What's with Florida?

It's sort of like when “W” extended the so called “War on Terror” to Iraq. There were absolutely no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until our misguided invasion inspired their recruitment and drew them there. Now Florida, one of the Republican-held voter suppression states, finally has some real cases of voter fraud to talk about. The fraud is the work of Republican operatives.

I heard of the growing scandal on Saturday while I was making get-out-the-vote calls for MoveOn. I was talking to a MoveOn member from Detroit when he asked what we were going to do about the voter fraud in Florida. I looked up the various posts and, sure enough, Republican operatives were engaged in voter registration fraud. The operative's firm has ties deep within the Republican party and has received $3 million from the RNC over the past two months. The firm, Strategic Allied Consulting, was finally fired by the RNC Thursday. The widespread nature of the fraud (11 counties so far) became apparent late in the week and that's when the story went (more or less) national. Frankly, it's not getting nearly the exposure that it should in the national news media. The New York Times had a short article on September 28, as did the Washington Post.

By far the best coverage is coming from the Brad Friedman's watchdog BRAD BLOG, which broke the story as it started to unveil on Tuesday. From the September 30 BRAD BLOG post: “The strategy [of registering only Romney supporters] resulted in...fraudulent registration forms collected by the firm and then submitted in Florida by the state GOP with voter addresses, signatures and party affiliations changed.... Election officials in the state have told The BRAD BLOG that they fear the scheme could result in the disenfranchisement of a still-unknown number of otherwise legal voters.”

 

So here we go again. In the key swing state of Florida, the poster child for the Republican voter suppression effort and the scene for the infamous “no recount” SCOTUS decision that handed the 2000 election to Bush, Republicans have registered voters fraudulently. In the process, they have possibly disenfranchised many additional legal voters not already disenfranchised by the voter suppression effort. In this state of affairs, the polls showing an Obama lead in Florida mean nothing.

Other Republican tactics to discourage Democratic-leaning voters include closing or changing polling places (a voter in Ohio told me that in his town the number of polling locations was reduced from 15 to 4) and sending operatives to polling places as vote challengers (voters in both Florida and Michigan mentioned this to me). On the latter, there were some encouraging words from a lawyer in Michigan, who said she was going to go to the polls to ensure in Wayne County (Detroit) that voters were not intimidated by what she called “young men with clipboards”. The MoveOn member from Detroit mentioned earlier had a good response too: “I vote in Detroit and those [poll watchers] are not going to dare to intimidate anyone.”

Even if President Obama wins in November, there is a good possibility that Republicans will still control the House and may pick up the Senate. Thanks to the Citizens United decision, Democrats across the board are being outspent many-times-to-one, in these races. Even Kirsten Gillebrand in heavily Democratic New York State appears to be in a tight race. We should never underestimate what money can do to swing the election. Just look at Scott Walker's victory in the Wisconsin governor recall election and at the 2010 Congressional midterm elections. Money wins elections and until Citizens United is overturned, Republicans will have an insurmountable money advantage. Voter turnout (and protection) and message framing are key to overcoming the money advantage. Democrats need to make sure their message is heard. They need to respond to falsely accusing attack ads immediately (please, no more swiftboat “responses”) - before the lies take on a patina of truth in the mind of the American public.

 

After going on about the missed opportunities and disappointments of Obama's first term, Kevin Baker in the October Harper's Magazine, concludes his article “Why Vote?” this way: “So yes, go out and vote. Go vote for Barack Obama, and whatever other Democrats or progressives are running for office where you live. To vote for a Mitt Romney—to vote for the modern right anywhere in the West today—is an act of national suicide. The right is hollow to its core; it has no dreams, no vision, no plans to deal with any of the problems that confront us, only infantile fantasies of violence and consumption. But it is, at the moment, well funded, well organized, and feeling especially threatened. It is capable of anything.”

 

Miscellany – Links to Articles of Interest

 

Wisconsin's anti-union law advanced by Gov. Scott Walker and the Wisconsin State Legilature was struck down as unconstitutional on September 14. Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas struck down the law, which essentially eliminated collective-bargaining rights for most public employees, as a violation of the state and U.S. Constitution. (Politico)

 

Pennsylvania's strict voter ID law remains in limbo although a Pennsylvania judge (to whom the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “punted”) said on Thursday that he may issue an injunction. As the sage Yogi Berra once sid: “It ain't over 'til it's over.” Opponents argue the law could create "a very large problem" for as many as half a million voters in Pennsylvania. They argue that a disproportionate number of those impacted would be racial minorities, the elderly and other vulnerable groups. (CBS News, Sept. 27)

 

Robert Reich's video on the 7 Biggest Economic Lies (MoveOn clip)

 

 

 

 

Why Does The World Exist?

