Who Gnu? January 30, 2013January 29, 2013 BEARS John Kasley: “You mentioned bears yesterday. What happens as they emerge from hibernation… Who knew?” Fun. GUNS “We need to challenge any politician who thinks it’s easier to ask an elementary school teacher to stand up to a gunman with an AR-15 … than it is to ask them to stand up to a gun lobbyist with a checkbook.” — Colin Goddard, survivor, Virginia Tech Tac45: “I really hate Colin Goddard! Seen a few videos of him on youtube attacking gun rights. I’m sure he went through a rough ordeal but that smug ‘I know what’s good for you’ liberal attitude just makes me want to punch him in the throat!” An overwhelming majority of the citizenry agree with Goddard, but it remains to be seen whether Congress will mandate some simple, sensible things — like closing “the gun show loophole” that allows millions of gun purchases with no background check. GNUS I wasn’t sure, either. Here. And while we’re on the subject: GUBS The Woody Allen clip has been blocked, but you all know what I mean. (No?)
Bears and Elephants January 29, 2013January 29, 2013 BEARS IN HIBERNATION No, not Jim Chanos’s famous annual short-sellers get-together. (With the market at an all-time high, are they back in hibernation? or just about to come growling out?) I mean literally — bears in hibernation. One of you sent this last night, and in the spirit of, “isn’t the world around us endlessly fascinating?,” I pass it on. (Thanks, Stewart.) CONSERVATIVE — OR RADICAL RIGHT? Nate Black: “I enjoyed Maddow’s seven minutes on the filibuster, and I also enjoyed this clip from that same episode titled ‘America is a Liberal Country.’ Maddow’s thesis is that even though Americans describe themselves as ‘conservative’ they support ‘liberal’ positions. I agree with the sentiment, but I think we have a problem of terminology. . . . I am and have been throughout my adulthood extremely conservative. After some early piercings and other typical early indiscretions there has been basically nothing about my life that would have seemed strange to the fictional families of 1950s television. I married young and exactly once. I go to work from 9 to 5 every day in middle management. I attend church regularly if not religiously. My politics are also conservative, but not ‘conservative’ by the peculiar definition of the word that we use only in politics. . . . In the rest of our lives ‘conservative’ means cautious, moderate and traditional; but for whatever reason we have decided that the most radical bomb-throwers on the right can call themselves ‘conservative’ even though it defies all natural use of the word. What is conservative about protecting criminals’ access to guns specifically designed to kill large numbers of people? What is conservative about rolling back the social safety net 60 years? What is conservative about denying evolution and science? Sure, some opposition to those things could have been called conservative 50, or 100, or 200 years ago, but now that we have decades of evidence to their efficacy, and they are enmeshed in the fabric of our society, how can it be called anything but ‘radical’? Isn’t it conservative to support the type of mixed economy where government and private markets both play important roles that has spelled success for not just this but every other modern country for the last hundred years? . . . For the last decade or so the Republican party has ceased to be the party of conservatism but, because they claim to be conservative, and the media is used to calling them conservative, we have decided that whatever radical notions the Republicans support is de-facto conservative. This is wrong, and somehow it needs to be addressed. America is a conservative country, but today the more conservative political party is the Democratic party.” ☞ I doubt the terminology will change any time soon, but Nate makes an interesting point. If sticking with the mindset of one’s parents generation is “conservative,” then surely the phrase, “this is not your father’s G.O.P.” tells you something. The synonym for Republican these days should perhaps be not “conservative” but “right-wing.” AN EVEN CHEAPER STROP Smith: “Even cheaper, use this method to sharpen your razors. Just need a pair of jeans.”
Cosmic Fifties Razor Strop Pinball January 28, 2013December 27, 2016 Here‘s 5 billion years in just two minutes. (Thanks, Alan S.) And here — just The Fifties. Eleven minutes, titled, “Best of Times.” Not shown: polio, the draft, or the need to rise from your couch to change from one channel to the other two. Or the little wads of Kleenex hanging from your chin where you nicked yourself shaving. Luann Vodder: “Speaking of shaving [covered here], this hit my inbox today: A clever money-saving sharpening tool.” ☞ Ah, the leather strop! It really is the Fifties. For knives, too. Here‘s one on Amazon for less. And did you know that pinball machines (covered in that same post) were in some places illegal in the Fifties? Did you know that Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia took a sledge hammer to them in 1942? Read it here, in The Atlantic. YMI We bought this a couple of years ago at $1.65, and possibly a bit more at $1.35 a year ago, and took our profit last month at $2.86. Gilead Sciences is acquiring it at $2.95 a share. We need more like this.
