Author: Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.

Bush: An Intellectual Tragedy

Will computers and human beings merge?

I actually have a slide in my talk that showed a computer that interfaces with us as a genetically designed species. If we can capture how diatoms lay down their silica circuits, we should be able to write a genetic code for making a computer chip – one that has nice interfaces for us as a species.

What do you mean – nice interfaces?

We can expand the power of the human mind by having plug-in modules. If you want to learn to speak French, you use your silica-based computer that is genetically driven – whether it’s a small, add-on chip that gets planted in the back of our skulls, or it’s something engineered into us. Our biggest limitation is mental. I would be happy to have five times the brain capacity I have. As I get older, any increase would be nice. If we came up with a magic pill to increase our memory, people would take it. And if there is some genetic engineering that would work, I think most people would do it. That is the direction that humanity will ultimately go, for sure.

But that’s still the future. In the near term, most of the focus will be on things like limb regeneration and eliminating late-onset dementia.

Limb regeneration?

Yes, A lot of other species do it, and a lot of these processes are based on stem cells. If we don’t understand stem cells, which are the translators of the genetic code, then we are wasting our time trying to understand the genetic code. There is probably nothing more important to study about human biology than stem cells. The fact that it has been blocked by the Bush Administration on religious grounds is one of the intellectual tragedies of the century.

From an interview with Craig Venter, genetics pioneer, Rolling Stone Magazine, 11/15/2007

Somewhere in the Distance, a Dog Barked

Effective January 1, 2008, taxes are set to go up for a very select group of people – those who are self-employed or earning wages and making between $97,500 and more than $102,000. The tax increase for those on the higher end will be $558 per year in perpetuity.

It’s a beautiful way to do tax increases – it’s hard wired into the code, so that no one in congress has to vote on it. And it happens every year. Since George W. Bush took office in 2001, taxes have gone up $2,678 per year for anyone making more than the annual benefit base for Social Security, which was $80,400 when he took office. He’s not taken any notice, and frankly, since it is never publicized, the people who pay this tax largely let it pass unnoticed. (Try Googling this increase – use whatever terminology pleases you. You won’t find it anywhere in the news.)

A few of things to note in passing:

First, George W. Bush, and the Democrats and Republicans in congress are not against tax increases. They only care about tax increases for those who can put pressure on them on election day – the people who finance their campaigns, the wealthy. That’s why this tax increase passes each year without notice – it hits people who are not politically connected.

Second, when payroll tax is added to their regular income tax, these self-employed and wage earners are being taxed at 39.2% of their last dollar earned. Add Montana’s tax to that – 6.75%, and they are paying taxes at a 46% marginal rate. That’s far more than Bush’s wealthy constituents who have benefited so much from his past tax increases pay. It’s a rate that in current temper of the times would be considered confiscatory – if it affected politically connected people.

Finally, there was a great outcry in years past when inflation would push people into higher tax brackets. Most of the code is now adjusted annually for inflation, to keep taxes from going up. The payroll tax is adjusted annually for inflation too. The tax goes up.

Our tax system is diabolically clever, designed to hit the middle class hardest. It’s essentially flat for most of us, but regressive for those who live on dividends and capital gains. The guy who flips your burgers pays a marginal rate of 24-29%, yet gets scoffed at as being a freeloader by those who pay less than him. Our tax system is the ultimate joke on working people, designed by people who apparently hold them in contempt.

###chirp###

Giuliani’s Strained Marriage to Truth

Rudy Giuliani is running an ad now that talks about his bout with prostate cancer. He had it five years ago. Five year survival rates for men in his age group in the United States are 82%. Mr. Giuliani claims that the survival rate in Great Britain is 42% – that is, if he got the disease in Great Britain, he likely would have died.

It’s a lie. According to cancerresearchUK.org, the survival rate in Great Britain for men Rudy’s age is over 80%. Overall, the survival rate there is lower than here, but Britain is notorious for underfunding their health service, and it shows. They have less early detection, the key to survival of any cancer. They spend around 41% per capita of what we do on health care ($2,160 versus $5,267 in 2004) (5.8% of GDP), underfunding their national service, and it shows. (We spend over 15% of our GDP here, and it doesn’t show.)

