Fuck Me, Please!

Barbara ComstockSoledad O’Brien does the most amazing thing: she counter’s Romney apologist Barbara Comstock’s ridiculous comments about Obama cutting Medicare.[1] The argument the Romney campaign is making is that Obama has cut $700 billion from Medicare and that it is very, very bad. Seniors, be afraid! Be very afraid! The problem is that Ryan’s newest budget (that is much nicer to the old and poor than his earlier one) calls for the same $700 billion cut. But in Obama’s budget, that money is mostly saved by cutting Medicare payments to hospitals for treating uninsured patients. Why? Because under Obamacare, there will be 60% fewer uninsured patients. Ryan, on the other hand, uses the money for extra military spending and tax cuts for the rich. (Funny how conservative deficit reduction always ends in more tax cuts and military spending and no actual deficit reduction.)

To be clear: Obama cuts funding but not services; Ryan cuts funding and services.

This is a great opportunity for Romney. He has claimed that he will roll back Obama’s Medicare cuts. But then he walks all over himself. Jonathan Chait has quoted him in a New York Times article:

“The truth is we simply cannot … continue to pretend … a Medicare on track to go bankrupt at some point is acceptable,” Mr. Romney said at a news conference in Miami. “We must take action to make sure that we can save Medicare for coming generations.”

This has not been, and I doubt it will become, the major promise of the campaign. Instead, Romney and company will continue to proffer what I have come to refer to as the “Fuck Me, Please!” argument. Barbara Comstock repeats it over and over in her interview, “No one under 55 will see their Medicare changed!”

In other words: if you are young you probably won’t vote for us anyway, so fuck you!

This is remarkable for a party that spends so much of its time claiming to want to protect future generations. The argument always comes down to something like this: Social Security will only be able to pay 70% of promised benefits in 40 years; we need to cut current benefits to 70%! In the case of the Ryan budget, it is this: Medicare is unsustainable in the future; we need to destroy it today!

This really isn’t an exaggeration. Ryan’s plan is to depend upon his religious belief that if we let markets work, all problems are solved. His idea is to give seniors vouchers to buy healthcare from private insurers. Then, healthcare costs will go down. How does he know the costs will go down? Capitalism! There are many problems with this, but the most direct refutation is Medicare Advantage. This is part of Medicare where seniors can get their care in the private sector. The idea was (1) private insurance; (2) capitalism; (3) magic! Instead, it was (1) private insurance; (2) corporate profits; (3) disaster! And by “Disaster!” I mean that it costs about 20% more for the same care.

It makes me very angry to hear people talk about how they aren’t going to touch current recipients of Medicare and Social Security. If this statement has to be made, it must be that current recipients like these programs. Luckily, just as when Bush wanted to privatize Social Security, most seniors are more empathic than the conservative establishment. They think that I shouldn’t be fucked just because I happened to have been born late.

Update (Right Away)

Check out this screen shot of Fox News on Monday. The title read, “Saving Medicare. Ryan Plan: 55 & Older Won’t See Changes.” If I don’t watch Fox News for a while, I forget just how completely they are the media arm of the Republican Party. MSNBC, for all of it problems would never do something like this:

Fox News - 55 and Older Won't See Changes

Update (14 August 2012 6:49 pm)

Sarah Kliff has a nice, short article on WonkBlog about where exactly the $700 ($716 actually) billion gets cut. It is roughly a third each of hospital reimbursement, Medicare Advantage, and other things. She writes:

The rest of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicare cuts are a lot smaller. Reductions to Medicare’s Disproportionate Share Payments — extra funds doled out the hospitals that see more uninsured patients — account for 5 percent in savings. Lower payments to home health providers make up another 8.8 percent. About a dozen cuts of this magnitude make up the [other category].

It’s worth noting that there’s one area these cuts don’t touch: Medicare benefits. The Affordable Care Act rolls back payment rates for hospitals and insurers. It does not, however, change the basket of benefits that patients have access to. And, as Ezra pointed out earlier today, the Ryan budget would keep these cuts in place.


[1] This is really good. Barbara Comstock even brings up Death Panels:

Bitterness and Sentimentality

Night of the MeekTonight I watched the 23 December 1960 episode of The Twilight Zone, “The Night of the Meek.” It stars Art Carney as Henry Corwin, a man driven to booze by a world that doesn’t care about them that’re supposed to inherit it. It is a very sentimental crying fest of a movie. And I tend to hate such things. But there are times when this is exactly what you want.

