Let's Get This Straight: There Is No Progressive Equivalent to the Right's Violent Rhetoric. Period.
You should also go to a bookstore or library and get yourself a copy of The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right, a timely and informative book.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Poverty Among the Elderly in the USA
Sad news, for the elderly of present times, and for the elderly of the future if we don't change course: According to new calculations by the U.S. Census Bureau, poverty among those 65 or older has risen to 16.1% in 2009.
If you remember nothing else from the article I linked to, remember this: "What the numbers show is that rather than Social Security benefits being too generous, they are too meager to keep one in six old folks out of poverty." And they, whereby I mean most Republicans, blue dog Democrats and, to a great extent, the President and his advisers, want to weaken Social Security, either by making you work longer (and pay you less in benefits as a result), and/or by reducing your Social Security payments. So, you see, bipartisanship is not a dream. It still happens, when the goal is sticking it to the little guy.
In the meantime, let's keep cutting taxes for the wealthiest 1% of the country, since 30 years of evidence that doing so does not produce the desired effect, i.e. an increase in the standard of living for everybody else, are not enough. We need to keep experimenting with the Laffer curve and Reaganomics until the number of the poor decreases so much (not because of an improvement in living conditions, no: we'll just stop counting them, like we do with about 50% of the unemployed) that the per-capita income for those who remain in the U.S.A. will rise.
How a country treats those who are closer to the end of their lives, those who have already contributed the most, at least in number of years and effort, is a good indicator of what those in power think of the rest of us. Increasingly, we are becoming expendable annoyances to the plutocrats and the ruling class, the pampered ones. Those who need the least get ever more, while those who are the neediest and least powerful are left to their devices, to whither away.
If you remember nothing else from the article I linked to, remember this: "What the numbers show is that rather than Social Security benefits being too generous, they are too meager to keep one in six old folks out of poverty." And they, whereby I mean most Republicans, blue dog Democrats and, to a great extent, the President and his advisers, want to weaken Social Security, either by making you work longer (and pay you less in benefits as a result), and/or by reducing your Social Security payments. So, you see, bipartisanship is not a dream. It still happens, when the goal is sticking it to the little guy.
In the meantime, let's keep cutting taxes for the wealthiest 1% of the country, since 30 years of evidence that doing so does not produce the desired effect, i.e. an increase in the standard of living for everybody else, are not enough. We need to keep experimenting with the Laffer curve and Reaganomics until the number of the poor decreases so much (not because of an improvement in living conditions, no: we'll just stop counting them, like we do with about 50% of the unemployed) that the per-capita income for those who remain in the U.S.A. will rise.
How a country treats those who are closer to the end of their lives, those who have already contributed the most, at least in number of years and effort, is a good indicator of what those in power think of the rest of us. Increasingly, we are becoming expendable annoyances to the plutocrats and the ruling class, the pampered ones. Those who need the least get ever more, while those who are the neediest and least powerful are left to their devices, to whither away.
What a Wonderful World It Could Be
Sen. Udall (D-CO) came up with a good idea for the upcoming State of the Union address: mixed seating.
Surely, it is only a "cosmetic gesture" (it would be as if, on this blog, I buried the hatchet and started calling them Republicans again), and surely it will not keep Repuglycans from voting for the repeal of "Obamacare" as scheduled. But sometimes, if rarely, symbolic gestures can lead to a change in tone between adversaries and to meaningful changes So kudos to Sen. Udall for a simple and thoughtful idea.
Surely, it is only a "cosmetic gesture" (it would be as if, on this blog, I buried the hatchet and started calling them Republicans again), and surely it will not keep Repuglycans from voting for the repeal of "Obamacare" as scheduled. But sometimes, if rarely, symbolic gestures can lead to a change in tone between adversaries and to meaningful changes So kudos to Sen. Udall for a simple and thoughtful idea.
The Lie of 2010 and the Sack o' Shit Who Came Up With It
Lie of the Year 2010: "Government Takeover". On that, more at the bottom of the post. But first things first: Let's talk about the sack o' shit first.
If you are very good at a job that requires you to be ready to lie at the drop of a hat, are you a brilliant professional of an unethical sack of shit? I pick the latter option.
The sack of shit that I refer to is Frank Luntz, an unethical douche of a pollster and opinion maker who has helped Repuglycans come up with some of the most doublespeak-ish expression in our recent political lives, as I showed in a post entitled One of America's Most Dangerous People Is Back. When I say "unethical douche", I am expressing an opinion only as far as the word douche goes. On the adjective unethical, I am backed by the opinion of The Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, who found that Luntz had "violated the Association's Code of Professional Ethics and Practices." And that was a formal violation of ethics, not to count all the deceitful and leading phrases that Luntz engineered over the years, of which you can find a few examples in my post referenced above.
Luntz, who always appears as a reasonable individual, a mask that hides the true intellectual mercenary sleazeball he is, also engineered what Politifact, an independent fact-checking organization, chose as the Lie of the Year for 2010: the phrase "government takeover" aimed at scaring people away from supporting health care reform.
It is my unshakable conviction that people like Luntz are both instrumental and complicit in the preventable deaths of thousands of Americans who will die for lack of adequate health services, services that in fact should be a pillar of any civilized country. But not in the United States of America. Where is hell when you need it?
If you are very good at a job that requires you to be ready to lie at the drop of a hat, are you a brilliant professional of an unethical sack of shit? I pick the latter option.
The sack of shit that I refer to is Frank Luntz, an unethical douche of a pollster and opinion maker who has helped Repuglycans come up with some of the most doublespeak-ish expression in our recent political lives, as I showed in a post entitled One of America's Most Dangerous People Is Back. When I say "unethical douche", I am expressing an opinion only as far as the word douche goes. On the adjective unethical, I am backed by the opinion of The Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, who found that Luntz had "violated the Association's Code of Professional Ethics and Practices." And that was a formal violation of ethics, not to count all the deceitful and leading phrases that Luntz engineered over the years, of which you can find a few examples in my post referenced above.
Luntz, who always appears as a reasonable individual, a mask that hides the true intellectual mercenary sleazeball he is, also engineered what Politifact, an independent fact-checking organization, chose as the Lie of the Year for 2010: the phrase "government takeover" aimed at scaring people away from supporting health care reform.
It is my unshakable conviction that people like Luntz are both instrumental and complicit in the preventable deaths of thousands of Americans who will die for lack of adequate health services, services that in fact should be a pillar of any civilized country. But not in the United States of America. Where is hell when you need it?
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Can we retire the "if everyone has guns, no one will need guns" theory now?
Every time there is a mass-murder incident, gun advocates tell us: It would not have happened if everyone had a gun. If an armed law-abiding citizen had been at the scene, they could have fought back and stopped the shooter. I heard this reasoning time and time again: after Virgina Tech, and after the many incidents of multiple shootings in schools and malls around the country. However appealing the theory may be to some, it always sound suspect to me (not to mention a bit crazy. The thought that we should promote the presence of armed teachers, janitors, students, and mall guards is something that only Americans would accept as worth considering.)
Now, after Tucson's shootings, Karoli at Crooks and Liars has this excellent question: "Can we retire the if everyone has guns, no one will need guns theory now?" That is a very good question indeed, reinforced by Karoli's impeccable arguments for it.
As Karoli says, "Arizona is an open carry state. It's not unusual at all for citizens to be carrying their guns, even to the supermarket." Besides, as many have pointed out, Arizona has very relaxed laws about getting and licensing guns. So, if everyone in Arizona can easily obtain and carry guns, how come the people who stopped Jared Lee Loughner's shooting spree did not use guns to do so, but their bare hands?
