants.

The policy is basically an executive order with elements of the “Dream Act”.  Illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. as children, who haven’t run into any legal trouble, won’t actively be pursued and deported. Republicans of course are screaming “AMNESTY!!!” at the top of their lungs, as if it’s somehow EVIL to treat young people who have spent most of their lives in the U.S. as, well…people…as AMERICANS, with the same hopes, dreams, and ambitions as the rest of us.

Republicans don’t screw around.  They don’t worry about facts, figures, or trying to get Americans up to speed on policy issues.  No, they seemingly have one, and only one, strategy…to pander to the basic primeval emotions and instincts of people.  Bigotry…Fear…Hatred…THESE are the foundations of the Republican party platform.  The economy?  The environment?  Foreign policy?  Irrelevant!!  They hear Obama showing COMPASSION to a group of AMERICANS (for all intents and purposes, other than legal standing)…and immediately they see an opening.  They see a way to, once again, ignore all the issues that REALLY should matter to Americans, and instead capitalize on and exploit the bigotry and hatred that is present in far too many Americans.

I’m amazed at how clouded peoples’ vision is, with regard to what truly benefits them, and how they behave.  Republicans have mastered the art of convincing Americans to vote AGAINST their own best interests.  GREED, corruption, and inadequate oversight of Wall Street and corporate America have played a huge role in where our economy is today…yet just a few short years after Republicans and their Wall Street friends drove the economy off a cliff, they’ve managed to convince the ignorant electorate that Wall Street and Corporate America aren’t the problem, that it’s government that’s the problem.   For those people who AREN’T stupid enough to buy that…they fall back on their strategy of tapping into the internal bigotry and hatred of people.

So…the poor working class stiffs who CONTINUE to lose their opportunity to achieve the American dream, who CONTINUE to see their “share of the pie” go to an ever-increasingly rich 1%…ALSO are the same complete idiots who continue to vote Republican.  They hear Republican politicians bitch and moan about illegal immigrants, and they are manipulated into blaming illegal immigrants for the economy, for their own crappy lives, for…well…everything.  Republicans continue to tap into the inner BIGOTRY of Americans, and that same ignorant group of Americans continually give their vote away to Republicans, in return for…in return for what?

What the HELL do Republicans do to help the working class American?  Oh yes, that’s right…tax cuts for the rich and policies tilted completely towards benefiting those who need the least amount of help.  But yet they’ve completely locked down the “redneck vote”…those who vote based on their own bigotry and hatred, despite the implications for how their vote really affects their own lives.

I guess if it didn’t impact the rest of us, it would actually be some kind of sweet justice, where those who live their lives based on HATRED end up being punished in the end for their own ignorance and biases.  But it’s hard to laugh at how the redneck-voter ends up screwing themselves, when in the end, they end up screwing all of us.

Winning the battles on terror, losing the war

Pakistan

We're winning the war against Al Qaeda. The cost? Turning an entire region against us in the long-term, including former ally Pakistan.

Three successful drone strikes in recent days have killed some VERY high-ranking Al Qaeda members.  Good news, right?  Yes, no doubt.  But, those drone strikes have occurred in Pakistani territory.  Leon Panetta has come out condemning Pakistan for allowing safe haven to fighters who attack U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, who then retreat to Pakistan for relative safety from retaliation.  Panetta says we’re “not going to take it” any more.

I find it amazing that Repubs still attack Obama for being soft on defense.  It sure helps when the entire Republican party seems to be made up of a bunch of dim-witted fools who believe anything their leaders tell them.  Repubs continue to use the attack because their idiot backers continue to believe ANYTHING that’s anti-Obama.  This despite the incredible successes Obama has had in combatting terrorism and dismantling Al Qaeda.

The continuing, bold drone attacks in Pakistan continue a very aggressive defense policy from Obama, policies that Republicans would be DROOLING over…IF it were a Republican in the Oval Office.

With that said…it’s a loser of a long-term strategy.  Afghanis themselves want the U.S. out.  It’s been over 10 years for god’s sake.  We’re occupiers in their minds now, not liberators.   Pakistanis?  I’m definitely not sympathetic to Pakistan for their role in underhandedly supporting violence in Afghanistan, but despite any recent successes in killing Al Qaeda personnel within Pakistani territory…it’s a loser of a long-term strategy.

Obama’s long-term military strategy clearly puts an emphasis on Asia (e.g., China) with a de-emphasis of the Middle East.  But the damage has already been done in the Middle East.  10+ years of active war in the region will do that.  There’s no doubt that U.S. actions in the Middle East in the past decade have further strengthened the impression that the U.S. is a bully in the region, uncaring about the people themselves, and only interested in protecting oil resources.  It’s a HELL of a tough line (heck, an impossible line) for Obama to walk…keeping a continued, active, and aggressive military presence in the region, while attempting to sway regional powers to support the cause.

