Fox New’s coverage of the Stewart/Colbert rally:

I’d have to check, but I’d be willing to bet good money that they didn’t cover Beck’s rally that way… or with that small a postage-stamp sized story box. One of the stories next to it: about how a Democrat is going to lose his Senate race.

Not that the Rally today is not somewhat political… but it certainly is no more political, and probably somewhat less political, than Beck’s rally. Watching it, I hear nothing coming from the stage that’s political. In fact, right this moment Stewart is awarding a Medal of Reasonableness to Velma Hart, the woman in the Obama town hall who took him to task and asked him incredibly tough questions.

And let’s not forget that this coverage is coming from an incredibly biased politically biased news network, so much so that they are virtually the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, even going beyond that with tea Party candidates–but which at the same time insists that they are fair, balanced, and non-political.

Riiighht.

I will also be very interested to see the crowd estimates–that looks like a pretty darn huge crowd.

I may have inadvertently set the access parameters to deny access to all but my own IP Addresses last night, so you may have found this site to be “forbidden” over the past 12 hours. I was following a security suggestion on a site with follow-up advice for cleaning up after the Pharma hack, and it may have locked everyone outside of my own IP address out of the site. Hopefully we’re back on now.

Here’s what happened. Apparently, the spammers have taken things to the next level. First, it was trackback spam–spammers pretending like they were referring to poasts posts on my site in hopes of getting their sited link on a “top ten trackback” list. IIRC, they were the main reason people stopped using those lists. Next, it was spam comments filled with links to their spam sites, including attempts to get smarter with contextual spam. That got fought off with spam filters. After that, it was referral spam, in which they pretended to refer people to my site via links on theirs, thus making the top-referrer lists (again making such lists unpopular). Then it was splogs, stealing content from genuine sites to attract attention to their own. Then a resurgence of comment spam which forced me to change platforms.

For the past few years, though, everything was fairly quiet on the spam front; comment spam was controlled by Akismet, trackbacks are long history, and I stopped caring much about referral stats or splogs.

And then Matthew noted in the comments that something was weird about my site on Google.

If you do a Google search for “BlogD,” he pointed out, my site came up–but instead of reading as normal, it seemed instead to be a site selling drugs. The Google result made even the name of my blog seem like a spam banner, and the content full of pharma ads. Now, if you clicked on the link to my actual blog, you’d be taken here, which would be perfectly normal. But if you clicked on the cached site, you’d see something like this:

That’s not just for the plain “BlogD” search, but for a search for any content on my site–the above result was from a search for “ Softbank iPhone 4,” for which I am high on Google’s results. In short, it seems that most if not all of my listings on Google are currently like this, and I’ll have to wait for the crap to cycle out.

The weird thing is, my actual site is completely unaffected, at least on the surface. But it is as if Google is seeing an alternate-universe version of my site, choked with spam. Interestingly, in the cached site on Google, most links are normal and point back to my site. Even added links–a “Similar Posts” list, which doesn’t exist on my site but is added to the cached page, links back to my site despite the link tags being spammy–but they also added a “Trackbacks” listing, and that’s where you’ll find loads of their links, and the reason they did what they did.

So, what did they do? Apparently, they hacked my site, in what is being called the Pharma Hack or the Google Cloaking Hack, in which the spammers somehow gain access to your WordPress blog (likely through a vulnerability in a plug-in or the blog software itself, I haven’t found anyone who knows how it works yet), and essentially take it over. They hide their code in various files throughout your site, inject code into your database, and then they have their way.

The clever part of it is that on the surface, your blog looks normal–and you won’t know anything is happening until you do a Google search. The hack leaves your site apparently untouched, a smart move as outward changes would prompt immediate corrective action. But you have to remember, the spammers are not as much interested in your site as they are in the Google Juice that it can generate for them. And that’s what this hack is primed to do: harvest all your Google Juice and redirect it to the spammers.

Even as the site looks perfectly normal to you and everyone who visits, when Google’s crawlers come to your site, somehow the hacked parts of your blog make Google see only a heavily spammed version of your site–what shows up in Google’s cache, as shown above.

So in response, I followed the laundry list of advice on the sites reporting it–updated all my software, deleted all plug-ins and reinstalled only a few, checked my database and deleted the hacked portions, as well as a half-dozen other things.

One of them, unfortunately, was an attempt to restrict control of the site via access files, which inadvertently seems to have shut down the site to anyone but myself. I caught this when Ken reported my site down, and corrected it, which should be evident if you’re reading this post.

Alas, the hack often leaves bits of itself in places hard to find, so I will have to keep watching the database to see if re-infection occurs. So far, the hack does not seem to be destructive in nature, just parasitic. But it may be a while before I can feel somewhat confident that the site is clean.

What worries me is what will come next. Trackback, comments, referral, splogs, comments again, and now site hacking. I have to figure it will only keep ramping up.

Wonderful story out of Delaware about a scary situation–a 12-year-old girl was waiting in front of her school for a ride when she was accosted by a middle aged man in a white van who told her to get in. That might be the last anyone saw of her, except that she had an iPod Touch–and used its similarity in appearance to an iPhone to save herself. She held it up to her ear and told the perv that she was calling 911. He then fled the scene–and now police have a description of him and his vehicle and are hunting him down.

Way to go, young woman–way to go.

Tim Profitt, the man who stomped on the head of the woman trying to hold up a sign outside the Paul / Conway debate last night, wants the woman he stomped to apologize to him.

I am not making that up.

When we spoke to Profitt, he asked that his face not appear on camera, but he wanted to defend himself. “She’s a professional at what she does,” Profitt said, referring to the MoveOn.org activist, “and I think when all the facts come out, I think people will see that she was the one that initiated the whole thing.” …

As for Profitt, he remains defiant. “I don’t think it’s that big of a deal,” Profitt said.

And when asked if he would apologize to Valle. “I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you,” Profitt said.

Yeah, that damned hippie, actually having the gall to come to a public pace and hold up a sign! She’s lucky nobody shot her dead. She should be grateful that Profitt stomped her head while she was pinned to the ground. She should man up and apologize for making him work through his horrific back pain to restrain her from exercising her free speech.

Okay, in case it’s not already blindingly obvious, nobody had any right to so much as touch the woman. The Paul supporters were already pushing the limits by blocking her from going where she wished. Just because she was going to do something they didn’t like did not give them license–but at least just standing in her way was inside the law, if somewhat dickish.

But when they laid a hand on her, that’s assault. Restraining her physically was way beyond what they had any right doing. Tackling her was asinine, and even more illegal.

