Biden's judo moves, part two: The Age Thing, the Immunity Thing, and more on FACTS

I keep saying it. You kids survived covid and boomers survived '68. We can survive this. Just buckle down and fight. As I am doing here.  By proposing judo tactics instead of grunting sumo.

Today -- three topical issues. Two of them somewhat overblown and one of them truly important.

1. I tried to cover the important one, last time. It's the only truly central issue in this U.S. presidential election year, and one that Democrats always ignore.  

That issue is the vastly consistent right wing, all-out war vs. all fact using professions, from science and teaching, medicine and law and civil service to the heroes of the FBI/Intel/Military officer corps who won the Cold War and the War on terror. Indeed, their core agenda is to wage war against the very notion of fact as a thing.

No other matter is as important! Because MOST other matters - from climate change to election denialism, to racism, to abortion, to the state of the economy - will be settled, quickly, if we restore disproof of lies.

Indeed, last time I spoke of a way that Joe Biden could raise this as a readily achievable goal.  If nothing else, just proposing that method would emphasize that Democrats are generally the ones standing up for use of actual, demonstrable facts...

2. ... just as Democrats are the ones who don't want immunity from rampant law-breaking by presidents. And yes, the 'ruling' for blanket presidential criminal immunity, by the Trump-appointed (and blatantly corrupt) Supreme Court majority, was so utterly insane and treasonous that it shocked even cynical Rachel Maddow. 

So, why aren't Democrats eager to claim and use that immunity, while they are in office? All those jokes about Biden dispatching 'Seal Team Six' miss the point. The real reason is simple. They don't need it. 

Just look at the ratio of indictments and convictions for malfeasance-of-office and other felonies like child predation, between the two parties. It's about forty-to-one Republican/Democrat, across the last 40 or so years! And the ratio is infinite, when it comes to presidents and top tier cabinet officers. (In other words, the Clinton, Obama and Biden admins had none. The most honest and least corrupt national administrations of any and all nations, across all of human history.)

This explains the desperation of high goppers to make the whole thing all-or-nothing. They know that if we go back to a nation of transparency and laws, using calm disproof to lance the Kremlin-run lie pustules, then sooner or later the blackmail will spill and hundreds of them will see their darkest secrets revealed, changing that crime ratio from double to triple digits. And John Roberts will be remembered by history next to Roger Taney.  

That is why they must now go all-in brownshirt, as forecast in their horrendous Mein Kampf called Project 2025. For many of them, the only alternative to prison, or shamed retirement, or just universal ridicule is to emulate 1934's Night of the Long Knives. Perhaps with a triggering Reichstag Fire.

There are things that JoeB and the dems could say, that they aren't saying. 

Example: every lame argument by the suborned SC majority - that 'presidents shouldn't be distracted from hard choices by legal second guessing' - could be satisfied by something called "slow process," where presidents might limit their time dealing with legal matters to (say) an externally prioritized ten hours a week. Slow... yet with justice wheels still rolling. 

That plus an added layer of 'presumption of good faith' in post-hoc jury instructions should enable a president with decent legal advisors to navigate difficult ground, as Commander-In-Chief - as presidents have done for 240 years. Both of those clarifications could be arranged by legislation, negotiated in good faith, with an aim at finding a sweet spot between presidential flexibility and ... the Law. But that was never the intent of this corrupt SC majority.

Instead, they gave us a Tyrant's Bill of Spites. 

I'd go deeper into that travesty. But what'd be the point? No one will care about my 'slow process' proposal... nor my suggestions re: the War on Facts. (Though I may do a midweek posting about the latter, in more detail.)

What I WILL spend the rest of this missive on is matter #3. The whole 'age thing.'

== A sweet-spot win-win-win re: the 'issue' of Joe Biden's age ==

3. Joe Biden's poor performance in the first debate is now history, with lingering distraction ripples all over. (So much for his being 'jacked up'!) Several tiring foreign trips likely roused his lifelong stuttering debility... but he also admits now that he needs to nap more.

Okay then, it happens that I have another Big Suggestion, how JoeB could deal with this matter decisively, in what could be a win-win-win-win for Democrats. And for the nation, world and future.

But first let's deal with the Fox-o-sphere ravings - "Do you want a geezer answering that terrible phone call at 3 am?"

