Republican Allies' Spending 'Threat to Democracy' Plouffe Says


Seems like truly dirty maneuvering, seeing as this was not a problem when it happened in Obama's great favor. This was an issue that Mark Levin brought up only a night before this Democratic operative complained, yet that is not mentioned. Levin, a radio talk show host, a lawyer, author, and a Reagan White House operative, complained about the supposedly nonpartisan Media Matters, which is perhaps the most left-leaning media watchdog imaginable, yet they are a nonprofit. Visit http://www.marklevinshow.com for more on him and to look up his comments.

Bloomberg News: Republican Allies' Spending 'Threat to Democracy' Plouffe Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-07/plouffe-calls-spending-by-republican-leaning-groups-threat-to-democracy.html


- jR

We can hold onto relative peace with nuclear arms, perhaps only with them

The basics of the Teller-Ulam design for a hyd...Image via Wikipedia
A year ago, a TIME editor opined that nuclear warheads have helped prevented much conflict death. To me, it's hard to imagine how this assertion could be wrong. They likely prevent, to this day, a third world war. Editor-at-Large David von Drehle wrote in Time, last October (2009): "Major powers find ways to get along because the cost of armed conflict between them has become unthinkably high."

From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, many world leaders have wanted nukes to go away. It's a shame leaders still seem to think it's a scary power source, as Obama seems to (he is encouraging all sorts of alternatives to fossil fuels, and nuclear isn't one).

It would be nice to rid of these armaments, but impossible to see happen. There's one 20th century event that will prevent the complete eradication of nuclear arms: the fall of the Soviet Union. That's the tidiest questionable variable in the nuclear device problem. It's possible, as presented in the book by Tom Clancy (and the movie, though its story varied significantly from the book, the essence of the nuclear bombing did not vary), The Sum of All Fears, that a missing warhead could find its way to the wrong hands.

If we eliminate the known nuclear devices, some group could have an "unknown" device, or several devices -- devices reported missing or stolen, falsely claimed as dismantled, or somehow wrongly acquired -- and they could commit the ultimate guerrilla attack without fear of equal retaliation against their people. Even the most morose extremist and terrorist leader, I want to believe, does not want to see his homeland decimated by nuclear missiles, nor would they likely avoid arrest in any sponsoring nation, with the threat of nuclear attack hanging over. There's only so far that the honor of martyrdom will go, even with the distorted beliefs of extremist communities, terrorist groups and their sponsor states.

Barring the horrific possibility of a Sum of All Fears-type attack, nuclear bombs came from a Pandora's Box, and it cannot be closed. Until the tracking and detection of what's in nuclear devices grows to the degree that we could locate one anywhere at any time, only the naive would try to see the end of the known nuclear devices. But the Nobel committee gave Barack Obama the Peace Prize in part for his stated interest in seeing an end to nuclear arms. How, exactly, will this be accomplished?

Why Nukes Are Necessary: To Stop Industrial-Scale War - TIME
As long as a nukeless world remains wishful thinking and pastoral rhetoric, we'll be all right. But if the Nobel Committee truly cares about peace, its members will think a little harder about trying to make it a reality. Open a history book and you'll see what the modern world looks like without nuclear weapons. It is horrible beyond description. ...

Industrial killing was practiced by many nations in the old world without nuclear weapons. Soldiers were gassed and machine-gunned by the hundreds of thousands in the trenches of World War I, when Hitler was just another corporal in the Kaiser's army. By World War II, countries on both sides of the war used airplanes and artillery to rain death on battlefields as well as cities, until the number killed around the world was so huge that the best estimates of the total number lost diverge by some 16 million souls. The dead numbered 62 million or 78 million — somewhere in there.

For more on the nuclear weapons problem, search the Internet. Here's some additional work regarding Pres. Ronald Reagan's approach to nukes and the USSR:
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Jihadists 'planned maximum casualties' at Australian base

In case you think that Islamic Fundamentalist extremism is not a real threat to all non-Muslim nations -- that is, states ruled by Muslim leaders who are guided by sharia law and the perspective of Muslim clerics, rather than any familiar concepts of liberty, justice and civility -- here's a story about an extremist Muslim plot which was averted inside Australia.
 
