The NY Times has recently reported that Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal, who is in the running to fill the Senate seat which will be vacated by Sen. Christopher Dodd at the end of his term, has lied about his service record, as evidenced by a video clip from 2008 in which Blumenthal said "We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam." When confronted with the excerpt from the video, Blumenthal said he "misspoke."
Nevertheless, news anchors and pundits from all over the political spectrum went on to accuse Blumenthal of intentionally lying and declared his campaign all but finished. Too bad, for Blumenthal and for us, that the NY Times had gotten it wrong and that none of the unprofessional figures that amplified the original report bothered to check its accuracy. Kos at the Daily Kos has more.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
If The Real Thing Looks Like A Parody...
Then comedians are in trouble, right? Wrong. Watch.
(via TPM Live Wire)
(via Huffington Post)
Notice how the parody only took some minor re-writing. But then again, as a good friend of mine would say, parodying Alabama is as hard as "shooting at a little boy on the crapper."
(via TPM Live Wire)
(via Huffington Post)
Notice how the parody only took some minor re-writing. But then again, as a good friend of mine would say, parodying Alabama is as hard as "shooting at a little boy on the crapper."
Monday, May 17, 2010
You Can Dismiss Tea Partiers As Crazy, But You Cannot Dismiss Their Number
Recently I attended an Organizing for America strategy session. I came away underwhelmed from the experience, though it is always nice to see people mobilizing for a cause they believe in, whatever that might be.
Before the session started, an older gentleman in attendance dismissed the number of tea-partiers around the nation, saying that viewers and readers get an overinflated sense of how many tea-partiers there are because it is in the news media's interest to create controversies where none exist. An older woman immediately offered her support for the gentleman's theory. Perhaps. But, if they have been paying attention, about one week later Sen. Bennett (R-UT), an incumbent once considered a safe bet for re-election in November, was ousted by Republican voters in one of the most shocking results of this primary season. He finished third during the recent Utah Republican convention, failing to earn a place on the ballot for the upcoming Utah Republican primaries. In interview with NPR, Sen. Bennett said that "[t]he normal turnout for caucuses in Utah is between 25 and 35,000. This time we had 75,000, and [activists in the Tea Party movement] swamped all of the normal kinds of political structures." You do the math.
Add to that the news that Rand Paul (yes, Ron Paul's son, who is a fan of Ayn Rand, though he denies that his nickname is due to his fondness for the works of the Objectivist philosopher) is all but sure to kick his Republican opponent's butt in the Kentucky Republican primary, in spite of (or perhaps precisely because of) his wacky and less than commendable ideas, like repealing the American with Disabilities Act.
I am no pundit, so I don't know if the rise of the Tea Party will ultimately spell success or defeat for Conservatives in November, but while criticizing the logic and foundation of tea-partiers is fair game, as well as an exercise of civic responsibility, dismissing their numbers as inflated may be foolish.
Before the session started, an older gentleman in attendance dismissed the number of tea-partiers around the nation, saying that viewers and readers get an overinflated sense of how many tea-partiers there are because it is in the news media's interest to create controversies where none exist. An older woman immediately offered her support for the gentleman's theory. Perhaps. But, if they have been paying attention, about one week later Sen. Bennett (R-UT), an incumbent once considered a safe bet for re-election in November, was ousted by Republican voters in one of the most shocking results of this primary season. He finished third during the recent Utah Republican convention, failing to earn a place on the ballot for the upcoming Utah Republican primaries. In interview with NPR, Sen. Bennett said that "[t]he normal turnout for caucuses in Utah is between 25 and 35,000. This time we had 75,000, and [activists in the Tea Party movement] swamped all of the normal kinds of political structures." You do the math.
Add to that the news that Rand Paul (yes, Ron Paul's son, who is a fan of Ayn Rand, though he denies that his nickname is due to his fondness for the works of the Objectivist philosopher) is all but sure to kick his Republican opponent's butt in the Kentucky Republican primary, in spite of (or perhaps precisely because of) his wacky and less than commendable ideas, like repealing the American with Disabilities Act.
I am no pundit, so I don't know if the rise of the Tea Party will ultimately spell success or defeat for Conservatives in November, but while criticizing the logic and foundation of tea-partiers is fair game, as well as an exercise of civic responsibility, dismissing their numbers as inflated may be foolish.
Too Crooked To Exist
Read this post from Think Progress: Transocean to give shareholders $1 billion while trying to cap its responsibility for Gulf spill at $27 million. . If it does not get your blood boiling, nothing will.
Now I ask you: Why does this not the top news in all newspapers, newscasts, and over the Internet?
What I find particularly insulting and infuriating is that for years we have had to listen to the mouthpieces of the Conservative establishman rail against "entitlements", which, in their irritating jargon, means things like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment benefits, public education, anything that serves the interest of the lower- and middle-class ans interferes with the right of corporations and their executives to amass ungseemly amounts of money. It seems to me that, more and more, the consensus view is that the only true entitlements to be protected are the unfettered profits of the corporations that have corrupted the political process to the point of making a mockery of what the Founding Fathers might have had in mind when they gave birth to this briefly fair, once great country.
In this land that lies prostrate at the feet of its true god, Mammon, the only thing which never comes up for discussion is the matter of why corporations should be able to continue reaping profits born of corruption, malfeasance and a worship of profit that could not be less patriotic if it tried. When the preferred way of protecting corporate wealth is to lay off workers, to shield the corporation agains legitimate lawsuits, to bribe politicians into submission, to game the system at every juncture, where is all the fucking rage that should bring these thieves to their knees and back to earth? Why don't we start rising against corporate entitlements?
A corporation fighting to cap damages against itself while at the same time rushing to distribute its ill-gotten gains on its sharholders should not be allowed to exist. Call it Too Crooked To Exist. May it burn itself to the bottom of the ocean, along with its damned fucking rigs.
Now I ask you: Why does this not the top news in all newspapers, newscasts, and over the Internet?
What I find particularly insulting and infuriating is that for years we have had to listen to the mouthpieces of the Conservative establishman rail against "entitlements", which, in their irritating jargon, means things like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment benefits, public education, anything that serves the interest of the lower- and middle-class ans interferes with the right of corporations and their executives to amass ungseemly amounts of money. It seems to me that, more and more, the consensus view is that the only true entitlements to be protected are the unfettered profits of the corporations that have corrupted the political process to the point of making a mockery of what the Founding Fathers might have had in mind when they gave birth to this briefly fair, once great country.
In this land that lies prostrate at the feet of its true god, Mammon, the only thing which never comes up for discussion is the matter of why corporations should be able to continue reaping profits born of corruption, malfeasance and a worship of profit that could not be less patriotic if it tried. When the preferred way of protecting corporate wealth is to lay off workers, to shield the corporation agains legitimate lawsuits, to bribe politicians into submission, to game the system at every juncture, where is all the fucking rage that should bring these thieves to their knees and back to earth? Why don't we start rising against corporate entitlements?
A corporation fighting to cap damages against itself while at the same time rushing to distribute its ill-gotten gains on its sharholders should not be allowed to exist. Call it Too Crooked To Exist. May it burn itself to the bottom of the ocean, along with its damned fucking rigs.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Genius is B(l)ack!
One of my favorite comedians/satirists returned to the Daily Show last night. This is a classic piece of satire, if I ever heard one.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Back in Black - Glenn Beck's Nazi Tourette's | ||||
| ||||
Ballot Initiative to Ban Red-Light Cameras in Colorado
Few things in my daily life aggravate me as much as red-light cameras (another one being cops sitting mid-downhill with their radar guns). In fact, red-light cameras aggravate me so much that I am thinking of starting a drive to change Colorado law. No, I have not been a victim of one of these safety-killing, revenue-generating traps (yet), but the way they are set up it's just a matter of time.
If you have any experience in driving ballot initiatives and would be interested in starting the process to run a referendum banning the use of red-light cameras in Colorado, please post a comment in reply to this post. Fifteen states have already banned the use of red-light cameras.
In the meantime, for the next few weekends, I plan to go out with a stopwatch to measure the yellow-light interval of various traffic lights, some equipped with red-light cameras, some without. I think I have already detected a difference of about one second between the two types (with the red-light camera equipped traffic signals being shorter.) If your idea of a fun weekend can withstand lowered expectations and you would like to help out, drop me a line using the comment feature.
If you have any experience in driving ballot initiatives and would be interested in starting the process to run a referendum banning the use of red-light cameras in Colorado, please post a comment in reply to this post. Fifteen states have already banned the use of red-light cameras.
In the meantime, for the next few weekends, I plan to go out with a stopwatch to measure the yellow-light interval of various traffic lights, some equipped with red-light cameras, some without. I think I have already detected a difference of about one second between the two types (with the red-light camera equipped traffic signals being shorter.) If your idea of a fun weekend can withstand lowered expectations and you would like to help out, drop me a line using the comment feature.
Friday, May 07, 2010
A Ridiculous, Scary Map of The Union
"It's time for reform advocates to wake up" says Linda Bergthold, a health policy consultant and researcher who writes for the Huffington Post. Why? Because if you think the battle for health care in this country was over when President Obama signed health care reform into law, you need to come to terms with reality.
Read Ms. Bergthold's post, and you'll understand why you need to wake up.
Read Ms. Bergthold's post, and you'll understand why you need to wake up.
While We're On the Subject of JC... (see previous post)
I just came across a provocative little post by a former "rabid anti-Christian, very suddenly convert." His name is John Shore, and he makes some interesting points about the many ways in which Christians fail at being Christians.
Here are a couple of my favorite failures:
3) Too quick to believe that we know what God really means by what he says in the Bible.
5) Too invasive of others generally. It is my personal, humble opinion that anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and role of either.
You can read the rest of Shore's post here.
Here are a couple of my favorite failures:
3) Too quick to believe that we know what God really means by what he says in the Bible.
5) Too invasive of others generally. It is my personal, humble opinion that anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and role of either.
You can read the rest of Shore's post here.
Use the RC to Turn Off JC
If this is true, and it appears to be, Comedy Central will soon become the favorite target of Evangelical Christians all around the world: It appears that the comedy cable channel is developing a cartoon with Jesus Christ as its protagonist.
According to CNN, the series "would be about JC (Jesus Christ) wanting to escape his father's enormous shadow and to live life in NYC as a regular guy. A lot has changed in 2000 years and he is the ultimate fish out of water. Meanwhile his all-powerful yet apathetic father would rather be playing video games than listening to JC recount his life in the city. JC is a playful take on religion and society with a sprinkle of dumb.”
You can always count on the good people at Comedy Central to poke fun at what draws fun-poking upon itself.
You don't need me to tell you what the reaction of Christians would be if the cartoon should reach "pilot" status and later even develop into a full-fledged series, but I will gladly tell you anyway. Accusations that Comedy Central is desecrating religion and defaming the good character of Jesus and the followers of the various cults created in his name will be levelled, regardless of the fact that Christians, Catholics and Evangelicals first and foremost among them, are perfectly capable of giving their religion a bad name all by themselves.
In the meantime, I volunteer to teach Christians in churches and rec halls around the country how they can use their remote controls to change channel or to turn off their TV sets altogether. It would be much easier if we all learned to use technology to our advantage, instead of using it as a means of curtailing other people's freedoms.
According to CNN, the series "would be about JC (Jesus Christ) wanting to escape his father's enormous shadow and to live life in NYC as a regular guy. A lot has changed in 2000 years and he is the ultimate fish out of water. Meanwhile his all-powerful yet apathetic father would rather be playing video games than listening to JC recount his life in the city. JC is a playful take on religion and society with a sprinkle of dumb.”
You can always count on the good people at Comedy Central to poke fun at what draws fun-poking upon itself.