But while the woman was on the ground, two large, grown men pinning her there, immobile and not even under any circumstances imaginable a threat to anyone, to put your foot over her head and neck and then stomp down–that is, as previously pointed out, crossing a major line. Back pain has nothing to do with it–even if there had been reason to pin her to the ground, she was pinned. Profitt’s actions were, to say the least, gratuitous.

But it should not be forgotten that touching the woman in any way, shape or form was also unacceptable. Plain and simple, you don’t touch someone who is doing nothing but exercising the same rights as anyone else. She had as much right to be there as the man who stomped her or the man who tackled her–another Rand campaign worker named Mike Pezzano–is also guilty of assault.

And the Rand Campaign is being classy about this. Although they eventually condemned the attack and disassociated themselves from the stomper (though not, as far as I can tell, from Pezzano–the condemnation and distancing was in reference only to one person, presumably Profitt), the campaign and Paul himself first attempted to not condemn what happened, but to instead blame the woman as much as the man who assaulted her. Paul, speaking himself on Fox (naturally) specifically about the incident, did not apologize or even condemn the act at first:

We want everybody to be civil. We want this campaign to be about issues. I will tell you that when we arrived, there was enormous passion on both sides. It really was something where you walk into a daze of lights flashing, people yelling and screaming, bumping up. And there was a bit of a crowd control problem. And I don’t want anybody, though, to be involved in things that aren’t civil. I think this should always be about the issues and is an unusual situation that so many people, so passionate on both sides jockeying back and forth and it wasn’t something that I liked or anybody liked about that situation. So I hope in the future it’s gonna be better.

“Both sides.” The men who tackled and stomped the woman were at fault, but so was the woman because she wanted to hold up a sign within sight of Paul. More right-wing false equivalency.

The thing is, this is not new. When I was going over the videos of the town halls last year for the previous post, I was reminded of what we saw then. Angry mobs of people screaming, chanting, shoving–acting like snotty, spoiled brats, unwilling to act in a civil manner, people whose only purpose was to snuff out the ability of the opposition to say anything without being shouted down.

In short, what happened yesterday was not exactly an isolated incident. We have the politicians themselves–not just people volunteering for their campaign–actually talking about “Second Amendment Remedies” and “violent uprisings” in the event they don’t win power at the ballot box.

These people are not about Democracy. They are not even about a Republic. They are about power, in their hands and nobody else’s. They are, in a word, thugs.

Jesus. First Joe Smith’s security team “arrests” a persistent journalist trying to ask the candidate tough questions. But now, we have people working for the Rand Paul campaign–not just random supporters–tackling a woman who disagreed with the candidate and did nothing more than approach with a sign, pinning her to the ground, and then stomping on her head and neck. Not an exaggeration:

You will note that (a) she never seemed to get within 20 feet of the candidate, maybe not even that close; (b) did nothing illegal or threatening–she just walked up with a satirical sign, and (c) people started getting hysterical, a guy screaming, “WHERE ARE THE POLICE AT??? GET THE POLICE OUT HERE!!! GET THE COPS!!!, someone tearing off her wig, as another guy in a campaign t-shirt helps tackle her, and while she is pinned to the ground, very carefully and intentionally put his foot over her head and neck, then stomped down.

The guy doing the stomping probably would have continued if not for one person–just one in the mob–thought head-stomping was a bit too much, and said, ”No no no no no no, come on.“

All they were missing were jack boots. I mean, Christ–if I had been that woman, I would have been terrified.

This wasn’t accidental bumping. This wasn’t responding to a security threat. This wasn’t in any way, shape, or form justified or justifiable. The woman had exactly as much right to be there unmolested as anyone else. Grabbing her and tackling her by themselves was unforgivably illegal assault, even without the head-stomping.

I wrote the above last night, and more information has come out. The guy who stomped on the woman’s head is indeed an official Rand Paul campaign worker, a guy named Tim Profitt, the campaign’s county coordinator and someone whose endorsement was touted in a full-page newspaper ad for the campaign. The guy, ironically, was wearing a button reading ”Don’t Tread on Me“ (apparently it’s OK the other way around). Profitt ”apologized“ for it, citing concern for Paul’s ”safety“–but that was belied by the fact that they knew exactly who the woman was and what she was trying to do. This was not some mysterious stranger breaking through the crowd, but someone they had earlier identified and tried to block off purely because they knew she wanted to criticize Paul publicly. Safety, my ass.

You have right-wingers not only carrying provocative signs inciting violence, but carrying assault rifles outside Obama events, and they go unmolested–but a woman carrying a fake oversized check to make a political point gets head-stomped. Maybe she should have brought the assault rifle.

Now, had it simply been a unsupported claim of physical assault, it would be open for skepticism on the way it was reported–like soccer players, such people often fake or wildly exaggerate assault-victim stuff, or honestly mistake normal crowd contact for assault. Someone claiming ”They stomped on my head!“ without support is easy to doubt. However, this was caught directly on tape.

Take as a contrary example the story of a guy named Randy Arthur, who in early August , 2009 (amid the summer Tea Party frenzy to disrupt Democratic town hall meetings) got his shirt ripped and his chest scratched, supposedly when he was ”slammed into a wall“ by overzealous security guards (not campaign workers) for a town hall meeting featuring Democratic Representative Kathy Castor in Florida. It was one of those meetings overrun by bused-in Tea Party people who were chanting, screaming, and otherwise shutting down any chance at clear communication. In this case, the exact scuffle was not caught on tape, making it impossible to see how much was unjustifiable and how much was Arthur himself scuffling–videos of the event clearly show an extremely hostile crowd, and Arthur admits trying to hold a door open as security was trying to close them to maintain fire marshal codes in the already-overcrowded auditorium.

Similarly for the story of Kenneth Gladney, a star in right wing circles–a man allegedly ”beaten“ by left-wing SEIU union thugs. They have video, they claim–except that the video starts with the union guy who supposedly caused him numerous grave injuries on the ground, and Gladney standing nearby; the ”assault“ shown is Gladney being pulled off the union guy and falling down as a result. Not only does Gladney appear completely unhurt, popping up off the ground and walking around like nothing is wrong, but the union guy shows injury, holding a hurt shoulder. A few days later Gladney is carted out in a wheelchair at right-wing events, as if he was beaten to within an inch of his life, to hear right-wingers repeat the tale.

No, the Rand Paul event incident was as clear-cut as it gets. It doesn’t matter if the woman who was stomped suffered injuries or not; the treatment she received at the hands of campaign workers is unjustifiable and inexplicable. The people involved in these movements all too often come across as violent, arrogant, self-righteous thugs who rail at others allegedly oppressing them, but all too willing to lash out at others.