This plot is reminiscent of the successful base assault in Texas, but it would have involved more men. Like the deadly assault in Texas was carried out in the name of Allah (according to the killers' extremist ideas), these men are very much Muslim terrorists who hate Western ideals of civilization. 
 
The article lists other plots and plotters, which I separated with a subheading.
 
Jihadists 'planned maximum casualties' at Australian base

MELBOURNE — Five men plotted to storm an Australian army base in Sydney with high-powered weapons and shoot as many people as possible to further the cause of Islam, a court heard on Monday.

Melbourne's Supreme Court heard that the men, who have been linked with Islamic extremists in Somalia, planned to continue their rampage at Sydney's Holsworthy army barracks until they were killed or captured.

Crown prosecutor Nick Robinson said the plot was hatched between February and August 4 last year, when the five were arrested in a swoop involving hundreds of police in Melbourne.

He said one of the accused visited Somalia to seek a fatwa, or religious decree, for the attack, adding they had condemned Australia's involvement in the war in Afghanistan and believed the country was oppressing Muslims.

Robinson said the men believed Islam was under attack from several countries, including Australia, and wanted to advance their religion.

"If I find way to kill the army, I swear to Allah the great I'm going to do it," one of the men, Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, told undercover police, according to a transcript read to the court.

Fattal, 34, Saney Edow Aweys, 27, Yacqub Khayre, 23, Abdirahmin Mohamud Ahmed, 26 and Nayef El Sayed, 26, have all pleaded not guilty to conspiring to do acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act.

Fattal had visited Holsworthy and described it as an easy target, according to Robinson, while another of the men was covertly recorded laying out their plans.

"There are about six guys... 20 minutes will be enough for us to take out five, six, 10... I don't know. Until they will use up their weapons. Is that permissible?" Aweys said, according to transcript of secret telephone intercepts read to the court and reported by the AAP news agency.

Aweys praised last year's devastating Black Saturday firestorm in another intercepted call, saying "Thanks to Allah... Allah bring them calamity," about the disaster which claimed 173 lives.

Justice Betty King told the jury that the trial was not about the religion of Islam, but whether the accused had committed any offences.

The arrests highlighted security standards at army bases, and police said the alleged attack would have been the worst in Australian history.

It also prompted Canberra to list Somalia's Al-Qaeda-inspired Shebab group as a terrorist organisation, although the outfit has denied any link to the alleged plot.

Australia was a staunch supporter of ex-US leader George W. Bush's "war on terror" and sent troops to Iraq as well as Afghanistan, where about 1,550 personnel are still based in the country's south.

Some 92 Australians were killed in the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings, while three died in blasts at luxury hotels in July 2009 in Jakarta, where extremists also carried out a deadly car-bombing on Australia's embassy in 2004.

 
OTHER RECENT AUSTRALIA TERROR PLOTS:
 
In February, five Muslims who plotted a guns-and-explosives attack on an unknown target in protest against Australia's part in the "war on terror" were jailed for up to 28 years, after the country's longest extremism trial.

And in September last year, an Australian convert to Islam was jailed for five years after admitting being part of a terror cell that plotted to kill thousands of people by bombing sports events.

Former forklift truck-driver Shane Kent was part of a group that planned to attack events including the Australian Football League's 2005 Grand Final, which attracted 92,000 fans.

Eight other men were earlier jailed for up to 15 years over the plot, including a radical Muslim cleric.

Also last September, an ex-airline worker was jailed for nine years for producing a do-it-yourself jihad manual including how-to guides on bomb-making, assassinations and shooting down planes.

Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.

Study finds voting is superficial (REAL voting, not 'American Idol' voting)

Every vote counts, it's true. But where are voters getting the motivation to decide how to vote? What leading criteria determine who and what the voters choose to pull the levers for? (OK, nowadays, voters fill in little ovals with a pen or pencil, or complete arrows with a drawn line, but that's not as quaint as "pull the levers".) 

In the June 2010 edition of a behavior journal, it was suggested that appearances win. So the average person picks their candidates the way producers pick reality TV group members: on the shallowness of outward appearance. No surprise to me, "appearance is most likely to influence less knowledgeable voters who watch a lot of television," explains a science Web site, PhysOrg.com, in their piece on the behavior journal's article.  