I would suggest that the solution to the firearm violence which plagues the United States more than any developed nation is not going to be solved with more firearms, but with more sanity. The problem is: How do you make, or keep, people sane in a country that thrives on (and rewards) instilling fear in its inhabitants, and that considers health care, particularly mental health care services, a luxury and a privilege instead of a right?
Now, after Tucson's shootings, Karoli at Crooks and Liars has this excellent question: "Can we retire the if everyone has guns, no one will need guns theory now?" That is a very good question indeed, reinforced by Karoli's impeccable arguments for it.
As Karoli says, "Arizona is an open carry state. It's not unusual at all for citizens to be carrying their guns, even to the supermarket." Besides, as many have pointed out, Arizona has very relaxed laws about getting and licensing guns. So, if everyone in Arizona can easily obtain and carry guns, how come the people who stopped Jared Lee Loughner's shooting spree did not use guns to do so, but their bare hands?
I would suggest that the solution to the firearm violence which plagues the United States more than any developed nation is not going to be solved with more firearms, but with more sanity. The problem is: How do you make, or keep, people sane in a country that thrives on (and rewards) instilling fear in its inhabitants, and that considers health care, particularly mental health care services, a luxury and a privilege instead of a right?
Jonah Goldberg's And His Batshit Crazy Liberal Fascism Theory
I just discovered this interesting post by David Neiwert, Historians vs. Jonah Goldberg, on the truly batshit crazy book by Jonah Goldberg entitled Liberal Fascism, in which the hopelessly inept would-be historian wastes 496 pages in an attempt to to make the point that fascism is a phenomenon not of the right, but of the left.
Because the book has become a favorite of the Tea Party's right, in spite of--or, more likely, just because of--its fantastic interpretation of facts and history, Neiwert has sought "a serious response from academics to Goldberg's traduced version of history", a version of history that Goldberg himself has hailed as "a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care."
Not everyone, particularly real historians, agrees with Goldberg's ass-essement of his own work, and a few historians responded to Neiwert's request to answer the book's batshit theory.
Here is a link to the History News Network website, which hosts the critiques and ensuing discussion of Goldberg's work of fiction. Below the Introduction by Neiwert himself you can find links to the critiques of Liberal Fascism by, among others, historians Robert O. Paxton (the author of The Anatomy of Fascism, one of the definitive books on the subject), and Matthew Feldman.
Because the book has become a favorite of the Tea Party's right, in spite of--or, more likely, just because of--its fantastic interpretation of facts and history, Neiwert has sought "a serious response from academics to Goldberg's traduced version of history", a version of history that Goldberg himself has hailed as "a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care."
Not everyone, particularly real historians, agrees with Goldberg's ass-essement of his own work, and a few historians responded to Neiwert's request to answer the book's batshit theory.
Here is a link to the History News Network website, which hosts the critiques and ensuing discussion of Goldberg's work of fiction. Below the Introduction by Neiwert himself you can find links to the critiques of Liberal Fascism by, among others, historians Robert O. Paxton (the author of The Anatomy of Fascism, one of the definitive books on the subject), and Matthew Feldman.
Wendell Potter, Health Insurance Expert, on the "Repeal Obamacare" Movement
If you read nothing else on this blog, you have to read this remarkably insightful and clear piece by Wendell Potter, former health insurance executive turned whistleblower, on the real goals of the Repeal Obamacare movement in Congress.
And before the right-wing nuts start protesting that Potter uses the phrase "deadly spin" to describe conservative efforts to change the law, hence liberals are guilty of the same behavior they accuse right-wingers of, consider this: 45,000 people or more die in the United States every year of preventable or curable illnesses because they are uninsured or underinsured. So, tell me, how's that for deadly, and for false equivalences?
And before the right-wing nuts start protesting that Potter uses the phrase "deadly spin" to describe conservative efforts to change the law, hence liberals are guilty of the same behavior they accuse right-wingers of, consider this: 45,000 people or more die in the United States every year of preventable or curable illnesses because they are uninsured or underinsured. So, tell me, how's that for deadly, and for false equivalences?
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Oh Dear! The Curmudgeon Is At It Again! - UPDATED
The Curmudgeon's latest post is a defense of intelligent design against god of the gaps accusations. Says the Curmudgeon:
Rather than go into a full-fledged, futile diatribe with Dr. Groothuis (as Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"), I would suggest that you read this long and detailed but very informative reply by Prof. Myers (a biologist, I should add) to a fairly typical creationist plea that ID, a.k.a. creationism, should be taken seriously.
The reply contains some important points, such as the fact that weaknesses in evolution do not in fact represent evidence for intelligent design (as Myers says, "[a]rguing that there are weaknesses in evolution--which are typically bad arguments, anyway, but that's another matter--does not mean that Genesis is right"), or the fact that supernatural explanations are subject to the evidentiary tests of the scientific method, and that scientist should not get involved in debates with creationists because a) they are an eminent waste of time and b) they are just attempts by creationists to gain legitimacy through the credibility of their opponents (scientists).
In fact, you should also read How to respond to requests to debate creationists.
UPDATE:
Since Groothuis mentions Bill Dembski's The Design Revolution, you might be interested in reading what a couple of scientists think about it:
The design revolution?
A review of Dembski's The Design Revolution
Many have responded to this old canard, such as Bill Dembski in The Design Revolution and myself in my forthcoming book, Christian Apologetics. "God of the gaps" just presupposes that naturalism can explain everything; if it faces an explanatory problem, it refuses to consider a non-natural explanation involving original, intelligent causation. That is dismissed as "god of the gaps." It is an air-tight strategy that begs the question in favor of naturalism. Yes, some theistic explanations have failed, but not all. Moreover, many naturalistic explanations have and continue to fail.
Rather than go into a full-fledged, futile diatribe with Dr. Groothuis (as Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"), I would suggest that you read this long and detailed but very informative reply by Prof. Myers (a biologist, I should add) to a fairly typical creationist plea that ID, a.k.a. creationism, should be taken seriously.
The reply contains some important points, such as the fact that weaknesses in evolution do not in fact represent evidence for intelligent design (as Myers says, "[a]rguing that there are weaknesses in evolution--which are typically bad arguments, anyway, but that's another matter--does not mean that Genesis is right"), or the fact that supernatural explanations are subject to the evidentiary tests of the scientific method, and that scientist should not get involved in debates with creationists because a) they are an eminent waste of time and b) they are just attempts by creationists to gain legitimacy through the credibility of their opponents (scientists).
In fact, you should also read How to respond to requests to debate creationists.
UPDATE:
Since Groothuis mentions Bill Dembski's The Design Revolution, you might be interested in reading what a couple of scientists think about it:
The design revolution?
A review of Dembski's The Design Revolution
Worst Persons In The World
Keith Olbermann said last night that he is, once again reconsidering the format and name of his "Worst Persons in the World" segment. Here's my suggestion: Call it "Piece of Shit du-jour" and make Rush Limbaugh (henceforth "Limpballs") its sole feature. The man is a sewer-mouthed piece of shit anyway, so chances the segment will upset anyone with a brain more developed than a fly's are next to none.
This is what the piece of shit du-jour said today, talking about the perpetrator of Tucson's slaughter of the innocents:
"Mr. Loughner... has the full support of a major political party in this country... the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame." On behalf anyone who is not a rabid consumer of the shit peddled daily by the likes of Limpballs, Hannity, Sarah Beyond the Palin, and other esteemed Fox News contributors, I say to Rush Limpballs: Fuck you, you piece of shit du-jour.
I already expressed this thought on this blog, in this post, and I will unashamedly do it again here: "My wife tells me that it is not good to wish for people to die, but I will take Rush Limbaugh as my mulligan. Let's be unequivocally clear: I am not advocating for anyone to kill him, but an oxycontin overdose?" Never underestimate the evil power of an evil individual on the psyche of the feeble-minded. This country, this planet, will be better off the day Rush Limbaugh croaks.