Jim Holt's recently published Why Does the World Exist? attempts to answer (or at least ponder) what William James called the “darkest question in all philosophy” - to wit, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Holt explores philosophical, theological, and scientific attempts to answer the question. In the process, he interviews several modern day thinkers on the subject.   Reading a review of Holt's book started me thinking. I recalled reading some years ago about the “anthropic principle", a relatively recent development in cosmology.

That this universe exists at all is indeed a particularly awesome and wondrous fact. Consider that, if any one of numerous fundamental physical constants were off by the smallest fraction, the universe as we know it would not exist. For example, if the strong nuclear force were not exactly what it is, elements would not be able to form. Or, if protons were not exactly 1836 times the size of an electron, elements would not be able to combine into molecules. Two other important examples are the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force (this keeps stars from immediately collapsing) and the excited energy level of the carbon atom (without this exact level of 7.65 million electron-volts, insufficient carbon would be formed in stars to form the basis for life). And there are many, many more.

Many physicists and cosmologists who have considered these facts subscribe to one version or another of the anthropic principle. The phrase “anthropic principle” was coined by astrophysicist Brandon Carter at a 1973 symposium in Krakow that marked the 500^th anniversary of Copernicus' birth. Copernicus, as you recall, was the Renaissance astronomer who first formulated a cosmology wherein the earth was not at the center of the universe but rather revolved around the Sun. Carter created the phrase in reaction to a recent extension and generalization of Copernican Principle - i.e., not only is the Earth not at the center of the universe but humans are not even privileged observers of the universe. Carter, examining the remarkable coincidences similar to those noted above, disagreed. As he stated: “Although our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent.”

The anthropic principle comes in several flavors. The most basic distinction is between the “Weak” and “Strong” anthropic principles. Beyond these two versions, there are the more scientifically speculative “Participatory” and “Final” Anthropic Principles. Here is a short description of each for your consideration.

Let's start with the Weak Anthropic Principle and work our way up. The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) basically states that all the possible values for the physical and cosmological constants are not equally probable. Some are more probable than others. Specifically the values of these constants are restricted to what is compatible with the observable facts: namely, that there are sites where carbon-based life can evolve and that the Universe has existed long enough for carbon-based life to have done so. 

Now let's up the ante a bit and consider the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP). Simply stated: the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop at some stage in its history.

One interpretation of the SAP is that the Universe requires observers and is designed with the goal of generating and sustaining these observers.  Humanity (or some other intelligent, information-gathering life form) is thus necessary to the Universe's existence.  This is sometimes referred to as the Participatory Anthropic Principle.  It is derived from the concepts of quantum mechanics - i.e., it takes an intelligent observer to collapse the Universe's probability waves into relatively concrete reality.

Last and most speculative is the Final Anthropic Principle. In this version, intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.

The Anthropic Principle has its scientific supporters and detractors, as does each of its various interpretations. Theologians favor the Anthropic Principle because it appears to give a glimpse of a Creative God.   I'm not sure what philosophers think of it or if it answers Jim Holt's question to his satisfaction but it sure gives us something to think about. The Universe is wondrous and contingent. The Anthropic Principle is one plausible attempt to explain it.

Miscellany

Today, September 29th, is the 58th anniversary of "The Catch" - Willie Mays' astounding catch and throw in the 1954 World Series, the greatest fielding play in baseball history.  In an application of the Participatory Anthropic Principle, I have no doubt that one of the reasons I exist at this time is to have observed The Catch.  ;-)

Here are links to a great video and some neat still shots.

Readings/references

The basic text on this subject (the Anthropic Principle not The Catch) is The Cosmological Anthropic Principle by John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler, and John A. Wheeler.

Wikipedia

J. Redmane's “The Anthropic Principle” website

http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html


 

The Price of Inequality

The Price of Inequality by Nobel Economist Joseph Stiglitz is a book filled with insight into the workings (or non-workings) of the markets and on the roles of government and of central banks in the economy. A major theme of the book is that “inequality is as much the result of political forces as of economic ones.” He explodes prevailing myths about the “free” market place, globalization, the effectiveness of austerity programs, GDP as an indicator of economic performance, and government vs. private efficiency. He also exposes the policies enacted since the 1980’s that brought about the Great Recession and the current state of inequality in this country. This historic inequality has potentially serious consequences as the book’s subtitle states: “How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future”.

