Lately I’ve been thinking about those occasional poll results that show up (for example) saying, contrary to their public image, that even a majority of Republicans think the finance sector and big business have too much power.  Does anyone ever ask them why they think that’s the case?  With the Dem rank and file it’s fairly obvious their view (they see the state as somehow a check on this rather than its enabler, in the face of much evidence to the contrary), but there’s nothing I recall hearing or reading anywhere about the thought of GOP folk who hold that view. Odd, since this completely contradicts the view the people they apparently vote for subscribe to.

On a related note: since Gingrich and Romney have been flinging poo at each other screaming “you’re a crony capitalist!” “no, you are!”, the next debate could use a couple additional questions:
“Newt, you’ve made a point lately of bringing up Romney’s time at Bain Capital, and Romney has since released information showing his effective tax rate.  Since you question the value of his profession, what do you think his tax rate should be?”
“Mitt, you’ve responded to Newt’s criticism by pointing out his time as a — using his term — ‘historian’ for the Federal National Mortgage Association. Could you describe for us the difference, other than of scope, between the federal government backing FNMA’s debt and the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation backing GS Technologies’ pension fund prior to its closure?”

Actors in adult movies filmed in America’s pornography capital would be required to use condoms under an ordinance granted final approval Tuesday by the Los Angeles City Council.

The measure, adopted 9-1, next goes to the mayor for his signature. Before it can take effect, however, the City Council has ordered police officials, the city attorney and others to hold meetings to figure out how it might be enforced. (emphasis mine)

…maybe they should’ve thought about that before they passed the damn thing in the first place?

For several months, media “analysis” of the field has repeatedly and relentlessly rested on “well, they’re going to have to just swallow Romney eventually”.  It wouldn’t be far fetched to assume that the type of people that vote in primaries pay attention to this, and it possibly shapes their view of the whole process to an extent.  I wonder how many people who are breaking for Romney at the last minute actually did so because they felt like supporting other candidates was a waste?  Hmm, perhaps some pollster should include that as a question…

As for Romney himself, I recall a joke prior to the actual voting that, since the highest polling GOP candidate against Obama was the Generic Republican slot that Mitt was filing to have his name changed to Generic Republican.  Well he’s pretty much done that, at least until this latest kink*.  Maybe he could convince Metta World Peace to be his running mate?

Nah, too Paul like. If it was Metta World War he’d be a better fit.

(* – In a way this makes sense.  Whatever the economics problem with establishing a wage floor, the combination of one with inflation wiping it out and regular fights over addressing the difference make it worse.  If they’re going to insist, then index it to inflation and be done with it.  I shouldn’t have to explain that I’d much prefer the condition of the working poor be alleviated by way of mutual aid and the removal of the boot from labor’s neck, referring to the world as it is does not void where I would like to see it go.)

Take a survey of a representative sample of likely primary voters, except instead of asking about particular candidates, ask nothing but questions about particular policy stands they would support or oppose. From the results, describe comprehensively what their ideal candidate would look like from a purely political standpoint.  Anyone paying attention after that point would have an idea of what was being sought out.

If this is already being done, then no one is paying attention to it.  If it isn’t, I doubt it will be done ever, as it makes too much sense. Either way, I’m just sick of hearing about it.

See you next year.

A Justice Department opinion dated September and made public on Friday reversed decades of previous policy that included civil and criminal charges against operators of some of the most popular online poker sites.

Until now, the department held that online gambling in all forms was illegal under the Wire Act of 1961, which bars wagers via telecommunications that cross state lines or international borders.

The new interpretation, by the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, said the Wire Act applies only to bets on a “sporting event or contest,” not to a state’s use of the Internet to sell lottery tickets to adults within its borders or abroad. [...] The question at issue was whether proposals by Illinois and New York to use the Internet and out-of-state transaction processors to sell lottery tickets to in-state adults violated the Wire Act.

This sounds more like “State-run lotteries get expansion of artificial market dominance” to me.  How does this narrow reconsideration by request of state lotteries open up non-state-run betting?

For all the risk described with online gambling, it’s revealing how this is targeted and how little it has to do with said risk.  You can blow thousands on E-trade or whatever all you want, but gawd forbid you play poker or bet on a fight regardless of amount.  Meanwhile, betting directly through state government is totally different because The People Are The Real Winners or something.

