Getting Back To Asics

So just about 24 hours ago I went to the gym and tried to get a feel for where I am now, fitness wise. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

The plus side is that I know for a fact that I can recover from this dreadful decline in my fitness level. Although I was in better shape to begin with the last time I was able to take advantage of a gym (not to mention younger) the fundamental mechanics of the process are identical. I'm going to need to do a regular 2-hour routine every day to begin with. Eventually, I'll be able to trim that back to the 1-hour routine I had back when. Actually, if I'm going to be honest, I'll probably keep a two hour routine...I'll most likely just add more exercises to it.

What I used to do was a combination of aerobic exercises and weight work. Twenty minutes each on a treadmill, stair climber and cross trainer with sets of weight work interspersed. Follow the whole thing with a long, leisurely stretch session and the walk back to the barracks. Allowing for my new medical condition, I expect to be at least 3 months getting back to a serious performance level. I can only hope that I don't degenerate.

I've been laid up the last 24 hours. Hell of a way to spend a birthday; lying flat on your back, trying to sleep so you don't have to watch the ceiling spin. Still, at least there wasn't any nausea this time. On the plus side, I managed to get and remain vertical long enough to open the gift mum got me. Something special, considering my eclectic collections of skills and talents.

I might have mentioned before that, thanks to the way my mother and step-father raised me, I have the necessary collection of skills and knowledge to re-start western civilization from scratch. Excepting, until today, that which is necessary to locate and extract metal, particularly iron, from the ground. No more, as today I was bestowed with a copy of De Re Metallica. Here's an interesting bit of trivia; did you know that the current English translation most widely used and held as the best was done by Herbert Hoover? Lousy political leader but one helluva good engineer. While not one the texts I need for my field of study, it is a lovely addition to my personal library and, who knows, maybe some day I'll need to restart western civilization?

Bromancer

This littlepost is for no better reason than because I want it on record, somewhere, that my little brother is a stand up guy.

After I recently had to walk away from my job as a truck driver due to medical issues and then lost my job as a job coach for the developmentally disabled, I was unable to achieve the last big chuck of "get my life in order" I had planned. Getting a new gym memebrship and getting fit again.

Donovan, you really came through. You didn't have to and I know it cost you. Thank you.

Living and Dying in 4/3 Time

Right now there are easily about a million things I could start talking about. Current events, my extended silence, the gulf oil spill...but just for the moment I want to talk about me and my big fucking problem right at the moment. I know don't usually...in fact I don't off-hand recall ever using this forum to discuss myself, but I feel that maybe putting this in words will help me cope with what is, to me, a total fucking catastrophe.

And for the record, yes I know I'm swearing and yes, I know that's not normal for me. I don't feel anything like normal right now...and I don't know if I ever will again.

To summarize, back at the end of Sept I developed symptoms. At the time it didn't seem too much more than a moderate annoyance. Simply put I began having some pretty impressive episodes of vertigo and all that goes with it. World spinning, zero equilibrium and vomiting the contents of my stomach to the point of dry heaving because there wasn't even any bile in my belly. I began seeing my physician and was eventually referred to an ENT (that's Ear, Nose and Throat for the uninitiated) Doc. After some testing and unsuccessfully treating for Meniere's Disease (the symptomology of which matches what I presented) the Doc ordered an MRI to rule out a possible growth or tumor.

Well the good news is that no, I don't have a tumor but unfortunately what I do have is possibly worse, from a treatment perspective. The MRI revealed what can be safely called an Atypical Anatomy in my inner ear. In my case, this means that I have artery that has grown in such a way as to contact and place pressure on some of the nerves in my audial canal. Now the net result of this is identical to a growth or tumor, but whereas those might be easily treated with a noninvasive procedure using a lovely new gadget called a Gamma Knife, my condition cannot. I will actually require real, old-fashioned brain surgery in order allow the physical repositioning of the artery away from the nerves of my inner ear.

Now aside from the fact that we are talking about major, invasive not-without-serious-risks surgery here, there is one other little snag: although my symptoms will basically make it impossible for me to work in my usual trade (professional driving) I am not considered a severe enough case to warrant such a risky procedure. In other words, the risk-benefit analysis does not favor surgery.

So I get to through the rest of my life randomly falling down and throwing up. I cannot describe this adequately. Let me try anyway.

Suppose that you are going abut your business, possibly just sitting here reading this post when, suddenly, you get a sharp ringing in your ears. This ringing goes beyond normal tinnitus and actually seems to mute all other sounds in that ear. Within a minute or so, you suddenly start to feel a dull pressure in that side of your head and then the sensation of weight, or a tugging force. After a few more minutes you can no longer focus on the screen in front of you as everything starts to appear as though it were in violent, circular motion. You then break out in a flop sweat and lose the ability to stay upright without leaning heavily on something. Finally, when your body can no longer handle the sensation of movement, your stomach rebels and you begin heaving everything you have out and then up comes the bile as well, the bitter, yellow semi-liquid dripping out of your mouth as you sit on the ground on all fours just begging the world to stop spinning. Then you keep retching for a while and the stabbing, clutching spasms threaten to sprain your abdominal muscles. Then, finally, if you're lucky, you'll simply pass out from exhaustion. If you're not you'll get to lay there whimpering as the entire room spins, maybe for a couple of hours, maybe overnight.

Sounds like a great fucking time, doesn't it?

Right about now, one of you at least is saying, "But KP, you've always been a great advocate of socialized medicine and social programs! Sure you know you can get help, right?"

Well thats true, as far as it goes. The thing is, being a supporter of the social good is one thing when you don't need support. For me it was an ethical position. Nonetheless, my earliest programming is that of self-reliance. Deeply buried in my subconcious mind are the voices of Rush Limbaugh and my father calling me an entitlement parasite. And my own voice, if I'm honest. Honesty further requires me to say that I have low self-esteem as it is...being in this situation fills me with a level of self-loathing and guilt I have a hard time expressing. My S.O. asked me earlier today when I finally had my nervous breakdown over the whole damned thing, if I had suicidal thougths. I have to admit, it did cross my mind for a minute or two. The honorable escape from being a burden, from being unable to be a contributing member of society...of my own family.