There is a very close connection to sentimentality and bitterness. I often think that people who read this blog must think I am a very bitter person, but this isn’t the case at all. I’m more like Henry Corwin: I dream, I wish, I hope. But what we want is not what most people think.

I’m reminded (because digby posted it again this morning) of the video of the man with Parkinson’s Disease protesting in favor of the ACA. There were many Tea Party protesters standing above him (the man was sitting on the ground) shouting at him and dropping dollar bills on him. But he just sat there emotionless. It’s a great example of people at their best (the Parkinson’s sufferer) and their worst (the three Tea Party shouters). All the man wanted was to be treated for the disease he was unjustly given. It wasn’t that much to ask.

Henry and I are the same. We aren’t asking for the rich to not be rich. We aren’t asking for an end to all violence or for everyone to always smile like Bill Mumy in “It’s a Good Life.” We just want people to be able to get by and not have bombs dropped on them. That’s not asking so much.

But I can see that people might mistake it for bitterness—specially if they already feel guilty.

Update (Right Away)

Gold Stand Gooood; Inflation Baaaad!

Ben BernankeThis morning, Brad Plumer writes about Paul Ryan’s bizarre ideas about how raising the Fed funds rate would get the economy moving. You see, by making bank credit more expensive, people would start investing more. You know how it is: if you go to the store and lettuce is one dollar, you might buy one head; but if it is $20, well, it’s time to stock up! This is what wunderkind Paul Ryan thinks about monetary policy.

If this sounds crazy, there’s a reason. While unserious people get their ideas about monetary policy from boring sources like economics textbooks, Serious People—and no one is as Serious as Paul Ryan—get theirs from Atlas Shrugged! And what do Ayn Rand’s 1.5-dimensional characters have to say about monetary policy? Gold stand gooood; inflation baaaad!

Okay, Ryan is a loon. But there is a serious issue here. The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate: keep inflation and unemployment low. But the Fed seems to have abandoned this idea. Here is a graph from Plumer’s article:

Inflation and Unemployment Timeline

Note the inflation and unemployment target lines. See anything strange? Since late 2008 (I wonder if something happened then?) the actual inflation rate has mostly been below target, and when it has been above target it has only been slightly above. (Note that many economists think that the inflation target of 2% is too low and that it should be raised to 3% or even 4%.) Contrast this to the unemployment rate that has always been above target—mostly way above target.

Matt Yglesias recently wrote about this (but I can’t find the article, this Bernanke to Economy: Drop Dead will give you the idea). He noted that if things were the other way around—inflation was high and unemployment was low—that Bernanke and Company would be very active. But when it is the way it is now, the Fed is lackadaisical. Why is this? Could it be that high inflation hurts rich people and high unemployment not only hurts poor people but also helps rich people? Could the Fed be this callous?

You know my answer.

New York 1938

This is via someone named Spocko (If this proves how unhip I am: you’re surprised?!) via the always wonderful digby. It is the funniest thing I’ve seen since last night when I was gorging on Firesign Theater. But still: this is very funny. This shows how Scientology and Objectivism were born. And the actors look a fair amount like those fucktards (except Ayn Rand was never this pretty):

Ayn Rand: This is aimed at the people who want to feel smarter than religious people. No, no, no. The goal here is to take those with a religious zealot’s sense of superiority but without the forced, obligitory compassion. If done right, we can take the most wealthy, powerful, and privileged people and get them to talk like they’re the poor persecuted minority. They will become the most slappable people on earth!

L. Ron Hubbard: That’s almost too evil. You can’t!

Ayn Rand: Oh, I’m doing it. I’m going to write a book and soon rich white males will be gathering en masse to congratulate themselves on how awesome they are for doing exactly what they already wanted to do anyway.

Update (12 August 2012 11:09 pm)

I found this video is based upon an article from Goblin Books:

The author has several other adventures of Ayn and L. Ron. Very funny stuff. Such as:

If you are reading this it means that Tom Cruise has already killed me—possibly with the aid of John Stossel. Stossel will be coming for you next, and there is probably nothing you can do. My dear friend, I am so sorry to have brought this darkness into your life. I wish I’d never found the Ayn Rand documents. I wish I’d never stumbled onto the secret. Because it goes further than either of us ever could have imagined…

Stephanopoulos 1; Pawlenty 0

Is Tim Pawlenty scared or what?! This is truly amazing:

Just in case you aren’t as up on all this stuff as weirdos like me: Pawlenty obviously gave Romney more than 2 years of taxes. Why did Romney require more years of taxes than Romney thinks he himself should have to share with the voting public? I’ve never thought much of Stephanopoulos, but this was brilliant.

