Prairie Weather

"My metal, your railway"

Richard Brody has written an irresistible pocket review of "Atlas Shrugged:  Part 1" for the New Yorker's "Now Playing."  It has everything Rand had -- language, titillation, ugly unnecessary poor people, and the glory of our industrial plutocrats -- everything except Rand's longeurs.  Whereas an adult reading "Wind in the Willows" is seen as a legitimate reader, anyone over 19 who reads Ayn Rand probably still chews bubble gum, and should be tied down and pecked at by parasites.

Here's Brody's review.  Watch out for that railway.

This comically tasteless and flavorless adaptation of Ayn Rand’s bombastic magnum opus delivers her simplistic nostrums with smug self-satisfaction. The story is set in 2016 in a dystopian America beset by economic depression and a new oil crisis, which is the pretext for rendering rail travel—the core of the novel’s plot—newly central. The railway heiress Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling) seeks to revitalize the family’s business—and the nation’s economy—by laying rails made of an untested new alloy developed by the metallurgical baron Hank Rearden (Grant Bowler), while both titans are tied down and pecked at by parasites from the government, organized labor, the media, and even the scientific establishment. Meanwhile, a prophetic masked avenger packs many of the country’s great industrialists off to his compound in the hope of fuelling a “second Renaissance.” The preening resentment of the smart social misfit finds its fantasy fulfillment, as Rand’s flamboyant potboiler intensity (and her fascination with the authority of the great loner) gives rise to a tittering knowingness: the words “union” and “guild” are the pretexts for sneers and smears, and an unintentional howler of a business plan may give rise to a new, Tarzan-style pickup line: “My metal, your railway.” Directed by Paul Johansson.

Can't wait for Part 2, can you?

Clinton optimistic about Affordable Care act

There's a chance that the Supreme Court could rule the so-called "individual mandate" in the healthcare reform law unconstitutional, but on the whole the bill will stay in tact, former President Bill Clinton said.

"Well, I think - I guess, you know, there's some chance, given how political it is, the courts, that they would strike down the mandatory purchase, although I find it amazing that they would  I mean you can make people buy automobile liability insurance," Clinton said in an interview with CNN taped Friday. "And the combined impact of the burden of people not being insured on the rest of us economically is nowhere near that of health care."

"But I think on the whole, the bill will be kept," Clinton continued. ...The Hill

And finally, atheists are more moral than Christians

Two academic researchers, writing  in the Washington Post, raise the question about and suggest the answers to why Americans give atheists such a hard time.  

The atheists I know tend to be more willing to question authority and -- above all -- question themselves, something that's healthy in a democracy or any place where respect of others is valued.  In my view, the more America has become militantly fundamentalist, the less democratic it has become.  If you believe you've seen the way, the truth, and the light, you can't help but believe those who don't agree with you have to be wrong and maybe evil. Granted, that is due in part to America's Christianity not being seriously Christian.  And, of course, let's leave out Catholics who (at parish level albeit not so much above that level)  tend to take their duty to others very seriously. 

But aren't Christians basically more ethical than atheists?  Fuggedabahtit.

A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.

This is less a condemnation of Christianity than a condemnation of American fundamentalists for being poseurs.  Atheists and the rest of us non-religious folk as well as many genuine Christians are letting unethical American churches get away with their intolerance and obsession with power.  Many nonreligious respect Christianity in its essence. We really ought to be coming out clearly and in force against the scammers.

It looks as though ground is being regained, if past decades are a sample of what to expect.

As with other national minority groups, atheism is enjoying rapid growth. Despite the bigotry, the number of American nontheists has tripled as a proportion of the general population since the 1960s. Younger generations’ tolerance for the endless disputes of religion is waning fast. Surveys designed to overcome the understandable reluctance to admit atheism have found that as many as 60 million Americans — a fifth of the population — are not believers. Our nonreligious compatriots should be accorded the same respect as other minorities.

Does Obama matter?

Obviously a lot of factors play into how a president is perceived.  This time around, a lot of people are in trouble and -- the kicker -- unable to do anything about it.  Whether the president is electable will be determined by whether he's perceived as "doing something about our plight," or "in a bubble," or -- worst -- "in league with the elitists who are keeping us down."

Ezra Klein examines the Gallup survey focusing on Americans' perceptions of how the economy is doing. No surprise:  the better off you are, the better your opinion of the economy's direction and the higher your hopes. There's a significant difference in views of the economy between those making $75k or more and those making $30k or less

An awful lot of people are feeling left out.  Klein observes:

...If you’re well off, you’re a) less worried to about the economy, b) more likely to be a decisionmaker, and c) more likely to be listened to by decisionmakers. If you’re not well off, you’re a) more likely to believe we’re in an economic depression, b) less likely to be in a position to do anything about it, and c) there’s no evidence that the people who can do something about it are at all interested in your opinions on the matter.

The people who can do something about it are Congress -- America long ago gave up on that gang! -- and the president.   America invested a great deal of hope and faith in Obama.  Do they still think he will make things better or is he seen as an elitist among elitists?

Another way of looking at it aside from whether Obama cares is the question many poor must be asking themselves:  Does Obama matter one way or the other?

___

Obama matters a lot to conservatives.

The quest from the right to degrade Obama knows no bounds.

I’m looking at a photo with the faces of three chimpanzees imposed on the bodies of a man, woman and child. The baby chimp’s face is covered with Obama’s picture. It was e-mailed in California this month with the message: “Now you know why — no birth certificate!”

The sender was Marilyn Davenport, an elected member of the Orange County Republican Central Committee, who thought her GOP colleagues would also get a kick out of seeing the president of the United States depicted as the offspring of chimpanzees.