To hear Republicans talk about it, Obama has done nothing about the economy, has not created any jobs, has busted the budget with unprecedented spending, and is responsible for the unemployment rate being what it is. The stimulus, they maintain, is a failure, and the people are suffering because of Obama’s inaction.

The problem with these accusations is that they are all one-hundred-percent, Grade-A horse shit. Bush wrecked the economy, and Obama and the Democrats, despite massive Republican obstructionism, have managed to pull off a minor miracle. And here are the numbers to prove it.

Before on this blog, I have refuted the claim about the stimulus’ failure; the numbers speak volumes–here’s a chart I published six months back:

With no other notable effect acting on jobs other than the stimulus, it would take huge leaps of legerdemain to explain the turnaround seen here in any other way than to recognize the stimulus as successful. As a result, Republicans simply ignore it, acting as if pulling the country out of a deep hole–their deep hole–is meaningless because the Democrats haven’t made the economy rocket into the sky yet. And sadly, Democrats–who should be plastering this chart up everywhere in sight–are letting their best advertising slip away as the conservative narrative takes hold.

Yes, the surge in jobs and/or the halt in layoffs sputtered soon after I made this chart, and since then the numbers have hovered below zero. However, this is pretty much what was predicted back in early 2009 by those who said the stimulus, as finally passed, wasn’t enough–they were 100% spot-on correct–and let’s not ignore the fact that we are substantially better off now than we were when Bush left office.

Now, how about the budget? That’s another GOP talking point–that things were going OK under Bush, at least tolerably well–but then Obama came in an exploded spending and the deficit. Let’s explode that lie, shall we? Here’s a chart [source data] showing expenditures and receipts over the past six years:

Ouch. Sure enough, deficits have exploded, and spending is up. Yes, spending is more of a straight line, but it’s not supported by revenue. Looks like under Bush, the deficit was under control, and then recently, under Obama, things have gotten out of hand.

Until, of course, you draw a precise line showing when Bush left and Obama took over:

What do you know. The deficit exploded under Bush, not Obama; Obama has been holding relatively steady. His spending is increasing at about the same rate it was under Bush. Also notice that the deficit is not that much greater now than it was when Obama took over–the arrows show the deficit when the transition occurred, laid over the latest numbers and a year before Bush left office. Obama, it turns out, has not really added much at all relative to what he was given. In contrast, Bush more than doubled the deficit in his last year in office.

So much for the “Obama and the Democrats have wrecked the budget” lie. Not to mention that soon after Obama came in to office and deployed the stimulus, the recession ended and government receipts started trending upward again. How about that.

Another tack taken by the Republicans is the unemployment rate; their claim is that since the stimulus did not take the rate down to the optimistic projections of the Obama administration, Obama therefore owns the unemployment rate–he is, they say, responsible for it.

But let’s take a look at that chart over time as well–red represents Bush months, blue for Obama:

Despite the fact that the trend and momentum started and gained steam fully under Bush, it doesn’t look too great for Obama here–when he came in, the rate was just under 8%, then it went up to 10%, and now is hovering between 9% and 10%. Republicans have picked up on this, adding fuel to their criticisms.

One problem: the unemployment rate lags behind improvements in the economy, usually by about three quarters. Apply that to the chart, and you get this:

Seen this way, one finds that not only was Obama not responsible for the 10%, he has actually lowered unemployment since he got into office. This would not be a surprise to anyone aware of the job trends since the stimulus began. Of course, this doesn’t make things all rosy–we’re still in a bad place, and slightly better than catastrophic is still terrible.

However, that’s why the unemployment rate seemed to go the opposite direction of the job surge: not only were we delayed by nine months or so, but in addition to that, we spent a year in negative territory–despite the fact that things were getting way, way better, we were still losing jobs up until late ’09. Thus the reversal in unemployment trends has been tepid so far.

So, let’s pause for a quick review: Conservatives say the stimulus is a failure. The facts say it was a resounding success, reversing the horrific nosedive that Bush had put us in. Conservatives say that Obama exploded spending and destroyed the budget. The facts show that Bush did all of that, and under Obama, spending has increased at the same general rate it did under Bush, but deficit increases have slowed greatly. Conservatives say that Obama made unemployment rise to 10% and hasn’t done a thing to change that. The facts say that Bush drove unemployment up, and that Obama stopped the trend and has slowly been wrestling the number down.

The difference is like night and day–Bush wrecked the economy, Obama has been bringing it back under control. And now Republicans are trying to blame the guy who has been helping for all the damage that Republicans wrought on the economy.

OK, back to the unemployment numbers, and where they will go. Now, the stimulus surge came to an end after May, the month in which we gained about 430,000 jobs. There was a 4-month period from February to May when the surge continued upwards, and then things went dead from June, since which time we’ve lost roughly 100,000 jobs a month.

If unemployment lags as predicted, this will be bad timing for the Democrats, and very good for Republicans: if they win the House in November, it will probably be to news that unemployment is dipping, a trend that should continue until early 2011. They would, of course, attempt to take full credit for the change, acting as if it were the euphoria over their election wins and the expectation that they would pass tax cuts for the wealthy that spurred the gains–despite the fact that it would be the tail end of the stimulus and the special employment due to the census. Even more ironically, the trend would have continued far upwards and might even have taken us out of our dire economic straits had not the Republicans cut the stimulus down to well below what it should have been.

Nor would I be surprised if (a) the downturn in unemployment ends somewhere around February or March 2011, and (b) Republicans attempt to blame it on the Democrats for not going along with all the crap they will try to ram through the House the moment they have the gavel.

I don’t have a sterling reputation for political and economic prognostication, though, so let’s see how this plays out. In the meantime, it looks like Americans are blaming the bad economy on those who have done a good job repairing it so far, and are set to hand over power to the party that caused the worst of it and has hampered the recovery. You get what you deserve. Too bad about all the people who you’re dragging down with you.

Kevin Drum clarifies a point I have made before, but he does it a lot better. He makes four points which support the idea that there is no such thing as equivalency between liberals and conservatives when it comes to the nutball factor. Conservatives will lamely try to assert claims like, “oh, well, liberals were the same with Bush” in order to ameliorate perceptions of right-wingers going batshit crazy–but anyone with a memory will recognize this for the absurd rationalization that it is. Drum’s points:

1. Conservatives go nuts faster. It took a couple of years for anti-Bush sentiment to really get up to speed. Both Clinton and Obama got the full treatment within weeks of taking office.