The One Commandment

Vardhamana MahaviraThere are perhaps as many as 20 million Jains in the world. This is roughly twice as many adherents to Jainism as to Judaism—especially when you consider that a lot of “Jews” follow Judaism as much as I follow Catholicism. And Jainism is a hard road to brush. (Note: Jain joke!) But a beautiful one.

One of the greatest teachers of Jainism is Vardhamana Mahavira. More than that really. If you think of Christianity, Mahavira is at least Paul, if not Jesus himself.

Jainism, like all religions, has many wacky rituals and beliefs. This isn’t a bad thing; nerds have similar rituals and beliefs like debates about whether Kirk or Picard is the better starship captain. What’s most important is the core belief a religion. And for the Jains it is nonviolence.[1]

Here is a quotation from Vardhamana Mahavira:

All breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain, nor treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away.

Just imagine if our society were built on this rather than, say, the Ten (or so) Commandments! Not that I’m suggesting that you should covet thy neighbor’s house. Or wife. Or manservant. Or maidservant. Or ox. Or ass. (Not the ass!) Or any of that jerk’s stuff.


[1] I have no idea what it is for the nerds. Rationality, perhaps? It’s hard to say. Certainly not nonviolence. Being a wimp is not the same as being nonviolent. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide. Perhaps it is 42.

Free Will

Free WillI just read Sam Harris’ Free Will. There was nothing new in it for me. I have already worked all this stuff out for myself. But it was nice to see the argument laid out so well. For those of you who don’t spend all your time fretting about such issues, it goes like this: all of your choices are neurochemical; you can no more not do what you do than hydrogen and oxygen can combine to form helium. As Harris writes (I’m not looking up the exact quote), to say that under different circumstances you would have made some different choice is the same as saying that in a different universe you would be in a different universe.

We are all machines—gloriously complex machines, but machines nonetheless. We already know this in terms of our bodies. Athletes are shockingly predictable machines. At this year’s Olympics, Usain Bolt ran the 100 m dash 0.05 seconds slower than his best time of 9.58 seconds. That’s a difference of 0.5%. Similarly, professional basketball players are remarkably consistent. People (Even the athletes themselves!) believe in streaks, but all that is ever seen are predictable statistical variations on their bases. In other words, a player with a 42% field goal average is a machine that makes field goals 42% of the time.

Free will then is nothing but an illusion—admittedly a fairly useful one. But it is also a dangerous one, and this is Harris’ main argument. For a long time, I’ve felt that I couldn’t come out and say that I felt sorry for pedophiles. They are such a pox on our society—such dangerous creatures with such innocent victims—I felt certain that people would go off on me. Yet I know from my experience that my sex drive—incredibly, depressingly typical though it may be—is in no way under my control. When I was younger, I tried to change my tastes into something more exotic, but it just isn’t in me. I like what most men like, except with glasses.[1]

How could it be any different for a pedophile? I can’t imagine that pedophiles actually think of Marilyn Monroe as a sex goddess and yet go around raping children because it is so fun to be evil. Pedophiles must be (among other things) machines that want to have sex with children. I’m not suggesting that we say, “Hey! They are what they are: let them go on raping!” Harris discusses this exact point. We don’t allow grizzly bears to wander the streets eating people; when they get too close to populations, they are removed. But we don’t moralize about grizzly bears: they are built to kill and eat creatures such as humans.

Clearly, we must keep pedophiles away from children. This will clearly restrict their freedom. But locking them up in prisons so they can be gang raped and otherwise brutalized is not an ethical approach to the problems that pedophiles represent in our society.

Free Will is an excellent little book. I mean this literally. It is excellent in that you could not ask for a better introduction to this subject. And it is little, coming in at perhaps 12,000 words—the length of an average magazine feature. And it is a book, because it is bound that way. Whether it is really worth $9.99 ($3.99 for the eBook), I will leave to you.


[1] There is, of course, the Sarah Vowell effect. How can a nerd such as me not think she is just too adorable for words. Or Kristen Schaal, who’s ditzy persona screams, “I’m smarter than you!” Even if she is a horse:

In the 70s, Schaal and Kurt Braunohler were at best toddlers. Now that’s comedy!

Waiting for the Firesign Theater or Someone Like Them

“You wanna hear me rap? I saw the best minds of my generation…” That is a line from the first Firesign Theater album I ever heard (The first they recorded!), Waiting for the Electrician or Someone Like Him from 1968. I was looking for something to listen to while I made dinner tonight, and I came upon the entire album on YouTube! I laughed like it was the first time I’d heard it. It is 42 minutes long, but it is well worth the time:

Reagan 2.0 in 2016!