You don't need me to tell you what the reaction of Christians would be if the cartoon should reach "pilot" status and later even develop into a full-fledged series, but I will gladly tell you anyway. Accusations that Comedy Central is desecrating religion and defaming the good character of Jesus and the followers of the various cults created in his name will be levelled, regardless of the fact that Christians, Catholics and Evangelicals first and foremost among them, are perfectly capable of giving their religion a bad name all by themselves.
In the meantime, I volunteer to teach Christians in churches and rec halls around the country how they can use their remote controls to change channel or to turn off their TV sets altogether. It would be much easier if we all learned to use technology to our advantage, instead of using it as a means of curtailing other people's freedoms.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Happy National Day of... Prayer?!?
PZ Myers tells the President of the USA to "get stuffed." He is right, of course, about the fact that the National Day of Prayer is an obvious trespass of the line that separates church and state, and that all Presidents who endorse and participate in such proclamations are "pandering, unprincipled hack[s]."
Thankfully, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin ruled (PDF reader required) that the federal law mandating a National Day of Prayer violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Look for this case to make it all the way to the Supreme Court, which--by the way--has shown to be almost completely spineless on matters of separation of church and state (in its current conservative embodiment).
Thankfully, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin ruled (PDF reader required) that the federal law mandating a National Day of Prayer violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Look for this case to make it all the way to the Supreme Court, which--by the way--has shown to be almost completely spineless on matters of separation of church and state (in its current conservative embodiment).
What On Earth Is Going On?
First Glenn Beck defends the Times Square bomber (saying Mirandizing him was the right thing to do, when Sen. McCain said Mirandizing him was wrong), then O'Reilly says that criticizing the Obama Administration for its response to the Deep Horizon oil spill is insane... I know!
You have to see it to believe it.
You have to see it to believe it.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
The Perfect Name for The Red Nation
A while ago, in my infinite wisdom and farsightedness, I penned a post called Let Them Idiots Secede. It became relevant lately when Professor David Michael Green wrote a post to the same effect.
Now I came across a post by Kos at the Daily Kos which contains the following sentence, which I immediately declare a classic and which contains the ultimate suggestion for the name of secession nation: "Whenever Dumbfuckistan is finally founded (I still say in the Texas panhandle/western Oklahoma), the Politico needs to become its paper of record. Benen has more."
Dumbfuckistan it is!
Now I came across a post by Kos at the Daily Kos which contains the following sentence, which I immediately declare a classic and which contains the ultimate suggestion for the name of secession nation: "Whenever Dumbfuckistan is finally founded (I still say in the Texas panhandle/western Oklahoma), the Politico needs to become its paper of record. Benen has more."
Dumbfuckistan it is!
When The Private Sector Is Not Only Inept But Dangerous
Meteor Blades at the Daily Kos raises an issue that is sure to make conservative skins crawl: nationalizing energy.
Conservatives always tell us, no amount of contrary evidence notwithstanding, that the private sector can do a better job than the government, that collection of screw-ups that brought you Medicaid, Medicare, public education, public roads, and so on.
The recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and beyond serves as a painful reminder that private sector can be just as inept, and as dangerous or more, as the government is alleged to be. But there are nations, for example in Norway or France, that run things better than the United States, from an environmental safety point of view. The dirty little secret that conservatives don't want you to find out about is that the energy sector of those two countries is, for the most part, nationalized.
Conservatives always tell us, no amount of contrary evidence notwithstanding, that the private sector can do a better job than the government, that collection of screw-ups that brought you Medicaid, Medicare, public education, public roads, and so on.
The recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and beyond serves as a painful reminder that private sector can be just as inept, and as dangerous or more, as the government is alleged to be. But there are nations, for example in Norway or France, that run things better than the United States, from an environmental safety point of view. The dirty little secret that conservatives don't want you to find out about is that the energy sector of those two countries is, for the most part, nationalized.
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Plutocrats v Us
You would think that, in a democracy that equates gargantuan wealth with free speech (see Citizens United v. FEC), the plutocrats who buy amounts of free speech you and I cannot even dream of would not try to hide their identity but would proudly associate their identity with the causes they support. Not so, reports Think Progress.
These gutless children of Mammon want to protect their right to buy the outcomes of democracy while at the same time preserving their anonimity, alleging that a "chilling effect on the First Amendment" would ensue were they forced by law to disclose their identity when pouring disgusting amounts of money into the political process. Last I checked, the First Amendment protects people's right to speak freely from govermental interference, but it does not come with an attached clause granting the speaker anonimity.
If these disgusting plutocrats want to defend their plutonomy with the wealth they have (often obscenely) accumulated, they should at least have the guts to show their faces in public.
Why, just this week Justice Scalia, one of my least favorite Supreme Court Justices in history, said that "democracy's not for babies", in Doe v. Reed, adding that "for the first century of our existence, even voting was public -- you either did it raising your hand or by voice, or later, you had a ballot that was very visibly red or blue so that people knew which party you were voting for" and that "running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage. And the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate, or to take part in the legislative process."
So, it would seem, the First Amendement would not provide plutocrats the right to be shielded from public scrutiny or even denunciation. Even according to Justice Scalia.
This is just the type of issue that you would expect all Americans, including tea-partiers and libertartians, Republicans and Democrats, should take an active interest in. Everyone should write Congress to support the DISCLOSE Act of 2010, to increase the level of transparency of an increasingly muddy democratic process.
Start getting involved, contact your local, state, and federal representatives, and make visits to The Sunlight Foundation and Open Secrets a civic routine in your weekly meanderings on the web.
These gutless children of Mammon want to protect their right to buy the outcomes of democracy while at the same time preserving their anonimity, alleging that a "chilling effect on the First Amendment" would ensue were they forced by law to disclose their identity when pouring disgusting amounts of money into the political process. Last I checked, the First Amendment protects people's right to speak freely from govermental interference, but it does not come with an attached clause granting the speaker anonimity.
If these disgusting plutocrats want to defend their plutonomy with the wealth they have (often obscenely) accumulated, they should at least have the guts to show their faces in public.
Why, just this week Justice Scalia, one of my least favorite Supreme Court Justices in history, said that "democracy's not for babies", in Doe v. Reed, adding that "for the first century of our existence, even voting was public -- you either did it raising your hand or by voice, or later, you had a ballot that was very visibly red or blue so that people knew which party you were voting for" and that "running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage. And the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate, or to take part in the legislative process."
So, it would seem, the First Amendement would not provide plutocrats the right to be shielded from public scrutiny or even denunciation. Even according to Justice Scalia.
This is just the type of issue that you would expect all Americans, including tea-partiers and libertartians, Republicans and Democrats, should take an active interest in. Everyone should write Congress to support the DISCLOSE Act of 2010, to increase the level of transparency of an increasingly muddy democratic process.
Start getting involved, contact your local, state, and federal representatives, and make visits to The Sunlight Foundation and Open Secrets a civic routine in your weekly meanderings on the web.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Halliburton, Disaster Maker
As if their disastrous involvement in the "war against terrah" wasn't enough, Halliburton is also involved in the "war against Terra", given their possible involvement in the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, in the wake of a similar explosion off the coast of Australia last year. But hey, let's continue giving them government contracts.
Lunatic Drudge
Jason Linkins of The Huffington Post explains what Hurricane Katrina and "Obama's Katrina" have in common. Exactly nothing.
Spill, Baby, Spill!
This one goes out to the idiotic and pernicious "Baby Drillers", like Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Sean Hannity, Steve "Douchy" Doocy and all the idiots that ever uttered the Repuglycan mantra with a smirk on their face.
(video via mediamatters.org)
Unfortunately, as Stephen Colbert pointed out with classic wit in last night's episode of the report, others have gotten on board the offshore drilling juggernaut of idiocy.
(video via mediamatters.org)
Unfortunately, as Stephen Colbert pointed out with classic wit in last night's episode of the report, others have gotten on board the offshore drilling juggernaut of idiocy.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Wind Farm & Oil Spill | ||||
| ||||
Christopher Monckton, Lord Crockofshit, Global Warming Denier
I gladly link to this post, A Christopher Monckton Reality Check, because quite a few people, including--alas--some close to me, have bought into some of the despicable and disingenuous rhetoric propagated by the likes of "oh Lord" Monckton.
Christopher Monckton is a hack, a shill for the worst element of the energy industry, he talks out of his ass, and is a dangerous participant to the global warming/climate change debate.
If you are thinking of reading anything he published, or watching anything he is in, do yourself a favor: do a one-eighty and read Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, which--incidentally--covers some of the fake controversy instigated by our Lord Crockofshit.
Christopher Monckton is a hack, a shill for the worst element of the energy industry, he talks out of his ass, and is a dangerous participant to the global warming/climate change debate.
If you are thinking of reading anything he published, or watching anything he is in, do yourself a favor: do a one-eighty and read Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, which--incidentally--covers some of the fake controversy instigated by our Lord Crockofshit.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
The Supreme Cross
Adam B at the Daily Kos has a very interesting post about Salazar v. Buono, a case that has been heard by the Supreme Court recently, concerning an unofficial memorial to the Veterans of WWI in the form of a cross somewhere in the Mojave Desert.
It is a very interesting read, with some excellent highlights of what various Justices have written in their opinions.
It is a very interesting read, with some excellent highlights of what various Justices have written in their opinions.
Nine Myths About The Deficit That You Cannot Afford to Believe
The excellent New Deal 2.0 has a post you must read about 9 commonly used (and, alas, believed) myths about the deficit.
Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?
That is the question that the father of American psychopharmacology, Jonathan Cole, asked in a paper by the same name that focused on the real effectiveness and dangers posed by meds prescribed for psychiatric illnesses.
Now award-winning Boston Globe investigative reporter Robert Whitaker reprises the question in a book titled Anatomy of an Epidemic, which looks at 50 years of studies on the effectiveness of psychodrugs.
Now award-winning Boston Globe investigative reporter Robert Whitaker reprises the question in a book titled Anatomy of an Epidemic, which looks at 50 years of studies on the effectiveness of psychodrugs.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Insane Comparisons
People who seriously compare Fox News and MSNBC are nuts.
People who say Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are liberal equivalent to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Back are nuts AND ignorant.
On another note, Bill Moyers is an intellectal giant, a fantastic journalist, a fantastic person, and an example to follow. After this Friday, he will be dearly missed.
People who say Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are liberal equivalent to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Back are nuts AND ignorant.
On another note, Bill Moyers is an intellectal giant, a fantastic journalist, a fantastic person, and an example to follow. After this Friday, he will be dearly missed.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Robert Reich's Brief and Crystal Clear Suggestions for WSR
Robert Reich is a redoubtable source of simple to understand, direct and excellent commentary on all things financial and economic. One of his latest posts summarizes the necessary steps to right the American financial ship.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Republicans Do The Only Thing They Do Well... Again
Republicans do only one thing well: they vote in block. Never mind their complete lack of (good) ideas to solve the nation's problems,
When Bush was president, they steamrolled over Democrats to enact some of the most regressive policies in the nation's history, their stated goal being the piecemeal dismantling of New Deal and Great Society Policies.
Now that Mr. Obama is President, they vote in block against anything, literally anything, the President supports.
Take for example Wall Street Reform: You would think that no politician would dare vote to block reform aimed at reining in one of the two most unpopular industries at this point in history, i.e. the banking industry (the insurance industry being the other). But no, even this time Republicans were steadfast in their resolve to block the President's agenda, no matter what.
The only thing more disgusting than Repuglycans voting unanimously to prevent Wall Street reform from even coming to the floor of the Senate for debate is the Democrat who joined them: Ben Nelson, already a thorn in the President's side during the health care reform debate. That is why it is really important to elect true progressives to Congress, and not career politicians who only have their own best interest in mind, instead of the nation's.