Well, yes, I do, if it's this geezer. For several reasons.

3a. It's the appointments, stupid! We are a nation of institutions. For those 3am calls, we have a Defense Department and a State Department and a Cabinet filled with civil servants* and appointed officials. And selecting the latter is the President's most vital task. 

Biden has done so, superbly! 5000 or so skilled, dedicated, brilliant professionals - without a single legal blemish among them - replaced Donald Trump's 5000 horrifically corrupt, stoopid dogmatists and Kremlin agents like Flynn & Manafort. Plus a few potemkin semi-'adults' like Tillerson and Kelly, who later denounced their ex-boss as a living monster.** 

A man - even elderly - who works hard to appoint folks of character - in the caliber of Antony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris - is someone who is unafraid of being in a room filled with smarter people. That's diametrically opposite to Two Scoops Trump. Moreover, with such Very Best Folks working out all the plausible options for him, I am unafraid that such a wise grampa might face decisions at 3am.

Again: It's the appointments, stupid. And with those 5000 on the job... and 100,000 qualified civil servants protected from the Project 2025 plan (to return to a Spoils System)... I can sleep at night. And I do not care if Grampa takes some naps.

3b. Joe cares. Being human, he might resist a bit. Still, he will confront the matter of the age thing, if it gets worse after re-election. At which point he'll simply retire, allowing a vigorously qualified and now fully trained VP Kamala to take his place. (Down below, in comments if someone reminds me, I will describe how Democratic Presidential candidates always choose a qualified running mate and all but one GOP nominee chose some living horror.)

Was Kamala my first choice? No. But she is calm and balanced and totally qualified, and we'd be just fine.

But still, I'm not done with the 'age thing.'  In fact, here comes my crackpot idea!

== A judo move for Biden to get a win-win-win-win out of the 'age thing' ==

This one wasn't in my book Polemical Judo. But it's in the same, jiu jitsu spirit. The sort of move that could stagger the opposition, leaving them speechless and then shrill, while proving to the public how serious and thoughtful you are... and so much more.

3c. Call for 'debates' among the top tier of Democrats! 

Yep. Do this now! Joe Biden could announce:

"Look, I had a bad debate. I and millions of others don't think it means that much. But I do listen! And I know some of you out there are concerned,  Moreover, unlike my opponent, I know that wishing something and yelling it doesn't make it so. 

"Hey, I am showing some signs of time's passage!  I surround myself with the best folks the nation has to offer and I have vast experience. And some say I'm generally kind of a wise-guy... 

"But I won't be obstinate. So let's test this!

"I hearby invite six of the top members of my party... truly fine and brilliant men and women with utterly proved chops as leaders... to join me onstage for a series of three forums, leading up to the Democratic National Convention, a month from now in Chicago!

"These would not be 'debates' as such. We won't be attacking each other... much. But it will accomplish many things at once! 

- First, it would test me! If I can hold my own with these whippersnappers, that should anchor my rightful (already-earned) place as the party nominee with joyful confidence!

- If I fail that challenge, then the best new leaders of our party - and in-future the nation - will have a chance to show what they've got, before the party convention delegates, who will then have the authority given to them by voters this spring, to choose another slate. 

"I am confident they will pick Biden-Harris! But if not, I will campaign for any of these fine folks, with vigor and energy!

- This will also show the depth of the Democratic Party's bench! The public will see that there are no flukes. Any and every person on the forum stage will be blatantly better - smarter, more grownup and vastly more moral - than any and every politician in the Republican Party.

- And finally, jeepers, why should we turn down this opportunity for a vast TV audience? Let the forum participants disagree over this and that practical matter or proposal! We'll still have a great chance to present our accomplishments, plus proofs about the dangers facing our nation, our planet, civilization, freedom and our children!  And a chance to disprove the other party's mountain of volcanic, poisonous lies.

"I am consulting across a wide range of wise folks. But clearly, joining me onstage will be my own chosen running mate, world respected stateswoman and my trusted friend, Vice President Kamala Harris! 

"Who else? Obviously, we need Governors Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom up there! I want Pete Buttigieg, too. I'll let Bernie, Liz and AOC thrash out among themselves which of them to send from their wing.  And from the other wing...? Hey Joe Manchin! Care to come back for a few nights and try the waters? They're pretty darn foul over in Fox country. Over here we argue fairly, about true things.