2. Conservatives go nuts in greater numbers. Two-thirds of Republicans think Obama is a socialist and upwards of half aren’t sure he was born in America. Nobody ever bothered polling Democrats on whether they thought Bush was a fascist or a raging alcoholic, but I think it’s safe to say the numbers would have been way, way less than half.
3. Conservatives go nuts at higher levels. There are lots of big-time conservatives — members of Congress, radio and TV talkers, think tankers — who are every bit as hard edged as the most hard edged tea partier. But how many big-time Democrats thought Bush had stolen Ohio? Or that banks should have been nationalized following the financial collapse?
4. Conservatives go nuts in the media. During the Clinton era, it was talk radio and Drudge and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. These days it’s Fox News (and talk radio and Drudge and the Wall Street Journal editorial page). Liberals just don’t have anything even close. Our nutballs are mostly relegated to C-list blogs and a few low-wattage radio stations. Keith Olbermann is about as outrageous as liberals get in the big-time media, and he’s a shrinking violet compared to guys like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

As I mentioned, I have been expressing these points myself for a while now. Drum writes that he can’t exactly identify the cause. However, I see a limited number of sources. Is it that conservatives are more naturally hostile and intolerant? Is it that right-wing media sources inflame their audiences, which are far more likely to believe and even amplify the paranoia? Is it the result of an orchestrated political strategy born of the 90’s in which the Republican establishment has issued an all-out, non-stop, no-holds-barred smear campaign against Democrats? Or a combination of all of the above?

I vote for “all of the above.” Liberals tend to be far more tolerant of things they don’t agree with, while conservatives are much quicker to start ranting when they don’t get every last thing they want. This is inflamed by the drumbeat of conservative fanaticism on Fox and elsewhere in the media, in which conservative commentators are not only far greater in number and prominence, but tend far more often to make extraordinary claims. Add the background noise of the Republican political machine immediately working to demonize every liberal who shows any kind of prominence, popularity, or promise, and maintaining the smear campaign even after that person has left the scene, and you get perfect storm of perpetual paranoia and dementia that we now see cresting. The additional factor of the organizational and PR skills of conservatives simply amplifies all of this. That is seems to work so well, and now has become so commonplace that it is safe to do so, has led to higher-level conservatives joining the nutball brigade openly, rather than just enjoying it from the sidelines and contributing behind the scenes.

The real question is, where is this leading us?

A quake measuring maybe 4.2 on the Richter scale just hit about 50 km northeast of us here in Nishi-Tokyo. Could feel it fairly well, a long, rolling quake. Looks like it was located about 15-20 km northwest of Tsukuba, in Ibaraki prefecture.

The past week has provided classic instances of ignorance in the conservative mindset, resonating on familiar themes. It has to do with believing what one wants and simply remaining ignorant of the facts, while maintaining a sense of confidence that one has the facts straight and those who have actually studied and live up to certain standards are just plain wrong–a classic “faith vs. facts” scenario. Glenn Beck steps up to the plate:

How many people believe in evolution in this country? I’d like to see. I mean, I don’t know why it’s unreasonable to say this. I’m not God so I don’t know how God creates. I don’t think we came from monkeys. I think that’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen a half-monkey, half-person yet. Did evolution just stop? Did we all of sudden — there’s no other species that’s developing into half-human? It’s like global warming.

What he does here is what most creationists and global climate change deniers do: bases his views on faith, without even caring what the facts may say. It’s not that he’s looked at evolution, understands what’s involved, and rejects the idea–his statement shows that he doesn’t even understand what evolution is. He’s not interested. He believes what’s comfortable for him, not what any rational analysis says. And as a result, crap like this issues forth when he speaks. Really–take a look as his questions. “Did evolution just stop?” “There’s no other species that’s developing into half-human?” These questions don’t even make sense.

A recent survey found that atheists are among the most educated when it comes to religion, and answered more questions about religion correctly than most of those who believe. The reason was precisely the opposite of what we see in Beck: these people do not reject religion because it does not fit with their pre-existing worldview–for many atheists, religion was their pre-existing worldview. Many atheists became so not because they were raised that way, but because they were raised to be religious, but started questioning, which led to studying, which led to their conversion. Whether it’s what one agrees with or not, one can respect denial when it is studied and honest–but not when it is ignorant and disinterested in fact.

Beck helpfully brings up climate change and places it within the same context. Deniers typically do not rail against it because they’ve studied it or even know what it is–it’s just something they don’t like. So you get people who are essentially, as Colbert so artfully put it, “Peekaboo-ologists,” who think that global climate trends can be judged by looking out their window. As Colbert also put it, trusting their guts instead of the facts, the essence of truthiness.

In both cases–evolution and climate change–“evidence” of disproof of the theories are blindly accepted by deniers, even after the “evidence” is inevitably disproved. That’s why the hacked email ‘scandal’ concerning climate change was like candy to these people, as if a few scattered references by a few scientists over the span of a decade taken out of context somehow demonstrated that an entire field of science was based on deception, or that heavy snowfall one year was obviously proof that global warming is not taking place, despite the fact that a warming trend actually predicts exactly such an outcome.

With evolution, this is all old hat. Creationists generally don’t bother to educate themselves about the nature of evolutionary theory; they simply believe in the Bible and don’t care what else there might be. I have mentioned the daughter of a fundamentalist preacher I once worked with who believed that she had disproven evolution personally as a high school student. She heard a single lecture in her science class about radioactive dating, and noted that scientists estimated the age of an object before carrying out the tests. She then assumed that the purpose of the estimate was to use it in the final calculation of the object’s age (the actual purpose is to determine which test should be applied), thus coloring the results and making them invalid. As is the pattern with such people, she did not then try to verify her conclusion, she simply accepted it as verification of her beliefs and used it to convince others that science was wrong.

I did not try to correct her, as it was clear that it would not have made any difference. To these people, this is not really a matter of debate or discussion; they simply believe what they believe, and facts and evidence are these insubstantial things fluttering about which others seem to use to communicate. They don’t study them, they don’t even try to understand them, they just grasp whatever bits sounds right to them and proffer them forth because they know that they can’t just say to outsiders, “I know the truth and the facts don’t matter.” So as a result, they come off sounding like fools to those who look at things from a more fact-based perspective.

Which brings us to Christine O’Donnell, who made a gaffe this week during a debate. When her opponent said that creationism should not be taught in schools, O’Donnell faced him and asked, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” The audience–they were debating at a law school–loudly gasped and laughed at the question, as it was so clearly ridiculous. When Coons later explained the First Amendment’s establishment clause, O’Donnell asked, “The First Amendment does?” Again later, O’Donnell pressed the point:

“So let me just clarify. You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

Coons replied, “The government shall make no establishment of religion.”