On the other hand, opposing that host of accusations is a single fact which my loving S.O. reminded me of. I was not one of those who advocated for social good because I wanted something for myself. I stood with the left on the issue as a matter of principle. I can honestly say I had the courage of my conviction and cleaved to my ethics for their own sake. So, as she said, while my circumstances may have changed my position has not, whereas my ideological opponents might not be able to say the same thing.

So where does that leave me? As of this writing I haven't the faintest damned clue. I have had the proverbial bottom ripped out from under me. We'll be "going to the office" as it were tomorrow in order to start the various wheels turning; vocational rehab, disability, that sort of thing. I haven't any idea where this will all wind up at though. Further, despite the very good point mentioned above as well the simplefact that this was not something that happened as a result of some wrong action on my part...I still feel enourmous shame along with fear.

For now, I'll do the thign I do best. FIDO.

Fuck it. Drive on.

America (tm)

To quote a past acquaintence of mine, "Corporate Personhood is a ridiculous as Person Corporatehood."

The debate is ongoing and the history long; I will restrict myself to proposing a solution to the problem, obviously revealing myself as one of those that feels "corporate entities" are not entitled to the same rights as actual, individual, human citizens. My chief reasoning is identical to that of former Veep Al Gore; corporate money poisons the well of Democratic governance. For more information, I suggest starting with Wiki, as they have a pretty good summary of the matter. Suffice that the issue has been woven togetehr by a series of really piss-poor SCOTUS decisions.

I see two possible methods of resolving the issue, one of which is simple, the other complex and neither likely to be popular among among those with the power and interest in fighting them.

In both cases, we must adopt some specific words and definitions by way of Ammendment.

In the first (simplest) case, the word to be defined is "citizen". For our purposes, the deffinition must include laguage that specifies that only American citizens have the right to petition their Representatives (to included all elected officials) and that a citizen is an individual who is or has been at least potentially capable of holding an elected office.

The other potential soluation is identical, save for the route it must follow. In this case...we must make allies with the Pro-Life lobby in establishing the definitions of life, humanity and citizenship; by doing so we must likely give up Roe v. Wade...but that is a battle that can be fought again later if need be. What matters, first and formost in this case is establishing the difference between a human being, which can be a citizen, and a non-human entity, which cannot.

Trenchfoot-in-mouth

RNC Chairman Michael Steele

VS

President Barrack Obama

It has got to be so difficult trying to be "the other Black Guy". Brother Michael has managed not only to humiliate himself by demonstrating near genius-level incompetence (no, that is not an oxymoron) but now by apparently completely losing all sense of time and the laws of causality. This is the only explanation for his statement that Afghanistan is, "a war of Obama's choosing."

FACT: The Afghanistan War was initiated by persons under the protection of the then-government of Afghanistan, during the administration of G. W. Bush.

FACT: Michael Steele had nothing but good to say about the entire affair when it was under Dubbya's (and Steele's own party's) purview.

FACT: It is Michael Steele's job to get as many Republicans elected to office as possible, by any means he can.

THEORY: Michael Steele is saying anything he can think of to tear down Democratic opposition on the broadest possible level in anticipation of this year's elections, in the desperate hope of both remaining relevant in the wake of the nation's first black President and keeping his job in the wake of his own astounded failures.

Fourth and Down-trodden

In the history of political chutzpah yesterday's move by the Republican Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, should go down as a doozy. Now I understand that general obstinacy and tantrum throwing are the preferred modus operandi of the homophobic cult, but this silliness in Hawaii is really becoming telling of the whole thing. First, a quick history lesson:

Hawaii has been wrestling with civil rights since the early 1990's. The issue came up to the state Supreme Court as an equality case and the court ruled that the state could not deny gay people the rights it granted straight people. Before they could rule directly on marriage equality however, a ballot issue was rammed through, reserving the right to decide the issue to the legislature. Speaking for myself, this is dirty pool, old man; I'll allow it however, on the grounds that bench legislation smacks powerfully of Kritarchy.

So the homophobes demanded the matter be legislated; very fine, this was done. The result, after many years, was that the State's legislature voted, in both House and Senate, to adopt the establishment of "civil unions", with the legal obligation that Hawaii would, in all matters under State jurisdiction, guarantee exactly the same rights to "civil union-ed couples" as they would married couples.

This state of affairs, however, was apparently not satisfactory to the good Governor who spewed the following gems:

"There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor than House Bill 444 and the institution of marriage; I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-gender marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially marriage by another name; The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day; It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials."

So, let me make sure I understand this: The State Supreme Court said, "Equal treatment under the law," and so the homophobes changed the rules to give it to the legislature. The State Legislature said, "Equal Treatment under the law," and so now the homophobes are going to move the goal posts too? This is a great idea; instead of winning the debate on the merits of your argument, keep changing the rules until they give up and quit. Can you imagine the outrage if my team started tyring to pull that sort of crap? What the hell kind of message does this send our children? That anything is permissible as long as you get what you want?

So this evening Fearless Leader delivered an address to the nation, his first from the Oval Office which, I am given to understand, is generally characterized as being a power play of sorts. I have my own theories but I can get into those later.

The topic of discussion was, unsurprisingly, the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Having just returned from yet another trip to the "third coast" (where he gamely partook of the local seafood, as a show of confidence, bravo) Obama laid out, in brief, his outline for how the Federal Government would move forward in it's response to the catastrophe.

In my own mind the single most important item on the list of response measures, after stopping the damned leak itself, is getting the fund necessary to fund as full and complete a clean-up effort as is possible through modern science and also to compensate the millions of people whose lives and livelihoods are dependant on the Gulf Coast, the Gulf of Mexico itself and the biodiversity contained therein. All the expense of British Petroleum, naturally. Well...possibly also at the expense of Haliburton and/or Deepwater Horizon, should they prove to be culpable. It would seem that Fearless Leader agrees with me; Obama stated that he would be informing BP's Chairman that he is to set aside whatever resources required and that said funds would not be under BP's control.

There are a great many people out there for whom this course of action is simply not satisfactory; they won't be satisfied with anything less than British Petroleum's dismantling here in the US. There are others for who the point isn't even taking step to avoid a repeat performance; what they want is simple revenge, in the name of their ideals and the planet itself. Its easy to empathize with that, especially when we begin to understand that British Petroleum has put more effort into trying to control the public perception (the word "optics" has become the current vogue) of the entire situation than in fixing the damned leak.