"So there you have it. Unlike my opponent, who squelches any competition, who demands utter obedience and denies any possible fault, I'll admit I might be wrong when I look in a mirror and say "You still got it, kid!" 

"Like any wise grampa, I'll listen to the best and wisest of later generations! 

"And so, we're gonna get six of em up on stage with me. And I predict two things. 

"First, you'll see a terrific future for the Democratic Party and for America!

"But also, you will see the fact that I still got it! And when I don't any longer... we have a team that will keep America great and keep America winning!

God bless you all and good night."

=======================================

=======================================

Addenda

* Project 2025 includes utter trashing of the 140 year old Civil Service Act which ended the pyrotechnic corruption of the old Spoils System. The CSA insulated civil servants to do their jobs professionally, according to the law and enabled the U.S. to efficiently win our wars, build our industry and infrastructure, have clean food and water and obey laws. Trump felt frustrated by this and he intends to end it, finishing off one of the last bulwarks against a return to 6000 years of capricious rule by inheritance brat lords.

** Here's one of my standing wager demands... which no MAGA has ever had the guts to step up to meet:

Mike Pence, James Mattis, John Kelly, Rex Tillerson, Mark Milley, Mark Esper, H.R. McMaster, Elaine Chao, Omarosa, Bill Barr... jeez, over fifty former "great guys" have authored books about what a wretchedly horrible man they worked for. All of those 'adults in the room' have been shrugged off by Trump as 'terrible people!' Well, maybe so, in one or two - or even a dozen - cases. But unquestionably,  Donald Trump has been 'betrayed' by more folks who he formerly called "great guys!" than across ALL other presidencies combined!

And hence there's one thing that no Fox ravings can obscure and that no MAGA can deny. 

It shows that Donald J. Two Scoops Trump is a terrible judge of character!

Maddow, Mueller and the dems push a dare at McConnell

First announcements: On December 18, my friend Robert Kuhn became only the second American to receive the China ReformFriendship Medal, said to be China’s highest award; it was given by President Xi Jinping and Chinese leaders at the 40^th anniversary of 'opening up' in the Great Hall of the People.  Robert is also the host of the future-oriented TV series Closer toTruth, that had me on for topics ranging from SETI to philosophy of science, religion, ESP to human destiny in the cosmos.  See his optimistic appraisal of the likelihood of a positive deal with China over matters like state subsidies and IP protection.

Alas, the PRC is now pushing an initiative for Trump to get crowing points over what doesn't matter -the trade deficit - to distract from what does matter, theft of he West's innovation and invention. And hence -- this is by far the most important article you can read about China's leadership caste, by an Australian diplomat/journalist of immense insight. Join the site (free) in order to read it. Follow this with my own insights, which dovetail with Garnaut's, about Chinese PRC mythologies about central planning and AI. More on this at the end.

And scroll down for links to my latest podcasts.

== An open letter to Rachel Maddow… ==

Dear Ms. Maddow,

Now that your ratings have surpassed Sean Hannity’s, may I offer a suggestion? One that could both devastate Fox and spur another ratings boost for you? It’s simple: challenge Hannity to exchange rebuttal segments! Offer him 2 minutes, three times a week, if he’ll reciprocate.

First, it would be a profound statement of confidence that you are the one with facts on your side. 

Second, Hannity and his Fox masters know your mere six-minutes-per-week on Fox would be far more deadly to them, hence they will refuse! Whereupon you can call “chicken!” (Note: Fox led the charge to end the old version of the Rebuttal Rule: I wonder why?) 

If you had done this in the past, Ol’ Sean (or O’Reilly) would sneer “She’s trying to chase our ratings.” Now you can say – with a sly wink - “I’m taking pity on a failing competitor.”

If they accept, you’d torch Fox to the ground, in just 360 seconds. (It’s also one way to get Donald Trump to watch some of your stuff.) But far more important would be spreading the concept of rebuttal, even challenging opponents to wagers, and the thing that terrifies the Murdochians most… the very notion of “fact.” 