After seven days of testimony and the submission of more than 300,000 pages of documents, a key question remains unanswered in the case against Army Pfc. Bradley Manning:

How exactly did his leak of hundreds of thousands of secret documents, logs and at least one video — which he passed to WikiLeaks — directly harm U.S. national security? [...] As both sides gave closing arguments Thursday, the government presented no evidence of a death, injury or harm done to the United States that was caused by the release of the information. Instead, military prosecutors argued that Manning knew that what he was doing was illegal and could help America’s enemies, which they specified as terrorist organizations. (emphasis mine)

Information leaks as they stand are a gray area, one where the difference between prosecution and praise — or at the least, quiet nod of acceptance — seems to come down to whose goals the leak fulfills.  A key part of political reporting today leans on inside information from anonymous sources, and foreign policy reporting is practically impossible without regular bypassing of the carefully constructed filters the ones creating and/or carrying out said policy erect.  But to be generous, say hypothetically the description of what Manning is accused of as illegal with no qualifications whatsoever were settled:

• The persistence of leaks as sources for news, combined with the whole idea of leaking being about getting out inside information, drags in not just the leaker but anyone who moves the information from that point on.  Congratulations, you’ve just criminalized several media outlets.  If not, then answer my question, you’ve only had an entire year to think about it.
  
• The illegality as it focuses specifically on Manning…point being? It’s not as if were he to plead ignorance they’d take it seriously for even a moment.

The second part of the prosecution argument effectively boils down to “al-qaeda could read it!!”:

The prosecution showed an al Qaida video encouraging members to seek information about U.S. activities from places like WikiLeaks. It also referred to an article in al Qaida’s Inspire magazine — produced by the terror group’s propaganda arm — which referred to the leaks.

Most of what was leaked was past information, having largely squat to do with al-qaeda operations.  Fat lot of good it has done them anyway, considering how many of their high-ranking members have since purchased that farm they’ve had their eyes on.

By the way: the thing about propaganda that people get hung up on sometimes is that it isn’t unidirectional.  Knowing that they’re being tracked and that their magazine would find its way to desks in D.C., if they could keep up the fear on the cheap by exaggerating the worth of Wikileaks (and the spread of the material via mainstream media — again, consistency implies that those who’d see Julian Assange marched into a U.S. court would have to make room in that black SUV for Arthur Sulzberger II, among others) to themselves, why pass it up?

That said, even the defense has something stupid to say:

In addition to asserting there was no real damage done to U.S. security, the defense argued that Manning was a troubled man struggling with gender-identity issues, that the command structure in his unit failed him and that the information should not have been classified. (emphasis mine)

This isn’t the 50′s, you don’t get to toss off a claim that Gays Are Teh Crazy as if it’s nothing.  Sexual identity has as much to do with exposing the hypocrisy and tin-pot paranoia embedded in U.S. foreign policy as my hobby of homebrewing has to do with traffic in Johannesburg.

Well, ask and you shall receive apparently, because I was just greeted with the following headline: “Census: 1 in 2 Americans is poor or low-income“:

Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.

The latest census data depict a middle class that’s shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government’s safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.

“Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too `rich’ to qualify,” said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.

They even mentioned rising cost of living, ffs!

This fact of the working poor flushes the lie on the Right that poverty is just a matter of lazy people who don’t want to work.  The rise in costs and wages not keeping up with inflation throws a monkey wrench in the Yglesias/Krugman type mainstream liberal claim that there somehow isn’t enough inflation.  But also, notice how thanks to the convergence of the two more people are falling into the poor-but-not-poor-enough-for-help category.

Given that, contrary to common portrayal, the current economy has jack squat to do with a natural market order due to corporate welfare and the regular state intervention in finance, the purpose served by social spending is as a form of revolt insurance — “hey, minimally attached people, we have an offer for you!  You refrain from questioning or attempting to dismantle this system, and we’ll give you some scraps to make the injustice a little more bearable. Deal?” This essentially history-book conservative scheme, save the occasional skirmish, has served its purpose longer than could have been expected.

Now?  This is what a scalability problem looks like.  How do you bribe half the country?

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney categorically dismissed on Monday the idea that the president would change the construction of the cuts triggered by the super committee’s failure to make them more lenient on defense spending.

“Congress voted to impose this sequester to hold its own feet to the fire, to get it to act,” said Carney. “To suggest that they should undo what they did just a few months ago, to declare to the world as they did when they held this vote on the Budget Control Act -– ‘We are going to hold ourselves responsible’ — and then a few months later say ‘never mind,’ that’s not acceptable.”

A day earlier, super committee member Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) had argued that the sequester came with wiggle room, despite President Barack Obama’s threat to veto efforts to lessen its blow.

Speaking of things that hold less room than claimed, take a look at this:

You may have to squint to see the gap between spending with the Big Deep Cuts and spending without.  Luckily for the sight-challenged among us though, the relevant information is that the line with the Big Deep Cuts continues upward.  In fact, the word “decrease” appears nowhere on that entire chart.  Sound and Fury, signifying nothing…

Watching Bachmann make that remark must have felt like watching a dog that chases cars all the time finally catch one.

Ask and you shall receive, citizens!  Well…unless they say fuck it & disappear the entire site.

While I’m firmly in the vote for nobody camp, I have to admit I’m kinda curious what a similar “petition me on anything!” gesture would get a republican.  Any ideas?