The Washington Post has the opinion piece Extremism in defense of Gilded Age privilege by Katrina vanden Heuvel.

Romney has sought to distance himself from the Republican extremes on abortion. But he is the leading advocate of the other aspect of new age Republican extremism: its Gilded Age economic policies.

For all the zealotry of the Christian Coalition or the tea party, the Romney-Ryan ticket is most notable for its fierce defense of privilege. Consider:

At a time when the top 1 percent of Americans captured a staggering 93 percent of national income growth in 2010, Romney advocates both extending the extra Bush tax cuts for the rich and another round of tax cuts that would offer those making a million or more another $175,000 annual tax break.
.
.
.
“Extremism in defense of liberty,” conservative icon Barry Goldwater once said, “is no vice.” But extremism in defense of privilege is no virtue. In Tampa, the tea party gets its anti-government, anti-immigrant planks in the platform, and the Christian Coalition its war on women; but the big money is pouring in to support the praetorian guard of privilege at the top of the ticket.

It is amazing that 50% of the voters still don’t get it.

Motherboard has the article Congress’s Science Committee Doesn’t Get Science.

According to its charter, the Science committee holds “Legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative authority on all matters relating to science policy and science education.” Created in 1958, after the launch of Sputnik, the committee was responsible for launching NASA and laying the foundation for the U.S. space program. While science-related legislation can come from anywhere, whether it’s the president or a congressman under the sway of drug company lobbying, the science committee, like other committees, is meant to filter and rule on that legislation.

Its credentials wouldn’t bowl over many scientists. Rep. Akin has a degree from Worcester Polytech in Engineering Management and worked for IBM as an engineer, while Rep. Paul Broun is an M.D., with a background in chemistry. On the Democrat side, Rep. Paul Tonko is a mechanical engineer by training and helped lead New York’s energy R&D authority. Roscoe Barlett of Maryland was once director of a Space Life Sciences research group at the John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and Donna Edwards of Maryland once worked for Lockheed Corporation at the Goddard Space Flight Center during the Spacelab program. But many have no scientific expertise at all.

Is this kind of governance what you expect when you vote Republican? No matter what you expect, this is what you get. We didn’t surpass the Russians in space exploration in the 1960s with this kind of science. We are dependent on the Russians in space now that we do have this kind of science. As I have said before, the Republican motto ought to be, “Government does not work. Elect us, and we will show you what we mean.”

Thanks to RogerG for giving me a clue as to where to find this article.

This is from the Democratic National Committee Rapid Response Team. It isn’t rapid, but it is a good response.

Mitt Romney’s reinvention convention is starting with the theme “We Built It.” Mitt Romney will try to sell himself to the American people as a “Mr. Fix It” who knows how to turn a business around. Of course, once you examine his record, it’s clear Mitt Romney knows less about turning businesses around and more about running them into the ground.

Mitt Romney made millions of dollars bankrupting companies, shuttering factories, offshoring jobs and putting profits before people. The theme of the Republican National Convention paints a rosy picture, but the theme of Mitt Romney’s time as a corporate raider is less flattering. Mitt Romney didn’t build that — he destroyed it.

“Mitt Romney: You Didn’t Build That — You Destroyed It”

Truth Out has the article Romney Pledges a Fed That Will Screw Workers.

The much more important policy decisions that allow people like Mitt Romney to be incredibly wealthy and the rest of the country to be struggling are totally off the media’s radar screen.

Romney’s statement about the Fed fits in the latter category because he said that he would pick a chair who supports a “strong dollar.” The implication is that he wants the Fed to run policies that keep the dollar overvalued relative to other currencies, making US goods uncompetitive in international markets.

The arithmetic on this is fairly simple. If the dollar is 20 percent above its proper value, then it means that prices of goods produced in the United States are effectively 20 percent higher relative to the goods produced in other countries. This strong dollar effectively makes imports 20 percent cheaper relative to goods produced in the United States. That naturally means that we will purchase more goods produced in Mexico, China, and other countries and fewer goods produced in the United States.

On the flip side, this strong dollar means that our exports are 20 percent more expensive to people in other countries than would otherwise be the case. This is equivalent to putting a 20 percent tariff on everything that we export. Needless to say, this will seriously depress our exports to the rest of the world.

Of course few sources other than Truth-out and my blog put the issue so simply.  If the workers could see the simple arithmetic above, they would stop slavishly following Ron Paul, hating Bernanke, and thinking of voting for Mitt Romney.

A strong dollar seems like such a good idea to people when the Republicans don’t explain its implications.  If the Republicans would just explain that a strong dollar is good for people who have money to lend, but not good for people who need to borrow money, maybe some people would by able figure out which category they belong to.

Ultimately, if the people who have to borrow money cannot pay it back, then this policy is really not good for the people who have it and lend it.  A properly valued dollar would mean the lenders have to take a bit of a haircut, but that has to be better than getting your head cut-off (let alone completely shaved).

Here is a preview of the Romney/Ryan acceptance speech at the Republican Convention later this week.

Remember, if this turns out to be accurate, you saw it here first.

In this new ad, Elizabeth Warren asks some very good questions.

Why do women have to fight the same old battles? Women still don’t get equal pay for equal work – Republicans blocked that, and even pushed a law that could have denied insurance coverage for birth control. We’re still fighting to protect a woman’s right to choose nearly 40 years after Roe v. Wade, and we could be just one Supreme Court justice away from losing it. How could this be happening in 2012?

She just left out the part that sending her to Washington as U.S. Senator from Massachusetts is part of the process of not backing down.

Talking points Memo has the article Rep. Steve King: I’ve Never Heard Of A Girl Getting Pregnant From Statutory Rape Or Incest.

A 1996 review by the Guttmacher Institute found “at least half of all babies born to minor women are fathered by adult men.”

Rep. King is willing to make all sorts of legislation without having personally seen a case, but on this issue, he must have a personal telling of a story before he will consider legislation. As Stephen Colbert might say, “Is this unbelievable, or is this the most unbelievable thing you have ever heard?”

Why do we allow people who are as ignorant of the facts of life as Rep. Steve King is to make legislation about sexuality? There should be a test of biological knowledge of all Congress critters before they are allowed to vote on, let alone propose, any such legislation. Maybe we need a voter ID law for Congress critters.

Here is an email I received from Rebuild The Dream. See the video version below the email version.

Thanks to RogerG for posting this on his Facebook page.

Ramesh Raskar presents femto-photography, a new type of imaging so fast it visualizes the world one trillion frames per second, so detailed it shows light itself in motion. This technology may someday be used to build cameras that can look “around” corners or see inside the body without X-rays.

So, how do I turn this into something political?

I suppose I could remark on how the Tea Partiers are still arguing about 19th century science while many of us are ready to move on to 21st century science.

MIT News has the article A camera that peers around corners. This is about the same research presented above. Maybe they had to use the idea of seeing around corners to sell this line of research or maybe it even originated from solving this type of problem. However, I think that these techniques will provide far deeper fundamental insights into basic physics than just looking around corners. The uses that this technology will be put to will far outstrip the imaginations of the people who invented it. It will certainly outstrip anything I can imagine right now.