Which is why they now wage war on every single fact-using profession, from scientists, teachers, journalists, doctors, economists, civil servants and skilled labor...all the way to the professionals in the FBI, intelligence agencies and Military Officer Corps, whom the cult now derides as "deep state" monsters. (More on this, below.)

Yes, you’d have to be short and punchy. I could offer some one-line zingers. But it won’t come to that. They’ll refuse, in desperate panic. So the only thing you’ll have to say is: “Chicken! B’b’bkaw!”

== What Mueller is really targeting ==

I predicted it will all turn out to be about money laundering. This article by Michael HIrsch - How Russian Money Helped Save Trump's Business -   begins your education about what will soon be emerging as much bigger than anything so far: “in the aftermath of Trump’s earlier financial troubles" (three bankruptcies that stiffed his U.S. creditors) “he could not get anybody in the United States to lend him anything. It was all coming out of Russia.” Officially, his comeback was financed by two German lenders, Deutsche Bank and Bayerische Vereinsbank. But the EU is sifting the former, tracing vast flows of Russian money from Putin allies.

Seriously, don’t skim this. Each paragraph makes clear it’s worse than you thought. Then it gets worse. Then it goes downhill. And somewhere along the way, it stopped being about “deals” or even a “swamp” and almost certainly became about leverage, even blackmail.

“Russian efforts either to recruit somebody as an asset or effectively coerce them into becoming an asset historically typically rely on compromise of either a financial nature or a sexual nature,” said David Kris, a former assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. And no, a "pee tape" would not suffice.

Find someone, anywhere, who was talking about "leadership subornation" and "blackmail as a war weapon" in the 1990s.

== Democrats pick (almost) the right first priority ==

Yes, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) nailed it with #WheresMitch? This was not Trump's Shut Down! He can't veto a government re-start that doesn't reach his desk. This is all stage managed by Putin's real asset in the U.S. Mitch McConnell. (Lefty or not, I'm starting to think AOC may be more than just faddish hype. Pace yourself. But you go.)

As for legislating? The Democrats’ HR1 anti-corruption bill is a litany of desperately needed reforms… their equivalent of a “Contract With America” that I wish were sold half as well as that historic work of razzle-dazzle. 

Every one of HR1's many component measures would help restore American democracy and vastly improve accountability. We might quibble or negotiate this or that. But the intent of almost every measure is to restrict or eliminate cheating, from demanding paper ballots to prevent tampering and easier voter registration to applying pressure against gerrymandering (yes, even in Blue States like Maryland); from demanding transparency of large political donors to insisting presidents and candidates release their tax returns and restricting “emoluments; from keeping congressfolk off corporate boards to transparency in the “swamp” of lobbying. 

And yes, this utterly refutes any jerk out there who says “the parties are the same.”

DP leaders are right to prioritize these matters ahead of the things the party’s left salivates-for, like “Medicare for All.” Those desiderata should win or lose based on the merits of their case! But that case can never be made, so long as cheating (set up by a whole generation of Republican shysters like Dennis “friend to boys” Hastert and Mitch McConnell) prevails. My only complaints are:

1) Even more important than electoral and ethics reform is re-establishing the very concept of “fact” in American life. The core element of today's confederate cult is to wage war on every single fact-using profession, from scientists, teachers, journalists, doctors, economists, civil servants and skilled labor...all the way to the professionals in the FBI, intelligence agencies and Military Officer Corps, whom the cult now derides as "deep state" monsters. This pattern is perfect and utterly damning. And my FACT Act proposes 12 measures that might end the War on Fact.

2) McConnell’s corrupt GOP Senate majority will ignore HR1, of course. So the House should start sending over the provisions one-by-one, daring every Republican Senator to specifically oppose each, individually. A dozen or so of these goppers will have to find one or two to support… they might do so together, for their own electoral survival… and McConnell may decide to let Trump take the heat, with his veto pen. Fine, this a ground game of yards.

3) Add a measure demanding that all of a president's foreign meetings be witnessed by trustworthy US officials. (See below.)

== Transparency, liberty… and blockchain… ==

I’ve been featured on several libertarian-themed podcasts, lately. This one, sponsored by AEI (American Enterprise Institute) and hosted by Jim Pethokoukis, focused on surveillance, transparency and the future of freedom. I challenge preconceptions, garrulously, of course. And it is always good to help sinners regain both light and loyalty to the Enlightenment.