Despite the successes in killing Al Qaeda leaders with cross-border drone strikes, there is also no doubt that hundreds of innocent Pakistani’s have lost their lives.  Despite Panetta’s bluster…it simply can’t continue long-term.  We’ve dismantled Al Qaeda in the Middle East.  Obama has had been an aggressive, extremely effective leader in the war on terror.  But at what cost?

We already had a boatload of enemies in the Middle East.  We’ve also been doing a hell of a good job at turning one-time U.S. allies into likely long-term enemies.  We can now add Pakistan to the ever-growing list of countries in the region that resent the U.S. influence in the region.  In the short-term?  We can survive it, given the devastating blow we’ve accomplished against Al Qaeda in the region.

In the long-term? We’ve alienated another nationality in the region, and created yet another long-term breeding ground for anti-U.S. terrorists.   We’re winning the battle against Al Qaeda…but losing the war in the region.

Perusin’ and Musin’

Some random thoughts from perusin’ the web…

Jobs Report Doesn’t Bode Well for Obama – Not a good jobs report today.  Unemployment inched down, but only because so many people have left the work force.  It’s a damned tough environment for a sitting president to win re-election.  Frankly though, there’s just not much Obama can do to get things going on the economic front.  This is a global downturn, and U.S. government economic policy isn’t the key to our economy.   Romney says he’ll create 500,000 jobs a months and drop unemployment to 4%.  That’s about as likely as Gingrich’s promises to lower gas prices to below $2.00 a gallon.   However, it’s pretty obvious Republicans SHOULD have the edge given 1) the down economy, and 2) an American public who is stupid enough to actually BELIEVE some of the crap Republicans shovel down their throats.   The only thing working against them is 1) their OWN ineptitude and 2) a complete lack of any strong candidates.

Redneck Massachusetts Man Attacks Hawk - No South Dakota, we do NOT have a monopoly on redneck losers.  In Massachusetts, a man was arrested when he attacked a Red-tailed Hawk who had captured a pigeon…presumably to “protect” the pigeons in the park?  The story also notes other memorable Massachusetts losers, such as a fish hatchery operator who shot herons, Osprey, and even Eagles that hung around his hatchery. Never underestimate just how incredibly cruel, selfish, and evil people can be.

Sioux Falls Man found Guilty of Raping 7-year Old – See the story above, multiply the horror and disgust by a factor of, oh, around 1,000, and you have this story of a Sioux Falls man raping a 7-year old.  About 99% of the time, I’m against capital punishment….but BOY do stories like this make me at least pause and consider it for a second. 

First Hummingbird of the Year - Like clockwork since we’ve moved into our current house, the first Ruby-throated Hummingbird of the year arrives sometime during the first week of May.  Today was the day for 2012, when I saw a beautiful male hummingbird flitting around the yard much of the day.  The link at the top of the paragraph shows the migratory progress of the Hummingbirds for this spring.  I will GREATLY enjoy having them around my yard for the next 4 1/2 months, until they depart by mid- to late-September.

Read more »

Obama Proposes (BAD!) Changes in Endangered Species Policy

Bald Eagle

Bald Eagle in South Dakota, where you now see them quite often. Under Obama's new "interpretation" of the Endangered Species Act, the Bald Eagle may have never been listed as Endangered in the lower 48 states, given that populations in Alaska were always strong.

I have to laugh whenever I see fear-mongers like Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh refer to Obama as the “most liberal president in the history of the United States”.  Since taking office, Obama has been about as much the “most  liberal” president as, oh, Mitt Romney is really “severely” conservative.  They’re both actually relatively moderate, and I don’t think that overall that’s a bad thing at all.  Given the extreme political polarization in the United States, we NEED more moderate leadership.   With that said, there are some things that Obama has done on the environmental front that have been really disappointing.  Add another issue to that list.

The Obama administration is proposing signficant changes to policies that dictate when species are considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act.  In effect, it would make it much more difficult for a species to be listed for protection.  They are attempting to redefine what is meant by a species being threatened in a “significant” portion of its range.  Under the proposed changes, a species could be threatened with extirpation from a given portion of its range, but not be considered for protection under the ESA because it has a population stronghold in some other location.  Unless a local or regional extirpation threat is noted to potentially threaten the entire species as a whole, it will no likely no longer be considered for protection.  In addition, the new interpretation provides NO mechanism for protection or restoration of habitat in an area where the species was once found.