In other words, Giuliani is lying. Turns out he got his information from a notorious right wing think tank, the Manhattan Institute, which seems to be an ‘information for hire’ service for them. Rudy is going to continue running the ad, truth be damned.

It’s right wing politics as usual, truth the first casualty. They’ll keep on doing it because, frankly, it works.

Reversing the Aging Process

Bin Laden then and now

Cognitive dissonance, anyone? Believe it or not, the image on the left above is an older one of Osama bin Laden (from 2004), the one on the right taken from his most recent video.

He’s trimmed and blackened his beard. But it’s an uncanny resemblance, I have to say – same nose and eye line, same dimples. I never thought of him as one given to vanity, but apparently so. He’s gotten markedly younger, or the figure on the right is a stand-in, or the video is much older than we have been told. My bet is on the latter. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is dead and that they are doing a ‘greatest hits’ compilation.

Keep in mind that the U.S. wants this man, dead or alive, but that he’s far more useful alive, which is probably why Bush said in 2002

I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.

Any good propaganda campaign needs a face – whether it is Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega or Slobodan Milosevic – we need a picture in our minds, an object on which to focus our hatred.

For that reason, bin Laden, dead or alive, is alive and well. He’s a good man to have around.

A Timely Betrayal

I keep reflecting back on the events of the weekend, wherein Senators Schumer and Feinstein announced that they would support the nomination of Michael Mukasey for attorney general. A couple of things bug me.

One, the announcement of their support was done at the close of the news cycle, and in such a way as to do as much damage as possible to those who wanted to stop the Mukasey nomination. It was as if they were actively working for Bush. They took Senator Pat Leahy off the front page (he had announced his opposition and hour earlier). These two senators were not having any pangs of conscience, were not doing deep meditation. This was timed. They were actively supporting Bush.

Secondly, Bush needed two votes. Not one, not three, but two. They gave him exactly what he needed. Do you suppose that if he needed three, he would have gotten three? Or that if he only needed only one, the other pro-Mukasey vote would have gone into hiding? This is politics, things are seldom what they appear. Senators are vote counters, and once a measure or nomination is assured of passage or failure, they are free to vote as they please, free to dress up the voting record. I suspect there are more pro-Bush votes in hiding in the Democratic Party – more than just blue dogs.

Finally, Bush is a lame duck, and his approval rating is in Nixon country. But he has enormous power. It doesn’t make sense. What is it that impels senators like Schumer and Feinstein (who are not up for election this cycle) to alienate their base and support him? It’s not ethics, for sure. An anti-Mukasesy vote would have sent a strong message about torture.

What is it? Why does Bush win? My suspicious self, the one that sees politics as a Machiavellian game, sees Bush with the goods on them. (Maybe he got it by means of wiretap.) A phone call, a threat – some event from way back, or in Feinstein’s case, some investment that looks shady. Pow! A vote in favor of the president.

That is how the game is played. Say, for instance, that I was to run and win a seat in the House of Representatives, that I was to beat out Denny Rehberg. A smart executive branch would want leverage over me. They would do some research, and it wouldn’t take long before that unsavory incident involving the golden lab and the clown would surface. (I’m not proud of that.) Or the thing about toe-tapping in a mens’ room. (Larry Craig’s happy encounter was on public record long before it was public.)

Anyway, when things look too perfect, when Bush gets exactly what he needs when he needs it, be suspicious. In politics, things are never what they appear. That’s why I love it so.

I frankly don’t think either Clinton or Obama will get us out of Iraq. It’s just not in the cards – teh stakes are too high. We invaded to take control of their oil and install permanent military bases. A change of course based on election year politics is about as likely as, well, backing out of NAFTA. Ain’t gonna happen, no matter the talk.

Nonetheless, I liked this ad. Emotionally, I’m pulling for Obama. No good reason. None.