I heard a great deal of complaint from the left after the address, complaint that boiled down to disappointment that this was not a great, rousing speech made to capture public energy and inspire us all to so great national action...specifically in this case, action to the effect of completely overturning the fossil fuel industry and replacing it with clean energy systems. I empathize with this too. From a purely tactical perspective this event could have been used to justify (which word I use advisedly) a drive towards a green revolution. At the very least, these people would have rather gotten something much, much more akin to Jimmy Carter's "Malaise" speech (although he never used the word); they wanted a rhetorical boot up the back-side of the American people to propel us away from fossil fuels in general and oil in specific. Again, I empathize...

The consequences of such a speech though, bear consideration. In the first place, the traditional supporters of "big oil" already sounded the cry against this undeniably obvious tactic. On this level, its obvious that little beyond reinforcing the traditional, extant postures and battles would be achieved. There would be no significant improvement in the balance of power between the conservatives and progressives and, furthermore, it would have only put another rhetorical arrow in the quiver of the Right. Secondly, there is a sizable contingent of independent voters...what are somewhat vulgarly referred to as the "mushy middle". This contingent (in which I happily claim membership) played no small part in getting Fearless leader and the current Democratic majority elected and the largest part of our camp has a genuine dislike of dramatic politics, even when it leans in a direction we like. We've been watching the trend towards extremism (largely but by no means exclusively in the right wing) and it makes us uncomfortable; wild vacillations in governing policy can "shake apart" the social structure as well creating a situation similar to that which gave us the Civil War (or, War Between the States, for you lot in moonshine country).

That having been said, I don't think that even the most rabid of left-wing loony tunes can find fault with the open reference to peak oil and the fact that we are past it. He may not have tried to mimic Kennedy's call to "shoot the moon", but he did, finally, point out the 800-pound gorilla.

I've said it many times and I'll say it again: the way forward in our various national policies cannot be to swing wildly back and forth between ideological extremes. The right and left both attack him, but I continue to hold faith with Fearless Leader because even when neck-deep in various crises, many of which could have been leveraged into a number Democratic agenda victories, he has stuck scrupulously to the principal of moderation. In short, I admire the man's ethics.

I'm not going to pretend to understand all of the technical details involved in the current debate over financial reform. I do understand two things rather well though: that allowing investment schemes to take massive gambles while shifting the risk of failure to third parties is insane and that continuing to allow strictly private institutions to have enough pull on the entire economy to wreck it should they fail is suicidal.

This is the perfect case for what I've been saying for years: we are no longer living in a simple world. The number and scale of connections between the various economic nodes has reached such a scale of interdependency that, beyond a certain stage, no major business concern is truly "private".

Conservative Progress

I'm not altogether certain of the mood here; it could be sarcastic, smug, confident, hopeful or relieved. I'll leave it to the beholder.

After much delay and disagreement, a bill was finally passed through the cramped, torturous mechanisms of the national legislature and, like other, similarly processed substances, was not entirely what was expected; necessary, but by no means pleasant. Such is Congress's duty.

The short version is this; we went into the process intending to reform healthcare and wound up regulating health insurance. Make no mistakes, the insurance side of the house was in dire need of attention. It is understandable though, that so many people feel confused and even betrayed. There was more than enough hate directed at what finally emerged from both sides, right and left. The Conservative corporate lapdogs have been trying to sell the whole package as some sort of Orwellian nightmare scenario while the progressives rage about Obama and those I would call moderates "selling out". I have to admit it's tempting to agree with the cynics who claim that a "good compromise" means that nobody is happy. Its worth remembering though that while the Bill isn't a panacea, it does make several very good things happen and it does so in a gradual, phased in manner. Sudden shocks are rarely ever good for public policy.

As a purely political matter, I observed what I believe to have been one of Fearless Leader's "political jujitsu" techniques. In this case it was at the heart of the debate about "bipartisanship". To put it mildly, Obama approached the entire situation in a unique manner. He started more or less where he meant to end. He did not take a far left position or make demands for massive socialization; instead he offered to meet the right in the middle, and went directly to it instead of "negotiating down". The result being that the Republican opposition, which did start from the far right, was forced to either capitulate (thus making Obama look even better and losing the initiative) or completely Stonewall the operation, thus painting themselves as perfectly spoiled curmudgeons (which they obligingly did); in short, by not allowing the Republicans to look as though they were "defending the liberties of the American People" by negotiating with himself and the Democratic leadership, by taking the moderate position at the outset, he forced the Republicans into a choice between appearing malevolent and incompetent.

I said before that if this issue could be managed and sold properly that the Democrats would have a much easier time of it in November, and I maintain this...especially since they are trying to build momentum on the issue of Financial Regulatory reforms even as we speak. The Conference Committee has released dates and if this can be gotten through, followed up one more significant legislative item and continued improvement in job numbers, it might just be possible to make a case for taking national policies back away from the right leaning trends of the last few decades. Not that I'm advocating a sudden, lurching shift; vacillation between policy extremes will only serve to increase the resentment and paranoia in the two main camps.

It is quite possible and even necessary to make the procession back towards moderation a measured, even paced evolution...in fact, that may be the best of all possible ways to think of it; as being evolution, in the Darwinian sense. Slowly changing policies at the lowest level and observing the effects to sort between the malignant and the benign and the beneficial. Sudden, gross mutations can lead to spectacular failure and take the entire series with it.

On that note I'll close with this: I agree that reforms were necessary and I'll even agree that the Bill which came out was good...not as good as it might have been, but good. I'll go further in calling for Single Payer...but I am prepared to wait a bit, if need be, to observe the consequences and revise as seems appropriate.

Asleep at the Weal...

Apologies, faithful followers; I have once again fallen asleep at my dutiues of being the beacon of Truth and Light.

So where to begin? So much has happened since March. I suppose I could make a comprehensive list, but I think for the moment I'll stick to what I consider to be the most important points: Healthcare, Financial Reform, Arizona Ethnic Harasment and British Petroleum.

"Lay on, MacDuff, Lay on..."