P.S. I understand that calling Rush Limpballs "a sewer-mouthed piece of shit" makes me sound sewer-mouthed myself (and in some people's eyes, no doubt, also a piece of shit.) If that's the case, stop reading here, because it's gonna get worse.
This is what the piece of shit du-jour said today, talking about the perpetrator of Tucson's slaughter of the innocents:
"Mr. Loughner... has the full support of a major political party in this country... the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame." On behalf anyone who is not a rabid consumer of the shit peddled daily by the likes of Limpballs, Hannity, Sarah Beyond the Palin, and other esteemed Fox News contributors, I say to Rush Limpballs: Fuck you, you piece of shit du-jour.
I already expressed this thought on this blog, in this post, and I will unashamedly do it again here: "My wife tells me that it is not good to wish for people to die, but I will take Rush Limbaugh as my mulligan. Let's be unequivocally clear: I am not advocating for anyone to kill him, but an oxycontin overdose?" Never underestimate the evil power of an evil individual on the psyche of the feeble-minded. This country, this planet, will be better off the day Rush Limbaugh croaks.
P.S. I understand that calling Rush Limpballs "a sewer-mouthed piece of shit" makes me sound sewer-mouthed myself (and in some people's eyes, no doubt, also a piece of shit.) If that's the case, stop reading here, because it's gonna get worse.
There is a difference between calling a spade a spade, as I did in calling Rush Limpballs a piece of shit, and using one's mouth, as Limpballs does day after day after day, to regurgitate evil and--most importantly--patently false shit, about your political opponents. Limpballs will twist facts until they are unrecognizable, indistinguishable from the smoking lump of human excrement that Limpballs himself is.
A Good Definition of Violent Rhetoric
I came across a post which does a good job of defining violent rhetoric, on the Daily Kos.
And, while you read about violent rhetoric, please also read this post by the always incisive Joan McCarter of the Daily Kos, which highlights a few examples of violent rhetoric and why it almost certainly contributed to the actions of Saturday's killer in Arizona.
And, while you read about violent rhetoric, please also read this post by the always incisive Joan McCarter of the Daily Kos, which highlights a few examples of violent rhetoric and why it almost certainly contributed to the actions of Saturday's killer in Arizona.
Social Security in the Cross-hairs, Again
While the news has been monopolized over the last few days by Rep. Giffords's failed assassination attempt, another assassination attempt is going on, this one in the rooms of Washington D.C.. The target in the cross-hairs? Social Security.
I use words like assassination and cross-hairs fully aware of their incendiary power, but using blander, more politically correct words would not render justice to truth, because there is a large number of politicians, not all of whom are Republicans, who are intent on killing Social Security as we know it, eager as they are to transfer its huge wealth to the coffers of private corporations.
The slashing of Social Security benefits, or the proposed increase in the retirement age, are just the first steps in the dismantling of a system that has served American seniors well for almost four decades, the real intent being the ultimate death of the publicly financed system and its replacement with a fully-privatized one.
In utter disbelief, progressives have seen President Obama, the supposed paladin of the middle-class, steadily retreat to the position of those who would destroy Social Security as we know it. He did so first by instituting a fiscal commission with the responsibility to find ways to balance the budget; given its highly tilted composition, the commission unsurprisingly came up with cuts to Social Security as a a preferred method for achieving the desired result. Then, under the protection offered him by his commission's findings, the President has been moving ever more to the right on Social Security reform, to curry the favor of deficit hawks and his Wall Street uberlords. As Austan Goolsbeee, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers said in reply to a question by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on the future of Social Security: "[T]he president has always said, let's not automatically rule everything out before we even begin." How does that sound to you for making a stand against the attempt to kill Social Security?
For more on the assault on Social Security, read Robert Kuttner's Zero Hour for Social Security.
I use words like assassination and cross-hairs fully aware of their incendiary power, but using blander, more politically correct words would not render justice to truth, because there is a large number of politicians, not all of whom are Republicans, who are intent on killing Social Security as we know it, eager as they are to transfer its huge wealth to the coffers of private corporations.
The slashing of Social Security benefits, or the proposed increase in the retirement age, are just the first steps in the dismantling of a system that has served American seniors well for almost four decades, the real intent being the ultimate death of the publicly financed system and its replacement with a fully-privatized one.
In utter disbelief, progressives have seen President Obama, the supposed paladin of the middle-class, steadily retreat to the position of those who would destroy Social Security as we know it. He did so first by instituting a fiscal commission with the responsibility to find ways to balance the budget; given its highly tilted composition, the commission unsurprisingly came up with cuts to Social Security as a a preferred method for achieving the desired result. Then, under the protection offered him by his commission's findings, the President has been moving ever more to the right on Social Security reform, to curry the favor of deficit hawks and his Wall Street uberlords. As Austan Goolsbeee, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers said in reply to a question by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on the future of Social Security: "[T]he president has always said, let's not automatically rule everything out before we even begin." How does that sound to you for making a stand against the attempt to kill Social Security?
For more on the assault on Social Security, read Robert Kuttner's Zero Hour for Social Security.
Making a Living Making Shit Up
Thanks to outlets like Faux News, it has become possible for an incredibly large number of ignorant asses to make a living making shit. This includes the experts, pundits, and hosts that spew falsehoods and misinformation to their complicit and ignorant audience, as well as politicians who would have been laughed out of any congress in any serious nation in the world.
Anyway, one of the individuals who best exemplify this situation is--you guessed it!--Glenn Beck. So it is always nice when someone finds the time to debunk Beck's inane statements for what they are: the ignorant rants of a man who makes a living by making shit up that people are eager to scarf down in their infinite gullibility an ignorance.
This time it's University of Pennsylvania history professor Rick Beeman who gives Beck a well-deserved and humbling lesson after Beck said that the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution was a step TOWARDS the abolition of slavery. Beeman's reaction? "My Goodness -- Glenn Beck got it completely wrong." Media Matter's takedown of Beck's ignorant bleating is well worth a read.
Anyway, one of the individuals who best exemplify this situation is--you guessed it!--Glenn Beck. So it is always nice when someone finds the time to debunk Beck's inane statements for what they are: the ignorant rants of a man who makes a living by making shit up that people are eager to scarf down in their infinite gullibility an ignorance.
This time it's University of Pennsylvania history professor Rick Beeman who gives Beck a well-deserved and humbling lesson after Beck said that the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution was a step TOWARDS the abolition of slavery. Beeman's reaction? "My Goodness -- Glenn Beck got it completely wrong." Media Matter's takedown of Beck's ignorant bleating is well worth a read.
Monday, January 10, 2011
One Man's Killer Is Another Man's Disturbed Individual - UPDATED
Much has already been said to try and explain Jared Lee Louhgner's evil actions last Saturday in Arizona, and many theories have been advanced on what might have driven him to commit multiple murders. The theory that prevails on the left is that the vitriolic political climate might have had an effect on Loughner's actions, while the right has immediately coalesced around the "very disturbed individual" explanation. I admit that I am in the former camp, so I put my bias in the open. But I have one question for those who advocate the "very disturbed individual" explanation: Who, if not disturbed individuals, commit actions like Loughner's? And why does being disturbed immediately disqualify toxic influences as an explanation?
People who are not disturbed on some level do not walk into a Safeway with a semi-automatic weapon with the intent of killing as many people as possible, including a congresswoman. Sane people do not say: "Honey, I am going to Safeway to pick up some groceries and to commit multiple murders, I'll be back by lunch."
Alas, being disturbed and being prone to being incited by hate-speech to commit heinous acts are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, it is quite likely that people who suffer from some kind of mental illness characterized by aggression against others are particularly susceptible to incitement to commit violent acts. If this is true, then does it not follow that those who promote the demonization of their adversaries and violent imagery against them are complicit, even indirectly so, with the actions committed by the disturbed amongst us?