I've voted for county, city or state positions when I had no idea who one candidate was from another. I've picked based on last names, or party, or if a name appealed to me in some way, like it rhymed, or looked classy, or seemed down to earth. Yeah, I'm not proud of any of that, but I know I am not alone in such banal decision-making among people who reject apathy. I've since avoided choosing at all if I had no clue; choices matter, and gross ignorance is not where votes should come from. It's not just the ignorance I demonstrated, but notable, commonplace stuff that translates into votes. 

How many of us, the electorate (note for habitually ignorant folks: that's a word for "people who can vote"), are sure we knew something useful and reliable about every single ballot choice in recent primaries? How about in the 2008 general election? So in part this behavior article tells us that in the 2008 U.S. presidential election the least informed chose between a fresh, young, silver-tongued black guy, and a crippled, raspy old white guy who's been around forever. 

Who were these people, do you think? First of all, who are the least informed, broadly? Second of all, how do you think they would vote? The young and generally distracted is who they are, and they would vote young and not crippled (crass kids do not care how shallow it is to mock a war veteran or any other stiff old guy, get real), don't you think? Most young punks would go for the fresh young black dude. Unless they've bought a Pat Boone album lately. Odds on that, anyone?

Am I saying Barack Obama, for one, is president in part because clueless young adults voted against the crusty old crippled guy? Am I saying that plenty of young people voted for the candidate that The Daily Show's Jon Stewart liked, and for the side who SNL didn't lampoon nearly every week? 

Youuuuu betcha!

Are voters truly sophisticated and rational decision makers? Apparently not. Their choices are heavily influenced by superficial, nonverbal cues, such as politicians' appearance, according to Christopher Olivola from University College London in the UK and Alexander Todorov from Princeton University in the US. According to their findings, voters make judgments about politicians' competence based on their facial appearance and these appearance-based competence judgments reliably predict both voting decisions and election outcomes. The research is published in the June 2010 issue of theJournal of Nonverbal Behavior.

The researchers also discuss the potential impact of these judgments on actual voters and show that appearance is most likely to influence less knowledgeable voters who watch a lot of television, a finding consistent with psychological models of persuasion.

Research to date suggests that rapid judgments about the personality traits of political candidates, based solely on their appearance, can predict their electoral success. In other words, voters rely heavily on appearances when choosing which candidate to elect. Since voters need to navigate their way through the flood of information available about candidates in order to make fully informed choices, it is no surprise that they take mental shortcuts to get to their final decision.

After reviewing the published literature on this topic, the authors then introduce a computer model of facial personality traits to identify the particular facial features associated with competence judgments. By manipulating the degree of competence of faces on a screen, they are able to show that facial maturity and physical attractiveness are the two main criteria used by participants to make competence judgments.

(Hit the link, above, to see the whole article.)

- jR

The Motley Fool's Rebuttal of the Latest of Krugman's "1938 in 2010" Twaddle

Historical government spending in the United S...Image via Wikipedia
Who you gonna believe? Some professional investors or a professional Keynesian? I'm going with the capitalists, and not the sour-faced NY Times columnist. (Note: bolding and links are mine.)

Krugman wrote another Op-Ed about his favorite subject "1937".  The year when the Fed Gov't cut back some spending and the economy faltered.  I've disputed this ludicrousness before, stating that if EIGHT years of spending didn't fix the problem, when in the hell is all this spending supposed to work? Let's also not forget that in 1934 the dollar was devalued by 50% and THAT didn't work.
In this particular Op-Ed he goes further, stating "From an economic point of view World War II was, above all, a burst of deficit-financed government spending, on a scale that would never have been approved otherwise. Over the course of the war the federal government borrowed an amount equal to roughly twice the value of G.D.P. in 1940 — the equivalent of roughly $30 trillion today". 
Pro-WWII end recession/depression economist LOVE to point out that huge spending on a massive scale ended the Great Depression.  I've spoken to many of these people before and asked them EXACTLY when this massive spending ended the Great Depression. There are only two answers: 1) When the war started 2) After the war ended
Let's tackle #1 first (When the war started).  These are the scariest people in the world today, because they don't believe in freedom in the least. 
You'll need to visit the site for the whole thing. More at the Motley site.

-jR
Enhanced by Zemanta