Time to take charge, B, ctd.

The Deepwater Rig disaster gets the Big Picture treatment.   Crazy stuff.  

 
I enjoyed this comment, too. 

It is easy to cast blame for this horrible disaster - it's BP's fault, it's George Bush's fault, it's the fault of corporate greed, whatever. But you know who's really at fault here? Look in the mirror, sunshine. At the end of the day, each one of us has to accept some level of blame by continuing to fuel the market for oil.

Do you drive a car? Then you're partly to blame. Do you have any plastic products in your home whatsoever? Then you are as guilty as anyone.

We all drive cars or take public transit (which runs on oil). We all buy stuff made out of plastic. We all wear synthetic clothes and shoes, we all go to Wal-Mart for deals on cheap crap that came here from Bangkok on a ship that burns oil. We wash our hair with shampoo that comes in a plastic bottle (made from oil) and put on deodorant (which comes in a plastic container) each and every day. Heck, I'm typing this rant on a plastic keyboard that was made from oil, and you're probably reading it on a plastic computer with an LCD screen. They're made with oil too. That makes every single one of us - you too - collectively responsible for those birds and turtles and dragonflies dying.

Stop casting blame and start looking at how we're all screwing up the world we live in. Until we are willing to change the way we live, we will only keep doing this again and again. I'm not saying we all go back to wearing loin cloths and hunt our own food, but reduce our demand for oil by reducing, reusing and recycling.

Three Blind Mice

Three-parts gubernatorial candidate; one-part people's vote on the Massachusetts Sales Tax Rollback.   Apparently, that's the recipe for a bun cake of retarded political douchebaggery, according to this article from Boston.com.   This story (curiously?) came and went with little fanfare or discussion in this little blue state, considering the November mid-term races are heating up.

How is it that all three candidates have absolutely zero response for the prospect of a $2.4B revenue gap?  Maybe list out some sensible budget cuts?   Instead they simply bang away on the scare-tactic of "limiting local aid" which has been a proven winner to sway the pussified liberals here in the past. 

[T]he major candidates for governor, all of whom say they oppose the initiative to reduce the sales tax rate from 6.25 to 3 percent, a move that would cost the state up to $2.4 billion in annual revenue beginning Jan. 1.

What if voters approve it anyway? Well, the candidates say they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.

"If that's the decision they make, we're all going to have to deal with it in state government one way or another," said Republican candidate Charles Baker, who supports rolling the rate back to 5 percent. "Of course everything would be on the table."

Baker's lack of a plan is shared by independent candidate Tim Cahill and incumbent Democrat Deval Patrick.

Cahill, who also supports rolling the sales tax back to 5 percent, said he will "enforce the will of the voters and will wait to see what they decide," but hasn't outlined what he would cut to make up for the sudden loss of revenue.

Patrick, who supports returning the sales tax rate to 5 percent after the state fully recovers from the recession, also has yet to detail how he would cope with the cut but warned through his campaign that a cut to 3 percent "would have a devastating impact on the essential services that everyone in the Commonwealth relies upon."

This should be eye-opening to any voters who believe the ridiculous notion that either party is serious about fiscal sanity.  They both want to spend.  One is no better than the other.   Time for residents in this state to wake up and choose someone who will lay it on the line and start talking about cuts. 

Time to take charge, B

Check out this great editorial from Boston.com, urging President Obama  to take the reigns on the Deepwater oil spill disaster.  

Money Quote:

It’s appalling that the federal government, under any administration, would allow drilling deep underwater without making adequate preparations for a massive oil leak. But that’s what happened. After the oil spill, Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new wells and said that he is stopping the type of waivers that BP was able to obtain. But, as The New York Times has reported, at least seven new permits for various type of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted since then. That is an insult to those harmed by the disaster unfolding on the Gulf Coast.

It's certainly turning into his giant debacle, with every passing BP failing attempt to plug the leak.   I'm glad he called out BP to pay for it all, but at some point he needs to grab every top mind in oceanography, physics, engineering etc to come up with solutions.   Pointing fingers just isn't enough. 