No one can seriously contend that Jim Adkisson, the man who shot and killed two congregants at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, was not a disturbed individual. But could books found on Adkisson bookshelf, like "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by Michael Savage, or "Let Freedom Ring" by Sean Hannity, have had an effect on Adkisson's disturbed psyche? Is there a point where mental illness and violent rhetoric meet, pushing a disturbed individual to act out his evil ideas?
And not all those who commit heinous acts of violence can be indisputably accused of acting out of being disturbed. Take Scott Roeder, for example: he is the man who shot and killed Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas doctor known to many anti-choicers (there is a different between being pro-life and being against abortion) as "Tiller the Killer", because he provided abortion services. Roeder may be a despicable individual, and in many's opinion a greatly disturbed individual, but he did not carry out murder because he was clinically or temporarily insane; he did it because he wanted to "protect the unborn." Therefore, saying that there is no link between the anti-choice rhetoric that portrays abortion as the destruction of a life and not as a legal medical service, or that speaks of murder instead of the voluntary termination of a pregnancy protected under Roe v. Wade, and the actions of Dr. Tiller would be disingenuous.
Was Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the perpetrator of the 2009 Fort Hood killings, simply a disturbed individual, or was he acting out his rational but violent response to "the refusal of Hasan's superiors to process his requests that sought to have some of his patients prosecuted for war crimes based on statements they made during psychiatric sessions with him"?
Actions, and words, do have consequences, however unintended and unpredictable. The Right's denial of any link between acts of violence and what people say or do, and the dismissal of such acts as the work of disturbed individuals do not invalidate the cause-and-effect relationship that often exists in these violent incidents.
We may eventually learn what led Loughner to act as he did last Saturday. Do not be surprised if a link can be established between his actions and the words of professional hatemongers on the right.
UPDATE:
Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, makes many of the same points I made above in his typically impatient and acerbic way, and establishes a direct link between Loughner's killings and the right-wing's violent rhetoric.
People who are not disturbed on some level do not walk into a Safeway with a semi-automatic weapon with the intent of killing as many people as possible, including a congresswoman. Sane people do not say: "Honey, I am going to Safeway to pick up some groceries and to commit multiple murders, I'll be back by lunch."
Alas, being disturbed and being prone to being incited by hate-speech to commit heinous acts are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, it is quite likely that people who suffer from some kind of mental illness characterized by aggression against others are particularly susceptible to incitement to commit violent acts. If this is true, then does it not follow that those who promote the demonization of their adversaries and violent imagery against them are complicit, even indirectly so, with the actions committed by the disturbed amongst us?
No one can seriously contend that Jim Adkisson, the man who shot and killed two congregants at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, was not a disturbed individual. But could books found on Adkisson bookshelf, like "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by Michael Savage, or "Let Freedom Ring" by Sean Hannity, have had an effect on Adkisson's disturbed psyche? Is there a point where mental illness and violent rhetoric meet, pushing a disturbed individual to act out his evil ideas?
And not all those who commit heinous acts of violence can be indisputably accused of acting out of being disturbed. Take Scott Roeder, for example: he is the man who shot and killed Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas doctor known to many anti-choicers (there is a different between being pro-life and being against abortion) as "Tiller the Killer", because he provided abortion services. Roeder may be a despicable individual, and in many's opinion a greatly disturbed individual, but he did not carry out murder because he was clinically or temporarily insane; he did it because he wanted to "protect the unborn." Therefore, saying that there is no link between the anti-choice rhetoric that portrays abortion as the destruction of a life and not as a legal medical service, or that speaks of murder instead of the voluntary termination of a pregnancy protected under Roe v. Wade, and the actions of Dr. Tiller would be disingenuous.
Was Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the perpetrator of the 2009 Fort Hood killings, simply a disturbed individual, or was he acting out his rational but violent response to "the refusal of Hasan's superiors to process his requests that sought to have some of his patients prosecuted for war crimes based on statements they made during psychiatric sessions with him"?
Actions, and words, do have consequences, however unintended and unpredictable. The Right's denial of any link between acts of violence and what people say or do, and the dismissal of such acts as the work of disturbed individuals do not invalidate the cause-and-effect relationship that often exists in these violent incidents.
We may eventually learn what led Loughner to act as he did last Saturday. Do not be surprised if a link can be established between his actions and the words of professional hatemongers on the right.
UPDATE:
Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, makes many of the same points I made above in his typically impatient and acerbic way, and establishes a direct link between Loughner's killings and the right-wing's violent rhetoric.
Krugman, Kos On Political Climate and Arizona Killings
Rather than acknowledging that too much toxic talk--most, in fact--comes from the right wing of the political spectrum, the righties are circling the wagons and dusting off their Bill Ayers references to demonstrate that liberals are just as violent. They are calling the shooter a madmen and rejecting any link between his actions and the inflammatory rhetoric peddled mostly by conservative talking heads and politicians.
Two important posts about Arizona's killings.
One by Paul Krugman, Climate of Hate; the other one by Kos, Manufacturing false equivalencies.
Keep these two posts in mind when you hear conservative talk about how there is no link between violent rhetoric and killings, and how both sides are guilty of inflaming the instincts of crazy people.
Two important posts about Arizona's killings.
One by Paul Krugman, Climate of Hate; the other one by Kos, Manufacturing false equivalencies.
Keep these two posts in mind when you hear conservative talk about how there is no link between violent rhetoric and killings, and how both sides are guilty of inflaming the instincts of crazy people.
Second Amendment Insanity
It would be nice if, once in a while, heinous acts like yesterday's killings in Arizona were committed by sane right-wing individuals, aided and abetted by proud right-wing radio instigators. Alas, no suck luck.
Right-wing talk show hosts, even those who jokingly condone or blatantly advocate violence against liberals, always deny any involvement in the violent acts of those who take their words without the required grain of salt.
Worse, the perpetrators are never sane individuals. As right-wing hosts are always ready tell us, the perpetrators are always deranged individuals, detached from their surroundings and from the vitriol they would be exposed to if only they were not dangerous schizophrenics with no connection to the external world.
In the right-wing world, where violent rhetoric is inconsequential, where there is no cause and effect relationship between the words of an instigator and the actions of a madman, violence is always inexplicable, surely the result of individual folly.
The problem is that right-wingers think that everyone in the world is sane when it comes to the protection of Second Amendment rights. It is only AFTER those rights have been abused that we find out that the supposedly sane gun owner was in fact an insane perpetrator.
Right-wing talk show hosts, even those who jokingly condone or blatantly advocate violence against liberals, always deny any involvement in the violent acts of those who take their words without the required grain of salt.
Worse, the perpetrators are never sane individuals. As right-wing hosts are always ready tell us, the perpetrators are always deranged individuals, detached from their surroundings and from the vitriol they would be exposed to if only they were not dangerous schizophrenics with no connection to the external world.
In the right-wing world, where violent rhetoric is inconsequential, where there is no cause and effect relationship between the words of an instigator and the actions of a madman, violence is always inexplicable, surely the result of individual folly.
The problem is that right-wingers think that everyone in the world is sane when it comes to the protection of Second Amendment rights. It is only AFTER those rights have been abused that we find out that the supposedly sane gun owner was in fact an insane perpetrator.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Arizona Shootings
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Dripping Irony
I don't doubt that the man's intentions are good, but when Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said that Arizona has "become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry" [emphasis added], did he miss the prejudice and bigotry in his own statement?
The Second Amendment Remedies Loons
It appears now clear that the shooter in today's spree at a Safeway in Tucson is a loon of the second amendment remedies kind. His My Space and You Tube pages seem to bear that out.