Another is the “CoinSpice” podcast where I’m interviewed about blockchain, autonomous “semi-AI algorithms” already roaming the web, and advice for a new generation of “ICO” coin hotshots to stay out of jail.

How is it that I give so many interviews or speak at so many libertarian events, when they know I will poke hard at the mistaken directions taken by this once-promising movement? Two reasons. First, I think the underlying themes of individualism and liberty are important enough to try weaning these fellows off the current fad of oligarchy-worship. (Forbes and Koch have spent many millions, subsidizing orgs like Cato and AEI to achieve this hypnosis, kicking aside the once-important word “competition” in favor of idolatry of property.)

Second, they keep inviting me! Of all the political factions on today’s landscape, only libertarians seem passionately interested (well, some of them) in being challenged and facing tough questioning. And yes, I challenge.

==  Finally... Donald Trump, don't eat! ==

We’ve all seen reasons to oppose any further Trump private meetings with communist or ex-communist or mafia foreign leaders. First, nothing good ever came of it — and they stink of being blatant de-briefing sessions, issuing fresh orders to Putin’s agent. But there’s an added reason why Two Scoops should give up this filthy habit. Self-preservation. 

He still views himself (delusionally) as an Adonis. But Putin sees an asset turning into a liability, serving to unify the Union side of this civil war that Vlad cleverly helped Rupert to ignite. There comes a point where mafia dons start thinking cement overshoes, and how much more useful their raving “asset” would be, as a martyr. 

Close your eyes. Picture a silky-smooth President Pence reassuring and luring-back some of the officer corps, while riling the 33% confederates into fury over martyred dear-leader Trump. 

Fer crying out loud Donald, when you are with Kim DON’T EAT ANYTHING! Yes, you imagine it is only liberals and western-civilization types and smartypants who have it in for you, and despots are your pals. But remember how rapacious you were, in business, and consider that you may have outlasted your usefulness to your best pals. (God bless the US Secret Service. Pay them!)

Now consider how stupid this plausible scenario actually makes Don and the dons. He won’t be careful, thinking he’s still valuable to them. And they won’t consider the long range, lethal consequences. That there is nothing Mike Pence prays for, daily, more than - absolutely literally - the End of the World. 

When villains propose a really good idea... in vile ways...

For a while, I gladly put politics aside -- except for an unusual way out to solve the Great Big Battle over Guns.  

Alas, now I feel behooved to weigh in again, as liberals and conservatives commence another thrashing match... and both sides get it wrong.

The newest fury involves a proposal in GOP circles to take advantage of  the fact that Republican legislatures and governors currently run several "blue states" that gave Barack Obama their re-election nod. These state GOP pols did manage to gerrymander their way into keeping power, despite getting fewer votes than democrats in statewide and assembly races.

Now, under a plan broached by Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus, GOP governors and legislators would take matters beyond mere gerrymandering. They will act in a few chosen states to change state rules for the distribution of Electoral College votes.  

"Under the Priebus plan, electoral votes from battleground states such as Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and others that now regularly back Democrats for president would be allocated not to the statewide winner but to the winners of individual congressional districts. Under the most commonly proposed district plan (the statewide winner gets two votes with the rest divided by congressional district) Obama would have secured the narrowest possible win: 270-268. Under more aggressive plans (including one that awards electoral votes by district and then gives the two statewide votes to the candidate who won the most districts), Romney would have won 280-258." 

 And now... seven Pennsylvania Republican state representatives have introduced a bill to make this vote-rigging scheme a reality in their state.  

As you might expect, this gambit raised mockery and ire from both the liberal and the moderate press. In "If you can't win elections, rig them," Rachel Maddow's response was especially biting and well worth watching. Her report is informative, funny, outraged, and correct as far as it goes... 

 ... only it is also short-sightedly foolish and - at a deeper level - utterly wrong.

 == a heinous context ==

First: Maddow rightfully points out that gerrymandering in Red States is the only reason why the GOP held onto their control over the US House of Representatives this round, despite one million more citizens voting for Democratic candidates. The Republican Party openly admits this.  Maddow never mentions the term Gerrymandering, but I have long pushed for a new look at this fiendishly evil practice.  