Fear and Loathing in the Echo Chamber

"Y'see, they say journalism is the art of controlling your environment, but that's all wrong. I can't control anything with this typewriter. All this is, is a gun."

- Spider Jerusalem

Were truer words ever spoken in comic fiction? I doubt it. You might question the reference, if you aren't one of those fortunate enough to have been initiated into the mind-expanding world of Transmetropolitan.

Let me lay it out for you. On March 3rd, 2010 a story was broken by the wonks at Politico about a particular PowerPoint doco from a fundraiser huddle for the RNC in Boca Grande, Florida. This is the sort of thing that would make Brother Spider more maniacal than usual and most certainly have driven Hunter to fits of hysterical giggles.

Its hardly a surprise that actual political operatives tend to look down on the voters nor is it shocking to think that they do their level best to manipulate us. Having it drug out and exposed so directly to the light of day does jar our complacency. Worse yet, at least for the Republicans, is that this doco does in fact validate everything that their Democratic opponents have been saying. The appearant strategy of the Right is delay, discredit and demoralize.

For me at least, even more exasperating than the "Obama: The Joker" pictures and cries of "socialism" is the fact that these people are regressing to the terminology used by Ronald Reagan in the 1980's, refering to the current colection of Democrats running the House, Senate and the Presidency as the "Evil Empire". Worst of all, not only are we falling back on Cold War fear-mongering by equating Obama, Pelosi and Reid to the Soviet Communists, there is not a single new idea in any of it! They say it themselves; the only thing they can think of to try and sell the voters is "saving the country from socialism".

Unsurprisingly, the DNC is already taking advantage of this turn of events.

On the other hand, what really tickles me comes about as a result of an interview that Pete had with Representative Paul Broun of Georgia's 10th district. All other things being equal, it wa sa pretty typical Republican skreed denouncing healthcare reform and regurgitating the talking points about the length of the bill, tort reform, 16% of the economy et al, ad nauseum...bu the last couple of minutes were amazing. Broun started on a whole skreed, claiming to "know" that Obama is a socialist and questioning his citizenship and religion. Now I'm not quite prepared to say that Broun had to be in the same room as the presentation of the above mentioned power point, but how can I avoid seeing the parallels? What makes it truly political gold, however is the fact that this interview happened after the doco was made public by the boys and girls at Politico. That the Representative could have been unaware of the story seems enormously dubious but taking into consideration what all know about the nature of conversations in Washington, I have little difficulty in suspecting that Broun may have been the victim of the Republican "echo chamber".

For the uninitiated, when you have a group of people who isolated themselves from sources of information that don't reinforce their own opinions, isolating themselves within their own group and/or media circle and therefore only hearing their own opinons and thoughts repeated or echoed back, thus reinforcing and seemingly validating them, we call that an "echo chamber". In this case, I'd be willing to believe that Broun and his fellows were so deep inside their echo chamber that they remained completely ignorant of the revelation, even as the RNC began a desperate damage control operation. The damage, however, is done; maybe future politicians will take this as a cautionary tale and try to remain at least marginally connected to the world outside their own circles.

A Fungi At Parties

I have no idea why I haven't mentioned this before, but a recent conversation over at the Fray has tripped my memory and I wanted to share something incredibly fascinating, true believers.

~

By this point, we have long be aware of photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert sunlight into a form of energy for their metabolic processes. The linchpin compound of that marvelous transmutation is a complex little molecule called chlorophyll, the name being derived from Greek words that translate roughly as "green leaf". Without going into a large amount of complex technical jargon, what it does is to allow a chemical reaction that synthesizes sugars (carbohydrates) out of carbon dioxide and hydrogen hydroxide (water). Now as awesome as that is, what I want to focus on here isn't the plant, but the light it uses.

~

Sunlight...any light really, is just one of many forms of what is called "radiant energy". Most people associate the words with what is called "electromagnetic radiation" which is what we're talking about when referring to light or radio waves. Another part of that grouping however is "ionizing radiation" which is what most of us think of when we talk about nuclear power, weapons or radioactive waste.

~

Nasty stuff, that waste. Lasts a long time...upwards of a million years in many cases. If you ever wondered why there is such a push back against nuclear power then here's your chief culprit. There have been years of debate about how to manage the stuff but the basic plan hasn't changed much; seal it, bury it and try to forget about it so you can get on with it.

~

Getting back to the various forms of radiant energy however, I want to draw your attention to another nifty little chemical that deals with the stuff; you see, animals have to deal with exposure to all the same things that plants do and as we all know, animals don't have chlorophyll. Well, the overwhelming majority don't; we'll make an exception for our little friend Elysia chlorotica, whom I've mentioned before. So we of the animal kingdom developed a different, equally complex little molecule to handle the task called melanin. Well...we think we did.

~

You see, we share this particular molecule with another bunch of critters who seem to have been using it in the same way. The Kingdom Fungi. Hence the picture of our little friend up there.

Now as it happens, we've long supposed that the mushrooms had been using melanin the same way we do: to protect themselves from levels of naturally occurring radiant energy, generally sunlight. I mean everyone likes a sunny day but too much of anything is bad for you; why else would we have invented sunblock? On the other hand, we know that fungi will grow in the dark so we can basically dismiss the idea that they use melanin as a part of their metabolic process, like plants do chlorophyll. Don't we?

~

In May of 2007, an interesting little article found its way into Scientific America. A fellow named Arturo Casadevall notice something about the pools of water at a site he was studying. They would become contaminated with melanotic fungi.

~

Okay, so what? There have always been various fungi that thrive in water. What makes these so special? It has to do with where the water was, where Casadevall's site was.

~

Casadevall was performing research at the site of one of the worst radiative disasters in history occurred. He was in Chernobyl, Ukraine. The water pools were little ponds of highly irradiated water and the fungi, the ones that used melanin anyway, were going nuts. The hypothesis? Melanotic fungi like radiation.

~

So where am I going with this? Well, it goes back to the question of what you do with the radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant. Obviously more experiments need to be conducted but, according to Casadevall and his associates, it seems that melanotic fungi are actually absorbing the radiation from their environment and storing it in a way that essentially neutralizes its harmful properties. Given our ability to engineer simple organisms, which is exactly what fungi are, it isn't hard to imagine an engineered fungi being used to breakdown radioactive waste products.