Whether the primary motivation for today's shooting spree is political or not (and the circumstantial evidence suggests that it is), this episode once again calls for a stop to the violent rhetoric employed by the right-wing, no longer just fringe but becoming mainstream day after day.
Think of the calls to second-amendment remedies invoked by Harry Reid's opponent, Sharron Angle, in the November election. Think about the rhetoric of people like Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, all of whom demonize their political opponents, often suggesting the very essence and future of America is in jeopardy and that liberals must be stopped at all costs.
The curtain of denial erected by right-wing extremists and endorsed by respectable conservatives (a class seemingly going the way of dinosaurs) must fall.
The anti-intellectualism that many right-wingers boast of leads to ridiculing civil discourse and to the less balanced elements on the right-end of the political spectrum literally thinking that they must take up arms to defend the Constitution (which they do not understand), the nation (against anyone who has a different opinion) and the idea of an America so retrograde as to induce horror in those of a progressive mind. Their ideal of America is so fantastic as to elicit sympathy for those who have conceived it, and so out of touch with the actual past that the likely future invoked by demagogues seems all too real to the extremist wing of the conservative movement. Because, after all, those who know nothing of the real struggles, the real injustices and the real horror of the real past are doomed to repeat it.
Whether the primary motivation for today's shooting spree is political or not (and the circumstantial evidence suggests that it is), this episode once again calls for a stop to the violent rhetoric employed by the right-wing, no longer just fringe but becoming mainstream day after day.
Think of the calls to second-amendment remedies invoked by Harry Reid's opponent, Sharron Angle, in the November election. Think about the rhetoric of people like Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, all of whom demonize their political opponents, often suggesting the very essence and future of America is in jeopardy and that liberals must be stopped at all costs.
The curtain of denial erected by right-wing extremists and endorsed by respectable conservatives (a class seemingly going the way of dinosaurs) must fall.
The anti-intellectualism that many right-wingers boast of leads to ridiculing civil discourse and to the less balanced elements on the right-end of the political spectrum literally thinking that they must take up arms to defend the Constitution (which they do not understand), the nation (against anyone who has a different opinion) and the idea of an America so retrograde as to induce horror in those of a progressive mind. Their ideal of America is so fantastic as to elicit sympathy for those who have conceived it, and so out of touch with the actual past that the likely future invoked by demagogues seems all too real to the extremist wing of the conservative movement. Because, after all, those who know nothing of the real struggles, the real injustices and the real horror of the real past are doomed to repeat it.
Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) Shot In Tucson
Chilling news from Arizona. A gunman shot Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford (D-AZ) in the head at a Safeway in Arizona. Ms. Gifford is reportedly still alive and undergoing surgery. It is now also known that a federal judge was also shot and killed during this incident, and several others were injured (18 people, according to the Sheriff's office at a press conference).
A 22 year-old man has been detained for the shooting. The motive is still unclear, but Ms. Gifford's office was vandalized last year hours before the House vote on health care reform, so it is not inconceivable that this might be a politically motivated crime.
Newly-elected Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner said: "Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society." True, and before the motive is ascertained we all would do well to withhold judgement on this violent act. Still, the Tea-Party and the Republican Party have raised the violent rhetoric in recent years (think of the McCain-Palin rallies of 2008 and of the anti-health care reform rallies last year). Obviously right-wing politicians and activists carry a lot of the blame for the current violent climate, and for episodes such as the killing of Dr. Tiller, death threats to the President, and so forth, no statement to the contrary notwithstanding.
A 22 year-old man has been detained for the shooting. The motive is still unclear, but Ms. Gifford's office was vandalized last year hours before the House vote on health care reform, so it is not inconceivable that this might be a politically motivated crime.
Newly-elected Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner said: "Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society." True, and before the motive is ascertained we all would do well to withhold judgement on this violent act. Still, the Tea-Party and the Republican Party have raised the violent rhetoric in recent years (think of the McCain-Palin rallies of 2008 and of the anti-health care reform rallies last year). Obviously right-wing politicians and activists carry a lot of the blame for the current violent climate, and for episodes such as the killing of Dr. Tiller, death threats to the President, and so forth, no statement to the contrary notwithstanding.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
It's Not The Number of Jobs, Stupid!
I hear a lot of talk from Repuglycans about fostering a business environment that will result in millions of jobs being created, and I find it insulting: The type of jobs Republican policies lead to creating is minimum wage jobs, or only marginally better.
When your philosophy, like the Republican Party's, is that unions are evil, that any type of market regulation is noxious for business, that you should cave in to big business--scratch that: that you should pave the way for business to exploit workers in America in exchange for jobs not being shipped to India, then the jobs you are seeking to create are not living wage jobs: they are modern-day slave jobs. Hence, when you say that you are trying to create millions of jobs for American workers you are not being square with the American people.
The Repuglycan philosophy about jobs is summarized in the headline of the latest post over at the Daily Kos: Low-wage jobs lead in new hiring. In other words, get ready to work more, for less money and with slimmer benefits than you had before. And since the money you make now determines your social security benefits in the future, prepare to work for a very, very long time, since retiring is out of the question. Oh, and try to stay healthy, or--as former Representative Alan Grayson said last year--if you get sick the Repuglycan health care plan for you is this: die quickly (i.e., keep the costs for your employer to a minimum.)
You want proof that Repuglycans see you as modern slaves? They just renamed the Education and Labor Committee as Education and Workforce Committee. What's in a word? Says the WSJ: "Workforce is a term employers are likely to use, while labor is more evocative of the union movement—after all, they call it the American Federation of Labor." A minor shift in words, but a major shift in attitude.
When your philosophy, like the Republican Party's, is that unions are evil, that any type of market regulation is noxious for business, that you should cave in to big business--scratch that: that you should pave the way for business to exploit workers in America in exchange for jobs not being shipped to India, then the jobs you are seeking to create are not living wage jobs: they are modern-day slave jobs. Hence, when you say that you are trying to create millions of jobs for American workers you are not being square with the American people.
The Repuglycan philosophy about jobs is summarized in the headline of the latest post over at the Daily Kos: Low-wage jobs lead in new hiring. In other words, get ready to work more, for less money and with slimmer benefits than you had before. And since the money you make now determines your social security benefits in the future, prepare to work for a very, very long time, since retiring is out of the question. Oh, and try to stay healthy, or--as former Representative Alan Grayson said last year--if you get sick the Repuglycan health care plan for you is this: die quickly (i.e., keep the costs for your employer to a minimum.)
You want proof that Repuglycans see you as modern slaves? They just renamed the Education and Labor Committee as Education and Workforce Committee. What's in a word? Says the WSJ: "Workforce is a term employers are likely to use, while labor is more evocative of the union movement—after all, they call it the American Federation of Labor." A minor shift in words, but a major shift in attitude.
It's Complicated
There is a new keyboard out for the Android OS, called 8pen.
The premise is correct: QWERTY keyboards where created for the typewriter/computer, so they lead to clumsy typing and many errors. But the droid solution seems worse than the problem it's trying to solve.
Watch the 8pen demo (that's the name of the new keyboard). If you are not dizzy by the end you are a more adaptable animal than I am.
My bet? It will be a flop, though it might eventually lead to better typing systems for smartphones than the one we currently endure.
The premise is correct: QWERTY keyboards where created for the typewriter/computer, so they lead to clumsy typing and many errors. But the droid solution seems worse than the problem it's trying to solve.
Watch the 8pen demo (that's the name of the new keyboard). If you are not dizzy by the end you are a more adaptable animal than I am.
