Same Old Saga

And In This Corner ...

Situation Normal

Sequester Day

Sequester Day
All my troubles seemed so far away.
Now I have to do without my pay.
That’s not okay.
Sequester Day.

Suddenly
I’m a victim of the G.O.P.
All my colleagues at the D.O.D.
Can’t seem to see a role for me.

Why I’m on furlough
I don't know.
It’s so unfair.
They blame deficits
But those twits
Don’t really ca-a-a-are.

Sequester Day.
But I still have all my bills to pay.
The election didn’t go their way
But still they made
Sequester Day.
Mmm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mmm!

And in other news ...

Now that we’ve survived the momentous election of 2012, in which a flood of money and hurricane force winds of hot air brought us more or less the same government we had before, it’s time we turned our attention to other pressing matters.

But I can’t. For one thing, it’s deeply gratifying to see that Mitt Romney has not let failure go to his head. Actually, it seems there’s not much he does let go to his head. He’s still the same lovable clueless doof he always was. Instead of railing against the now famous 47% of Americans who minimize their taxes almost as effectively as he does, Romney has accused Obama of buying votes by adopting policies that actually benefit millions of people. Egads!

Obama, meanwhile, has signaled that he’s going to be a force to be reckoned with during his second term. He’s not going to let the Republicans walk all over him as he has in the past. From now on, they’ll have to take their shoes off.

Of course, the shocking, earth-shattering news is that someone in a position of power committed adultery. Now there's nothing unusual about famous, powerful people engaging in hanky-panky. We’ve all seen stories ranging from Bill Clinton's receiving the head of state to the former bodybuilder turned actor turned California Governor impregnating his staff to the jealous, Depends-wearing astronaut trying to avoid bathroom stops as she drove furiously across country to assault her rival. But the remarkable thing about the David Petraeus story is ... there's nothing remarkable about it. Seriously. The guy was having an affair. Boring.

Why are we even still talking about it?

Battle Hymn of the Republicans

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the GOP campaign.
We have nominated Romney. (All the others were insane.)
We don’t have to have a plan ‘cause all we have to do’s complain.
The campaign marches on.

Chorus:
Grand Old Party, Hallelujah!
Grand Old Party, Hallelujah!
Grand Old Party, Hallelujah!
The campaign marches on.

Oh, the rich will solve our problems. They could do it all today
But they’re feeling so inhibited by taxes they must pay.
They’re against anything Keynesian. After all the man was gay.
The campaign marches on.

Chorus

Republicans deny that man-made climate change is true.
They just want to keep on drilling, mining and keep fracking too,
‘Cause the sea waters are rising and the coastal states are blue.
The campaign marches on.

Chorus

We would not have bailed Detroit out. Then again maybe we would.
Both FEMA and the EPA are bad, except when good.
For whatever is my stance is not near anyplace I’ve stood.
Mitt Romney marches … uh, whatever.

Chorus

I can’t wait until election night to finally get some sleep
When our country has a President and very hopeful Veep.
The voters will deserve it. As you sow, so shall you reap.
The campaign marches on.

Chorus

Seriously. The Election.

There are now only 8 shopping days until Election Day, and holiday spirit is in the air. Friend turns against friend, and fan page against fan page. As always, people seem to think their side is the only remotely reasonable one, and people supporting the other side must be crazy.

But all this rancor is counter-productive (except for some really funny videos), so, as a public service, I’d like to remind everyone of the following:

1. Both parties are full of it. Really. No matter what they say, they are both basically in the business of hustling for contributions, and that means sucking up to the organizations that can really pour it on. And now, thanks to the Supreme Court, that means every corporation, with no limits. A corporation’s priority is to make as much money as it can, and now the political parties’ priority is to help them do it.
2. All candidates are full of it. But I’m not that cynical. I’m sure some of them actually believe what they’re saying, that they’re fundamentally virtuous people who just have to make a few compromises, like building a pipeline to move environmentally disastrous oil sands oil across the U. S. because hey, Exxon Mobile can really heap the simoleons on our campaign. See item #1.
3. Nobody knows how to fix the economy. It’s true. Nobody. The Democrats obviously don’t, and the Republicans don’t even think it’s broken. This is what they’ve been trying to achieve for over 30 years. It’s called “starving the beast.” Google it.
4. Campaign ads, and especially quotes taken out of context by the other side, are always meaningless. Everybody’s looking for ways to make the other side look bad. Of course they’re going to slice and dice every random comment a candidate ever made to try to make it sound damning. It doesn’t matter what these guys say because a) their jobs are not about talking, and b) they’re all lying anyway. (See item #2.) When a campaign ad starts, hit the Mute button.
5. Yes, the welfare state is expensive, but so are cars. You don’t hear anyone talking about dismantling roads. 

So, if all this is true, does it really make a difference which side wins? In a word, YES. Yes, it absolutely does, for one very important reason.

There’s one big distinction between these parties. The Republican Party embraces ignorance! That’s the deal breaker. This party actively condones and encourages the denial of biology and meteorology. They welcome the evolution deniers and climate change deniers and rape deniers as if these were equally valid opinions. They’re not! Plain and simple. Ignorance is not just a different opinion. And it’s not something to be proud of.