~

In the current political climate, science is often disparaged by many Americans. They think that science is somehow out to get them, that it is going to destroy their lives which is ironic because it was science that enabled their way of life to begin with. The same people which are always clamoring for the next great achievement in weapons technology or cosmetic advancement are determined to undermine scientific endeavored in almost every other field. They love it for the bomb and hate for the radiation; now we are poised to begin undoing the radioactive nightmare the hunger for greater destructive power has unleashed upon us.

~

Will they allow us the resources to do anything about it?

Deeper Blue

We find ourselves, now, in one of those pivotal moments. How so? Simply this: in just about 10 months there is going to be an election, in which several seats in both the House and the Senate are going to go up for grabs; many incumbents have already informed us that they will not be seeking re-election, signaling what we had already figured out on our own, that this is not a good time to be one of those who was in power while Congress was very visibly not solving peoples’ problems. At the same time, the chief piece of legislation not being passed is the enormously high-profile healthcare reform bill, upon which a great many peoples’ political lives have been wagered. How does this fall out?

The short version is this: if the Democratic majority can manage to get comprehensive healthcare reform passed in time for this year’s campaign season, it will provide enough of a boost to cement if not increase their majority for the next several cycles, as well as provide a solid foundation for an Obama win in 2012. Politically, this terrifies the Republican Party which, despite smalls wins in several state races, can see for itself a future as marginalized regional party. Thus the spur for their new favorite tactic, “Just Say NO!”

Recently rumors have begun to surface of a particular memo being circulated in the chambers of certain Democrats which essentially states their intention to see the bill run through the reconciliation process, a path suggested by Rep. Clyburn of South Carolina. Big surprise, considering the proximity of the aforementioned elections. Also we are drawing closer to Fearless Leader’s “healthcare summit” where in he proposes to meet specifically with lawmakers from both right and left in order to hash out some sort of legislation. This is a politically savvy move, as well as being good policy; you provide a very visible process by which you gather as much input from all sides as you can (and let us be completely fair, the Republicans have presented a large number of very good ideas) while simultaneously forcing the opposition to come to the table and be seen negotiating. At the very least, if they should refuse then they are very obviously not fulfilling their obligations as representatives of their electorates; refusing to participate would essentially give the left carte blanch to write whatever they like and ram it through.

Speaking purely for myself, I’m getting thoroughly disgusted with the entire enterprise. On the one hand, the Democrats have spent so much time and effort in attempting to be inclusive that they have thus-far failed to act on the mandate given them in 2008; on the other, the Republicans are so obstinate as to be positively childish. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m all for lengthy and deliberate debate but we’ve passed the point of reason. The procedural obstructionism and misinformation from the right and the hand-wringing and concession-giving on the left have yielded nothing thus far but frustration and more gridlock.

Into The Lion's Den

Oh my stars and garters...where to begin?

The beginning, naturally.

In breif, Fearless Leader was invited to attend and address the House Republican retreat in Baltimore Friday, the 29th of January, 2010. In a surprise move, Obama demonstrated the very trait of fearlessness and spent more than an hour, going over his time, to take questions directly from the gathered Republican House members...and their follow-ups, which he also answered. Fearless Leader indeed.

So the first point I want to make here is that the POTUS and his hosts were all quite cordial and even at the most heated moments nobody at all broke from the sctrictest good grace and decorum. Thus we demonstrate that yes, yes our leaders can conduct themselves in a civil manner and that they can have a serious discussion about policy issues without degenerating into bombast or hysterics. Now moving on to the substance of it.

In the first place, let's don't assume the entire event was nothing but creased brows and pursed lips:

Obama: I very much am appreciative of not only the tone of your
introduction, John, but also the invitation that you extended to me. You know
what they say, "Keep your friends close, but visit the Republican Caucus every
few months."

The traditional breaking of the ice accomplished, we move on to the substance of the address:

Obama: Part of the reason I accepted your
invitation to come here was because I wanted to speak with all of you, and not
just to all of you. So I'm looking forward to taking your questions and having a
real conversation in a few moments. And I hope that the conversation we begin
here doesn't end here; that we can continue our dialogue in the days
ahead.

The message here should be obvious, "This a conversation, not a monologue; I expect it to continue beyond this moment." The importance of this cannot be understated; most Americans will agree, I think, that the primary difficulty in getting anything useful or meaningful done in government is the massive partisan gridlock. Neither party is willing to even enter into discussion with the other. The motives for this are specifically addressed further down, but for now let's settle for the basic fact.

Obama: But I don't believe that the American
people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job
security. I don't think they want more gridlock. I don't think they want more
partisanship. I don't think they want more obstruction. They didn't send us to
Washington to fight each other in some sort of political steel-cage match to see
who comes out alive. That's not what they want. They sent us to Washington to
work together, to get things done, and to solve the problems that they're
grappling with every single day.

Here he addresses the single most important motivation in creating the afore-mentioned gridlock. Much further below he states, in a simple, straight-forward and matter-of-fact manner how this motivation, which is not entirely unreasonable in its own right, because horribly warped and perverted to defeat itself.

Obama: And I think your constituents would want
to know that despite the fact it doesn't get a lot of attention, you and I have
actually worked together on a number of occasions. There have been times where
we've acted in a bipartisan fashion. And I want to thank you and your Democratic
colleagues for reaching across the aisle. There has been, for example, broad
support for putting in the troops necessary in Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda safe
haven, to break the Taliban's momentum, and to train Afghan security forces.
There's been broad support for disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda.
And I know that we're all united in our admiration of our
troops.

The basic translation of this is, "We can cooperate. We have cooperated. You know it, I know it and more importantly your constuents know it." He goes on to breifly describe some specific examples of such cooperation followed some very high-profile subjects where the party-line vote has, in his own words, "been disappointing". I won't waste time listing each, I want to get to the underlying point (going to start jumping around a little bit, so bear with me):

Obama: I'm not suggesting
that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy
or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the
Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in
every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of
room to negotiate with me.
I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many
of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically
vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very
little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling
your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to
destroy America.
And I would just say that we have to think about tone. It's
not just on your side, by the way -- it's on our side, as well. This is part of
what's happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that
when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to
do.