On a related note, you might want to read The Cover-Up, posted on baselinescenario.com, written by James Kwak, co-author with Simon Johnson of the book 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. Read it, and read it to the end. Focus particularly on the last paragraph, and then ask yourself: Whose bidding are Republicans doing when they vote uninanimously to stop Wall Street reform from being debated on the floor of the Senate? Ours? Think again.
One last thought: While the Republicans who are working to stop regulatory reform are despicable, because they always do the bidding of the powerful and the wealthy while filling their mouths with words like freedom, free-market, the will of the American people, etc, too many Democrats are now squeaky-clean when it comes to their ties to the banking industry and its mindless deregulation.
In fact, as former New York Governor Spitzer suggested over a year ago, the problems that have beset our financial industry (and have had such disastrous domino effects on the lives of many people, here and around the world) could have been prevented by good people willing to use existing regulations (which also raises the question of why President Obama picked Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers to fill in important posts rather than people like Elizabeth Warren, William K. Black and Paul Krugman, for example).
In other words, no laws will ever do the job unless there are principled individuals willing to enforce them. So the current regulatory impulse may be driven more by a desire to shield political accomplices from blame than by a serious desire to fix the system.
When Bush was president, they steamrolled over Democrats to enact some of the most regressive policies in the nation's history, their stated goal being the piecemeal dismantling of New Deal and Great Society Policies.
Now that Mr. Obama is President, they vote in block against anything, literally anything, the President supports.
Take for example Wall Street Reform: You would think that no politician would dare vote to block reform aimed at reining in one of the two most unpopular industries at this point in history, i.e. the banking industry (the insurance industry being the other). But no, even this time Republicans were steadfast in their resolve to block the President's agenda, no matter what.
The only thing more disgusting than Repuglycans voting unanimously to prevent Wall Street reform from even coming to the floor of the Senate for debate is the Democrat who joined them: Ben Nelson, already a thorn in the President's side during the health care reform debate. That is why it is really important to elect true progressives to Congress, and not career politicians who only have their own best interest in mind, instead of the nation's.
On a related note, you might want to read The Cover-Up, posted on baselinescenario.com, written by James Kwak, co-author with Simon Johnson of the book 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. Read it, and read it to the end. Focus particularly on the last paragraph, and then ask yourself: Whose bidding are Republicans doing when they vote uninanimously to stop Wall Street reform from being debated on the floor of the Senate? Ours? Think again.
One last thought: While the Republicans who are working to stop regulatory reform are despicable, because they always do the bidding of the powerful and the wealthy while filling their mouths with words like freedom, free-market, the will of the American people, etc, too many Democrats are now squeaky-clean when it comes to their ties to the banking industry and its mindless deregulation.
In fact, as former New York Governor Spitzer suggested over a year ago, the problems that have beset our financial industry (and have had such disastrous domino effects on the lives of many people, here and around the world) could have been prevented by good people willing to use existing regulations (which also raises the question of why President Obama picked Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers to fill in important posts rather than people like Elizabeth Warren, William K. Black and Paul Krugman, for example).
In other words, no laws will ever do the job unless there are principled individuals willing to enforce them. So the current regulatory impulse may be driven more by a desire to shield political accomplices from blame than by a serious desire to fix the system.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
A Secession To End All Regression
Good Sunday to all!
A while ago, I wrote a post titled Let Them Idiots Secede. I do not bring it up to apologize for it. To the contrary: I just found out that David Michael Green of Hofstra University recently wrote a similar piece that comes to the same conclusion.
I feel vindicated.
A while ago, I wrote a post titled Let Them Idiots Secede. I do not bring it up to apologize for it. To the contrary: I just found out that David Michael Green of Hofstra University recently wrote a similar piece that comes to the same conclusion.
I feel vindicated.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Will Black on the Journal
Last night Bill Moyers had Will Black on the Journal.
Black is professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missoury, Kansas City, and author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry. He is an expert on banking fraud, having being the director of litigation of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), senior vice president and general counsel of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and senior deputy chief counsel, Office of Thrift Supervision. He was deputy director of the National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement.
In the wake of the recent SEC decision to file charges against Goldman Sachs for fraud in structuring and marketing of CDO (collateralized debt obligations) tied to subprime mortgages, Black was the right man for Moyers to invite to the Journal to explain to Americans (at least those who care) what happened, how it happened, and how it could have been prevented. Watch the video here.
While talking about the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision, Black offered this suggestion:
Simple, imaginative, effective. Pure genius.
The fact that Black is not working for the Obama Administration, and that Tim Geithner and Larry Summers are, says a lot about the President's real priorities when it comes to taking on powerful interests and white collar crime.
Black is professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missoury, Kansas City, and author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry. He is an expert on banking fraud, having being the director of litigation of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), senior vice president and general counsel of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and senior deputy chief counsel, Office of Thrift Supervision. He was deputy director of the National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement.
In the wake of the recent SEC decision to file charges against Goldman Sachs for fraud in structuring and marketing of CDO (collateralized debt obligations) tied to subprime mortgages, Black was the right man for Moyers to invite to the Journal to explain to Americans (at least those who care) what happened, how it happened, and how it could have been prevented. Watch the video here.
While talking about the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision, Black offered this suggestion:
[I]f corporations are going to be just like people, let me tell you my criminologist hat. Then let's use the three strike laws against them. Three strike laws, you go to prison for life, if you have three felonies. How many of these major corporations would still be allowed to exist, if we were to use the three strike laws, given what they've been convicted of in the past?
And in most states, they remove your civil rights when you're convicted of a felony. Well, let's take away their right to make political contributions that they're found guilty of a violation.
Simple, imaginative, effective. Pure genius.
The fact that Black is not working for the Obama Administration, and that Tim Geithner and Larry Summers are, says a lot about the President's real priorities when it comes to taking on powerful interests and white collar crime.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Jerry Coyne Explains Evolution
Over at The Nation, Jerry Coyne writes:
Thus begins Coyne's compelling defense of evolution in his review of Richard Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth against Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini's What Darwin Got Wrong.
Must read.
Imagine for a moment that a large proportion of Americans--let's say half--rejected the "germ theory" of infectious disease. Maladies like swine flu, malaria and AIDS aren't caused by micro-organisms, they claim, but by the displeasure of gods, whom they propitiate by praying, consulting shamans and sacrificing goats. Now, you'd surely find this a national disgrace, for those people would be utterly, unequivocally wrong. Although it's called germ theory, the idea that infections are spread by small creatures is also a fact, supported by mountains of evidence. You don't get malaria unless you carry a specific protozoan parasite. We know how it causes the disease, and we see that when you kill it with drugs, the disease goes away. How, we'd ask, could people ignore all this evidence in favor of baseless superstition?
But that's fiction, right? Well, not entirely, for it applies precisely to another "theory" that is also a fact: the theory of evolution.
Thus begins Coyne's compelling defense of evolution in his review of Richard Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth against Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini's What Darwin Got Wrong.
Must read.
Truly a National Shame
Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a cruel and stupid bill that may very well be struck down as unconstitutional even by the currently conservative Supreme Court. As President Obama rightly said today, "failure to act responsibly at the Federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others." In other words, the Administration and Congress need to come up with reasonable and equitable laws to prevent the freaks that live in the nation's woodwork to usurp federal powers and come up with insane laws like the one Gov. Brewer signed today. Amen.
The debate leading up to today's signing ceremony has been accompanies by some of the most insensitive, stupid and racist remarks in memory, such as Rep. Bilbray (R-CA) saying that illegal immigrants can be identified "just by looking at their clothes."
And, as Kos at the Daily Kos says, it will lead to an explosion of lawsuits.
But while Kos anticipates that "that within a year, virtually every town and county in the state will be getting sued by xenophobic teabaggers" (because, as Kos explains, the law "allows residents to sue their municipalities if they believe local cops aren't doing enough to target and jail undocumented immigrants"), I hope that there will be a torrent of lawsuits by Hispanic citizens whose Fourth Amendment rights (against illegal searches) and Fourteenth Amendment rights (equal protection) will undoubtedly be violated when overzealous law enforcement agents ask them for proof of citizenship. In a country where there there is no federal law mandating that individuals are required to provide proof of citizenship, as Mark Evans of TucsonCitizen.com notes, it will be interesting to see how Arizona's law enforcement agencies go about trying to enforce an unenforceable law. You know someone royally f***ed things up when Gov. Huckabee is the voice of reason on the right.
For an analysis of the many ways in which Arizona SB-1070 is a gigantic discriminatory cockup, read the ACLU of Arizona's section by section take-down of the bill. (PDF reader required).
The debate leading up to today's signing ceremony has been accompanies by some of the most insensitive, stupid and racist remarks in memory, such as Rep. Bilbray (R-CA) saying that illegal immigrants can be identified "just by looking at their clothes."
And, as Kos at the Daily Kos says, it will lead to an explosion of lawsuits.
But while Kos anticipates that "that within a year, virtually every town and county in the state will be getting sued by xenophobic teabaggers" (because, as Kos explains, the law "allows residents to sue their municipalities if they believe local cops aren't doing enough to target and jail undocumented immigrants"), I hope that there will be a torrent of lawsuits by Hispanic citizens whose Fourth Amendment rights (against illegal searches) and Fourteenth Amendment rights (equal protection) will undoubtedly be violated when overzealous law enforcement agents ask them for proof of citizenship. In a country where there there is no federal law mandating that individuals are required to provide proof of citizenship, as Mark Evans of TucsonCitizen.com notes, it will be interesting to see how Arizona's law enforcement agencies go about trying to enforce an unenforceable law. You know someone royally f***ed things up when Gov. Huckabee is the voice of reason on the right.
For an analysis of the many ways in which Arizona SB-1070 is a gigantic discriminatory cockup, read the ACLU of Arizona's section by section take-down of the bill. (PDF reader required).
Understanding Climate Change
In honor of Earth Day, I have dug up a few interesting sources on the impact of energy use and the planet that supports our life. Take a gander.
- The Greenhouse Effect for Kids (from the EPA website)
- Energy Explained (from the US Department of Energy)
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- De Smog Blog
- Climate Crisis, a fascinating look at the way certain nations are threatened by climate change, by the sadly about to disappear "Now on PBS". (The last episode of this brilliant investigative journalism series is scheduled to air next Friday).
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Correcting Ignorance and Deceit
The Christocratic blogosphere is abuzz with misinformation regarding a case which will be heard by the Supreme Court tomorrow. The case is Christian Legal Society v Martinez and concerns the right of public institutions to deny certain forms of support to ANY group or association of individuals that engage in discrimination that clashes with the institution's non-discrimination policy.
If you want to get past the misinformation that the pseudo-Christian loonies are peddling to anyone who will swallow it, you can read the post I published yesterday by clicking this link; or, better yet, you can read this lucid analysis by Gabriel Arana on the American Prospect's website.
If you want to get past the misinformation that the pseudo-Christian loonies are peddling to anyone who will swallow it, you can read the post I published yesterday by clicking this link; or, better yet, you can read this lucid analysis by Gabriel Arana on the American Prospect's website.
Sunday Reading/Watching
Sundays are good days to kick back, relax, and enjoy a selection of good writings from the week that was. Here are few.
Devilstower, from the Daily Kos, has an astute analysis of the difference between real libertarians and conservatives who are ashamed of calling themselves Republicans so they hide behind the libertarian label.
Yasha Levine's article, The Roots of Stalin in the Tea Party Movement, analyzes the link between the Kock family fortune, which is the biggest single funder of activities of the Tea Party movement, and the old USSR, and takes a look at the ways in which the Kock family amassed its fortune.
On PBS, I just found a gem of a program called Justice with Michael Sandel. It is a series of lectures that you can view online about "the right thing to do" in a series of circumstances and different topics.