O’Donnell: “That’s in the First Amendment?”

Wow. That’s pretty stunning. She doesn’t even know the text of the First Amendment. Now, her people point to something she said while attempting to overtalk Coons, and you have to listen carefully to the exchange to hear that she asks if the phrase “separation of church and state” is in the First Amendment. They claim that this is what she was referring to the whole time. The thing is, she did not repeat it, had to know that Coons didn’t hear it, and in not one but two different exchanges in the debate, it was crystal clear that the subject was the establishment clause, and not the specific phrase “separation of church and state” when O’Donnell asked incredulously if Coons actually believed the First Amendment said such a thing.

But to many people like O’Donnell, it really doesn’t matter if you’re talking about “establishment” or “separation of church and state”; they simply know that the First Amendment doesn’t say anything that prevents us from teaching creationism and having Christian prayer in public schools. The standard argument is either that the First Amendment only prohibits the government from creating some new religion, or that it says that the government cannot interfere with religion. They strictly deny that the establishment clause mandates that the affairs of church and state must remains separate–despite the fact that the two founding fathers most identified with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Jefferson and Madison, both made it clear that the First Amendment establishment clause was indeed intended to separate matters of church and state.

But like I mentioned above, this doesn’t matter. O’Donnell and others like her know what they know, and they don’t need to be bothered with facts. Even when they profess to be all about facts–O’Donnell represents herself as schooled in this, having a “graduate fellowship from the Claremont Institute in constitutional government” (turns out it was an eight-day course). However, in the debate, O’Donnell could not recall what the 14th or the 16th Amendments were (“fortunately Senators don’t have to memorize the Constitution”). Now, the 16th, maybe not, but the 14th? Really?

Like I said, the facts don’t matter. Just truthiness. It’s maddening, but at least it provides comic relief every once in a while.

Well, I think we all saw this coming; I did, about eight months ago:

Expect Apple to eventually bring the Ecosystem culture from the mobile community to computing at large–either by bringing it to laptop and desktop computers, or by having mobile devices become primary computing machines. I doubt very much that they’ll want to stop with the iPad–this system is too good for them, if they can make it work.

And as we found out today with Apple’s presentation, that’s exactly where they’re headed, bringing iOS to the Desktop. Even with the hardware, which is leaning toward mobility–Jobs insisted that the MacBook Air is where the whole line is headed. Certainly, I no longer have to steer people away from the Air like I used to; it is far less about paying a premium for mere millimeter-shaving.

As for the OS, at least for now, it’ll be a hybrid system–allowing the closed-ecosystem App Store security, simplicity, and ease-of-use, but also keeping the more open, do-as-you-like, classic OS system where you’re free to play around with things.

How is this important? Well, as I teach my students in our Introduction to Computers class, the goal of a user interface is to make computers easier to use. That’s its #1 task. And one thing that you can say about the iOS interface, it’s dead simple. And with the new stuff, from the iLife programs to the new OS core features, the philosophy seems concrete and solidly adhered to: make it simple. Make it easy.

LaunchPad is a fantastic idea, long overdue. App launchers have been around since the Classic OS, I don’t know how far back. This one is both old (copied from the iPad and iPhone) and new (it’s a great new way to launch your Mac OS X apps). I am definitely going to be using that, arranging screens of apps–and may use my Dock a lot less, or at least clear a lot of the clutter that makes the icons so small. While it may seem so much like what we’ve seen before, it’ll prove to be a surprisingly new feel, with simple usability. I never use the Stacks pane view to select apps–LaunchPad will be much different, however reminiscent it is.

The App Store is going to do a lot, too. It’s just too easy and quick to ignore–and will help do for the Desktop what iOS did for mobile, which is to make it far easier for individual or small software publishers to create and market apps. Don’t be surprised if the Mac OS starts to leave the Windows OS in the dust in terms of new apps authored for its OS–one of the key advantages Windows has enjoyed for a very long time.

But you keep coming back to simplicity–like I said, the goal of any UI–and how easy it might be for all generations to use this. Yes, the complexity is still there (for now), but Lion looks like it’s going to bring the simple and sheltered experience to the Desktop in a way that grandma will find easier to deal with.

What’s more interesting is the shift toward windowless interfaces–full-screen presentation of apps that leaves switching around to the “Mission Control” conglomeration of current features for window switching, kind of a jazzed-up Exposé. This is not new–we’ve had full-screen reading views for quite a while–but now it’s becoming more prominent, and with bigger screens and better resolutions, more relevant as well. And instead of a side feature that some people may or may not use, it has become a direction.

Why is this interesting? Partially because it’s been rumored for some time now. Back in ’07, it was supposedly a possible feature of Leopard. And more than three years later, after almost everyone forgot about it, here it is–but just like the iPad grew on iPhone and iPod familiarity, so does Lion grow in all mobile familiarity. But, as stated in the previous paragraph, it’s a direction–and so you have to wonder, what’s the destination? Will Apple try to eventually close the laptop/desktop OS ecosystem as well?

One last word: what else? Well, I’m not betting on much. I hope there will be more, but what they presented would certainly qualify as the bread & butter of a new OS release. Jobs and others kept on insisting that these are “just a few of the many” new features, but I will not be surprised if we have seen at least half and maybe two-thirds of what most people will find significant about Lion. I am used to Apple going on about “hundreds” of features in a new OS when in fact there are maybe half a dozen that most people would really care about or be aware of.

Still, I could be surprised. Hopefully.

And oh yeah–how long before Microsoft copies a lot of this? Maybe a couple years, but you can bet good money that they will. With this, though, it’ll be harder to pretend that they were planning this all along.

One more thing: I am still long on Apple stock, but not as long as I was last week. After several years riding the roller coaster, I sold just over half my holdings. I did it Monday, when the stock was at $316. After the market closed, Apple released its earnings report, and the stock plummeted about $20 or so. It’s back up to $312 now, and I’m sure it’ll rise higher. I might sell the rest before the year is out and the capital gains tax rises to 20%, or not, depending on how things go. But I’m happy having bought in at about $92, and not as disappointed as I could be that I didn’t buy in much earlier, like I wanted to, but wussed out. In any case, I’ll be glad to finally be off that wild ride, investing the earnings in a down payment on a house. Thanks, Apple.

I have to ask myself: If the Senate race in my state were between an extremist, nutball Democrat and a dislikable Republican, who would I vote for?

It’s a tough question that really needs a concrete example before deciding–one tends to vote along party lines, figuring on policy or party strength. But my current attempt to understand what’s happening in Nevada, where the people there seem poised to vote in a truly bizarre and reprehensible person–adds a significant twist to the equation.