The Filibuster January 25, 2013 How disappointing. David Waldman suggests it wasn’t all bad, here, at the Daily Kos — that, for example, the Senate may have gotten rid of the one-person anonymous “hold” — and that’s something. His view is instructive and worth reading. But I fear Rachel has it close to right when she says nothing has changed in the minority’s ability to make sure nothing gets done . . . except that now nothing may get done . . . faster. This seven-minute clip is devastating. All we were asking is that the filibuster be put back to being the filibuster, as we all know it from the movie (watch): make the minority actually do it, so the filibuster would be used sparingly, as had always been the case. But that, apparently, was too much dysfunction for the Senate to shed. See you Monday.
Dancing January 24, 2013 So look. I’m still blown away. What a difference from 12 years ago, when Charles and I got to dance late into the night at the Gores’ after his concession speech. It was a wonderful night, in its way — like the end of color war at camp, even though you had lost — but it marked the beginning of a transition from peace and prosperity to needless real war and near depression. What a difference from 4 years ago when I watched joyfully but fluishly from a warm hotel room as Barack Obama was Inaugurated and, later that night, as he and Michelle danced from ball to ball. (And what a difference from 40 years ago. You’re not a GREAT dancer,” said my first boyfriend, the summer I came out. He was being kind.) In contrast to all that,this past weekend was . . . amazing. It was, among other things, the second time I met Usher without realizing who he was. This time, at least, I figured it out in time. But the only truly noteworthy thing about the weekend was being there, with a million others, to bear witness to Barack Obama’s Second Inaugural Address. We. The people. It’s the sort of thing you can read or watch again and again. And that will likely be re-read and re-watched for years to come. BOREALIS: THE WHEELTUG TWIST Meanwhile . . . remember The Twist? Do you know why it takes so long to load an airplane with passengers? And why it takes us passengers back in 23A-and-B so long to deplane? It takes so long, for one thing, because only one door is used. And only one door is used because the plane is parked nose-in to the gate. Imagine if, once at the gate, it pivoted, or “twisted,” 90 degrees so as to park parallel to the gate. So that both front and aft doors could be used. Right now, that’s not possible because — in the process of maneuvering so close to other planes — who knows what the main engine thrust might knock over. But with their powerful little electric motors in the two nose wheels, WheelTug seems to think that pivot, or “twist,” would be easy. Which could halve, or at least shorten, the enplaning/deplaning process. Which means more productivity from each plane and gate. Good for passengers, good for airlines, good for airports, good for WheelTug, good for us.
The Holiday Continues January 22, 2013 There was just too much to celebrate. And now we have our DNC meeting. So . . . thank you for your forbearance. Back tomorrow. Or Thursday.
Guns, Slavery, the NRA and the ATF January 18, 2013 Stewart Dean: “I find this hard to believe or that it hasn’t surfaced before now, but it appears that the militias of the Second Amendment were patrols to suppress slave revolt and that the Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights at the insistence of the southern states. If true, it turns the whole concept of protected gun ownership on its head. Here (‘The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery’). And here. And here. This theory doesn’t seem to be countered anywhere (search on ‘slavery second amendment’), though the fellow that originally brought it forward in 1998 has the unfortunate name of Carl Bogus.” Be that rather important history as it may, what you really need to see to understand the NRA and ATF outrages that undergird the current pro-assault weapon lobby is this Jon Stewart clip, and then this unmissable continuation. Seriously. Don’t miss these. Have a great Inaugural Weekend. And a great Martin Luther King, Jr., Day. Have you seen “Lincoln?” Oh, my.
Minority Rule January 17, 2013 If a little thing the Republicans are now cooking up for 2016 had been in place a few weeks ago, the President’s nearly 5 million vote majority would have resulted not in his winning the Electoral College by 126 votes, as he did, but, rather, in his losing it. Rachel shows how. Some of our electoral weirdness was baked into the compromise of 1789, which led — preposterously — to Wyoming’s half million residents today having as much clout in the Senate as California’s 37 million. Seventy times as many people; same number of senators. But some is much more recent. The filibuster, for example. Nowhere to be found in the Constitution, it has given the minority enormous power. Or take Florida. Florida leans slightly Democratic in registrations. Obama won the popular vote — barely. So it’s basically a 50-50 state. How come, then, the Florida Congressional delegation is skewed 17 to 10 in favor of the Republicans? How come in Tallahassee there are 26 Republican state senators to just 14 Democrats? And an even more lopsided 76-44 in the Florida House? And while we’re how-coming . . . how come — though more Americans voted for Democratic Congressional representatives than for Republican — Republicans control the House? Watch Rachel’s clip. Unless we do something, it’s about to get a whole lot worse. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS My New Yorker cartoonist from Kansas (did you miss Friday?) reminds me that he’s from Kansas City, Missouri — oops — so I got it wrong too. J. Kasley: “The gods in that cartoon were possibly two of the Greco-Roman gods who were always messing with the life of man. It must have been boring to be up there with Zeus with all that perfection floating around, so the only fun was monkeying around with the fate of mankind, the way kids play with ants. Barsotti’s Christian gods generally have halos.”