Round 2

How to Vote

Everybody seems to agonize over the elections. It’s really much simpler than people seem to think.

First, turn off the TV and radio, and close the newspapers. They just tell you what the candidates are doing and saying. That really doesn’t matter. They'll do or say anything to get elected. They're like little kids before Christmas. Of course, the media want you to think it matters because that’s how they sell advertising. But really, it comes down to just two questions:

1. What does the candidate want to do?
2. How effective will he be in doing it?

In other words, does he have good ideas, and is he likely to get them acted on? (I’m using “he” here for the current presidential contest, but this works for any candidate.)

So the results can be summed up in this table:

	Ideas
Effectiveness	good	bad
dynamo	3	0
dork	2	1

Obviously your best option is someone who can get good ideas acted on. Someone who can get bad ideas executed is the worst possibility. If neither candidate can get anything done, you’re still better off with one who has good ideas. In short, just look them up in the table and vote for the candidate with the highest score.

Now, how does this apply to the current presidential race? First lets look at the ideas department.

Romney, like pretty much all Republicans, wants to get government (welfare, police, firefighters, teachers, etc.) off the backs of corporations and rich people. Those corporations and rich people will then make sure that everyone who’s worthy will be able to get a job, and that all products will be safe and environment-friendly.

Obama, like pretty much all Democrats, thinks government should protect the public by providing services and regulating businesses so even the underprivileged have a viable lifestyle, and so we don't screw up the planet too much. You can decide for yourself which are good or bad ideas.

And effectiveness? Of course, there are degrees between dynamo and dork, but lets pretend we can view everything in the extreme. (Isn’t that part of the fun of politics?)

Obama has faced very stiff opposition, and yet was able to pass the Affordable Care Act, target and kill Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders, get rid of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and accomplish various other progressive measures. On the other hand, he has not been able to get rid of the Bush-era Tax Cuts for the wealthy, he gave up on the single-payer/public option for health care, and he has not exactly turned the economy around.

Stunningly, Romney has been very effective at accomplishing the exact opposite of what he now proposes. At Bain, he destroyed jobs, and as Governor of Massachusetts, he instituted near universal health coverage with mandatory insurance, raised revenue, upheld abortion rights (for a while, anyway), supported some gun control, and endorsed same-sex unions (for a while anyway, and not including marriage.) So does this make him a very effective flip-flopper, or a very ineffective conservative? Hard to say.

Of course, it’s almost impossible for anyone to be really effective given the partisanship of Washington. (That’s the other part of the fun of politics.) So it comes down to a choice between two marginally effective candidates. Pick the one whose ideas suck less.

News Roundup

Following eviction from its downtown location, the local protest movement has decamped to a nearby home, where it has become known as Occupy Steve's House. Steve Metzger (31), of Greenville, says he's "pleased and proud" to have the tent city in his living room.  Pauline Metzger (27) admits it can be "inconvenient, especially when I'm nursing the twins." The twins could not be reached for comment.

* * *

Perennial Republican runner-up Mitt Romney said today that he had a revelation after talking to a prominent immigration scientist, and that now, like his rival Newt Gingich, favors allowing undocumented aliens who have been in this country for years to remain, provided they have WalMart cards.

* * *

Senate Republicans blocked a Democrat-backed measure to extend payroll tax cuts, saying it would only benefit people who work for a living.

* * *

Euro-zone countries tentatively adopted a plan to buy tons of gyros and souvlaki, and millions of barrels of Ouzo, in order to help debt-ridden Greece. German Chancellor Angela Merkel commented that the European Union is unsure how to proceed with other troubled economies, however.  "We already have lots of tapas and pasta."

Agreeing to Disagree

The phrase "agree to disagree" is commonly used to dismiss arguments and debates between people with irreconcilable viewpoints. In essence, the phrase means the two sides will never see eye to eye, and everyone should just move on.

In the U.S. Congress, however, that approach has become standard operating procedure. In the recent debt ceiling debacle, the only way to pass any legislation at all was to get both sides to settle their differences later. The final settlement will be done with pistols at sunrise or, more violently, with a congressional super-committee.

To get the fireworks going promptly, all of the Republican appointees to this committee have signed the "no new tax" pledge. Basically, this means they've sworn not to consider all the options. It's kind of like a criminal trial where half the jurors have already promised not to find the defendant guilty.

Democrats meanwhile, in a characteristic show of strength, have not managed to appoint all their members yet.

This committee will have to decide how to trim $1.5 trillion from the federal budget over the next decade. This task is complicated by the "no tax" pledge, the latest economic events, and the recent Netflix rate increase.

The committee has until Thanksgiving to complete its work and come up with a mutually agreeable plan to solve debt problems. If they can't agree (What are the odds?), then a bunch of automatic cuts will kick in, causing Democrats to howl and Republicans to sniff indignantly. With this powerful incentive, we can be sure the committee will be just as productive and non-partisan as the last round of deficit reduction talks.