Let’s face it. It is not a level playing field. The rules of the game have been shaped by the powerful. One concept that Stiglitz introduces and that is at the heart of inequality is what economists call rent seeking. Broadly defined, rent seeking occurs when those at the top get income “not as a reward [for] creating wealth but by grabbing a larger share of the wealth that would otherwise have been produced without their effort.” Some examples of rent-seeking include sale of natural resource leases on public lands at below market value, statutes that allow corporations to pass costs on to the rest of society, government subsidies and noncompetitive procurement practices (e.g., private contracting for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). Basically, it’s the corporate welfare that is so engrained in our tax codes and government policies.

In the section on “history of the deficit“, Stiglitz reviews how the country went from the large surpluses of the Clinton years to the seemingly out-of-control deficits of today. He lays the blame squarely where it belongs: the Bush tax cuts (about 1/5 of the 2012 deficit; $3.3 trillion dollars if extended for 2011-2020), the expenses incurred in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (long-term this will exceed $2-3 trillion), the provision that the Federal government, the largest buyer of drugs in the world, couldn’t negotiate price with drug companies as part of the Medicare Drug Benefit (worth “by some estimates, a half trillion dollars over ten years”) and, of course, the biggest contributor by far - The Great Recession brought about by the collapse of the housing bubble and the deregulated financial environment so dear to those on the Right. As Stiglitz states, “16 percent of the deficit was for measures to stimulate the economy…but almost half (48 percent) of the entire deficit was a result of underperformance of the economy.” The latter, he explains, “led to lower tax revenues and higher expenditures on unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other social protection programs.”

Stiglitz is well aware that the major problem now is not the deficit but the joblessness and lack of demand in the economy. Companies are not investing in capital or labor - not because they are unprofitable or lack confidence in the government but because there is a lack of demand brought about by the Great Recession. This lack of demand could be alleviated by government spending (for example, on infrastructure and education) and by benefits to those that would spend the money and put it back into the economy (e.g., unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.) There is a multiplicative return to the economy on these expenditures - exactly the expenditures demonized by those on the Right.

In addition to discussions on the history of austerity program failures from the time of Hoover to the current European economic crisis, the deleterious effects of central bank policies on real wages, the evisceration of our democracy and the causes for the loss of American leadership abroad, the author throws out an occasional gem such as the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Striker Fighter project. This weapon that we don’t need for a type of conflict we will not be fighting, at $382 billion, “costs half of the entire Obama stimulus program.”

The book is not about the politics of envy but, as Stiglitz states in his concluding chapter, it is “instead about the politics of efficiency and fairness.” After reading more than 250 pages on how the system was rigged for inequality, I was beginning to lose hope. Is there any way out of this mess? Is there any way to restore upward mobility to the 99%?

In the last chapter, the author presents a well thought out program of economic reform. Among the reforms that would make a big difference are curbing the financial sector (“Dodd Frank is a start but only a start”), stronger and more effectively enforced competition laws, improved corporate governance, comprehensive bankruptcy law reform, ending government giveaways in the disposition of public assets and in procurement, ending corporate welfare including hidden subsidies, and comprehensive legal reform to democratize access to justice. In addition, he proposes two significant tax reforms - a more progressive income and corporate tax system with fewer loopholes and a more effective estate tax system. Several additional actions “would make a big difference in the plight of the 99 percent”: improving access to education, helping ordinary Americans save (“say, a matching grant or expansion of first-time home owner programs”), universal health care, and strengthening other social protection programs.

There are additional proposals on tempering globalization (“ending the race to the bottom” as Stiglitz phrases it), fiscal and monetary policies to restore and maintain full employment, and a growth agenda based on public investment. He also addresses “immediate issues” - fixing the mortgage problem by restructuring mortgages, more aggressive stimulation of the economy to increase employment and more active labor market policies to train workers for new jobs.

Citizens United has ensured the dominance of the 1% agenda in national politics for the foreseeable future. Without major political reforms, it is doubtful that the political process would allow even the “barest elements of this agenda.” So we are probably looking at a long-term thing. It has taken the Right 30 years of relentless propagandizing of a failed economic theory and policies to bring us to the inequality and economic crisis that we see today. Perhaps it will take as long for the country to regain its senses.