Paul Ryan - Reagan 2.0I’ve read a lot today about Mitt Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan for the VP spot on his ticket. The best was Paul Krugman referring to them as Gekko and Galt: the “greed is good” character from Wall Street and the demigod from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. But overall, nothing I read sounded correct. To me, the pick of Paul Ryan was forced on Romney by the Republican establishment. But this was not done because they thought it was a winning ticket. Quite the opposite.

I think the Republican establishment has decided that Romney will lose this election. The pick of Ryan is a way to pull their hero into the national spotlight. Although it is hard for political junkies to understand: the vast majority of the nation has no idea who he is. This is the opportunity to set Paul Ryan up for a presidential run in 2016. They think he will be Reagan 2.0.

If they were really smart, these power brokers would have gotten Ryan nominated this year. This is the best chance for a really vile candidate like Ryan (or Romney) to get elected. In another four years under Obama, the economy will very likely be doing quite well. And this will provide Hillary Clinton with an excellent chance to be the next president.

Of course, it is still possible that Romney will win this election. But I don’t think the Ryan choice has anything to do with this. I’m sure the thinking is: great if Romney wins, but let’s make the best of the likely loss. As usual, the conservatives are overplaying their hand. They think that if the people just get exposed to Ryan and his “ideas,” they will love them. I think things are just the opposite. I’m glad that Paul Ryan will get more attention. He deserves more attention—just not the kind the Beltway pundits like to give him.

Afterword

Mark Thoma has put together a great set of Paul Krugman articles about Paul Ryan that are very much worth reading.

Update (12 August 2012 6:47 pm)

Although I have not read it, it appears my idea is not novel:

David Barton Breaks Out and Down

David BartonI have a theory: religion is so big in the United States because it is the only place where people can find any meaning in their lives. From the founding of this country up to recently, America has not been that religious a country. People gave lip service to religion, but the prevailing view was, “Pray to God, but row for shore.” We have traditionally been a pragmatic people who would do anything that can’t hurt but might help. And in the 1950s, we got very ostentatious about religious faith only to distinguish ourselves politically from the atheists in the USSR.

A few months ago, David Barton was on The Daily Show. When I saw he was scheduled, I was really angry. It wasn’t just that Barton is one of the most sleazy men on the planet—one whose research is designed explicitly to obfuscate and actively deceive. It was that this was the second time Jon Stewart had him on his show. The first time, Barton ran circles around him because like most people, Stewart doesn’t know the subject. I have a hard time with this because after reading Chris Rodda for a couple of years, I know Barton’s deceptions and how to answer them. Stewart’s second chance was no better than his first.

This week, Barton is again big news. Now, it is because his publisher has decided to pull his recent book, The Jefferson Lies. It is a shocking turn of events, because the book is a big seller, making the publisher—Thomas Nelson—huge amounts of money. (This probably isn’t that big a deal; most of the money has already been made.) I suspect what is going on is that the whole conservative Christian movement is trying to save face by distancing themselves from the Christian Nationalists. This is the first book of this type to break out into the mainstream. One thing that radical groups want to avoid is too much attention while they are preparing their revolution.

As a result, there has been a big push back from other conservative Christians—but not Christian Nationalists. As with everything, there are levels of intolerance. It is nice to know that not all conservative Christians want to rewrite our history and install a theocracy. But this does not mean these people are our friends.

Whenever I find myself in a church, I pick up their pamphlets, because I want to know what they are thinking about. Recently, I picked up one called, “If you died today, are you 100% sure Heaven (population unlimited) will be your home?” This kind of fear based appeal of Christians really bothers me. But what is even more remarkable is just how cheaply heaven comes. The pamphlet spends a lot of time and redundant text to explain that all you have to do to know 100% that you are going to heaven is two things:

  1. Believe in original sin
  2. Believe that Jesus died for your sins

Is this pathetic? I think so. With all of the problems that humans face in the world, one of the major religions tells the people that they don’t have to do anything at all; they just have to believe two things (for which there is scant evidence).

It amazes me that a religion that could spawn thinkers as great as Thomas Aquinas is now reduced in its most benign form to the “Peter Pan” level of, “If you only believe…” And further reduced in its more pernicious form to David Barton and Christian Nationalism. But such debasement does not happen over night but has one primary cause. That cause is intellectual isolation.