This came as part of a response in the Q&A that followed the scripted address. While not the only thing of importance that was said, it is, I think, the single most important point raised. The undeniable fact is that while demonizing the opposition is a great way to get elected, it makes it impossible for you compromise with them without looking like a sell-out, thereby getting yourself voted out by your own constituents; a vicious cycle there ensues, with new rounds of angry, uncompromising ideolouges renewing the cycle and enforcing the general grid-lock.

Now look, I'm not a huge fan of Reagan or O'Neil...but for all their differences and rhetoric, at the end of the day they could sit down and hammer out some sort of agreement that was, if not universally satisfactory, at least (more-or-less) universally acceptable. I was talking about this a year ago.

The second most important thing in the whole event was, in my own opinion, the President's push-back on Republican talking points. As demonstrated most visibly in this exchange:

Congressman Hensarling: Jeb, Mr.
President.

Obama: How are
you?

Congressman Hensarling: I'm doing
well. Mr. President, a year ago I had an opportunity to speak to you about the
national debt. And something that you and I have in common is we both have small
children.

Obama: Absolutely.

Congressman Hensarling: And I left
that conversation really feeling your sincere commitment to ensuring that our
children, our nation's children, do not inherit an unconscionable debt. We know
that under current law, that government -- the cost of government is due to grow
from 20 percent of our economy to 40 percent of our economy, right about the
time our children are leaving college and getting that first job.
Mr.
President, shortly after that conversation a year ago, the Republicans proposed
a budget that ensured that government did not grow beyond the historical
standard of 20 percent of GDP. It was a budget that actually froze immediately
non-defense discretionary spending. It spent $5 trillion less than ultimately
what was enacted into law, and unfortunately, I believe that budget was ignored.
And since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under
Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats. The national
debt has increased 30 percent.
Now, Mr. President, I know you believe -- and
I understand the argument, and I respect the view that the spending is necessary
due to the recession; many of us believe, frankly, it's part of the problem, not
part of the solution. But I understand and I respect your view. But this is what
I don't understand, Mr. President. After that discussion, your administration
proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next 10 years --
surely you don't believe 10 years from now we will still be mired in this
recession -- and propose new entitlement spending and move the cost of
government to almost 24.5 percent of the economy.
Now, very soon, Mr.
President, you're due to submit a new budget. And my question is
--

Obama: Jeb, I know there's a
question in there somewhere, because you're making a whole bunch of assertions,
half of which I disagree with, and I'm having to sit here listening to them. At
some point I know you're going to let me answer. All
right.

Congressman Hensarling: That's the question. You
are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your
old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of
increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy? That's
the question, Mr. President.

Can you see what's wrong with this? I can tell you in one sentence; the Congressman prefaced a simple, direct, relevant single-sentence question with a two paragraph talking point, making an tangential, opinion based assertion as if it were fact. This isn't conversation. This isn't reasoned, respectful discourse in the interest of solving problems. This is pure political gamesmanship. This tactical manuevering to score political points:

Obama: Jeb, with all due
respect, I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very
hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the
whole question was structured as a talking point for running a
campaign.

The last thing I want to bring to bear is the whole issue of bipartisanship itself:

Obama: You know, Mike, I've
read your legislation. I mean, I take a look at this stuff -- and the good ideas
we take. But here's -- here's the thing -- here's the thing that I guess all of
us have to be mindful of, it can't be all or nothing, one way or the other. And
what I mean by that is this: If we put together a stimulus package in which a
third of it are tax cuts that normally you guys would support, and support for
states and the unemployed, and helping people stay on COBRA that your governors
certainly would support -- Democrat or a Republican; and then you've got some
infrastructure, and maybe there's some things in there that you don't like in
terms of infrastructure, or you think the bill should have been $500 billion
instead of $700 billion or there's this provision or that provision that you
don't like. If there's uniform opposition because the Republican caucus doesn't
get 100 percent or 80 percent of what you want, then it's going to be hard to
get a deal done. That's because that's not how democracy works.
So my hope
would be that we can look at some of these component parts of what we're doing
and maybe we break some of them up on different policy issues. So if the good
congressman from Utah has a particular issue on lobbying reform that he wants to
work with us on, we may not able to agree on a comprehensive package on
everything but there may be some component parts that we can work on.
You
may not support our overall jobs package, but if you look at the tax credit that
we're proposing for small businesses right now, it is consistent with a lot of
what you guys have said in the past. And just the fact that it's my
administration that's proposing it shouldn't prevent you from supporting it.
That's my point.

Again, I have covered this before. I have said repeatedly that this was happening and what would result:

• The Howling
• War Of Attrition
• Hannibal

In any case, I've said my piece. In case you didn't catch the whole thing on your own, I strongly advise you to follow this link and do so. Before I go however, I would like to point out two things.

First is the fact that this sort of Q&A session is the Parliamentary norm in the United Kingdom. Second is that, as suggested by Mr. Llewelyn King, the goodness and excellence of this event was its unscripted nature and, while it is highly desirable that it happen again, regularly, the high probability is that in such case, it would become scripted, like the rest of the political-media circus we presently endure.

Emerson, Lake and Palmer: Prophets

Just when you think you've seen it all.

The first thing that came to mind when I encountered this was the title of Dawkins' newest book: The Greatest Show On Earth. While I could happily launch into a monologue about evolutionary biology, I think for the moment I'm going to simply bask in the magnificence of this discovery and hope for a new encore.

...although, I should relate a comment made by a certain Canadian of my acquaintance, "Right now, millions of Japanese are wondering what it tastes like."

"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends

We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside

There behind a glass stands a realblade of grass

Be careful as you pass, move along, move along"

And Now, A Word From Our Sponsors!

Money. Like radiation, it is in its way absolutely vital to the function of the system it occupies. Also like radiation, it utterly destroys and mutates everything it touches when introduced in the wrong amounts, in the wrong places.

The latest ruling of the Supreme Court cannot bode well for American civil society. Things were bad enough when they could only donate limited amounts of money to particular candidates. Now, in this single stroke, it has been made legal for corporations to spend, freely, as much as they like on advertising for political agents and actions. Considering the current practice of such advertising (Freudian manipulation to elicit exclusively emmotinal behavior) what horrors must now await us? Thinking of the irrational behavior and emmoting fostered by FNC, this sort of thing is only going to encourage more people to completely ignore reality in favor of what makes them feel good.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, these are the same people who want to sell cigarettes with cartoon characters.