In light of this, “Is There Hope?” - as the concluding section of the book asks. Stiglitz sees two routes by which reform might happen. “Those in the 99 percent could come to realize that they have been duped by the 1 percent: that what is in the interests of the 1 percent is not in their interests…and…the second way that reform could happen [is that] the 1 percent could realize that what’s been happening in the United States is not only inconsistent with our values but not even in the 1 percent’s own interest.”

He then presents two visions for America a half century from now. One is of a society even more divided between the haves in gated communities and have-nots with ever decreasing opportunity for advancement. We would devolve to a plutocracy.

The other is a vision of a society of “shared destiny and a common commitment to opportunity and fairness, where the words ‘liberty and justice for all’ actually mean what they seem to mean…This second vision is the only one consistent with our heritage and our values.”

So is there hope? Stiglitz concludes that yes, there is hope but time is running out. “Four years ago there was a moment where most Americans had the audacity to hope. Trends more than a quarter century in the making might have been reversed…Today, that hope is flickering.”

If Obama does win a second term, this book should be required reading both for him and for his entire economic policy team. They really need to be better informed. Better yet, he should bring in Joseph Stiglitz to head up and reorganize his team. (See #4 on the October 24, 2011 post: Obama Short(falls) List.)  Of course, if the 1% wins in November and Republicans control Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency, we will lose any chance to even begin implementing the slightest of the necessary reforms for at least four years.

Romney. the Neocons, and Iran

Remember how “W”, advised by the Neocon cabal, took us to war and invaded a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, absolutely no Al-Qaeda presence, and absolutely no weapons of mass destruction?

Well, watch out if the Mittster is elected. Many of these same Neocons are whispering in Romney's ear about Iran. His rhetoric over the past couple of weeks has made it clear that the nation would have to be crazy to elect this man to lead the country. (Of course, if the Republicans can effectively deny five million voters their basic democratic right to vote, he may just pull it off.) Besides taking hundreds of billions of dollars from domestic programs for military weapons that even the armed forces don't want, Romney has given every indication of letting the right wing Israeli leader Netanyahu call the shots on the timing of “military action” against Iran regardless of how damaging that would be to the United States. His political posturing and criticism of Obama's handling of the attacks on American embassies were totally offbase and show him unfit to lead this country in any capacity.

I've criticized Obama for staying in Afghanistan, for taking too long to extricate the US from Iraq, and for being played like a fiddle by Isreal's right wing leader Benjamin Netanyahu on the Palestinian – Israeli peace process. But at least Obama has finally gotten the troops out of Iraq and set a date when US combat forces will be out of Afghanistan. He appears to be making a good faith effort to negotiate a solution to the Iran nuclear program. In addition, Israeli overreaction to Palestinian actions has been relatively muted with nothing to date to compare with the devastating incursion into Palestinian territority at the end of the Bush's second term that more than 1000 Palestinians dead, many or most of the victims civilians. Can you imagine Romney putting any kind of restraint on Netanyahu? Yes that same Netanyahu who said earlier this week, in the middle of the election cycle in an effort to try to force Obama's hand, that if the Obama administration was unwilling to set fixed red lines that Iran could not cross, it “has no ‘moral right’ to restrain Israel from taking military action of its own” ?

Bad as his domestic policies would be, Romney's foreign and defense policies would bring about the same loss of US influence and respect seen during the Bush years. Combined with his tax breaks for the very wealthy and his deregulation, another costly war would be the crowning blow to the United States economy. We'd be worse off than with Bush. To say Romney knows nothing about foreign affairs may have been a mistatement on my part. If he really believes the garbage that's been coming out of his mouth recently, he would be downright dangerous.

Now the real work begins

The conventions are over and now the critical work of re-electing the President begins. There is much at stake for individual Americans and for the country as a whole. Every vote will be needed if we are to prevent a return to the policies that brought about the Great Recession still affecting so many and a retraction of the social safety net upon which so many depend.

I have to admit that I did not watch one minute of the Republican convention. So I did not experience first hand their negative alternate reality of an America in sad decline solely because Barack Obama and his policies have placed the boot of government on our necks. I understand that the RNC was a bit of a ho-hum, nostalgic look back to earlier times.  Yes, some things don't change – like the Republican disregard for the truth. Can you believe a Republican strategist actually said that they would not devise their ads and campaign strategy based on “fact checkers”. Paul Ryan, the “brains” of the Republican Party, showed both his disregard for the facts (blaming an auto plant closing that happened at the end of the Bush era on Obama) and in the memorable words of Bill Clinton, his “brass” (condemning Obama for making efficiency savings in Medicare that, to the dollar, are part and parcel of his own Medicare plan). As Clinton put it: “You got to admit one thing — it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did.” And of course, there was little mention of foreign policy in the RNC because their Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates have absolutely no experience in the area – other than to want to take us back to a cold war mentality and spend hundreds of billions more on the defense budget than even the Joint Chiefs of Staff want.