Devilstower, from the Daily Kos, has an astute analysis of the difference between real libertarians and conservatives who are ashamed of calling themselves Republicans so they hide behind the libertarian label.
Yasha Levine's article, The Roots of Stalin in the Tea Party Movement, analyzes the link between the Kock family fortune, which is the biggest single funder of activities of the Tea Party movement, and the old USSR, and takes a look at the ways in which the Kock family amassed its fortune.
On PBS, I just found a gem of a program called Justice with Michael Sandel. It is a series of lectures that you can view online about "the right thing to do" in a series of circumstances and different topics.
The Sky Is (Not) Falling
Mr. Groothuis of The Constructive Curmudgeon can always be counted on to make unnecessarily inflammatory statements; like this one:
"On April 19, The Supreme Court will decide whether campus Christian groups, such as Navigators and InterVarsity, can exist as official groups when in light of the fact that they require certain beliefs and behaviors of their members. This is another choice between liberty and tyranny."
It's not that I don't believe what Mr. Groothuis says, it's that I have learned not to trust him. So I went and checked the facts of the case and--not surprisingly--liberty and tyranny live only in Chicken Little Curmudgeon's head.
The scare-mongering post on the Curmudgeon's blog refers to Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which will be heard by the Supreme Court next Monday. The gist of the case (as I understand it) is this: Can a public institution refuse to officially recognize an organization that prevents those who do not share its religious and moral values from becoming voting members? More specifically, in the case at hand, can Hastings College of Law, a publicly-funded school, deny the use of its funds, official logo, and other privileges to an entity, specifically Christian Legal Society, which practices discrimination as a requirement for membership (a student club, for example)?
It is important to note that lack of official recognition does not equate the prohibition to exist or to operate on school grounds, or to communicate via certain channels provided by the institution.
If you are interested in the facts of the case, and the implication of the possible rulings I recommend that you click on the preceding links. I also recommend that you read Prof. Volokh's detailed considerations on the case, expressed in various posts of his. Then you can decide for yourself if Mr. Groothuis is right in suggesting that CLS v Martinez is a choice between tyranny and liberty. I don't, and I offer this piece of advice to the tragicomical Curmudgeon:
When a party is sure of the force of its reasoning and of the legal validity of its viewpoint it does not need to resort to hyperbole and fear to secure support for its position.
A choice between tyranny and liberty? Only in Chicken Little's Curmudgeon mind.
"On April 19, The Supreme Court will decide whether campus Christian groups, such as Navigators and InterVarsity, can exist as official groups when in light of the fact that they require certain beliefs and behaviors of their members. This is another choice between liberty and tyranny."
It's not that I don't believe what Mr. Groothuis says, it's that I have learned not to trust him. So I went and checked the facts of the case and--not surprisingly--liberty and tyranny live only in Chicken Little Curmudgeon's head.
The scare-mongering post on the Curmudgeon's blog refers to Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which will be heard by the Supreme Court next Monday. The gist of the case (as I understand it) is this: Can a public institution refuse to officially recognize an organization that prevents those who do not share its religious and moral values from becoming voting members? More specifically, in the case at hand, can Hastings College of Law, a publicly-funded school, deny the use of its funds, official logo, and other privileges to an entity, specifically Christian Legal Society, which practices discrimination as a requirement for membership (a student club, for example)?
It is important to note that lack of official recognition does not equate the prohibition to exist or to operate on school grounds, or to communicate via certain channels provided by the institution.
If you are interested in the facts of the case, and the implication of the possible rulings I recommend that you click on the preceding links. I also recommend that you read Prof. Volokh's detailed considerations on the case, expressed in various posts of his. Then you can decide for yourself if Mr. Groothuis is right in suggesting that CLS v Martinez is a choice between tyranny and liberty. I don't, and I offer this piece of advice to the tragicomical Curmudgeon:
When a party is sure of the force of its reasoning and of the legal validity of its viewpoint it does not need to resort to hyperbole and fear to secure support for its position.
A choice between tyranny and liberty? Only in Chicken Little's Curmudgeon mind.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Read To Believe
No comment necessary.
Corporate Front Group Funded By Coal Industry Scorns Widow Of Mine Disaster: ‘Everyone Wants Free Money'
Limbaugh: Volcanic eruption in Iceland is God’s reaction to health care’s passage.
One can only hope that karma will do its job.
Corporate Front Group Funded By Coal Industry Scorns Widow Of Mine Disaster: ‘Everyone Wants Free Money'
Limbaugh: Volcanic eruption in Iceland is God’s reaction to health care’s passage.
One can only hope that karma will do its job.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Tax Day Has Come And Gone, Unlike Ignoramuses, Rich Opportunists and Liars
I filed my taxes. Finally. At the very last possible minute, like the procrastinator I am.
It's never a happy process, and I can't say I love the idea of parting from money I worked so hard to earn, particularly when the money I pay to the federal government buys so little of what I need most (like guaranteed basic health care, commercial free and impartial TV and radio programming, affordable higher education, rational, affordable and efficient public transportation, and so forth) and so much of what I loathe (ginormous "defense" spending, corporate welfare, bailouts to those who almost totally bankrupted us, handouts to states represented and inhabited by a majority of idiots who spend their lives condemning federal handouts, etc.) The good news is that the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress are (too timidly) reversing some of these policies. The bad news is that the asylum is still run to a large degree by the inmates (lobbyists and their political butlers.)
Nevertheless, I am not one of the wingnuts and/or liars who would have you believe that the Federal Income Tax has gone up this year for most Americans, when in fact the opposite is true.
It's never a happy process, and I can't say I love the idea of parting from money I worked so hard to earn, particularly when the money I pay to the federal government buys so little of what I need most (like guaranteed basic health care, commercial free and impartial TV and radio programming, affordable higher education, rational, affordable and efficient public transportation, and so forth) and so much of what I loathe (ginormous "defense" spending, corporate welfare, bailouts to those who almost totally bankrupted us, handouts to states represented and inhabited by a majority of idiots who spend their lives condemning federal handouts, etc.) The good news is that the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress are (too timidly) reversing some of these policies. The bad news is that the asylum is still run to a large degree by the inmates (lobbyists and their political butlers.)
Nevertheless, I am not one of the wingnuts and/or liars who would have you believe that the Federal Income Tax has gone up this year for most Americans, when in fact the opposite is true.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Monday, April 05, 2010
A Lesson In Civics
From the pages of the Daily Kos: Running After Happy. It is a rare lesson in civics and what the Founding Fathers might have wanted for the United States, had they had more of a say in the current state of things than the conservative pundits who hijacked their thoughts.
I made a similar point, not too long ago, in the context of the health care reform struggle. It is not nearly as eloquently as exmearden on the Daily Kos, but certainly as heartfelt.
I made a similar point, not too long ago, in the context of the health care reform struggle. It is not nearly as eloquently as exmearden on the Daily Kos, but certainly as heartfelt.
Friday, April 02, 2010
A Stroke of (Repuglycan) Genius
Dr. Jack Cassell, a Florida urologist, has posted the following sign on the door of his practice: "If you voted for Obama ... seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your health care begin right now, not in four years."
Congressman Grayson (D-FL), often too quick to bash Repuglycans, wasted no time to bash the good doctor for being a sore loser, and a cruel one at that.
Actually, I wished all doctors who harbor the same feelings against "Obamacare" would be as explicit as Dr. Cassell. In fact, I wish all corporations were so blatantly idiotic. Then we could take our money elsewhere, instead of unwittingly fattening the idiots' wallets.
Congressman Grayson (D-FL), often too quick to bash Repuglycans, wasted no time to bash the good doctor for being a sore loser, and a cruel one at that.
Actually, I wished all doctors who harbor the same feelings against "Obamacare" would be as explicit as Dr. Cassell. In fact, I wish all corporations were so blatantly idiotic. Then we could take our money elsewhere, instead of unwittingly fattening the idiots' wallets.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Obama's Not A Socialist. And The Heritage Foundation Lies About HCR.
Tea partiers and Repuglycans like to attack the President by accusing him of being a Socialist. As any proud Socialist will tell you, you have to be pretty ignorant or intentionally deceitful to make that claim.
Also, surprise surprise, the Heritage Foundation keeps spreading disinformation. According to an HF spokesman, the United States is a right-of-center country and Obama's health care reform is a massive takeover of one sixth of the economy. (How could that be, when there is no public option and the best Demo-chrytes could come up with is an individual mandate to buy health insurance?)
The Heritage Foundation would also have you believe that President Obama's claim that the health care reform bill that he just signed into law incorporates ideas from the Heritage Foundation is false. Unfortunately for the Heritage Foundation, you are entitled to your own opinion, not to your own facts. Why, as recently as 2003 Stuart Butler, Ph.D, laid out many of the ideas that have now become law, including the individual mandate that HF now rails against, in Congressional testimony.
Also, surprise surprise, the Heritage Foundation keeps spreading disinformation. According to an HF spokesman, the United States is a right-of-center country and Obama's health care reform is a massive takeover of one sixth of the economy. (How could that be, when there is no public option and the best Demo-chrytes could come up with is an individual mandate to buy health insurance?)
The Heritage Foundation would also have you believe that President Obama's claim that the health care reform bill that he just signed into law incorporates ideas from the Heritage Foundation is false. Unfortunately for the Heritage Foundation, you are entitled to your own opinion, not to your own facts. Why, as recently as 2003 Stuart Butler, Ph.D, laid out many of the ideas that have now become law, including the individual mandate that HF now rails against, in Congressional testimony.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Food For Thought For Freedom Lovers and Socialism Haters
You could do worse than reading this brief, intelligent essay on the meaning of socialism--and freedom.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Right Wing And Violence, Verbal and Physical
Dante Atkins at the Daily Kos reports the latest incendiary statement by right wing clown Glenn Beck: "It's just like 9/11 all over again, except we didn't have the burning buildings." Yeah, that's exactly the sentiment that the threat of "cap and trade" legislation brings to mind to reasonable people.
As Atkins says,
You can see the criminally stupid video of Glenn Beck on the Daily Kos site.
As Atkins says,
The right wing needs to understand something clearly: you don't get to claim that policy initiatives proposed by Democrats are tantamount to armageddon, Stalin, Hitler, the 9/11 attacks, the four horsemen of the apocalypse, and an internal contradiction of the space-time continuum that will lead to the destruction of the universe--and then turn around and say that the last thing you wanted was to see people stirred to violence. You either sincerely think it's bad enough to merit violent resistance or you don't. Pick a side and stick with it.
You can see the criminally stupid video of Glenn Beck on the Daily Kos site.
There Is No Hell, So Make Earth A Living Hell For Them
As a lapsed Catholic, now a contented atheist, I have particular contempt for those who committed sexual abuses against children, and even more contempt for those who covered up their heinous acts.
They are among the very people who would like you to convince you that the guilty will reap their eternal punishment in hell. Guess what? There is no hell beyond earth, so let's make their one life hell, right here. Send them to jail, as they deserve, and let them rot in a cell. They can then seek comfort in their divine fantasies, if they so choose. No special treatment for anyone, including the Pope, if he is as guilty as he seems.
They are among the very people who would like you to convince you that the guilty will reap their eternal punishment in hell. Guess what? There is no hell beyond earth, so let's make their one life hell, right here. Send them to jail, as they deserve, and let them rot in a cell. They can then seek comfort in their divine fantasies, if they so choose. No special treatment for anyone, including the Pope, if he is as guilty as he seems.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Jefferson Quotes, True and False
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not," warned Thomas Jefferson.
First of all, it is not known that this is an actual quote from Thomas Jefferson. It does not exist in any of his writings according to the Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia. I say it because the person who used the quote on his blog has been rather sloppy with facts in the past (more about him at the end of this post), and my suspicions about the attribution of the quote were confirmed by a quick Google search which led me here.