This reinterpretation of the ESA could have PROFOUND effects on the listing of species.  The story cited above notes one example, the Bald Eagle.  Bald Eagle populations were always very high in Alaska and parts of Canada, it was in the lower 48 states where populations plummeted in the 20th century.  Under the new Obama ESA interpretation?  Chances are the Bald Eagle would have NEVER been placed on the ESA, as local extirpation in the mainland USA wouldn’t have threatened extinction for the species overall, given that so many eagles were present in Alaska.

The rule change opens up the likelihood that species’ home ranges could continually be nibbled away at…as long as there’s SOME population, SOMEWHERE in the world where numbers remain stable.  Losing some species in the entire eastern U.S. due to habitat loss?  Under the new interpretation…IRRELEVANT!  As long as there’s some population in the western U.S. or elsewhere where the species isn’t under threat of extinction!! 

In effect, developers, oil and gas companies, mining companies, and others who fight against environmental protections offered under the ESA would now have the opportunity to continually nibble away at habitats…one chunk at a time…without threat of legal protection, as long as a developer or oil company could demonstrate that a species under review has a viable population somewhere ELSE.  It’s the same completely misguided policy that has allowed for wetland destruction for urban development, as long as the developer “restores” a wetland somewhere else…even though studies show that “new”, created wetlands aren’t nearly as ecologically functional as natural wetlands. 

Historical range of a species?  No longer important under the new Obama interpretation!! Once a species is wiped out from an area, there’s no longer any concern about protecting or restoring habitat in that area, no matter how much of a stronghold it may have once been for a species.

This is a truly disgusting move.  I really wish we had the ability to look behind the curtain and see all the back-room negotiating that goes on in politics.  What did Obama get in return from industry for proposing this change?

Santorum, Romney, McCain: Hairy Old White Men

Grumpy McCain

John McCain gets a little grumpy when we go a few days without the sweet sound of American bombs falling on foreign soil. Hence the calls to start bombing Syria.

You gotta love Repubs for daring to bash Obama for his foreign policy.  After a Bush presidency where we started 2 ill-fated wars and ruined America’s reputation overseas, I find it a bit ridiculous for Republicans to bash the foreign policy of a Obama administration that has overseen the fall of Bin Laden and Gaddafi and conducted a daring  hostage rescue in the past 12 months.  But of course Republicans won’t let little things like facts stand in their way, and so as always, Republicans are tripping over themselves to make themselves sound as hawkish as possible.

Just in the last couple of days, we’ve heard calls from John McCain to bomb Syria.  Mitt Romney, he of zero foreign policy experience, says HE would stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.  Rick Santorum also says that HE would be “tougher” than Obama when it comes to Iran.

What the hell is with (again, my wife’s phrase) “hairy old white men” and the need to thump their chests and act like warmongers?  Particularly, REPUBLICAN hairy old white men?   DO these idiots REALLY think it’s a great idea to start another war in the Middle East?   Look at what happened in Afghanistan after we accidentally burned a few Korans.  10 years of “nation-building” in Afghanistan were jeopardized.  We’ve had troops on the ground in the Middle East for FAR too long.  Iraq wanted us out.  Afghanistan wants us out.  If we follow McCain’s suggestion to bomb Syria, or if we start an aerial campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities, all hell breaks loose in the Middle East.   But I’ve come to believe there are a certain group of “hairy old white men” who are never happy unless America is bombing the hell out of someone.

 The Obama administration has done quite well in the foreign policy arena.  The Obama administration has a lot more information at their disposal, they know what’s happening behind the scenes.  They also know what a complete and utter disaster it would be for America to start another Middle East war.   Do us a favor, Repub “experts” in foreign policy.   Stop acting as if you could magically cure what ails the Middle East, and stick to blubbering about OTHER things you know nothing about, such as gas prices or contraception.

GOP Misguided Attempt to Politicize Gas Prices

U.S. Domestic Oil Production

Not that Republicans would ever let little things like "facts" get in the way, but...since early 2009, U.S. oil production has been increasing, the first time annual increases have been noted in over 25 years. In reality, there's little the U.S. government can do to control gas prices, but the GOP might want to think twice about using the term "Drill Baby Drill", when looking at the basic facts about domestic oil production.

Gas prices are on the rise.  Of course that means the GOP sees blood in the water.  Every other line of attack against Obama has been falling apart for the GOP, so why not, right?  Republicans already have a rich history of trying to resonate with voter’s wallets and pocketbooks, by politicizing something that nearly all Americans deal with every day. 