For me, the issue demands that I find an example of a Democratic politician who is as crazy, extreme, and just plain weird as Sharron Angle. And honestly, I am coming up blank.

Unable to find someone as extreme on the left, let’s imagine one, taking a look at her positions and going just as far in the other direction.

Imagine a Democratic candidate who believes that we should strive toward a world government run by the United Nations. That abortion should be allowed at any stage of pregnancy without any restriction. That global warming is true to the extent that the scenario from The Day After Tomorrow will happen in the very near future. That we should double spending on entitlement programs. That atheism–not just separation of church and state–should be pushed as a social standard. That all oil drilling should be banned. Guns should be banned as well. And that not only marijuana, but all drugs should be legalized.

Going down this list makes me appreciate how non-radical Democrats are in relation to Republicans. We just don’t have the same extremes, frankly, no matter what the conservatives claim. When I wrote the list above, I was simply going through Angle’s positions and reversing them–but on review, they do read like a list of what many wingnuts claim liberals are secretly all about, what we privately wish for.

For me, however, it makes an extremely unappealing candidate. While some of the positions sound nice in theory, I do not accept them as viable proposals. Things like world government, or true (not what has ever been practiced in reality) socialism are nice ideals but unworkable in the real world as it exists, and attempts to enact them would be disastrous. I don’t agree with unrestricted abortion; I think we have a good compromise right now. I accept climate change theories, but don’t see them as being nearly as near-future disastrous as that movie portrayed, and a person who feared that might act irrationally. I think that reform of entitlement programs would be in order, but see it as preferable to keep them closer to what they are now, not striking them or bloating them. I believe in freedom of religion, not the advocacy of one belief by the state. I favor a transition to clean energy, not an unthinking, jarring shock before we’re ready. I’d love a world without guns, but that’s not where we live. The drug policy is the only one I’d actually approve of–I think legalization and emphasis on treatment would be far better than what we have today.

However, overall, that list of positions is not only far more extreme than I am, but the denial of reality such positions would represent, and the lack of trust I would have in such an extremist would make me highly uncomfortable. I would at the very least be highly unmotivated to vote for such a person, even if to keep a similarly extreme Republican out of the race.

But what if it was between that Democrat and a Republican who was the analogue of Harry Reid–ineffectual, bumbling, unlikable, but politically relatively tame. Reid, for example, is not pro-choice, and at least tepidly supports the “Defense of Marriage” position. Turn that around and have a Republican who is pro-choice and supports gay marriage (though falls short of committing to it). That kind of moderate posturing, even if just for show, would mitigate a lot of the discomfort about the candidate. And if he’s an unlikable, ineffectual Republican, that’s actually a plus–it might help the Democrats politically, whereas a crazy extremist Democrat would probably have the opposite effect and could even disrupt the party’s workings.

Given the whole scenario: I would vote for the Republican. Honestly. And I am pretty liberal.

Which makes the prospect of Nevadans voting for Angle a mystery to me. I mean, in the scenario above, I would be calling liberals voting for the Democrat unreasonable and unthinking. So what are Nevadans thinking?

Right-wingers jumping on the inane for political traction: Michelle Obama went to her polling place in Illinois to cast her ballot early for the midterm elections. Naturally, she draws a lot of attention–people talking to her, taking photos, etc. One of them, afterwards, tells a reporter:

“She was telling me how important it was to vote to keep her husband’s agenda going.”

RED ALERT!!! The Drudge Report breathlessly gives its take on the story (the link will probably dissolve after a short time, so here’s a grab of the page code, minus ads):

FIRST LADY CAMPAIGNS INSIDE POLLING PLACE

First lady Michelle Obama appears to have violated Illinois law — when she engaged in political discussion at a polling place!

Right-wingers instantly fell on it. One newspaper pundit immediately called on Mrs. Obama to apologize:

She is a Harvard-trained lawyer who broke the law. No one is saying she should be prosecuted. It’s wrong. It’s unlawful. It’s worthy of a public apology.

A blogger at American Thinker was scandalized, and not a little creative:

Ever the pragmatist, Michelle, after voting in full-blown campaign mode, allegedly decided to encourage voters to vote Democratic in close proximity to where voters actually vote. Mrs. Obama posed for polling place pictures and then, according to Mr. Dennis Campbell, after smiling for the camera turned to remind him “how important it was to vote to keep her husband’s agenda going.” …

If, in the end, Michelle’s valiant efforts – criminal or otherwise – fail to turn the tide in favor of Democrats, on Election Day Barack and Michelle can always rely on Black Panther “prayer circles” to keep “clean spirits” from voting.

Note: I had to check to see if that last one was satire. I don’t think it is.

Pajamas Media also started sounding the alarm:

Today, when Michelle Obama voted early in Chicago, she reportedly told a voter that he needed to vote to keep her husband’s legislative agenda alive. This took place in an area where such electioneering is prohibited by Illinois law. The law has criminal consequences.

Like the New Black Panther case, photographs exist of the lawbreaking. And like the dismissal of the New Black Panther case, the administration has swung into action to abet lawbreaking. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that the first lady supports her husband’s agenda.

Like so much about the New Black Panther case, that isn’t the point. The point is the rule of law, that precious institution that makes America thrive and, in her darker hours, survive. Laws should apply equally to everyone, whether a president or a prisoner. That is the revolutionary idea that drove our revolution.

Fascinating how the Black Panthers keep getting mentioned, isn’t it? Because I’m sure they were involved somehow.

There are a lot of other examples, from news and blog sources, but you get the idea.

The problem: Michelle Obama did nothing wrong, and even if she had, it would be so innocuous as to be laughable. But she didn’t, as many have pointed out–even, after some thought, Fox News–a blogger for which, strangely, covers all the bases (I hope he still has a job tomorrow):

It all depends on what Obama actually said to the group of voters. Had she specifically told Campbell he needed to vote for a candidate who would support President Obama’s agenda, she would indeed have violated Illinois election laws, as would someone wearing a campaign button or distributing political literature inside a polling place. But according to a spokesman for the Chicago Board of Elections, Obama made no such statement.

Rather, the elections official said, Obama told the group how important it is to vote early and vote in general, a perfectly appropriate suggestion at a polling place. Campbell’s characterization of the conversation may simply have included his political position, that he voted “to keep her husband’s agenda going,” but not that the first lady had specifically encouraged Campbell to support Obama-friendly candidates.