Note that gerrymandering is not only about partisan advantage.  It has also worked to radicalize our politics and it functions as a job-preservation scheme for entrenched politicians in both parties. That is, it worked for both sides until California voters  rose up to banish gerrymandering,

At first, I opposed the measure, because I hoped for a negotiated deal -- to balance California against an equalizing move toward fair districts in - say - Texas and Michigan.  But I was foolish and my neighbors were wise.  California's reforms -- duplicated in a few other blue states -- had astonishing outcomes that you really need to understand. 

Worth noting: this voter uprising has not occurred in even one red state. (So much for the vaunted fairness and independence of rural folk.)  We've already seen that, without this blatant cheat, the peoples' will would have wrested control of the US  House from the GOP. Indeed, Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are desperate not to let it end. For if the district maps are ever re-drawn by non partisan commissions, or even randomized, their party will go extinct in those states. 

It is in this context that the Republican Party now hopes to pull another fast one, with their plan for proportional allocation of electors in three or more bluish states.  At one level, Maddow and the liberals... and all decent people with any sense of fairness and patriotism... should be outraged by a scheme of truly desperate villainy...

 == When villains push a good idea, in an awful way ==

 ...but at another level, Maddow and company are way off-base. Dullards who are almost 5% as dogmatic as their opponents (yes, that bad), they exhibit no sense of history, proportion or strategy.

 Because the villains in this piece are actually putting forward a very good idea! 

There is no question that the "reform" they propose would be a vast improvement over today's standard electoral tradition of winner-takes-all, for allocating presidential electors.  In fact, I have been campaigning for this reform for decades, shouting in the wilderness!  (See: The Electoral College: A Surprisingly Easy Fix and Electoral College Redux.)

Indeed you should note a fact that I have not seen any media report - that proportional allocation of electors is already used by Nebraska and Maine.  

Do democrats have any memory?  Recall the 2000 election?  When their candidate Al Gore won the popular vote, and yet lost the electoral college (in highly dubious ways)?  Winner-takes-all makes those travesties far more likely to happen, distorting Electoral College results and skewing them away from the popular vote.  Moreover, winner-takes-all contorts and twists the whole election campaign, forcing the candidates to focus on just six or seven crucial "battleground states" instead of aiming their appeals nationwide.    

There are no justifications for winner-takes-all.  And hence, by proposing to end it in favor of a proportional or district-based alternative, the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin GOP are not suggesting an evil thing. 

No, what makes what they are proposing an evil thing is when they say "let's only do it here!"  Only in those few blue-tipping states where the GOP can impose its gerrymandered will. Only where it would reduce the totals of Democratic candidates. But heaven forbid we also do it in Texas and Utah and Indiana and Kentucky! Just as every single red state is gerrymandered up the wazoo, every one of them will hold fast to winner-takes-all. 

The thing Rachel Maddow should be mocking is not proportional distribution of electors, which is a good idea. What merits utter scorn is a blatant effort to say "one set of rules for us and a harder set for you."  They are cheaters.  Simple and plain.

Moreover, thanks to California and some other blue states, the GOP can no longer claim "everybody cheats."  No, it is you guys.  Top to bottom.  Cheaters. 

== Will the be a solution? ==

In the sort term, there are palliative measures to try. In 2014 the whole nation's attention should go to elections in half a dozen states. The people in those states must rise up, seize back their rights. End gerrymandering. And not just Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and other electoral tipping points. 

It must happen in New York and the rest of Blue America! The Democrats' totals improved after neutral redistricting in California, which showed that giving up this immature and vile cheat need not hurt them in their bastions. Then, once it becomes a truly red vs blue distinction - with only one party standing up for gerrymandering - take the matter to the people.

And take it to Court.

 We can hope that by then President Obama will have a couple of more Supreme Court appointments.  If so, then these travesties will end, at long last. As they should, when decent and genuinely constitution-loving justices face the plain fact that gerrymandering is a crime, a direct violation of our civil rights.  Indeed, it is nothing less than clear and knowing treason.

When that day comes, the radicals (at both partisan extremes) will lose and we may restore a republic run by pragmatic, moderate women and men, capable of reason and science and negotiating with one another.