What I find offensive about the quote is not just its incorrect attribution, but the fact that it is presumably being used to condemn "Obama care". (I can say with a reasonable amount of certainty given the context (the blog) and the user of the quote (again, more on him to follow).
As it happens, the quote seems aimed at eliciting in readers the worst feelings about what the American Right likes to call redistribution of wealth (which non-millionaires like me call what it is, i.e. progressive taxation) by implying that it rewards laziness over industry and entrepreneurship. Of course, this is--for the most part--sheer bullshit, but it helps that the people peddling it have the biggest megaphones.
Redistribution of wealth aimed at ensuring that as many of our fellow Americans (and legal aliens) can enjoy affordable access to a basic human right, i.e. the right enjoy a minimum level of health care services without risking bankruptcy or death, a right that is recognized by all civilized countries, should be accepted rather unbegrudingly by your average moneyed interests. It is the part of the social contract between the haves and the haves-not that guarantees, among other things, that the latter will not take to the streets and burn down the palaces of the former in exchange for a fair standard of living, which includes the ability to put a roof over one's head, to feed one's family, to go to affordable quality school, to be treated equally before the law regardless of income levels (yeah, right!) and, yes, to be able to receive good and affordable treatment in doctor's offices and hospitals.
But the picture that the Right astutely and disingenuously painted of the health insurance reform that Congress trudgingly and clumsily passed days ago is in keeping with the quote given at the top of this post, that is that Congress and the President are taking from "those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
It takes some truly despicable people to subscribe to and to promote the fantastic idea that this health insurance reform bill is a handout to those who don't deserve it because they are too lazy to go get it. Many of the uninsured or under-insured have a job. In fact, some even have more than one, but they still cannot afford health insurance for themselves or their families because of the outrageous cost of premiums or of deductibles and copays. You don't have to believe me. You can visit the many websites that document this known fact, like the ones listed below.
Faces of Maryland's Uninsured Project
Pennsylvania Health Law Project (PDF file)
The Uninsured (New York Times Editorial)
National Association of Free Clinics (PDF file)
These data are not hard to find, so not finding them is probably due to a combination of dishonesty and willful refusal to acknowledge that the picture they paint is definitely not one of lazy unemployed people whose goal is to mooch health care from those who work.
Consider that, as reported by USA Today, "the percentage of all employers offering health insurance in the past eight years peaked in 2000 at 69% and has fallen steadily since, hitting 60% this year [2007], according to an annual survey of employers by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Among small firms of three to nine workers, the percentage offering insurance has dropped even more — from 58% in 2001 to 45% this year" [again, 2007, which is when the article I quoted was published. And that was BEFORE the worst of the unemployment crisis hit.)
More recent [PDF] data from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that since 1999 the cost of premiums has increased by 131% and that the cost of worker contributions has increased at more or less the same rate (128%). It also confirms the drop in number of business, particularly small businesses (between 3 and 9 employees) who are willing or able to offer health care benefits.
All these data help to dismantle the meme, propagated by the right and embraced by those who are angry and vulnerable (the ignorant, the uneducated and the fearful), that the bill is aimed at building a constituency of leeches who will vote for Democratic candidates to keep their "entitlements"*, the kind of bullshit that the right seeks to convey every day using inflammatory and demonstrably false rhetoric, aided by seemingly authoritative but fabricated quotes like the one at the top of this post.
Which brings me to the person who used the quote as a means of corroborating his despicable and false message. Sloppiness is an annoying trait and if the use of the quote above was simply a matter of sloppiness it would be bad enough. But I fear that we are dealing with something more sinister than sloppiness in this case, that is a willful attempt to mislead those who are vulnerable and inclined to be misled. This is particularly despicable when it comes from a member of academia (though not very reputable academia, to be sure) like the individual who runs The Constructive Curmudgeon, where the quote was posted. An educator is not supposed to mislead but to enlighten.
Let me leave you with a true quote by Thomas Jefferson: "To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." Apply that concept, liberally if you will, to the topic of health care.
* This is an accusation that has now been leveled against Democrats for 3 quarters of a century. Consider the following quote from H.L. Mencken, written on the eve of the 1936 election, about the New Deal:
"Its chief practical business is to search out groups that can be brought into the [Democratic Party] machine by grants out of the public treasury, which is to say, out of the pockets of the rest of us." [Sam Tanenhaus, The Death of Conservatism] You know how bad the New Deal turned out to be for Americans, don't you?
First of all, it is not known that this is an actual quote from Thomas Jefferson. It does not exist in any of his writings according to the Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia. I say it because the person who used the quote on his blog has been rather sloppy with facts in the past (more about him at the end of this post), and my suspicions about the attribution of the quote were confirmed by a quick Google search which led me here.
What I find offensive about the quote is not just its incorrect attribution, but the fact that it is presumably being used to condemn "Obama care". (I can say with a reasonable amount of certainty given the context (the blog) and the user of the quote (again, more on him to follow).
As it happens, the quote seems aimed at eliciting in readers the worst feelings about what the American Right likes to call redistribution of wealth (which non-millionaires like me call what it is, i.e. progressive taxation) by implying that it rewards laziness over industry and entrepreneurship. Of course, this is--for the most part--sheer bullshit, but it helps that the people peddling it have the biggest megaphones.
Redistribution of wealth aimed at ensuring that as many of our fellow Americans (and legal aliens) can enjoy affordable access to a basic human right, i.e. the right enjoy a minimum level of health care services without risking bankruptcy or death, a right that is recognized by all civilized countries, should be accepted rather unbegrudingly by your average moneyed interests. It is the part of the social contract between the haves and the haves-not that guarantees, among other things, that the latter will not take to the streets and burn down the palaces of the former in exchange for a fair standard of living, which includes the ability to put a roof over one's head, to feed one's family, to go to affordable quality school, to be treated equally before the law regardless of income levels (yeah, right!) and, yes, to be able to receive good and affordable treatment in doctor's offices and hospitals.
But the picture that the Right astutely and disingenuously painted of the health insurance reform that Congress trudgingly and clumsily passed days ago is in keeping with the quote given at the top of this post, that is that Congress and the President are taking from "those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
It takes some truly despicable people to subscribe to and to promote the fantastic idea that this health insurance reform bill is a handout to those who don't deserve it because they are too lazy to go get it. Many of the uninsured or under-insured have a job. In fact, some even have more than one, but they still cannot afford health insurance for themselves or their families because of the outrageous cost of premiums or of deductibles and copays. You don't have to believe me. You can visit the many websites that document this known fact, like the ones listed below.
Faces of Maryland's Uninsured Project
Pennsylvania Health Law Project (PDF file)
The Uninsured (New York Times Editorial)
National Association of Free Clinics (PDF file)
These data are not hard to find, so not finding them is probably due to a combination of dishonesty and willful refusal to acknowledge that the picture they paint is definitely not one of lazy unemployed people whose goal is to mooch health care from those who work.
Consider that, as reported by USA Today, "the percentage of all employers offering health insurance in the past eight years peaked in 2000 at 69% and has fallen steadily since, hitting 60% this year [2007], according to an annual survey of employers by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Among small firms of three to nine workers, the percentage offering insurance has dropped even more — from 58% in 2001 to 45% this year" [again, 2007, which is when the article I quoted was published. And that was BEFORE the worst of the unemployment crisis hit.)
More recent [PDF] data from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that since 1999 the cost of premiums has increased by 131% and that the cost of worker contributions has increased at more or less the same rate (128%). It also confirms the drop in number of business, particularly small businesses (between 3 and 9 employees) who are willing or able to offer health care benefits.
All these data help to dismantle the meme, propagated by the right and embraced by those who are angry and vulnerable (the ignorant, the uneducated and the fearful), that the bill is aimed at building a constituency of leeches who will vote for Democratic candidates to keep their "entitlements"*, the kind of bullshit that the right seeks to convey every day using inflammatory and demonstrably false rhetoric, aided by seemingly authoritative but fabricated quotes like the one at the top of this post.
Which brings me to the person who used the quote as a means of corroborating his despicable and false message. Sloppiness is an annoying trait and if the use of the quote above was simply a matter of sloppiness it would be bad enough. But I fear that we are dealing with something more sinister than sloppiness in this case, that is a willful attempt to mislead those who are vulnerable and inclined to be misled. This is particularly despicable when it comes from a member of academia (though not very reputable academia, to be sure) like the individual who runs The Constructive Curmudgeon, where the quote was posted. An educator is not supposed to mislead but to enlighten.
Let me leave you with a true quote by Thomas Jefferson: "To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." Apply that concept, liberally if you will, to the topic of health care.
* This is an accusation that has now been leveled against Democrats for 3 quarters of a century. Consider the following quote from H.L. Mencken, written on the eve of the 1936 election, about the New Deal:
"Its chief practical business is to search out groups that can be brought into the [Democratic Party] machine by grants out of the public treasury, which is to say, out of the pockets of the rest of us." [Sam Tanenhaus, The Death of Conservatism] You know how bad the New Deal turned out to be for Americans, don't you?
In My Crystal Ball I See...
I predict that an invective by the (not so constructive) Curmudgeon is forthcoming for the "blasphemous" Brian McLaren. It wouldn't be the first invective against that influential Christian leader from the pages of the Curmudgeon. McLaren's crime is to favor a reading of the Bible, in particular the New Testament, that does not reward dicks for, well, being dicks.
In an interview with NPR to mark the release of his latest book, A New Kind Of Christianity, McLaren expressed views that don't resonate too well with older, more traditional Evangelicals.
Curmudgeonly people focus their message on the sanctity of the Republican Party vs. Democratic demons, behind a curtain made of common Evangelical calls for fools, like a very selective concept of the "sanctity of life" (the "pre-born", not Iraqi or Afghani children), a despicable view of the "sanctity of marriage" to the exclusion of anyone but heterosexual (whites), a view of society devoid of any social justice (let freedom rule, where freedom is to be enjoyed in direct proportion to one's earning ability), and so on. They do not spare any invective against McLaren's reading of the New Testament, in which Jesus is more concerned with chastising Pharisees and hypocrites than prostitutes and lepers. Their interpretation of the role of Jesus has more to do with power than charity (of spirit) than McLaren's, so the latter is a heretic. All this from a bunch of people who owe their religion to heretics in the first place.
Now, you know me, I think that all religious people are delusional to a higher or lesser degree, but if you want to be a bible literalist remember that the bible is composed of two volumes: one Old, in which God acted like a capricious despot, and one New, in which his soon thankfully proves to be more more mentally balanced than his father, and more concerned with walking the walk than with talking the talk.
The Rev. Jim Wallis said this:
If people like McLaren and Wallis can provoke hissy fits in curmudgeonly hypocrites, more power to them.
In an interview with NPR to mark the release of his latest book, A New Kind Of Christianity, McLaren expressed views that don't resonate too well with older, more traditional Evangelicals.
"God revealed in Christ crucified shows us a vision of God that identifies with the victim rather than the perpetrator, identifies with the one suffering rather than the one inflicting suffering," he says.
McLaren says modern evangelicalism underplays that Jesus — who spent most of his time with the poor, the sick and the sinners — saved his wrath primarily for hard-core religious leaders.
Curmudgeonly people focus their message on the sanctity of the Republican Party vs. Democratic demons, behind a curtain made of common Evangelical calls for fools, like a very selective concept of the "sanctity of life" (the "pre-born", not Iraqi or Afghani children), a despicable view of the "sanctity of marriage" to the exclusion of anyone but heterosexual (whites), a view of society devoid of any social justice (let freedom rule, where freedom is to be enjoyed in direct proportion to one's earning ability), and so on. They do not spare any invective against McLaren's reading of the New Testament, in which Jesus is more concerned with chastising Pharisees and hypocrites than prostitutes and lepers. Their interpretation of the role of Jesus has more to do with power than charity (of spirit) than McLaren's, so the latter is a heretic. All this from a bunch of people who owe their religion to heretics in the first place.