The Trouble with Taxes and Cuts

Bartlett and Bainbridge go at it over the federal defict and how it will inevitably impact defense spending or lead to a tax hike of some sort.   I think both make excellent points to one another, from two similar but different ideological positions .   Here are the two key points.

Bartlett:

Republicans primarily concerned about national security ought to be in the forefront of efforts to raise revenues to reduce deficits, free up domestic saving for domestic investment, and reduce the importation of foreign saving and the trade deficit. But so far they are not. They remain loyal to the Republican obsession with tax cuts and a refusal to raise taxes in any way for any reason. However, I think my national security-minded friends are soon going to discover that massive defense budget cuts will necessarily be a big part of the price that will be paid for not raising revenues.

Bainbridge:

Given a choice between spending $100 billion on defense [or] shoring up public sector union pension funds, what does Bartlett think his Democratic buddies would do? Given a choice between spending $100 billion on the troops and $100 billion on an unnecessary war of choice, what does Bartlett think the neoconservatives would do?

It's sort of like the old joke about an economist stranded on a desert island, whose punch line "assume a can opener." Bartlett's critique of his old friends would have a lot more traction if he could explain why we should assume a sudden outbreak of good government.

Until I see proof the beast has reformed, I say starve the [expletive deleted].

Can't realy argue with Bainbridge there.  New boss, same as old boss.   Personally I prefer any heavy spending be done domestically and not on American Imperialism ventures.  That aside, something needs to be done about the deficit.   Bainbridge does well to wrap up after a short back-and-forth with Bartlett and gets more to the heart of the matter:

To be clear, however, my point is not that deficit reduction and other sensible budgetary policies can be achieved only through cutting spending. (Just as Bartlett presumably thinks we need spending cuts as well as tax increases.)

On a bipartisan basis, our rulers have spent us into a position in which taxes probably will have to go up at least for a while. But agreeing to tax increases ought to be done only in return for a package of fundamental reforms. We need entitlement reforms (including raising the retirement age), budgetary reforms (bans on ear marks, a line item veto, and a balanced budget amendment), political reforms (real restrictions on gerrymandering), and the like. Letting the powers that be have higher taxes without those other reforms will not solve the problem. All it does is make for a bigger candy store to which we've given the keys to the children.

Put simply, absent real reforms, I don't want anybody in Washington or Sacramento getting their grubby hands on any more of my money because I don't trust them to spend it wisely. My guess is that a lot of Bartlett's new friends on the left, for example, would be quite content to raise taxes and massively cut defense. So the either/or he presents strikes me as a false choice.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid we probably need to wait until things get bad enough that politicians on all sides will be forced to agree to fundamental reforms to avoid going the way of Greece.

Erica Blasberg 1984 - 2010, ctd.

Stephanie Wei shares some anecdotes and pictures from Ray Kim, Erica's close friend and former caddie.  It makes for a touching memorial.  

The Illusion of Rasmussen Polling

Kos breaks down how Rasmussen weaves in and out of polling desirable and non-desirable primaries and elections in order to frame his preferred narrative and keep his precious "most accurate pollster" grades up.

Nothing shady here at all (rolls eyes)

It's not as if Rasmussen doesn't poll primaries. In fact, it polled the Pennsylvania Senate Democratic primary two weeks ago. But again, it refused to do a pre-election poll, because doing so would no longer help set narratives, and that's all Rasmussen cares about.

Today, Rasmussen released a poll showing Dick Blumenthal suddenly in trouble in Connecticut. How convenient! And narrative setting. Too bad he couldn't poll actual elections.
And yes, by November, Rasmussen's polling will be nicely in line with the rest of the polling aggregate, as he adjusts his voter screens to match reality, not whatever GOP-heavy universe he currently lives in. By then, he'll be less worried about setting narratives, and more worried about getting races right so that he can brag about his electoral track record. That way, he uses that credibility in order to once again set bullshit narratives in the 2012 election cycle. It's quite the scam!

Because if it itsn't a scam, there's no reason he should've skipped polling the big Tuesday races.

Carrying luggage takes a wide stance, ctd.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.