Even if one of the other voters had mentioned their support for President Obama and the first lady agreed, she would still not be in violation of election statutes because she would not, in that case, have initiated the political conversation. The Chicago Board of Elections has not, at this time, made an inquiry into the matter.

Many other right wingers have taken a more “moderate” approach, blogging on the impropriety and/or giving it the “you decide” treatment. But in the end, it’s a whole lotta nothing.

The fact is, it was just one secondhand comment, almost offhand, not verified, not even checked–and we get a flurry of attention from the whole thing. The right-wing blogosphere and media machine, on the job.

But this is typical of the right wing: you have Christine O’Donnell spending campaign money to cover personal expenses–illegal, but who cares? California’s Whitman hired an illegal alien and lied about it–who cares? In 2008, McCain clearly violated campaign funding laws–who cares? When Republicans commit serious laws regarding or during a campaign, we’re supposed to ignore it. But when the First Lady says something in support of her husband when people approach her in a polling place–and actually breaks no laws–we should be aghast and scandalized, and we deserve a public apology.

You can go back many elections and see the same BS: Republicans violate serious laws, get a bye, but then jump all over Democrats for technical violations that aren’t even violations. It falls into the pattern–excuse what’s happening on the right by making up crap about the left while trying as much as possible to capitalize on it secondarily–like Republicans committing election fraud while accusing Democratic voters of voter fraud, then using that in attempt to squelch the Democratic vote (Michigan State Senator John Pappageorge in 2004, “If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we’re going to have a tough time in this election”).

All in good fun, though, right?

My very first day in Japan, some 27 years ago, I saw one of these machines on the street and stood there for a few minutes, staring at it and trying to figure out what the heck it was selling. I can only guss what Japanese people walking by must have thought of this foreign guy on the street staring intently at a condom vending machine. Of course, at that time, my Japanese wasn’t as good, and there was no English on the machine or the packaging to help me out.

Just a few minutes’ walk in a westerly direction from the south exit of Hibarigaoka, you can find what appears to be a small pocket of very, very well-off people. Kind of like a mini-Atherton, to those of you familiar with the south SF Bay Area. You get your first hint when you see the uncharacteristic (for Tokyo) heavy tree cover.

Then you start seeing the very nice houses, for Japan:

Many of them have a surplus of space–actually, a bit cramped by American standards, but a gate and parking space like this, in Tokyo, is absolutely a status sign:

And another interesting sign of status: American mail boxes. We saw quite a few in this area, though they are pretty rare in Japan.

I can’t even begin to guess what some of these plots–maybe as much as 1/4-acre–might be worth. But I am guessing it is a lot.

Right wingers seem to be constantly pushing the envelope these days. The latest example? A billboard showing four versions of Obama: terrorist (He’s a Muslim!), gangster (from Chicago!), bandito (Headless torsos are his fault! Somehow!), and gay man (he doesn’t bash gays!). The Obamas are playing poker, all carrying triple sixes (They’re all cheating! And they’re all the AntiChrist!), gambling with the constitution, the bible, the liberty bell, Lady Justice, Uncle Sam, and our troops, while sinister-looking rats (Get it? DemocRATS? That’s so original!) labeled IRS, trial lawyers, the EPA and the Fed scurry under the table, and grinning vultures labeled “George Soros” and “U.N.” wait for Obama to kill off America so they can pick at the carcass.

Jesus. I mean, we had a great deal to hate about Bush, but I’m not sure we ever went this far, even on web sites, much less on a public billboard. But it does show the level of complete and utter fantasy the right wing is indulging in, buying the science fiction Fox peddles as gospel.

It would be hard to image what asinine, racist, homophobic, bigoted scare imagery they didn’t include. No, wait–I don’t see him as a nazi or as a communist. Unless the Mexican is a socialist and the gay man is a closet Nazi.

The person or group who commissioned the billboard and determined its content is staying hidden–apparently they’re either too connected or too embarrassed to admit to putting this thing up. I would guess the former–one has to have little or no shame to pay for something like this.

Who wouldn’t want a peek inside of Mel’s Brain?

Of course, a closer cropping might give a hint:

Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.

Yesterday, Sachi and I took a few hours off to walk down to the local Matsuri. These happen pretty often in Japan, sometimes sponsored by the city, but usually taking place at a neighborhood shrine. This one was at Tanashi Jinja:

There was the central shrine area, where people came to pray:

Quite a few young parents came to bless their newborn children:

There was even what looked to be a Sumo ring around the side, though I think it was used more for traditional music and dancing, which we missed out on:

These are “Ema,” wooden tokens marking the prayers of shrine-goers:

Now, on one side of the matsuri, there was the traditional…

…And on the other side, just as traditional… and for many, the real reason to go:

Vendor stalls!!

Right in the gate, Sachi found some dried plums and tomatoes she couldn’t resist–and you can tell from the vendor’s face that he knows he’s got a sale.

Samples of grilled mushroom and garlic, anyone?

And what says “traditional Japanese festival” better than candied apples? Okay, maybe not–but I have been seeing these more and more.

With the tree-lined setting, it was actually quite nice, kind of a faux-touristy taste of an Edo Japan market street.

Potatoes on sale, with vats of butter at your disposal–help yourself! And add some more salt if you feel like it.

Step right up, three darts for three dollars, hit the target and get some Lilo and Stitch crap!

We’re having fun!

And who wouldn’t have fun, what with this traditional–and now, it is traditional in Japan–treat of candy-coated bananas:

Also with sprinkles!

Fried chicken in a cup…

…and pork (theoretically) on a stick! Sachi lives for the Frankfurters.

Of course, no matsuri would be complete without Takoyaki, grilled octopus in a veggie batter.

These are also common, Ooban-yaki cakes–bean paste and custard grilled fresh:

Too much fun for some…

Here’s another matsuri staple: Kingyo sukui, fishing for Goldfish. You always know there’s a local festival when you see a family coming home, the parents guarding the packaged cotton candy while the kids grasp plastic baggies with their new pets.

Sachi just loves the Takuan tsukemono, yellow pickled radish. I can’t stand the smell myself, but I have cinnamon incense for that purpose.

After the chicken and the franks, we got some pretty good yakitori, including a stick of buta bara (pork ribs), seen here in after-and-before stages.

And, we call it a day.

Remember when Byron Williams set out for San Francisco to commit mass murder at the Tides Foundation? I posited that the guy was driven to what he did by Glenn Beck, based on (a) the fact that his mother noted he was angered by “the news on television,” and (b) he was gunning for the Tides Center, a favorite scapegoat of Beck’s lunatic conspiracy theories, and was later criticized for suggesting there was cause to take legal action against Beck.