Now, you know me, I think that all religious people are delusional to a higher or lesser degree, but if you want to be a bible literalist remember that the bible is composed of two volumes: one Old, in which God acted like a capricious despot, and one New, in which his soon thankfully proves to be more more mentally balanced than his father, and more concerned with walking the walk than with talking the talk.
The Rev. Jim Wallis said this:
We did this experiment way back a long time ago, as young seminarians, we found every passage in the Bible about poor people, about wealth and poverty, oppression, all that, and we found several thousand verses. It was the second most prominent theme in the Hebrew scripts, the Old Testament. And in the New Testament, the Synoptic Gospels, the first three, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, one of every 16 verses.
[...] In Luke, it was one of every seven verses. And we took the Bible and we took a pair of scissors and we cut out of the Bible every single reference to poor people. And when we were done, the Bible was in shreds. It was full of holes, falling apart in my hands. I'd take it out to preach. I'd say, 'Brothers and sisters, this is the American Bible. It's just full of holes.
[...]This isn't about politics or a liberal or a conservative. This is about the integrity of the word of God. There's nothing as basic as this, how we treat the other, the vulnerable, the poor, the enemy. The one who's not at the table is the one we're going to be judged by. [from http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/jimwallis/transcript.shtml]
If people like McLaren and Wallis can provoke hissy fits in curmudgeonly hypocrites, more power to them.
Eric Cantor Is A Douche
Eric Cantor is, alas, one of the most representative faces of the current Republican Party.
Recently he went on national television to chastise Democrats for allegedly exploiting the climate of hostility verging on hatred that led to actual acts of violence against a few of them in the wake of the passage of health insurance reform. I say actual acts of violence, as opposed to fabricated ones, like the one Cantor alleges to have been a victim of. Except, according to the Richmond Police Department the incident was not directed at Cantor or Cantor's office.
Only a high-ranking Republican could have the balls to accuse his opponents of trying to gain political advantage from acts of violence directed at them while fabricating a story about being a victim of violence. Why would he do that, other than to try to gain political advantage.
It is not the wrong policies and politics of the Republican Party that are the biggest problem. It is their shameless hypocrisy that will get them in real trouble eventually.
Keep it up, Repuglycans.
Recently he went on national television to chastise Democrats for allegedly exploiting the climate of hostility verging on hatred that led to actual acts of violence against a few of them in the wake of the passage of health insurance reform. I say actual acts of violence, as opposed to fabricated ones, like the one Cantor alleges to have been a victim of. Except, according to the Richmond Police Department the incident was not directed at Cantor or Cantor's office.
Only a high-ranking Republican could have the balls to accuse his opponents of trying to gain political advantage from acts of violence directed at them while fabricating a story about being a victim of violence. Why would he do that, other than to try to gain political advantage.
It is not the wrong policies and politics of the Republican Party that are the biggest problem. It is their shameless hypocrisy that will get them in real trouble eventually.
Keep it up, Repuglycans.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Those Who Don't Know History Are... Republican Attorney Generals
It is quite astonishing how Republicans have immediately started calling for the repeal of the health care reform bill that President Obama signed into law today. Such is the frenzied state of mind of Republicans and their pitiful leaders (such as Senators DeMint, McConnell and McCain) who bet the farm on Obama's failure to pass any health care reform at all, and will now make utter fools of themselves in the process.
Or, consider the 13 or 14 State AGs who have decided to sue the Federal government for doing what has never been done before, that is forcing American citizens to buy a product they did not want. Ahem... If only they had read this before proceeding with their ill-conceived, clumsy lawsuits.
But then again, the true intent of these demagogues is not to have the law overturned (though this Supreme Court is perfectly capable of going to any lengths to thwart progress, I bet.) Their true intent is to create a divisive enough electoral issue to rally their fevered, deranged troops in November.
Put it this way: the sick and the uninsured are the gays of 2006 and 2008. Because, let's face it, when it comes to hating, it makes no difference to a Republican if you are gay or sick. Either way, you brought your situation upon yourself.
Perhaps we should teach Republicans new ways to use the bootstraps they are so fond of reminding us of.
Or, consider the 13 or 14 State AGs who have decided to sue the Federal government for doing what has never been done before, that is forcing American citizens to buy a product they did not want. Ahem... If only they had read this before proceeding with their ill-conceived, clumsy lawsuits.
But then again, the true intent of these demagogues is not to have the law overturned (though this Supreme Court is perfectly capable of going to any lengths to thwart progress, I bet.) Their true intent is to create a divisive enough electoral issue to rally their fevered, deranged troops in November.
Put it this way: the sick and the uninsured are the gays of 2006 and 2008. Because, let's face it, when it comes to hating, it makes no difference to a Republican if you are gay or sick. Either way, you brought your situation upon yourself.
Perhaps we should teach Republicans new ways to use the bootstraps they are so fond of reminding us of.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
On The Hypocrisy Of Self-Anointed "Pro-lifers"
Those who, like Mr. Groothuis of Denver Seminary, call this a "day of infamy" because a health care bill has finally passed; those who, like him, profess that they have the best interest of the "pre-born" at heart; those who routinely call their opponents "enemies", "baby-killers", "mass murderers" and many other unkind, un-Christian epithets (while at the same time chastising others for supposedly using ad-hominems): these people would do well to read this op-ed by Michael Moore, particularly this excerpt, about abortion rates in other countries:
Mr. Moore also has a good thought for those how support disingenuous amendments to state constitutions such as the so-called "personhood amendment":
Why does godless France, where abortion is nearly free (it's covered by their universal health insurance), have 20% fewer abortions per capita than we do? What's even more amazing about that statistic is that you can't even get an abortion in America in 87% of our counties because there isn't one single doctor in those counties who will perform one! 87%!!
Mr. Moore also has a good thought for those how support disingenuous amendments to state constitutions such as the so-called "personhood amendment":
What is "life"? An egg is life, a sperm is life. Those sperm aren't running on a battery pack. They are living creatures, as is a fertilized egg. But they're not "human beings." A human being is something that can exist outside the womb of a mother. If you think a fertilized egg is a human being, then I respectfully ask you to go down to the DMV today and have them change your birthday on your driver's license to 9 months older than what you've been telling everybody.
The Republican Solution For... Well, Everything
Meg Whitman, she of eBay fame, is running to be the next governor of California on a platform of--wait, you guessed it--cutting taxes. For the rich. To solve California's budget deficit.
California already had a couple of actors as governors. It's time for another joker.
California already had a couple of actors as governors. It's time for another joker.
Does Prayer Really Work?
For the umpteenth time, it appears it does not. From the pages of The Constructive Curmudgeon:
You can imagine me snickering with delight then when this appeared on the pages of the Huffington Post a few hours later:
Either prayer does not work or, more frighteningly for Christocrats, prayer does work and
either
a) a larger number of people were praying to God that health care should pass, which then means that God finds it more important for people to have health care insurance than the "defeat this abortion-laden health care bill." What would that say about the Christocrats' God?
or
b) a larger number of people have prayed to Satan than they have to God, which should also dishearten the Christocrats.
Either way, you have to question the power of prayer. Personally, I would rather rely on old-fashioned boots on the ground activism than hands to the sky fanaticism, of any kind, but hey, that's only me.
You can imagine me snickering with delight then when this appeared on the pages of the Huffington Post a few hours later:
Either prayer does not work or, more frighteningly for Christocrats, prayer does work and
either
a) a larger number of people were praying to God that health care should pass, which then means that God finds it more important for people to have health care insurance than the "defeat this abortion-laden health care bill." What would that say about the Christocrats' God?
or
b) a larger number of people have prayed to Satan than they have to God, which should also dishearten the Christocrats.
Either way, you have to question the power of prayer. Personally, I would rather rely on old-fashioned boots on the ground activism than hands to the sky fanaticism, of any kind, but hey, that's only me.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Great Health Care Debacle
When the Democratic health care bill becomes law, most likely this coming Sunday, it will be a betrayal of the principle that health care is a human right. It will be a gift not to those who have struggled for years to keep their health coverage, but to the corporate uberlords who have exploited a universal need to enrich themselves and their cohorts in Congress. It will signal to the world that the United States has chosen to put profit over social justice, something no other advanced nation in the world has done. It will be a blow to progressives, who will be defeated but won't stop fighting for what is right: the right to be treated equally in front of an illness, regardless of one's station in life.
It is a revolting bill. It did not have to be. It did not have to reward the very interests that deserved to punished. It did not have to legislate that health insurance is a duty while health care is not a right. It did not have to bow to corporate interests instead of taking them on. It will do nothing or too little to control costs, absent a public option to keep insurers on their toes.
That is why I have not backed it in spite of repeated pleas by the White House and by a number of representatives who have my name on their mailing lists. I cannot support a bill that so unconscionably and so casually abdicates the tenets of progressivism and of social justice. Single-payer was not even brought to the table and the public option was a chimera created to pacify those who would not readily lend their support to this health care reform but who could be convinced that something pretty ugly was better than nothing. That, incidentally is true. Even this ugly bill is, in some ways, better than nothing (the status quo), which should really clarify for everyone how deep we have sunk this country's sense of what is right, what is morally acceptable.
You should read Solomon and Rothschild to understand what is happening and what needs to be done
It is a revolting bill. It did not have to be. It did not have to reward the very interests that deserved to punished. It did not have to legislate that health insurance is a duty while health care is not a right. It did not have to bow to corporate interests instead of taking them on. It will do nothing or too little to control costs, absent a public option to keep insurers on their toes.
That is why I have not backed it in spite of repeated pleas by the White House and by a number of representatives who have my name on their mailing lists. I cannot support a bill that so unconscionably and so casually abdicates the tenets of progressivism and of social justice. Single-payer was not even brought to the table and the public option was a chimera created to pacify those who would not readily lend their support to this health care reform but who could be convinced that something pretty ugly was better than nothing. That, incidentally is true. Even this ugly bill is, in some ways, better than nothing (the status quo), which should really clarify for everyone how deep we have sunk this country's sense of what is right, what is morally acceptable.
You should read Solomon and Rothschild to understand what is happening and what needs to be done
Friday, March 12, 2010
Let Them Idiots Secede (Continued)
"Texas Board of Education cuts Thomas Jefferson out of its textbooks" is just one of the brilliant ideas the Texas Board of Education had for its textbooks. Here are some others:
– The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”
– To avoid exposing students to “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the Board struck the curriculum’s reference to “sex and gender as social constructs.”
I rest my case.
– The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”
– To avoid exposing students to “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the Board struck the curriculum’s reference to “sex and gender as social constructs.”
I rest my case.
Let Them Idiots Secede
I am all for letting Southern states secede. I have had enough of them. They are populated by too many idiots, bigots, and hypocrites who keep electing dicks (mostly Republicans with some Conserva-Dems) who make a living by railing against big Washington spending and handouts when most Southern states are, as it happens, the biggest net recipients of Washington handouts.
If that weren't enough, these disingenuous, conniving, and overbearing Congressfolks continue to financially rape those who elect them, in exchange for empty promises of restoring decency in America and protecting family values. Take for example the Mississippi high school that canceled its prom rather than have it "marred" by having a lesbian couple in attendance. So bless the ACLU for suing the idiots!
Back to secession: There is plenty of room in the surviving states of the Union for those who would inevitably be persecuted (you know, blacks, Mexicans, atheists, GBLT types, scientists, etc.) by the dumb idiots who would secede. We tried to create a great Union, and--alas--we were overwhelmed and overpowered by stupid.