Given Republicans COMPLETE lack of concern for the environment (or our children’s futures…don’t get me started), the mantra of “Drill Baby Drill” comes out from the right EVERY time gas prices creep up a little bit.  EVERY time gas prices creep up, the GOP blames Democrats for overregulation of oil and gas drilling.  The GOP presidential candidates today are spouting the same nonsense that was spouted 4 years ago by McCain and Palin in during the 2008 campaign.   The facts of oil and gas exploration and drilling under Obama don’t support the same old GOP rhetoric, however.

U.S. domestic oil production declined steadily for over 25 years…until early 2009, when U.S. production began to increase.  Hmmm…what happened in early 2009?  Oh yes, that’s right, that’s when Obama took office.  NO, I’m definitely NOT saying there’s a direct correlation.  However, it IS quite laughable to hear Republicans talk about Obama as being some evil mastermind behind rising gas prices, when it is under his administration that domestic oil production has risen for the first time in a generation.

The rise has more to do with technological improvements in oil access, and discoveries of new fields such as in North Dakota, than it does with politics.  In fact, there’s VERY little a sitting U.S. President can do to control oil prices.  U.S. domestic production is a drop in the bucket on the global market.  We could open up the Arctic Slope National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, we could dramatically decrease regulation of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, we could wring EVERY LAST DROP of oil from American lands…and the impact on global markets still wouldn’t significantly alter the prices you pay at the pump.

Global demand for oil is rising, particularly in the booming Asian economies of China and India.  The people and countries of the Middle East seem hell-bent on self-destruction.  These are issues a sitting U.S. President has little control over, and are the MAIN reasons why oil prices have risen so sharply.  

“Drill Baby Drill” may sound like a “winner” to GOP candidates.  Given the utter ignorance of most Americans, “Drill Baby Drill” also WILL resonate on the campaign trail.   But we’re already increasing domestic oil production during the Obama Administration, and prices have continued to rise. 

Just remember, GOP, your turn is coming.  The next time a Republican is in the White House, gas prices will continue to rise.  What will be your excuse then?  Also realize, ignorant American voter, the ONLY thing “Drill Baby Drill” is going to get you are locally devastated environments where your children and MANY subsequent generations won’t even be able to drink the water or breathe the air without serious health consequences. 

Try looking at the actual facts behind U.S. domestic oil production, global oil prices, and the price you pay at the pump, before blaming one party or one president.

GOP War on Education

Lord Voldemort, Victim?

Lord Voldemort...victim of government oppression, and new face of the Tea Party

Government is evil.  The tea-party take-over of the GOP has simplified the GOP message into one simple statement…government is evil.  It doesn’t matter if it’s government funded science, programs for the poor….heck, it could be a government sponsored program to hunt Horcruxes and prevent Lord Voldemort from destroying mankind, and the Tea Party would end up carrying pro-Voldemort posters and rallying against government oppression.

As a scientist, I find it incredibly disturbing that political ideology trumps sound scientific research when it comes to artificially politicized issues such as climate change and evolution/creationism.   In the short term, such short-sightedness (I’m being VERY polite by not using a more vulgar, but appropriate term) may not do significant harm.  However, the GOP’s attacks on science and government’s role in providing education also is likely to have a devastating long-term effect on American innovation and our place in the world. 

Here’s a terrific piece from Slate on GOP’s changing stance on education.  Terrific, but damned scary.  Instead of ensuring every child has the same educational opportunities, instead of making sure that a basic curriculum is provided which lays the educational foundation for our children, conservatives have twisted the discussion towards whether we’re (GASP!!) mentioning homosexuality, teaching evolution, or (GASP!) discussing contraception instead of abstinence.

In a Tea-party world, our children will be wearing chastity belts, will think babies are delivered by stork, and will have no concept that a substantial portion of the human race are (GASP!) homosexual.   In a Tea-party world, we may end up with good little children who obey their parents, go to bed on time, and faint if they should even hear someone say the f-word. 

In a Tea-party world, our children will also think Great Grandpa Jones had to fight dinosaurs on his way to work, that rain is simply angels crying, and that calculus is some kind of a fungus you get on your feet.  Our children will also UNDOUBTEDLY end up being low-paid lackeys working for foreign bosses, foreign heathens and sinners who foolishly were raised with an education focused on science, mathematics, and an unbiased historical view of the world.

As a scientist, I can’t help but think that much of the world is simply laughing at what passes as “educational issues” in the U.S.   Laughing, and smiling as they watch the era of American dominance in science and innovation get flushed down the drain for the sake of artificial morality.