The Political Page, T+333 -- December 20, 2017

I generally don't watch television any more, but I guess during the past few days, I've been tuning into CNBC more often than usual. I noticed a new commercial on network programming: a 30-second spot (I suppose) with about eight to twelve men (possibly a woman or two, but it seems like all men) of various religions wishing everyone "happy holidays." I don't know if the Muslims are represented, but I think they are. Certainly a number of non-Christian religions were not represented. I'm pretty sure no Wiccans were represented.Which, I guess is unfortunate, for those who worship the Moon Goddess and the Horned God.

But this is a great example of Christian clergymen being co-opted by non-Christians. It's a feel-good commercial and who can complain about any group of men wishing us all a happy holiday season?

But this holiday season is a Christian celebration; of course, it's been co-opted long before now, with other religions finding their own minor holidays to celebrate at this time of the year, and some secular groups coming up with their made-up holidays (e.g., Festivus for the rest-of-us).

I'm reminded of my years in the US Air Force: as a commander I was expected to celebrate a secular festivity that I won't mention by name. If I had not, I was pretty much assured that my career would be over. 

[Speaking of which, while in the US Air Force I was also told to contribute/donate a certain amount of money to the annual "United Way Drive." Anybody failing to donate/contribute a certain minimum amount was brought to the attention of his/her commander. Failure to donate "appropriately" was duly noted in one's annual "performance report." But I digress.]

But getting back to that "happy holidays" commercial: I'm curious if the Wiccans were asked to be part of the commercial (and they refused) or if they simply were not asked. Again, I may be mistaken. Perhaps a Wiccan does appear; I change stations as soon as the commercial comes on.

Speaking of which, it's my understanding that the networks no longer televise the national anthem proceedings for the NFL games. I don't know. I don't watch the NFL any more, but occasionally I tune in during the lead-in to see whether the national anthem is televised, and I no longer see it. I don't see the usual F-16s or B-1B bomber(s) flying overhead. I wonder if the the national anthem will be televised during the Super Bowl.

****************************************************

CNN and the GOP Tax Bill

It is agreed that 1981 was the last time there was a significant cut in US taxes (Ronald Reagan). That was 36 years ago.

This was the headline over at CNN today after the tax bill was passed by Congress (not yet signed by Trump:

The tax bill was not meant to stimulate the economy. The writers of the bill have been working on it for 30+ years. This has nothing to do with stimulating the economy; it's all about changing direction, changing tax policy; and a whole bunch more. 

The question one needs to ask CNN: if not now, when? It's been almost 40 years.

On the other hand, in the middle of the Great Recession, that was the "right time" to introduce the most expensive tax bill in US history, "ObamaCare"? What am I missing here?

****************************************************

Roy Moore And Al Franken

It certainly looks like Al Franken has no intention of leaving the US Senate any time soon. It is now quite clear he was waiting for the Roy Moore outcome. Had Alabama elected Moore, one could almost be assured that Al Franked would have had a new speech -- that as long as the US Senate allowed Roy Moore to be seated, he would feel "he had every right to remain seated until Minnesota voters decided otherwise." My hunch: his Democratic colleagues would have given him a pass. After all, every last Democratic Congressman and Senator gave President Clinton "a pass" when the president was convicted of perjury, a felony, and subsequently disbarred.

Roy Moore not getting elected may have been the best thing that ever happened to the GOP. We won't have long to wait. The new Congress convenes January 3, 2018, and I expect Tina Smith will be in DC. It will be interesting if she has her photograph taken with AL.

Which brings us to a new poll. Will Al Franken resign on/before January 3, 2018?

Update: the poll should be a no-brainer. But I will leave the poll up for now. Link here. This came out after I posted the poll.

**************************************

Paris Climate Promises:

Reduce Global Temperature By Just 0.05 Degrees Celsius in 2100

Link here.

• the climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100
• even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100
• US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100
• EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100
• China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100
• the rest of the world’s climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100