We can no longer afford to let some inbred Senator from Oklahoma or Kansas halt environmental protections or health care reform while rising temperatures make glaciers melt and oceans boil over and thousands die every year for lack of access to health care. We can no longer live in a nation that allows credit card companies to exist that can charge 79% interest with impunity, or to let C students take us to war against the wrong country. We can no longer tolerate a whole class of bigoted electors and politicians who legally discriminate against those who were doomed at birth by their economic fate or who later in life found out that they were "differently-attracted".
We reasonable people are "unequally yoked" in an abusive, forced relationship with people who believe that it is more important to care for embryos than for those who have already landed amongst us, who believe that the world was created six thousand years ago by a petty, mean-spirited caricature of a deity who, for two thirds of our existence (based on the 6k year time-frame), ruled that adulterers should be stoned to death, that you are impure and should go to hell for eating shellfish, that you should treat your slaves fairly, etc.
We are up against a sea of idiots, who eat cheap lettuce picked by the same people that they rail against and would rather leave to die than spend a penny to treat in a national health care system; an army of retards, who rail against socialized medicine while themselves or their parents are alive because of Medicare or Medicaid; a coalition of the dupes, who complain about the decay of the American family and the middle-class, and then go on to elect serial adulterers and closeted homosexuals whose whose only cure for society consists of cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations while facilitating the exodus of jobs beyond American borders; a legion of failed Klansfolk, who attend tea parties holding up signs that depict president Obama as an African tribal leader, complete with bone through his nose and traditional garb, while their conservative heroes enjoy their all-expensed-paid retreat at a tropical golf resort, courtesy of their generous corporate lobbyists who are clamoring for labor laws to be relaxed and to return the U.S. to the days when child labor was all the rage.
I have had enough of all of them.
Let them secede. Let them live without the annoyance of the EPA, the FDA, the FAA, while their children get leukemia from drinking polluted water or die of dehydration induced by their e-coli infested hamburger meat, if they have been lucky enough to survive the runway crash that took the lives of most their fellow fliers when their Halliburton traffic-controller did not show up at work because he existed only on paper, so Dick Cheney could charge the government some more billions for services not actually rendered.
Let these idiots secede. Then the rest of us can go on with our lives, without having to subsidize these sanctimonious doofuses, and make a better place for those who want it.
If that weren't enough, these disingenuous, conniving, and overbearing Congressfolks continue to financially rape those who elect them, in exchange for empty promises of restoring decency in America and protecting family values. Take for example the Mississippi high school that canceled its prom rather than have it "marred" by having a lesbian couple in attendance. So bless the ACLU for suing the idiots!
Back to secession: There is plenty of room in the surviving states of the Union for those who would inevitably be persecuted (you know, blacks, Mexicans, atheists, GBLT types, scientists, etc.) by the dumb idiots who would secede. We tried to create a great Union, and--alas--we were overwhelmed and overpowered by stupid.
We can no longer afford to let some inbred Senator from Oklahoma or Kansas halt environmental protections or health care reform while rising temperatures make glaciers melt and oceans boil over and thousands die every year for lack of access to health care. We can no longer live in a nation that allows credit card companies to exist that can charge 79% interest with impunity, or to let C students take us to war against the wrong country. We can no longer tolerate a whole class of bigoted electors and politicians who legally discriminate against those who were doomed at birth by their economic fate or who later in life found out that they were "differently-attracted".
We reasonable people are "unequally yoked" in an abusive, forced relationship with people who believe that it is more important to care for embryos than for those who have already landed amongst us, who believe that the world was created six thousand years ago by a petty, mean-spirited caricature of a deity who, for two thirds of our existence (based on the 6k year time-frame), ruled that adulterers should be stoned to death, that you are impure and should go to hell for eating shellfish, that you should treat your slaves fairly, etc.
We are up against a sea of idiots, who eat cheap lettuce picked by the same people that they rail against and would rather leave to die than spend a penny to treat in a national health care system; an army of retards, who rail against socialized medicine while themselves or their parents are alive because of Medicare or Medicaid; a coalition of the dupes, who complain about the decay of the American family and the middle-class, and then go on to elect serial adulterers and closeted homosexuals whose whose only cure for society consists of cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations while facilitating the exodus of jobs beyond American borders; a legion of failed Klansfolk, who attend tea parties holding up signs that depict president Obama as an African tribal leader, complete with bone through his nose and traditional garb, while their conservative heroes enjoy their all-expensed-paid retreat at a tropical golf resort, courtesy of their generous corporate lobbyists who are clamoring for labor laws to be relaxed and to return the U.S. to the days when child labor was all the rage.
I have had enough of all of them.
Let them secede. Let them live without the annoyance of the EPA, the FDA, the FAA, while their children get leukemia from drinking polluted water or die of dehydration induced by their e-coli infested hamburger meat, if they have been lucky enough to survive the runway crash that took the lives of most their fellow fliers when their Halliburton traffic-controller did not show up at work because he existed only on paper, so Dick Cheney could charge the government some more billions for services not actually rendered.
Let these idiots secede. Then the rest of us can go on with our lives, without having to subsidize these sanctimonious doofuses, and make a better place for those who want it.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Pass Health Care, So We Can Get Rid Of The Big, Fat Idiot
If Congressional Dems cannot pass health care reform for the right reasons (you know, to help the uninsured, the underinsured, etc.), perhaps they can do it to get Rush Limbaugh to move.
The Enemy Of My Enemy Is.... Ken Starr?!?
If you had any doubt about the fact that an evil man without credibility can only give rise to an evil woman with no credibility, you have to look no further than Dick and Liz Cheney.
Their attacks on President Obama and his policy are so vile that even one of the vilest men of the 90's, Ken Starr, thought it fit to distance himself from the Cheneys.
Their attacks on President Obama and his policy are so vile that even one of the vilest men of the 90's, Ken Starr, thought it fit to distance himself from the Cheneys.
For Communists Only
And now that I have your attention, watch these two segments from last week's Bill Moyers Journal:
The first one, where communist Wendell Potter (formerly a vicepresident at Cigna) tries to convince socialist Bill Moyers that President Obama's health care reform plan is worth voting for.
The second one, where Marxist Marcia Angell (former Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine) argues for why we'd be better off with the status quo for a few more years.
At the end of the episode, Bill Moyers asked his viewers to express themselves in favor or in opposition of reform. I know my post does not answer the question, but it summarizes how I feel about the health care kabuki theater. In italics, below.
To a foreigner who has lived in the United States for almost twenty years, the health care reform debacle is almost incomprehensible. It becomes simple to understand once one reminds himself of the fact that Americans have been brainwashed to think of themselves as Number One, in every field of human endeavor, no matter all evidence to the contrary.
As everybody who has ever been the best at something knows, being Number One at anything requires not just confidence in one's strengths, but awareness of one's limits, something that most Americans are completely oblivious to.
That is how, in the midst of the health care reform fiasco, most Americans are shamefully blind to the fact that no other advanced country treats health care as a commodity, and that there are plenty of successful examples around the world of countries that have tamed the health care beast with better outcomes and at lower costs. Imagine how surprised most Americans would be to find out that, in spite of Republican fearmongering, many of those countries have thriving health insurance sectors.
You can't fix health care until you fix stupid.
The first one, where communist Wendell Potter (formerly a vicepresident at Cigna) tries to convince socialist Bill Moyers that President Obama's health care reform plan is worth voting for.
The second one, where Marxist Marcia Angell (former Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine) argues for why we'd be better off with the status quo for a few more years.
At the end of the episode, Bill Moyers asked his viewers to express themselves in favor or in opposition of reform. I know my post does not answer the question, but it summarizes how I feel about the health care kabuki theater. In italics, below.
To a foreigner who has lived in the United States for almost twenty years, the health care reform debacle is almost incomprehensible. It becomes simple to understand once one reminds himself of the fact that Americans have been brainwashed to think of themselves as Number One, in every field of human endeavor, no matter all evidence to the contrary.
As everybody who has ever been the best at something knows, being Number One at anything requires not just confidence in one's strengths, but awareness of one's limits, something that most Americans are completely oblivious to.
That is how, in the midst of the health care reform fiasco, most Americans are shamefully blind to the fact that no other advanced country treats health care as a commodity, and that there are plenty of successful examples around the world of countries that have tamed the health care beast with better outcomes and at lower costs. Imagine how surprised most Americans would be to find out that, in spite of Republican fearmongering, many of those countries have thriving health insurance sectors.
You can't fix health care until you fix stupid.
Monday, March 08, 2010
David Michael Green As A Modern Day Cassandra
"Keep yout passport current" is Michael Green's advice to progressive Americans as the next two or three election cycles complete the plundering and destruction of the American middle-class.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Stupid Political Correctness (And The Height Of Inconsistency)
Fresh from the Oscars, from the "In Memoriam" segment: Deceased actresses (e.g. Brittany Murphy, Jennifer Jones, etc.) identified by the on-screen caption "Actor". That during a show where awards are given out for best Actress in a Leading Role and best Actress in a Supporting Role.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Olson, Boies on Bill Moyers Journal
In 2000 (and the at the beginning of 2001) I had no love for Ted Olson, for his role in shutting down the recount that could have spared us 8 years of agony under the Bush quasi-dictatorship. (Actually the role Olson played was not as decisive as that of the 5 Supreme Court idiots that gave us the worst presidency in recent American history, and that includes the Reagan presidency.)
Anyway, last night's appearance by Ted Olson on the Bill Moyers Journal partly redeems him from the disgrace he so instrumentally contributed in unleashing upon the country ten years ago.
With David Boies, his opponent in Bush v. Gore, Olson made cogent, logical, unassailable arguments in favor of gay marriage. Those who still hold on to their illogical, slippery-slope-based arguments against allowing same-sex couple to marry, AFTER watching the conversation Olson and Boies had with Bill Moyers, are either irrational or dishonest (or both).
No rational human being can continue to defend this hateful form of discrimination using arguments that have been debunked and shown devoid of any basis over and over again, like those that Olson and Boies have countered in their impassioned and rational defense of the right of same-sex couple to marry in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
Denying same-sex couples "the right to be as miserable as everybody else" (as comedian Bill Maher would put it) is as despicable as denying people of different race or ethnicity the right to marry, which always comes down to trying to shove one' sense of religion-driven moral delusion down society's throat.
You can watch the whole discussion here.
Anyway, last night's appearance by Ted Olson on the Bill Moyers Journal partly redeems him from the disgrace he so instrumentally contributed in unleashing upon the country ten years ago.
With David Boies, his opponent in Bush v. Gore, Olson made cogent, logical, unassailable arguments in favor of gay marriage. Those who still hold on to their illogical, slippery-slope-based arguments against allowing same-sex couple to marry, AFTER watching the conversation Olson and Boies had with Bill Moyers, are either irrational or dishonest (or both).
No rational human being can continue to defend this hateful form of discrimination using arguments that have been debunked and shown devoid of any basis over and over again, like those that Olson and Boies have countered in their impassioned and rational defense of the right of same-sex couple to marry in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
Denying same-sex couples "the right to be as miserable as everybody else" (as comedian Bill Maher would put it) is as despicable as denying people of different race or ethnicity the right to marry, which always comes down to trying to shove one' sense of religion-driven moral delusion down society's throat.
You can watch the whole discussion here.
NBC Olympics Coverage Sucks, Once Again
I could go on and on and on to explain why NBC Olympics Coverage sucks. I won't. Suffice it to say that when I was a kid, in Italy, when the Olympics started I went "underground", only two resurface about two weeks later after watching hundreds of hours of live coverage of every conceivable contest.