My bet? It will be a flop, though it might eventually lead to better typing systems for smartphones than the one we currently endure.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
America, The Brainwashed
On a recent trip to Italy, I spoke with a friend who works for a large Italian insurance company. We discussed health insurance. He is an intelligent, well-educated man, one year older than I am. He expressed his bewilderment that any country would place the health care needs of its citizens almost entirely in the hands of for profit entities whose first and foremost concern is dividends for shareholders. I agree: No civilized country would leave so much little regulated power over its citizens' lives in the hands of insurance companies.
If you live in the U.S. and years of pledging allegiance to the flag, chanting "number one" in the face of the obvious, and getting up for your national anthem before sport events have left you under the false impression that you live in a civilized country then read this: Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes of as much as 59% for individuals. Then, for good measure, read this: 2nd person denied Arizona transplant coverage dies.
Death panels, socialist medicine, government between a patient and his doctor, insurance companies will go out of business, I pledge allegiance to the flag..., God Bless America, America is a Christian nation... that lets the poor die un- or under-insured, too far gone to come to its senses, and deserving of what's coming.
If you live in the U.S. and years of pledging allegiance to the flag, chanting "number one" in the face of the obvious, and getting up for your national anthem before sport events have left you under the false impression that you live in a civilized country then read this: Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes of as much as 59% for individuals. Then, for good measure, read this: 2nd person denied Arizona transplant coverage dies.
Death panels, socialist medicine, government between a patient and his doctor, insurance companies will go out of business, I pledge allegiance to the flag..., God Bless America, America is a Christian nation... that lets the poor die un- or under-insured, too far gone to come to its senses, and deserving of what's coming.
Journalistic Malpractice
In Fiscal Shock renowned economist and Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman calls out the media on the pass they regularly give to Republicans, who rail against deficits and yet epitomize fiscal irresponsibility.
Scathingly, Krugman writes: "Republicans have, after all, been the party of fiscal irresponsibility since 1980; the GW Bush administration confirmed, if anyone was in doubt, that unfunded tax cuts are now in the party’s DNA."
Scathingly, Krugman writes: "Republicans have, after all, been the party of fiscal irresponsibility since 1980; the GW Bush administration confirmed, if anyone was in doubt, that unfunded tax cuts are now in the party’s DNA."
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
The Proof Is In The Pudding (UPDATED)
You think Washington works with your best interest in mind?
Get this: Fed Moves To Gut Predatory Lending Regulation.
You and I don't matter. Money for the oligarchs does, only money for the oligarchs.
UPDATE:
It seems the Fed has now reversed its opposition to tougher rules against foreclosure abuses.
Get this: Fed Moves To Gut Predatory Lending Regulation.
You and I don't matter. Money for the oligarchs does, only money for the oligarchs.
UPDATE:
It seems the Fed has now reversed its opposition to tougher rules against foreclosure abuses.
Talking The Talk? Then Walk The Walk.
Sen. Schumer (NY) is right: Those politicians who oppose any form of government-funded health care should give up their own government-funded healthcare.
You Cannot Be Both
You can be a republican politician with presidential ambitions or you can be serious but, as Keith Olbermann deftly showed last night, you cannot be both.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Monday, January 03, 2011
Ralph Nader, via Chris Hedges
Read this important piece by Chris Hedges on the necessity of making a stand and on rejecting the political status quo, the two-party system.
It rather reminds me of this quote, the attribution of which is uncertain: "The United States is also a one-party state. But with typical American extravagance, they have two of them."
It rather reminds me of this quote, the attribution of which is uncertain: "The United States is also a one-party state. But with typical American extravagance, they have two of them."
Sunday, January 02, 2011
Let The Circus Begin
Darrell Issa, the richest representative in the House and likely House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chair, wasted no time in calling Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times."
This type of judgement is particularly bewildering coming after Issa's silence on the most corrupt and corrupting Republican administration in recent history at least, the W. administration.
This type of judgement is particularly bewildering coming after Issa's silence on the most corrupt and corrupting Republican administration in recent history at least, the W. administration.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Robert Reich on the Political Parties' Narratives
Robert Reich has the usual insightful take on the situation of the American economy, and American politics, in the latest issue of the American Prospect. Below are some highlights.
I disagree with Prof. Reich that Obama's biggest failure has been the inability to connect the dots. It is not that Obama has been incapable of connecting the dots, it's that he has not been willing to do so, for reasons that--I suspect--are much less excusable than inability. We are living through yet another smokescreen presidency, on the inevitable road to the destruction of the American middle-class. Obama is not a victim of his inability, he is an accomplice in for-profit spinelessness.
Also, in addition to the rise of income to the top that Reich highlights in his article, another thing that has risen at the same pace as the influence of money in politics is the influence of right-wing evangelicals on the American landscape. Instead of decrying the corrupt influence of money in politics, most evangelicals have been trained on the idea, which they are spreading uncritically, that government--not corrupting wealth--is the cause of most or all societal evils, that the current embodiment of the free market, free in name only, is essential to the prosperity of Americans, and that salvation lies in believing in a gospel that denies science, progress, and the need for social justice and that promotes and rewards the cult of the mavericky individual and uncritical submission to irrational ideas.
In any case, and in spite of some negligible flaws, you should read the whole article, Telling Tales, to educate yourself against Republican misinformation, which is a 24/7 business.
And while you are at it, read Reich's predictions on what 2011 has in store for us. The first concerns the political strategy of the Tea Party in 2011; the second one is about the outlook for the U.S. economy in 2011.
For three decades, an increasing share of the benefits of economic growth have gone to the wealthiest 1 percent. Thirty years ago, the top got 9 percent of total income. Now they take in almost a quarter.
[...] The vast middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going. (The rich spend less of their income.)
[...] As income and wealth have risen to the top, so has political power. Money is being used to bribe politicians and fill the airwaves with misleading ads that block us from hearing this story.
[...]This is the story Obama, Democrats, and progressives must tell. Stop talking policy. People don't think in terms of policies. Policies make sense only to the extent they illustrate a larger story. Obama's biggest failure has been an inability to connect the dots.
I disagree with Prof. Reich that Obama's biggest failure has been the inability to connect the dots. It is not that Obama has been incapable of connecting the dots, it's that he has not been willing to do so, for reasons that--I suspect--are much less excusable than inability. We are living through yet another smokescreen presidency, on the inevitable road to the destruction of the American middle-class. Obama is not a victim of his inability, he is an accomplice in for-profit spinelessness.
Also, in addition to the rise of income to the top that Reich highlights in his article, another thing that has risen at the same pace as the influence of money in politics is the influence of right-wing evangelicals on the American landscape. Instead of decrying the corrupt influence of money in politics, most evangelicals have been trained on the idea, which they are spreading uncritically, that government--not corrupting wealth--is the cause of most or all societal evils, that the current embodiment of the free market, free in name only, is essential to the prosperity of Americans, and that salvation lies in believing in a gospel that denies science, progress, and the need for social justice and that promotes and rewards the cult of the mavericky individual and uncritical submission to irrational ideas.
In any case, and in spite of some negligible flaws, you should read the whole article, Telling Tales, to educate yourself against Republican misinformation, which is a 24/7 business.
And while you are at it, read Reich's predictions on what 2011 has in store for us. The first concerns the political strategy of the Tea Party in 2011; the second one is about the outlook for the U.S. economy in 2011.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Proud To Be An American?
Does America have anything to be proud of these days? Well, if she treasures social injustice, iniquities, and cold-heartedness, maybe she does. Not if you read these articles, however, which I really recommend to the heartless Republicans who seem to abound these days.
America In Decline.
Health Care And The Wages Of Sin
The sooner you guys see the error of your ways, the better for all.
America In Decline.
Health Care And The Wages Of Sin
The sooner you guys see the error of your ways, the better for all.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Great Republican Pro-Life Hyprocrisy
It is a well-known fact that, for many Republican anti-abortion politicos, “life begins at conception and ends at birth.” So says, Carol Joffe, professor at the University of California, San Francisco.