 == Other Political Matters ==

Aaaaaaaand they're off!  The 2016 race for presidential nominations has begun. Folks are calling Florida's Marco Rubio a front runner with a lot of plusses -- bright, handsome, articulate and popular in pivotal Florida... and hispanic.  The last part is a biggie, as Bill O'Reilly and others finally admit "we have a major demography problem."

 Oh, but let's not be dazzled.  Rubio is still a 21st Century Republican, which is a very different species from Goldwater or Buckley. Thus even over so simple a matter as how old the Earth is, he says the words "I'm not a scientist" as if they mean "science is arcane and irrelevant."  This is the country on Earth that has by far the highest level of adult science literacy -- yes, the United States of America --  where the highest fraction of adults know basic things... like the fact that the Earth is over four billion years old, a fact that Rubio called open to question. Eventually, we will wake up and start laughing at such dopes. And their "base." That is when the grownup Republicans might finally re-emerge.

Oh, but not for a while, yet. You have it from me here and now. Two words. Mike Huckabee. 

Charming, humorous, self-effacing, smart, slippery, friendly, affably likable, and sincere. Blatantly sincere. Terrifyingly sincere. He sat this one out... the surest IQ test for any GOP politician. Do I need to remind you the list of whack-a-moles who Mitt Romney successively stomped, or who assassinated themselves with their own mouths, during the 2012 primaries? A field of morons that has now been swept aside for the real comers to have their turn in 2016, when the rhythms and odds will be harsh for any democrat? 

Yes, watch Rubio, Martinez, Christie and others.  Each of them much smarter than all of the 2012 aspirants. And let's hope they spend the next four years loosening Rupert Murdoch's grip on the GOP, veering it from the Cliffs of Insanity, back toward the conservatism of Goldwater and Buckley. It will make them harder to beat! But I am still rooting for them to succeed anyway. Because some of us do remember Nehemia Scudder. And Mike Huckabee can (I believe) charm his way right into the White House. At which point nobody (not even Rupert Murdoch) has the slightest idea what he would do.

 As for the Old Guard?  Read about how poleaxed and surprised Mitt Romney and especially his Wall Street supporters were, that he lost.  The interviewer asks a very good question: "All the polls, all the models, all the betting markets said he was likely to lose. How did a group of people who, in their jobs, have to be willing to read and respond to disappointing data convince themselves to ignore every piece of data we had?"  The implication is either that (1) these guys are nowhere near as smart as they think they are, or that (2) they truly believed that polls and voting patterns were irrelevant.  That they had an ace in the hole.

 Possibility #1 is truly scary, since these fellows run the economy... though we've seen ample evidence for it across a decade or more of incompetence.  

Still might #2 belong on the table? Given that several vital electoral swing states used electronic voting machines, made by GOP operatives, without the slightest ability to audit results? Did some operative chicken out, or discover patriotism? (As I publicly called on "henchmen" to do?)

 == Science weeps = 

Tea Party senatorial candidates (and troglodytes) Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were not anomalies, alas. It seems that every anti-science cultist in the U.S. House of Representatives GOP Caucus is eager to join the House Science Committee, packing it not only with Climate Change denialists, but men (entirely males) who proclaim the Earth to be six or nine thousand years old, who repeat bizarre theories about rape, who decry vaccination, who rail against genetic research and who denounce sciences as diverse as geology, ecology and meteorology. Do not blame the people. As we saw above, the total number of national votes for the two major parties' congressional  candidates was not won by the GOP.  Blame Gerrymandering. Then get mad and do something. 

But there is movement elsewhere.  That core institution of international capitalism, the World Bank, has issued a major report examining the likely economic outcomes (mostly disastrous) expected from Global Climate Change. 

== So, is Obama actually as science-friendly as he sounds? ==

"If, in fact, you do make contact with Martians, please let me know right away," he said in the call. "I've got a lot of other things on my plate, but I suspect that that will go to the top of the list. Even if they're just microbes, it will be pretty exciting." 

"What you've accomplished embodies the American spirit, and your passion and your commitment is making a difference," he said."'Curiosity' is going to be telling us things that we did not know before and laying the groundwork for an even more audacious undertaking in the future, and that's a human mission to the Red Planet." 

-- President Barack Obama during a congratulatory telephone call to the NASA team behind the Mars "Curiosity" rover.

Well. That sounds tentatively science friendly.  At least in comparison to...