I did see Michelle's moving personal tribute to the President and Bill Clinton's superb take down of the Republican talking points. Republican strategists to the contrary, it helps when you have facts on your side: 42 million private sector jobs created in the last 24 years of Democratic administrations vs. 24 million such jobs created in the last 28 years of Republican administrations. And of course I tuned in for Obama's closing speech which fired the admittedly partisan audience up to a fever pitch - not something I suspect happened at the RNC. In his speech, the President turned the tables on the Republicans for criticizing hope and change. Yes, he said, change is difficult and we are not satisfied with the incomplete progress made towards repairing the still-struggling economy.  But we need to keep in mind that we have been facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression:  "The truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over the decades."

Most importantly, the President presented a vision of a future America changed for the better – one where we work together instead of going it alone. As the President said: "But when all is said and done — when you pick up that ballot to vote — you will face the clearest choice of any time in a generation. Over the next few years, big decisions will be made in Washington, on jobs and the economy; taxes and deficits; energy and education; war and peace — decisions that will have a huge impact on our lives and our children's lives for decades to come. On every issue, the choice you face won't be just between two candidates or two parties. It will be a choice between two different paths for America, a choice between two fundamentally different visions for the future."

There is much at stake – domestically and internationally – if the Romney-Ryan ticket is victorious in November. I've been speaking to people as a volunteer for a MoveOn get-out-the-vote effort in swing states. One Pennsylvania voter replied to my comment that a lot is at stake in this election. She said “I know. It's my life.” With the reduction of the social safety net in this country that would result from a Romney-Ryan administration - including programs for the poor and healthcare, I had the distinct feeling that she meant this literally. Disappointing as Obama's foreign policy has been (too long to get out of Iraq, still in Afghanistan), at least there is a commitment to bring the troops home in 2014. What can we expect from the Republican Presidential candidate who referred to the final withdrawal of American troops from Iraq as “tragic”?

Drowned in an avalanche of right wing political ads and outright hatred, the Democratic message is not getting through to many. I spoke to one voter, a teacher and former Obama supporter, who said that she was voting for Romney because her husband, a small business owner, says that he has suffered under Obama and that Obama was leading us to socialism. Also that Obama had had enough time and hadn't been able to turn the economy around. I guess she hadn't listened to Bill Clinton's speech. I wished I pursued it more but the effort may have been fruitless. Her mind was made up.

You can expect much more of this reaction in the coming months. Robocalls that misleadingly state that Obama is weakening the welfare to work requirements play to the baser instincts of some voters. The flood of Citizens United money will inundate the airwaves with negative and misleading sound bites. And although Obama has been a very centrist President, the charge of socialism will be levied at him. It's been more effective with independent voters than the charge that he is Muslim, which plays well with the ignorant, the paranoid and the racist.

If all the negative ads and nutcase virulence don't do the trick, then voter suppression laws very well might. Up to 5 million primarily Democratic voters could be disenfranchised this November. Voter turnout will be key. Guess it's time for me to make a few more phone calls.

Update: I just saw this video of John Lewis, one of the original Freedom Riders of the early 1960's.  I am sorry I missed this speech at the Democratic National Convention- a powerful, moving indictment of the Republican voter suppression effort.
http://front.moveon.org/one-of-the-most-powerful-speeches-of-the-entire-democratic-national-convention/?rc=daily.share
 

Night Fishing at Antibes

Musée Picasso is located at the Chateau Grimaldi in Antibes overlooking the Mediterranean. The museum has some spectacular views of the sea from its outdoor sculpture garden, which contains works by Picasso and others.

Picasso had stayed at the chateau for a couple of very productive months in 1946 and had visited and stayed in Antibes on other occasions.  My favorite work in this modest-sized collection is a remarkable tapestry of the painting "Night Fishing at Antibes".   Picasso had done the oil painting that is the subject of the tapestry in 1939 shortly before the outbreak of World War II.  The oil painting itself is at MOMA in New York (and I now understand the museum shop salesperson's confusing answer to my question as to where I could get a print of the tapestry).  Unfortunately, according to the MOMA website, the work is "not on view" at the present.  Copies are widely available on the web - here's one of them.