That quip is well-exemplified by the ongoing Republican effort to block funding for essential health care for 9/11 responders. Read Carol Joffe's article to get your blood to boil, then write the Republican Senators like Tom Coburn and Jon Kil who are beyond shameful in their politicking on such a vitally important issue of humanity.
Politicians should not be punished for holding ideas antithetical to our own, but for the hypocrisy they openly display when they defend their turf against all reason.
That quip is well-exemplified by the ongoing Republican effort to block funding for essential health care for 9/11 responders. Read Carol Joffe's article to get your blood to boil, then write the Republican Senators like Tom Coburn and Jon Kil who are beyond shameful in their politicking on such a vitally important issue of humanity.
Politicians should not be punished for holding ideas antithetical to our own, but for the hypocrisy they openly display when they defend their turf against all reason.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Is It Any Wonder So Many Americans Will Believe Anything They Are Told?
Ponder this: 40% of Americans believe in Creationism.
The rest of the insanity just follows from that belief.
The rest of the insanity just follows from that belief.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Funny? Not quite.
When there is so much truth in comedy, laughter often leaves to make room for tears. Read Andy Borowitz's take on President Obama's "tax deal" with his Republican überlords.
Incidentally, I thought this was the President who said something like "our job is not to get re-elected; our job is to get results for the American people." Or something to that extent.
Incidentally, I thought this was the President who said something like "our job is not to get re-elected; our job is to get results for the American people." Or something to that extent.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Republicans 80,000,000,000 - America's Middle Class 0
The President, this President, is a tool.
With some help from some corrupt Dems, but mainly of his own doing, President Obama has once again agreed to capitulate to Republican demands: The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are going to be extended for 24 months, in exchange for an extension of unemployment benefits for 13 months. That is good news for the unemployed, and even better news for people who did not need more money in the first place. Notice how the deal is lopsided in favor of the country's true owners.
Russell at Obsidian Wings put it best: "I must have missed the memo where the Democratic POTUS is the Republican leadership's marketing liaison."
Progressives are at a loss for words to describe the betrayal they have had to endure for the last 23 months. Reagan must be celebrating the Republicans' good fortunes in hell.
With some help from some corrupt Dems, but mainly of his own doing, President Obama has once again agreed to capitulate to Republican demands: The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are going to be extended for 24 months, in exchange for an extension of unemployment benefits for 13 months. That is good news for the unemployed, and even better news for people who did not need more money in the first place. Notice how the deal is lopsided in favor of the country's true owners.
Russell at Obsidian Wings put it best: "I must have missed the memo where the Democratic POTUS is the Republican leadership's marketing liaison."
Progressives are at a loss for words to describe the betrayal they have had to endure for the last 23 months. Reagan must be celebrating the Republicans' good fortunes in hell.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Happy Thanksgiving!
Thanksgiving or, as American Indians know it, National Day of Mourning.
To those who chastise me for being a relativist, I like to point out that absolutism is a matter of lack of perspective.
Have a happy one, anyway.
To those who chastise me for being a relativist, I like to point out that absolutism is a matter of lack of perspective.
Have a happy one, anyway.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Security Schmemcurity
Digby has it exactly right on the TSA's "lovepats", body scanners and the security theater.
Oh, by the way, in unrelated news (yeah, right) body scanner manufacturers doubled lobbying money over 5 years.
Oh, by the way, in unrelated news (yeah, right) body scanner manufacturers doubled lobbying money over 5 years.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
A Diplomat I Am Not
My letter to the White House on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
Dear President Obama:
Your first two years in office have been truly dsappointing for progressives. A watered-down health care reform that leaves predatory insurance companies and health care providers in charge, relief for Wall Street and not Main Street (like many Americans, my mortgage is under water, why not allow me to write off my loss, as a one-time measure?), the Afghan War surge, and overall timid policies that have contributed to the resounding Demoratic losses in the mid-terms.
Don't you think it's time to mobilize your base, by sending them the signal that you are working for them and not for the über-rich and powerful?
If the GOP insists that the condition for the Bush tax cuts to be extended for the middle-class is also to extend them for the richest 1-2%, then I am willing to give my tax cuts up. Let all tax cuts expire, then let the Senate introduce a bill to give the middle-class even bigger tax cuts, and let the GOP. vote against such a bill. Let the American people understand who the GOP really works for, and maybe, just maybe, Americans will vote for you and Democrats in 2012. As the lesser of two evils, obviously, but an easy choice nonetheless.
Sincerely,
Dear President Obama:
Your first two years in office have been truly dsappointing for progressives. A watered-down health care reform that leaves predatory insurance companies and health care providers in charge, relief for Wall Street and not Main Street (like many Americans, my mortgage is under water, why not allow me to write off my loss, as a one-time measure?), the Afghan War surge, and overall timid policies that have contributed to the resounding Demoratic losses in the mid-terms.
Don't you think it's time to mobilize your base, by sending them the signal that you are working for them and not for the über-rich and powerful?
If the GOP insists that the condition for the Bush tax cuts to be extended for the middle-class is also to extend them for the richest 1-2%, then I am willing to give my tax cuts up. Let all tax cuts expire, then let the Senate introduce a bill to give the middle-class even bigger tax cuts, and let the GOP. vote against such a bill. Let the American people understand who the GOP really works for, and maybe, just maybe, Americans will vote for you and Democrats in 2012. As the lesser of two evils, obviously, but an easy choice nonetheless.
Sincerely,
Saturday, November 13, 2010
What Goes Around, Comes Around
This is really funny news in the "law of unintended consequences" department.
It's what happens when people are so cocksure about their superiority and blinded by their prejudice and hatred that they end up shooting themselves in the foot.
It's what happens when people are so cocksure about their superiority and blinded by their prejudice and hatred that they end up shooting themselves in the foot.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Paul Krugman's Take On The Hijacked Commission
Known by many as "The Catfood Commission" for the rather drastic effects it would have on the the middle-class and the poor in this country, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (also known as the Deficit Reduction Commission), an ill-conceived creation of the increasingly disappointing and overrated mind of President Obama, has released its findings/proposals earlier this week.
Paul Krugman has a rather fierce dissection of the commission's work in today's NYT op-ed. Consider this excerpt: "[H]ow, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?" Good question, Prof. Krugman.
You can find the complete answer in Krugman's op-ed, The Hijacked Commission.
Paul Krugman has a rather fierce dissection of the commission's work in today's NYT op-ed. Consider this excerpt: "[H]ow, exactly, did a deficit-cutting commission become a commission whose first priority is cutting tax rates, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list?" Good question, Prof. Krugman.
You can find the complete answer in Krugman's op-ed, The Hijacked Commission.
Stupid Poll
From CNN's home page, this has to be one of the stupidest polls ever published:
Would you support a 15 cent per gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax to help rein in the U.S. debt? [Emphasis added.]
Think about that: Someone is pushing the idea that "to help rein in U.S. debt" we should add a 15 cent per gallon tax to gasoline? I'll give CNN the benefit of the doubt and assume that this proposal was advanced by someone outside of CNN, and that CNN is simply reporting it as a poll to gauge popular sentiment.
Whichever the case, is that the most idiotic proposal you ever heard to help rein in the U.S. debt?
At a time when Congress is pushing for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2% in America, someone thinks that we should be increasing gasoline taxes by 15 cents per gallon.
The problem with this country is that few understand the concept of regressive taxation v progressive taxation. Taxes that apply indiscriminately to everybody take a bigger toll on the poorest amongs us. They should never be implemented as a means to primarily increase revenue.