Makin a M*A*S*H of things, pt. II

Words almost fail me. After a year...another year, if we think back to the previous attempt in the 90's, we still can't seem to bring ourselves to say that human beings have a right to be alive. Yes, I'm taking that tack, because that is the most basic point addressed in the conversation about health care reform. The obstructionists appear to have won. Again.

Let me just summarize the condition being enforced by conservatives: "You have rights; particularly, you have the right to choose between living in poverty, or dying in poverty."

I am thoroughly disgusted with Republicans and conservatives in general for deciding that the profits of insurance companies are more important than the lives of human beings. I am thoroughly disgusted with the Democratic leadership for putting their own political careers over and above the interests of the people they claim to represent. As of this moment, I see only one recourse for the current majority to salvage it's honor and the remnants of it's integrity. As has been voiced by Rep. Clyburn of South Carolina, the only viable path to genuine reforms now is to use the Budget Reconciliation process.

Clyburn today advised, in an interview on POTUS (XM130) that the best option remaining would be to strip out the reform issues from the bill, use the Reconciliation process, then force votes on a handful of individual reform points; Tort reform, coverage withdrawal, pre-existing conditions, etc. I don't especially like this method but for the sake of getting the results we need, I can get fully behind it.

I'm not sure why I feel like I should post this, but I suppose it doesn't hurt: I donated to the Red Cross in responce to the earthquake in Haiti. I'm not saying this to suggest my superiority (which you should by now know to be true anyway) although I will take a moment to point out that there are at least two..."persons" (at the moment I am disinclined to call them human beings) who seem to have very skewed perspectives of the situation.

First there is that paragon of civic virtue, the beacon of truth and pillar of integrity El Rushbo. Given his expressed opinion on the subject, both regarding Fearless Leader's motives and actions, I cannot understand how this bastard manages to stay solvent. In first place I could never see myself adverising on his time and in the second, he should be up to his eyeballs in defamation suits.

I think Mr. Ebert said it best:

You should be horse-whipped for the insult you have paid to the
highest office of our nation.

Having followed President Obama's suggestion and donated money
to the Red Cross for relief in Haiti, I was offended to hear you suggest the
President might be a thief capable of stealing money intended for the earthquake
victims.
Here is a transcript from your program on Thursday:

Justin of Raleigh, North Carolina: "Why does Obama say if you want to donate some money, you could go to whitehouse.gov to direct you how to do so? If I wanted to donate to the
Red Cross, why do I have to go to the White House page to donate?"

Limbaugh: "Exactly. Would you trust the money's gonna go to Haiti?"

Justin: "No.

"Rush: "But would you trust that your name's gonna end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes?"

Justin: "Absolutely!"

Limbaugh: "Absolutely!"

That's what was said.

Unlike you and Justin of Raleigh, I went to Obama's web site, and discovered the link there leads directly to the Red Cross. I can think of a reason why anyone might want to go via the White House. That way they can be absolutely sure they're clicking on the Red Cross and not a fake site set up to exploit the tragedy.

But let me be sure I have this right. You and Justin agree that Obama might steal money intended or the Red Cross to help the wretched of Haiti.

This conversation came 48 hours after many of us had seen pitiful sights from Port au Prince. Tens of thousands are believed still alive beneath the rubble. You twisted their suffering into an opportunity to demean the character of the President of the United States.

This cannot have been an accident. A day earlier, in a sound bite from your show, you said "this will play right into Obama's hands. He's humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, 'credibility' with the black community -- in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black ommunity in this country. It's made-to-order for them."

Setting aside your riff on Harry Reid, consider what you imply. Obama will aid Haiti to please African-Americans. Haiti has lost untold thousands of lives. One third of the population has lost its homes. Countless people are still buried in the rubble. Every American president would act quickly to help our neighbor. You are so cynical and heartless as to explain Obama's action in a way that unpleasantly suggests how your mind works. You have a sizable listening audience. You apparently know how to please them. Anybody given a $400 million contract must know what he is doing.

That's what offends me. You know exactly what you're doing.

Second, let me direct you to the loving charity and compassion that is Pat Robertson. Some people are willing to write him off as a crazy person...I can't bring myself to believe that he isn't knowingly and with malice of forethought saying and promoting this sort of vileness. Like others, I'd like to know why other high-profile X-ian preachers don't make a concerted effort to shut him down; he only brings their entire cult into terrible disrepute:

ME: Any idea why Ratzinger won't denounce this loony tune? I tell you no lie,
I don't like the old Nazi, but this would go a long one towards improving my
opinion of him. And I don't mean some wishy-washy "arrogance" finger wagging; I
want to hear him just come out, full-bore Teutonic Blitzkreiger Rotteweiler,
"You. You don't know a god-dammed thing about what you are saying. Shut up, shit
down and thank God you aren't them you supersilious, self-serving, arrogant,
ignorant, manipulative pig-dog."

BILL: I don't really see why the pope needs to say STFU to a random guy. I
know we are a rather insulated country and all, but I can hardly believe Patty
is the only crazy 'b-lieve in jeebis' leader of notoriety; I'd imagine there are
quite a number of them. If the pope had to renounce every dumb thing every one
of them said, it would take up a lot of time.Now, I see no reason why someone in
Rome couldn't throw us a bone and say 'If that's his opinion, then he doesn't
get God', but to expect that from the Pope?

ME: I can see your point and in the case of a random local loony toon I can
even agree...but Brother Pat is a national figure, and even a (very) minor
figure on the international stage. I respect that Ratzinger has other
responsibilities, but I submit that the office of the papacy, if it has any
integrity or at all values its claims for it's own authority or obligations to
it's deity, Christendom or even general humanity then Ratzinger must offer
battle to the likes of Robertson...at least when they venure out from their
personal squallors and into the public arena.

Recurrent Billing

A very interesting discussion recently broke out on the StandUp! forum; one which I felt obliged to join in on, adding my own thoughts.