And now, we hear it directly from the horse’s mouth:

“I would’ve never started watching Fox News if it wasn’t for the fact that Beck was on there,” says this friend, Byron Williams. “And it was the things he did, it was the things he exposed, that blew my mind.”

“I do enjoy Glenn Beck,” Williams also says, “and the reason why I enjoy that is because… no other channel will speak about the same things that he’s talking about, and if you go and investigate those things you’ll find out that they’re true.” …

“Beck is going to deny everything about violent approach, deny everything about conspiracies,” Williams told the freelance journalist John Hamilton, who did the interview to be published by Media Matters. “But he’ll give you every reason to believe it. He’s protecting himself, and you can’t blame him for that. So, but I understand what he’s doing.”

Listening to Beck, Williams explained, “you can pick up ideas and you can get on your Internet and just verify it.”

One of the ideas from Beck that Williams “verified” involved the liberal billionaire George Soros. Williams said he was inspired by Beck’s shows about Soros (described by Beck as a currency manipulator of Jewish ancestry who has “disturbing hair in his nose”). Beck accused President Obama of lending $2 billion to Brazil’s oil company Petrobras just after Soros upped his stake in the company.

This turned out to be a false Internet rumor that Beck had amplified, but Williams did more research and concluded that Soros and Obama had sabotaged the BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico to cause the oil spill and thereby help Petrobras.

This, Williams said, was his main source of anger before the alleged shoot-out. “With the exception of Beck, not once did even Fox report on things like Soros investing a billion dollars in Petrobras, or not once did they mention the fact that Obama sent them $2 billion,” he noted. “Beck will not say it was a contracted hit” on the BP well by Obama and Soros, Williams said, “but he’ll give you every ounce of evidence you can possibly need to make that assumption yourself.”

The reporter goes on to say that Williams is “not an entirely reliable witness,” but I disagree: he is a perfect witness to his own thought process. And as such, he is a perfect example of how modern-day demagogues instigate violence but hide behind deniability. If I go to an already-inflamed audience of people I know are angry as hell and desperate to boot, and then I start dealing out scapegoats and conspiracy theories, then the claim that I had no idea it would spark violence among some of them is either a bald-faced lie or evidence of spectacular idiocy.

It was certainly clear to Williams:

“So now they’ve got Beck labeled as this guy that is trying to incite violence, and what I say is that if the truth incites violence, it means that we’ve been living too long in the lies,” Williams told Hamilton. “You know, when you become unemployed, desperate, you can no longer pay your bills… what do you think is gonna happen? You know, for crying out loud. It’s gonna get worse, and more and more people are gonna get desperate.”

That speaks volumes all by itself.

It happens almost every time. You see a news story you’d really like to comment on. They make you register, which means they want advertising info on you, already a pain in the ass. But this time, you’re motivated enough to give it a try. So you fill out your birth year and ZIP code and crap like that (absolutely necessary for commenting on a web news story, naturally), then click “register”…

And of course, nothing happens. They send you no confirmation email. So you sit there wondering, “Well, will it come in the next five minutes? Should I wait an hour?” Nothing in spam, nothing in the Inbox. The account checks out fine, is functioning. Their site claims it should only take a few minutes, but has no option to reapply quickly with another account, they only suggest something must be wrong on your side. And you just know that if you try to reapply again, you’ll meet a mess of problems, like they’ll tell you that your user name is now taken, or the password cannot be re-used, or something else will go wrong–and if it doesn’t, then you’ll just have the same problem as before–no email will come.

And now you’ve wasted half an hour trying to make a stupid damned comment on a news story.

If this had only happened to me once or twice, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But it doesn’t. More than half of all large sites’ registration processes I have tried to access, over several years, have given me this frustration, which is why I rarely attempt it any more.

The Republicans always promise cuts, but are too gutless to actually say what they’re going to cut. One reason for this is simple: most of the things they want to cut are popular, and if they gave a complete list of full cuts, it wouldn’t amount to nearly as much as they claim they’ll save. Of course, the biggest reason is that they’re slick political operators: they know that any specifics will piss off someone, and so they remain as vague as possible whilst sounding as adamant as can be, knowing that most voters will stupidly buy the sham hook, line, and sinker.

But they made a bit of a slip in their “Pledge to America”: they said they would cut 21% from $477 billion of domestic discretionary spending in the Stimulus. And since we know what is in that spending specifically, it is possible to get a few things the GOP would rather we not see–that being actual specific. And the specifics are not pretty, as we reflect on the fact that–unlike the GOP plan to cut taxes for billionaires–most if not all of what the Dems want to spend is actually productive and badly needed. Bloomberg figured out a few things that the GOP would actually cut:

• $15 billion from education
• $13 billion from money to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure
• $6 billion from health research, such as the National Cancer Institute and other research
• $5 billion from student tuition in the form of Pell Grants
• $400 million from police forces nationwide

Not hard to figure out why they didn’t get specific, is it? Now, military spending, they’ll protect, especially stuff like the missile defense program, stuff that pours billions into corporate research that pays off the least in terms of jobs and infrastructure, but does great for their patrons. But you and me? We can go suck it.

Daniel Dilger at Roughly Drafted had a good sum-up in his piece on large corporate mergers (Microsoft and Adobe are looking to get together), saying:

We now have the product of a decade of pro-consolidation, anti-regulation public policy: banks and massive corporations control the government and entertain the middle class with the notion that they should give up any demand for “socialist” benefits in exchange for providing multinational monopolies with the freedom to pay low wages, syphon their profits into tax shelters, and pay no regard to any sort of environmental issues or invest anything into the proper education and critical infrastructure of the nation.

Understanding this setup helps one see why Republicans hate the kind of spending listed above. Education money does not go into the coffers of large corporations; if teachers get paid and schools get supplies, how does that help the establishment? All it does is make the next generation a bit smarter, which does not help the establishment maintain control. And infrastructure? If the government builds it, how can private industry charge for it? Health research? Doesn’t that cut into Big Pharma’s field? And a lot of that might be research telling the corporations how dangerous their products are.

No, money going directly to people doing their jobs and young people learning to think are counterproductive to the society that today’s GOP wants to build. They don’t want people to be employed without private industry getting their cut off the top, they don’t want the electorate to get too smart (especially off the public’s dime, which goes equally for everyone, or–gasp–to the poor, who need it most), and they certainly don’t want people to see government doing anything right for fear that private industry would not be able to do the same thing while charging more for the profit they skim.

Sorry, just felt like a rant today. Short story: cuts always hurt someone, they always gore somebody’s ox. That’s why government abhors not spending.