“I simply found it amusing regarding the character of Obama and all the questions surrounding his origins of birth,” Davenport said in a written statement. “In no way did I even consider the fact that he’s half black when I sent out the email.”  ...Colbert King, WaPo

Boots on the ground in Mexico

Is America planning for an overt invasion of Mexico as drug war violence threatens that country and its political stability?  I went looking for updates on that possibility after hearing, the other day, an interview with Stratfor's second in command refer to putting US "boots on the ground" deep into Mexican territory.

From Borderland Beat:

04/19/2011 - EL PASO - Mexico is in the process of a virtual invasion by the United States, but this time quietly and controlled, after the Mexican government revealed the presence of 500 U.S. federal agents to “spy” on their territory. Officials of the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) said that the U.S. has that number of officers from various departments. Reportedly, the purpose of these elements, which are legally in Mexico, is to obtain information on criminal organizations, investigate and insure that the criminal’s activities do not jeopardize U.S. security.

According to officials of the PGR, in 2005 only 60 U.S. agents were deployed south of the border. Currently, Mexican authorities are working with about 500 members of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  The PGR has reported that binational cooperation in fighting criminal organizations and drug trafficking has generated positive results, they were very instrumental in pin pointing the exact location of Arturo Beltran Leyva, “El Barbas.”

Charles Bowden, journalist and author of several books on drug trafficking, including “Murder City: Ciudad Juarez and the Global Economy’s New Killing Fields”, says sending more and more agents to Mexico can be a pilot project for a larger plan for the future.  Apparently, the U.S. fears war could break out. Therefore, it is sending agents to Mexico to see if the stage is set in that country. America wants to have a level of control and repression south of the border, and Mexico obviously has two forces: "change and liberation" and "chaos, violence and crime". And the U.S. does not want it to be "chaos, violence and crime".

From Canadian Press/Winnipeg Free Press:

... Unprecedented numbers of U.S. law enforcement agents work in Mexico, and high-profile arrests occur monthly. U.S. drones spy on cartel hideouts, while U.S. tracking beacons pinpoint suspect's cars and phones.

"Yes, we're tracking vehicles, yes, we're tracking people," says Brad Barker, president of HALO Corporation, a private security firm that, among other things, helps rescue kidnapped people in Mexico. "There's been a huge spike in agents down there."

The bilateral co-operation is touching off Mexican sensitivities about sovereignty, while stoking U.S. debate about the wisdom of inserting American operatives so deep into the fight. More than 35,000 people have been killed in drug trafficking violence since President Felipe Calderon launched a crackdown four years ago, and the killing of a U.S. agent last month prompted the U.S. Congress to schedule hearings into the role of American personnel.

The U.S. agents generally provide intelligence and training, while Mexicans do the hands-on work. Neither side will say exactly how many agents are in Mexico, citing security concerns, but the Associated Press was able to identify several hundred using the Freedom of Information Act, federal budget requests, government audits, Congressional testimony and agency accountability reports.

The Drug Enforcement Administration has the largest U.S. presence in the drug war, with more than 60 agents in Mexico. Then there are 40 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, 20 Marshal Service deputies, 18 Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents, and dozens more working for the FBI, Citizen and Immigration Service, Customs and Border Protection, Secret Service, Coast Guard and Transportation Safety Agency.

The State Department's Narcotics Affairs Section staff alone jumped from 19 to 69 in the past three years, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

There are so many State Department narcotics personnel that they took up two entire floors of the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City before moving into a new building with their Mexican counterparts. This is the second so-called fusion centre the two countries share in Mexico now. ...

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms appears to have its own special program.  From a recent  CBS News report:

WASHINGTON - Federal agent John Dodson says what he was asked to do was beyond belief.

He was intentionally letting guns go to Mexico?

"Yes ma'am," Dodson told CBS News. "The agency was."

An Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms senior agent assigned to the Phoenix office in 2010, Dodson's job is to stop gun trafficking across the border. Instead, he says he was ordered to sit by and watch it happen.

Investigators call the tactic letting guns "walk." In this case, walking into the hands of criminals who would use them in Mexico and the United States.

Dodson's bosses say that never happened. Now, he's risking his job to go public.

"I'm boots on the ground in Phoenix, telling you we've been doing it every day since I've been here," he said. "Here I am. Tell me I didn't do the things that I did. Tell me you didn't order me to do the things I did. Tell me it didn't happen. Now you have a name on it. You have a face to put with it. Here I am. Someone now, tell me it didn't happen."

Agent Dodson and other sources say the gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.

ATF named the case "Fast and Furious."

Surveillance video obtained by CBS News shows suspected drug cartel suppliers carrying boxes of weapons to their cars at a Phoenix gun shop. The long boxes shown in the video being loaded in were AK-47-type assault rifles.

So it turns out ATF not only allowed it - they videotaped it.

There's more on ATF's "special" relationship with drug and gun-running along the Mexican border, here.

"Balder" movement targets Trump

Hair today, gone tomorrow.  Vanity Fair takes aim at Trump and the birthers.

A mock "proclamation" Friday on the magazine's website declared, "If Trump intends to declare his candidacy for the presidency, as he has so often threatened, the issue of his comb-over could become a Constitutional matter.

"In the interest of putting this controversy to rest, Vanity Fair demands that Trump release a notarized certificate from a barber proving the veracity of his hair."

"Vanity Fair" goes on to mock the birther movement with its own "balder" movement, or those who doubt that Trump's hair is genuine.

"In the event that significant members of the Balder community question the validity of the [barber's] notarized certificate, we insist that Trump submit to air, wind, and Dutch rub tests to be administered by an independent board-certified hair-care expert that will debunk, once and for all, these corrosive conspiracy theories. ...The Hill