The essence of what is being discussed here is the debate between the rights of individual people and the rights of the people as a whole, further seen through the filter of what the individual and collective obligations in guaranteeing those rights may be. The issue is not cut and dry and, as we have seen demonstrated above, there is plenty of room for complete and total misunderstanding, which as we all know is so easy as to be almost unavoidable in what is (to anyone who actually understands it) a complex, subtle and yet emotionally supercharged issue; a bit like trying to put out a birthday cake candle with a fire hose. You all by now know my style; straight-line computation on the basis of salient facts and don't-waste-time-with-emotive-fluff. So I hope you'll take it to heart when I say that any attempt to cut hard and fast lines through this particular morass is doomed to failure; the plethora of special cases and nearly limitless variables makes it impossible.What we can do though is establish a certain number of flexible guidelines, which we have, as a nation, been pretty damned good at doing historically. Its really only in the last 20 years or so that the sort of hyper-partisan crap we're seeing right now has taken firm root. The Tea baggers (love that!) are deluding themselves if they think they are the inheritors of the Reagan Era; Tip & Ronnie may not have been drinking buddies but they understood the necessity of compromise in keeping the peace in a democracy.

I know I've discussed this before, but it seems to be worth repeating:

• How Jesus Killed The Elephants
• The Howling
• Hannibal
• The Lunch That Faced A Thousand Bleeps

I think the first thing to do here is to go back to the idea behind the Bill of Rights and re-evaluate our collective idea of what exactly the inalienable rights of the lawful citizen in our society are. Obviously we aren't going to strike anything currently in place, but it is an undeniable fact that the situation has changed since the 18th century and we need to acknowledge that certain options (go west, young man) aren't there any more. We also need to acknowledge that certain less-than-humane practices based on practical reality aren't valid any more; can anyone think of any reason to deny healthcare, shelter or food that doesn't revolve around "me", "gawd!" or "soshulizum"? This is an example of addressing individuals, but our society as a whole has requirements as well.

I would suggest that anything necessary to the systemic functioning of our nation, as a whole, should never be in the hands of any private interest or private interest in general. Period. Once upon a time, the list of those necessities was a great deal shorter; we have, however, increased the scope and scale of our society, creating layer upon organic layer of complex, interdependent systems upon which why now rely for every aspect of our daily business, even our survival. This is not a plea for "collectivism", so do not despair; while there is certainly much more which must be considered vital to the national interest, the list itself is still pretty short in absolute terms. Some of it is direct service, some of it regulatory in nature and we can undoubtedly argue for hours about what that list should actually contain...but that said list needs to be established is, I think, unarguable. In most respects I think this is a matter of metrics; people need to know where they stand, what they are getting for their tax dollars and what their obligations are.

So now you’re likely asking what exactly I think needs to be on the list of “items of national interest”; well I’ll make a few suggestions as to additions, which is not to be considered exhaustive:

1. Utilities - Water, sewage, power, and heat. Under no circumstances in this day and age should any home be without these. In the modern city, complex mechanism that it is, these are issues of survival, not only of individuals but of the community.
2. Healthcare - There are two aspects to this; maintaining public health in general, and providing for the care of persons born with disabilities. It is in the national interest to prevent outbreaks of disease, it is our obligation as human beings to care for our injured and disabled and no person born with otherwise fatal conditions should be required to pay more than any other person simply to continue living.
3. Transportation - It is absolutely vital that we enable as much as possible free movement within our own borders; it serves to conserve limited resources, improve our health and most importantly, it make our workforce more mobile. Persons who are able to get around quickly and efficiently can seek and meet employment opportunities in a wider area.
4. Employment - Modern America is a society much different from the bucolic era of the 18th century. We are no longer a nation of yeoman farmers, each unto himself alone. We live in cities and towns and people need work in order to provide for themselves and their families. Now under no circumstances should our public offices take over all employment; command economics was tried in Russia under the soviets and failed miserably. However there is always a demand for public service, from street cleaning to building infrastructure to the endless administrative paperwork at all levels. When all else fails, people need to know that they can find employment serving their communities at all levels in order to meet their needs.

Suicidal Cannibals

Of late I have discovered another little idea with big potential germinating in the back of my skull. A clever little beast, it seems to have inherited information from the generally poor (albeit improving) condition of our economy and the path by which it came to this state, the current gun-fight over universal health-care and my evolving understanding of the mechanisms of society.

Okay, short version: one the worst afflictions currently besetting our society is the practice among businesses of hiring only part-time staffers, in order to keep wages and benefits paid thereto as low as legally possible. The motivation is understandable, but nonetheless despicable; minimizing expenses in order to maximize profits. Aside from essentially forcing a significant portion of the population into virtual serfdom, this practice does nothing to encourage stability; the vast horde of job-hopping part-timers live in a state of perpetual fear and flux, being essentially unable to make long-term plans or invest time in bettering their situations, since all of their effort and time is taken up in holding down multiple part-time jobs, each of which demand to be "primary" and threaten to fire anyone who does not give them top-priority.

So how do we address this difficulty? I believe I have a solution, which can be directly tied to the current wrangling of health care legislation. Simply put, require all employers to provide full-time benefits to all employees, regardless of hours worked. Command Economics? Nay, True Believers, nay; read on.

The basic argument against this proposal is that it would cripple the ability of businesses to compete in the market...which would be true, if the measure was not applied universally. If all employers are required to do so however, then none of them is granted a position of advantage, maintaining the balance of power, as it were, while simultaneously giving all of these same employers a tremendous motivation to start hiring employees on a full-time basis. After all, if you have to spend that much on the staff, you should damned well get as much out of them as possible; given that salaries are a small cost compared to the benefits packages, it makes plenty of sense to maximise your productivity.

The direct effect would obviously be that incomes for a large number of wage earners would go up but, I think just as importantly, one of the indirect effects would be that restoration of confidence and stability in the general public. A population which feels stable and confident of its position is more inclined to invest in its own future, simply because it feels as though it has one. Nobody who doesn't know how they're going to stay in their home or put food on the table is going to pursue education or invest in new business.

I am not generally anti-capitalism but I am prepared to explore the idea that the fanatical pursuit of quarterly profits may have gone too far; you can only slash your expenses so far before you start cutting your own throat.