Since I moved to the United States nearly 20 years ago, I have come to the conclusion that NBC is run by a bunch of morons who think that people will sit mesmerized by their "brilliant", tape-dalayed packaging of competitions that have ended hours before, making it nearly impossible for anyone who lives in the age of the Internet to watch a competition without knowing the results.
Not only that: they package races and matches in such a way that you can only know in which 5-6 hours span the competition you wish to watch will be shown, forcing you (only theoretically) to sit through 5-6 hours of unwatchable crap and commercials in order for you to enjoy the one race you were really interested about.
NBC = No brains corporation.
I just hope one day ABC/ESPN will snatch the broadcast rights from this incompetent, idiotic crowd.
Since I moved to the United States nearly 20 years ago, I have come to the conclusion that NBC is run by a bunch of morons who think that people will sit mesmerized by their "brilliant", tape-dalayed packaging of competitions that have ended hours before, making it nearly impossible for anyone who lives in the age of the Internet to watch a competition without knowing the results.
Not only that: they package races and matches in such a way that you can only know in which 5-6 hours span the competition you wish to watch will be shown, forcing you (only theoretically) to sit through 5-6 hours of unwatchable crap and commercials in order for you to enjoy the one race you were really interested about.
NBC = No brains corporation.
I just hope one day ABC/ESPN will snatch the broadcast rights from this incompetent, idiotic crowd.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
A Last Ditch Effort
Below is a letter I wrote to President Obama in a last ditch effort to convince him and his administration to back th public option. Feel free to do with it what you wish.
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing because time is running out to put a stop to the immoral conduct (when it is not downright criminal) of health insurance companies that use the free market as an excuse to raise premiums unreasonably, to drop customers who threaten their bottom line, to let them die for profit's sake. You, Mr. President, may be the common man's last bastion against these profiteers.
That is why I am writing. To remind you of the hope you represent for the middle class, of the power you have to make good things happen. You speak beautifully, Mr. President, but you will be judged not for what you say in your beautiful speeches, but for the actions you took in support of the speeches you made.
I am also writing to ask that you fight for our freedom. Freedom, you see, is not just a slogan to use on the stump, or to rally the "troops" behind a common cause (as when your predecessor said that "terrorists hate us for our freerdom"). Freedom is a tangible asset, too. But for too many, when it comes to health care, it is as intangible or inconsequential a concept as there ever was. What does freedom mean, if your choice is limited to the least harmful, less overpriced product? (One that, to add insult to injury, will soon be mandated at the individual level) What freedom do you have when you are all but chained to your employer because you cannot afford to lose your health benefits? What is freedom when you must use what little money is left at the end of the month to pay outrageous medical bills or premiums that no other resident of any civilized nation could even begin to imagine?
And, Mr. President, what is the meaning of freedom when your only hope against an expensive chronic medical condition (not necessarily a catastrophic one, but one that consumes, day after day, both your financial resources and your will to fight) is that you will fall below the poverty line, so you can receive public assistance if it is not too late?
I know that your plan addresses some of these issues, albeit too timidly. But it is not enough. What I hope, Mr. President, is that you will fill freedom with meaning, by backing the public option at last. It is, after all, only an option. Not a mandate or a socialist takeover of health care, but a choice, for those who want it. Freedom without options is just a word. Please make freedom tangible for Americans of all political convictions and walks of life.
Respectfully,
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing because time is running out to put a stop to the immoral conduct (when it is not downright criminal) of health insurance companies that use the free market as an excuse to raise premiums unreasonably, to drop customers who threaten their bottom line, to let them die for profit's sake. You, Mr. President, may be the common man's last bastion against these profiteers.
That is why I am writing. To remind you of the hope you represent for the middle class, of the power you have to make good things happen. You speak beautifully, Mr. President, but you will be judged not for what you say in your beautiful speeches, but for the actions you took in support of the speeches you made.
I am also writing to ask that you fight for our freedom. Freedom, you see, is not just a slogan to use on the stump, or to rally the "troops" behind a common cause (as when your predecessor said that "terrorists hate us for our freerdom"). Freedom is a tangible asset, too. But for too many, when it comes to health care, it is as intangible or inconsequential a concept as there ever was. What does freedom mean, if your choice is limited to the least harmful, less overpriced product? (One that, to add insult to injury, will soon be mandated at the individual level) What freedom do you have when you are all but chained to your employer because you cannot afford to lose your health benefits? What is freedom when you must use what little money is left at the end of the month to pay outrageous medical bills or premiums that no other resident of any civilized nation could even begin to imagine?
And, Mr. President, what is the meaning of freedom when your only hope against an expensive chronic medical condition (not necessarily a catastrophic one, but one that consumes, day after day, both your financial resources and your will to fight) is that you will fall below the poverty line, so you can receive public assistance if it is not too late?
I know that your plan addresses some of these issues, albeit too timidly. But it is not enough. What I hope, Mr. President, is that you will fill freedom with meaning, by backing the public option at last. It is, after all, only an option. Not a mandate or a socialist takeover of health care, but a choice, for those who want it. Freedom without options is just a word. Please make freedom tangible for Americans of all political convictions and walks of life.
Respectfully,
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
When Your Local Government Is Out To Screw You
I hate traffic light cameras. Where I live, I can think of a couple that I studiously avoid in order not to get caught in the lottery-like process that is crossing the intersection before the camera goes off. Turns out that many municipalities are tweaking the lenght of the yellow light to trap as many motorists as possible into getting caught running a red. And, they are doing it at the expense of driver safety.
It always comes down to this: we get the government we deserve, even at the local level.
It always comes down to this: we get the government we deserve, even at the local level.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Boycott FedEx
Chris Hedges's recent article explains why you should join him (and me) in boycotting FedEx.
FedEx is just one of countless American (and global) companies that view labor as a necessary evil to be kept to a minimum and to be reduced to serfdom.
Reading the article sparks one unavoidable question: Could what happened to Dean Henderson have happened in any civilized country? The answer is no, because civilized countries have universal health care (for my less sophisticated readers universal does not equate government-run.)
FedEx is just one of countless American (and global) companies that view labor as a necessary evil to be kept to a minimum and to be reduced to serfdom.
Reading the article sparks one unavoidable question: Could what happened to Dean Henderson have happened in any civilized country? The answer is no, because civilized countries have universal health care (for my less sophisticated readers universal does not equate government-run.)
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Stephen Colbert Savages Sarah Palin, F***ing Retard
Watch this. It's okay if you pee your pants.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Sarah Palin Uses a Hand-O-Prompter | ||||
| ||||
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Remembering Howard Zinn
Ralph Nader has ideas on how best to honor the memory of Howard Zinn, who passed away recently.
No Hell Hot Enough
There is no hell hot enough for health insurance companies like Anthem Blue Cross and the politicians that aid and abet them.
Things like these are a good reminder that Democrats (as a whole) are not much better than Republicans when it comes to fighting against moneyed interests on behalf of the people.
This is a sad, sad indictment of the commingling of business and politics and a good indication of the insanity of the electorate.
Things like these are a good reminder that Democrats (as a whole) are not much better than Republicans when it comes to fighting against moneyed interests on behalf of the people.
This is a sad, sad indictment of the commingling of business and politics and a good indication of the insanity of the electorate.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Splendid Ed Schultz Rant From Connecticut Free Clinic
First off, I'll say that I am not Ed Schultz's greatest fan. Often I consider his style unnecessarily abrasive, but his heart and mind seem to be fully behind health care reform. He has been an outspoken advocate of single-payer healthcare and/or the public option. Well, today Ed Schultz was in Hartford, where the National Association of Free Clinics was holding a one day-event to provide free visits, vaccinations, antibiotics and exams for over one thousand CT residents unable to afford or obtain health insurance.
Broadcasting from the Hartford Convention Center, Schultz went into an impromptu rant about the lack of compassion and decency that Congress and the President have shown to the people who suffer for the United States' unwillingness to treat all of its sons and daughters not equally but fairly in the face of health adversity. It is not often that you see someone so passionate and so compassionate use his mic and the cameras in front of him to shed light on the desperate plight of so many and on the national disgrace that many insist on calling the best health care in the world.
As a bonus, Ed Schultz called Sen. Lieberman a coward (for not standing up for the people of Connecticut and, presumably, for never accepting to defend on camera his indefensible obstructionism against the public option.) I will go one step further and call Sen. Lieberman what he is: an accessory to second-degree murder. He along with all those who stalled health care reform by threatening to filibuster any bill that contained the public option.
Watch.
Broadcasting from the Hartford Convention Center, Schultz went into an impromptu rant about the lack of compassion and decency that Congress and the President have shown to the people who suffer for the United States' unwillingness to treat all of its sons and daughters not equally but fairly in the face of health adversity. It is not often that you see someone so passionate and so compassionate use his mic and the cameras in front of him to shed light on the desperate plight of so many and on the national disgrace that many insist on calling the best health care in the world.
As a bonus, Ed Schultz called Sen. Lieberman a coward (for not standing up for the people of Connecticut and, presumably, for never accepting to defend on camera his indefensible obstructionism against the public option.) I will go one step further and call Sen. Lieberman what he is: an accessory to second-degree murder. He along with all those who stalled health care reform by threatening to filibuster any bill that contained the public option.
Watch.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Monday, February 01, 2010
A Possible Way Out Of Negative Equity
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), suggests that many homeowners who are burdened by negative equity (owing more on their home than their homes are worth) is to walk away from their mortgages and rent instead.
According to Baker's analyses, not only would homeowners themselves benefit by such a move, but the economy at large would benefit as well.
Unfortunately, the present administration (and any administration that will follow) is much more interested in keeping struggling homeowners in chains to the banks than in helping reverse the economic downward spiral that has middle class and poor Americans in its grips, and will continue its destructive policies for a long time to come.
What the architects and the beneficiaries of the New World Order understand is that they benefit the most by creating a modern slave economy, and they are fully intent on prosecuting any policy that will accelerate this enslavement process.
According to Baker's analyses, not only would homeowners themselves benefit by such a move, but the economy at large would benefit as well.
Unfortunately, the present administration (and any administration that will follow) is much more interested in keeping struggling homeowners in chains to the banks than in helping reverse the economic downward spiral that has middle class and poor Americans in its grips, and will continue its destructive policies for a long time to come.
What the architects and the beneficiaries of the New World Order understand is that they benefit the most by creating a modern slave economy, and they are fully intent on prosecuting any policy that will accelerate this enslavement process.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Accurate Comparisons
Devilstower at the Daily Kos draws an interesting comparison between the present State of the Union with the State of the Union in another not so distant time.
A Fitting Tribute To A Great Man, Howard Zinn
On the pages of the New York Times, Bob Herbert eulogizes Howard Zinn, the man, and his legacy to the world. It is well worth a read, to remind us not only of what we have lost, but of how much we have gained through Zinn's presence and work.
Perhaps the best demonstration of Zinn's gigantic stature as a historian, activist and principled human being came via Dave Horowitz, who said the following of his intellectual superior on the increasingly distasteful NPR: "There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn's intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect," as well as "Zinn represents a fringe mentality which as unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse."
The contempt that a dishonest and deceitful intellectual midget like Horowitz has for Zinn is proof that the latter has done things right on this earth.
Perhaps the best demonstration of Zinn's gigantic stature as a historian, activist and principled human being came via Dave Horowitz, who said the following of his intellectual superior on the increasingly distasteful NPR: "There is absolutely nothing in Howard Zinn's intellectual output that is worthy of any kind of respect," as well as "Zinn represents a fringe mentality which as unfortunately seduced millions of people at this point in time. So he did certainly alter the consciousness of millions of younger people for the worse."
The contempt that a dishonest and deceitful intellectual midget like Horowitz has for Zinn is proof that the latter has done things right on this earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)