This is an issue that is poisoning our entire culture. People fear of listening to anyone who disagrees with them. In general, those who read David Barton are only trying to justify what they already believe. This isn’t bad on a small scale—we all do it. But on the political right (religious and not), hermetically sealed institutions have been created. Try this: talk to someone who only gets their news from Fox and right wing radio. You will find that there are major news stories they know nothing about. On the other hand, they will be able to tell you about “important” stories that you’ve never heard of.

The same thing goes on with the conservative Christian community. I used to get lots of junk forwarded to me from a conservative Christian family member. Much of it was very uplifting nonsense: God loves you and you know this because Betty got her rent money after praying to God. (Anyone else notice that Santa is just the child’s version of God?) But much of it was vile stuff about in-group/out-group politics: Hollywood is eating every other male child. The main thing is that there is no truth in any of this. All the stories are made up, even though they explicitly claim to be true. But if this is what you surround yourself with, you will believe that abortion is evil because Beethoven was born after his syphilitic mother had given birth to three deaf, two blind, and one mentally retarded children. (He wasn’t.) And you will also believe that natural selection is an atheist plot because you’ve only ever heard deniers talk about it. (Kind of like global warming deniers!)

Christians often find that they don’t want to discuss theology with me after very little time. Why? I gather because they feel that my questions harm their faith. And yet, I have no problem being open to them; I never worry that they are going to make a point that will cause me to rethink everything and believe in their God; I don’t care what the truth is, I just want to find it. Maybe the problem is that what they really worship is the feeling they have that they’ve found the truth and they don’t want to give that illusion up. This strikes me as an evil illusion—especially when draped in the cloak of the search for the truth.

David Barton committed the ultimate sin of the intellectually retarded: he talked to people who only want to be reassured. As a result, in the broader community, he will now be a joke. Don’t expect to see him on The Daily Show again. But he will continue to be important inside his movement. He will continue to make a lot of money. And he will continue to pander to the closed minds who covet his rationalizations.

Unexpected Displeasures

Tall Girl Short BoyYou can’t have missed the Buick Verano Unexpected Pleasures ad campaign. The idea, I guess, is there is some kind of unexpected pleasure to driving a small luxury car, because it is a shocking revelation that a GPS and seat warmer could be put in a small car. Or something. I don’t know and I don’t care. I’m not a car guy. (Try to contain your shock.)

The most popular of these ads is the one where Peter Frampton shows up to play Vale’s Roadhouse (?) when the house band’s guitarist comes down with a case of the sniffles. Okay: Frampton is a competent guitar player. Such a thing would be moderately cool. The cue chalking lady disturbs me though; she’s just a bit too excited, but hey, whatever floats your boat. But what the ad campaign thinks is a pleasure, is not always so debatable.

Dance Class

In what is by far the weirdest commercial I’ve seen in recent months, Buick claims that a pleasure is for a boy to be assigned a dance partner who is a foot taller than he is. As usual, when I’m interested in something, I have to put it up on the internet. Apparently, I have odd tastes. But not as odd as the author of this commercial:

I am a short guy: 5’7″ if you count the cowlick. Dancing with a girl that is much taller than you is not pleasurable on many levels. In this case, the boy would be thinking: the girl is going to be embarrassed and she should be because I am rat boy; I am going to look like an idiot dancing with giraffe girl here; it’s going to be like a mouse dancing with an elephant. (I have now exhausted my knowledge of animals.)

The Napoleon Complex is not something that affects small men; it is something that affects our culture. The idea is that if a small man is aggressive, there is something special wrong with him; a large man who is aggressive is either a hero or an asshole, depending upon who you ask — there is nothing wrong with him, though; he’s just being a real man. It is indicative of a society in which men are supposed to be tall and women short. And no one is more aware of this expectation than short boys and tall girls.

At a school dance, it is always the short boys and tall girls who are left to stand around. (This is a lie; I’m speculating; I’ve never been to a school dance in my life.) Certainly these outcasts could form an alliance, but they don’t for reasons that will become clear within a few hundred years when society destroys itself. But even if these groups bound together — even if the short boy and the tall girl decided they loved each other — they wouldn’t like being randomly thrown together; there would be no up side to the major downs.

Perhaps the author of this commercial was trying to be politically correct. It works the other way around: tall boy and short girl, even though the dancing is not less ridiculous. Why shouldn’t it work the other way around? Because gender expectations are very strong — especially for kids. In dance class, the short boys worry about being placed with the tall girls, and the tall girls worry about being placed with the short boys. I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t fight dumb gender expectations. But the first part of doing so is to admit that they exist. And pretending that the little boy in the commercial is happy is much the same as assuming we live in a colorblind society.