Don’t Shoot! I’m Just Trying To Sell You A Rotten Life Insurance Policy January 16, 2013 TRYING TO FINANCE COLLEGE COSTS? Beware! My pal Zac Bissonnette, author of Debt-Free U: How I Paid for an Outstanding College Education Without Loans, Scholarships, or Mooching off My Parents, commends this good reporting from Money Magazine: . . . For fees typically ranging from $800 to $4,000, these advisers — who represent a niche within the college planning universe — promise to help families save for college, pick good schools, and maximize aid. The product many are promoting: life insurance. They tout guaranteed returns and point out that a loophole makes life insurance one of the few savings options that won’t hurt a student’s chances for need-based aid. That’s mighty attractive to parents disappointed in 529 returns and frustrated by colleges’ miserly aid packages. Yet a four-month investigation by MONEY has found that, in reality, the people most likely to profit from this strategy are the planners themselves — most of them insurance agents with flimsy college-planning credentials and, often, little understanding of financial aid. . . . GUNS AND BUTTER Stephen G.: “Hilarious column yesterday, Andy [suggesting we borrow the money to employ people to revitalize our infrastructure] — a great satire from the guy who wrote The Only Guide. Did you fall on your head on that ‘Ultra Liberal Groupthink Cruise’ and forget what you wrote about living within your means? At least you’re safer in NY now with Emperor Cuomo. Today Obama may give the final blow to the Bill of Rights, we’ll see. I note that a Congressman will try impeachment, should have happened for NDAA but I’ll take it for this. (‘After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.’ – William S. Burroughs)” ☞ Thanks, Stephen. So a family should never take out a mortgage to buy its first home? That’s huge deficit spending. Never put office supplies on a credit card to start a small business? Never take out student loans to get an education? Never borrow to fix the car they need to get to work? Some things are perfectly reasonable to borrow for, especially when the 10-year interest rate is essentially zero. You’d really rather let the country crumble than borrow to put people back to work strengthening it? Continue to hemorrhage from energy inefficiency than spend what it takes to shape up? This is not you at your most far-sighted. Imagine if someone had said in 1943 that we shouldn’t build so many ships and planes and send so many troops abroad because we had to borrow (and, by the way, tax) massively to do it. Treason! We had to win that war. (And then, over 35 years — until Reagan reversed the happy trend — we gradually shrank our national debt ratio back to its pre-war, pre-Depression level.) Well, we have to win this war, too — the war for a modern, efficient, healthy, competitive society — and, as I’ve suggested so many times before, the great thing about this war is that instead of borrowing all that money to blow things up, we’ll be borrowing to build things that last 100 years. And lowering our expenditures on unemployment insurance and food stamps at the same time. So that’s part one. As to guns, I’m not sure I’d look to William Burroughs for the most thoughtful public policy. Is it your view that “the right of citizens to buy Stinger missiles without a background check shall not be abridged?” I think you’d agree we do have to regulate the bearing of those arms, useful though they would be in repelling the gunship attacks of a tyrannical government. So where do you draw the line? Howitzers? Machine guns? Is the line perfectly drawn today, with just the right safeguards? When Congress passed the assault weapons ban in 1994 — by a simple voice vote in the House and a bipartisan 61-38 vote in the Senate — did you call for impeachment? And ARE background checks okay? If so, why NOT close the glaring, gaping, gun show loophole?
No? January 15, 2013January 14, 2013 [Today is the deadline to send in your fourth quarterly estimated tax payment (if money is due). Here are the forms and instructions. You don’t have to file it if you file your complete return by January 31.] It’s so obvious. We have a $2 trillion infrastructure deficit — our country is falling apart and falling behind. We have millions of unemployed who’d like nothing better than to throw themselves into the task of modernizing our infrastructure (and start paying taxes again instead of collecting unemployment and food stamps). We have a zero cost of borrowing the money we’d need to employ them. The result of borrowing that money, employing them, and rejuvenating our infrastructure would be an end to our economic doldrums, a more secure, efficient, competitive economy, and a lower deficit. So? Shouldn’t we just do it? The undertaking would not be one of “big government.” Contracts would be let for competitive bid by private enterprise, mainly by the states. (How else to modernize 35,000 schools, repair 185,000 bridges, make sound countless sewage systems?) And tax incentives would drive massive efforts to weatherize homes — the ultimate small-business opportunity — smarten our electric grid, and the like. You think we can’t afford to modernize our infrastructure and become energy efficient? Really? Don’t you see we can’t afford not to? Why is this controversial?