Use of regressive taxation should be limited to cases in which the government (local, state or federal) is trying to discourage a particular elective behavior, for example a cigarette tax aimed at discouraging smoking is still regressive (it impairs the ability of the poor to smoke more than it does the very rich) but it is an understandable compromise to discourage an undesirable behavior. Likewise, a gasoline tax aimed at discouraging gasoline usage for environmental purposes, while hitting the poor harder than the rich, is an acceptable use of regressive taxation IF the region where it is implemented already has adequate transportation alternatives.
Note that the key for acceptable uses of regressive taxation should be directed not only at undesirable behaviors, but elective ones. In other words, you can choose to smoke but don't have to, and you can choose to drive everywhere but don't have to. On the other hand, taxing milk, toothpaste or bread should never be entertained (and in fact sales taxes does not apply to certain basic items in most states), because such items are not elective in nature, but basic needs of human beings in a civilized society.
This kind of reasoning touches on a larger topic, that of flat taxes. I have a couple of very good friends who say they support a flat tax. I doubt that they understand the basic unfairness of a flat tax system (one in which everybody pays the same tax rate, regardless of income level), and I strive to explain it to them every time we discuss the subject. One of the most underappreciated effects of a regressive tax system, such as a flat tax system, by those who support it is the rise in income inequality, the level of which has already reached unseen proportion in over one hundred years.
FYI, the NOs are prevailing on the YESes by a 23% margin (63 to 37%). But the fact that 37% of the people support the regressive proposal suggests that a fairly large portion of the American public has accepted as valid a rhetoric that rewards interests opposed to its own (the super rich v. the poor's). Therefore, educating the public should be the top priority of progressives in this country.
If progressives spent as much time educating the public on important issues such as the unfairness of flat or regressive taxes as they spend on making and counting get-out-the-vote calls before election day (not to mention the time they spend patting each other on the back), we may see a public opinion shift in battles that we should be winning resoundingly, and which we are losing instead.
Would you support a 15 cent per gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax to help rein in the U.S. debt? [Emphasis added.]
Think about that: Someone is pushing the idea that "to help rein in U.S. debt" we should add a 15 cent per gallon tax to gasoline? I'll give CNN the benefit of the doubt and assume that this proposal was advanced by someone outside of CNN, and that CNN is simply reporting it as a poll to gauge popular sentiment.
Whichever the case, is that the most idiotic proposal you ever heard to help rein in the U.S. debt?
At a time when Congress is pushing for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2% in America, someone thinks that we should be increasing gasoline taxes by 15 cents per gallon.
The problem with this country is that few understand the concept of regressive taxation v progressive taxation. Taxes that apply indiscriminately to everybody take a bigger toll on the poorest amongs us. They should never be implemented as a means to primarily increase revenue.
Use of regressive taxation should be limited to cases in which the government (local, state or federal) is trying to discourage a particular elective behavior, for example a cigarette tax aimed at discouraging smoking is still regressive (it impairs the ability of the poor to smoke more than it does the very rich) but it is an understandable compromise to discourage an undesirable behavior. Likewise, a gasoline tax aimed at discouraging gasoline usage for environmental purposes, while hitting the poor harder than the rich, is an acceptable use of regressive taxation IF the region where it is implemented already has adequate transportation alternatives.
Note that the key for acceptable uses of regressive taxation should be directed not only at undesirable behaviors, but elective ones. In other words, you can choose to smoke but don't have to, and you can choose to drive everywhere but don't have to. On the other hand, taxing milk, toothpaste or bread should never be entertained (and in fact sales taxes does not apply to certain basic items in most states), because such items are not elective in nature, but basic needs of human beings in a civilized society.
This kind of reasoning touches on a larger topic, that of flat taxes. I have a couple of very good friends who say they support a flat tax. I doubt that they understand the basic unfairness of a flat tax system (one in which everybody pays the same tax rate, regardless of income level), and I strive to explain it to them every time we discuss the subject. One of the most underappreciated effects of a regressive tax system, such as a flat tax system, by those who support it is the rise in income inequality, the level of which has already reached unseen proportion in over one hundred years.
FYI, the NOs are prevailing on the YESes by a 23% margin (63 to 37%). But the fact that 37% of the people support the regressive proposal suggests that a fairly large portion of the American public has accepted as valid a rhetoric that rewards interests opposed to its own (the super rich v. the poor's). Therefore, educating the public should be the top priority of progressives in this country.
If progressives spent as much time educating the public on important issues such as the unfairness of flat or regressive taxes as they spend on making and counting get-out-the-vote calls before election day (not to mention the time they spend patting each other on the back), we may see a public opinion shift in battles that we should be winning resoundingly, and which we are losing instead.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
One Pseudo-Democratic Senator I Would Gladly Lose
Even if it meant losing the Senate, Kent Conrad's is one pseudo-Democrat who needs to go in 2012. Hopefully he will be ousted by a better Democrat, but if he loses his re-election bid to a Republican, little or nothing would be lost. (He already fought agains the Public Option and now he is fighting for the Deficit Commission's draconian cuts to services.)
Read Barbara Morrill's Daily Kos post on Veterans' Day rhetoric and you will understand why.
Read Barbara Morrill's Daily Kos post on Veterans' Day rhetoric and you will understand why.
Dumb and Dumber
This just in from David Axelrod, about the fact that the Obama administration will "have to" cave in to Republicans pushing for the Bush tax cuts to be extended for those making over $250,000.
"There are concerns," [Axelrod] added, that Congress will continue to kick the can down the road in the future by passing temporary extensions for the wealthy time and time again. "But I don't want to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that point." [via Huffington Post]
Axelrod's logic is appalling because it fails to recognize that the security of the middle-class which he and the President are so concerned about (in words) depends to a large degree on increasing revenues by repealing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy 2%. Now I do understand that passing tax cuts for the middle-class will be harder if the administration chooses not to appease Republicans, but let Republicans show the nation whose interest they are truly working for. Eventually, if they don't want to be "repealed" themselves two years from now, they would have to cave in themselves.
The problem with Obama is not that he governs from the center or that he is a pragmatist. The problem is that he has no principles strong enough to endure assault, no balls, and no fire within.
"There are concerns," [Axelrod] added, that Congress will continue to kick the can down the road in the future by passing temporary extensions for the wealthy time and time again. "But I don't want to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that point." [via Huffington Post]
Axelrod's logic is appalling because it fails to recognize that the security of the middle-class which he and the President are so concerned about (in words) depends to a large degree on increasing revenues by repealing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy 2%. Now I do understand that passing tax cuts for the middle-class will be harder if the administration chooses not to appease Republicans, but let Republicans show the nation whose interest they are truly working for. Eventually, if they don't want to be "repealed" themselves two years from now, they would have to cave in themselves.
The problem with Obama is not that he governs from the center or that he is a pragmatist. The problem is that he has no principles strong enough to endure assault, no balls, and no fire within.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
They Won't Be Happy Until They Have Completely Repealed The New Deal
A couple of days ago, I wrote a post titled They Won't Be Happy Until They Have Completely Destroyed The Middle-Class, in which--among other things--I wished for the death (of natural causes) of Rush Limbaugh, spewer of hatred, peddler of deceit, and enemy of every American who thinks America should belong to the people and not to corporations.
I have to admit, a couple of days on, that wishing evil people dead may be a human and understandable gut-reaction to hatred directed at us, but it does not solve the problem, simply because the number of people who should drop dead for things to improve is so large it would boggle the mind.
Unfortunately, thought, it seems that wishful thinking is the last recourse of the sane man in America, because the powers at work to literally destroy what remains of a middle-class that made American and the world great are relentless, well-financed, and overwhelmingly represented in the rooms where decisions are made. In other words, the little people (whereby I am not referring to people of modest physical stature, but of insignificant economic means) are going to be hopelessly crushed by those who profess to act in the interest of Main Street but are acting on behalf or on the orders of Wall Street.
Latest among the despicable schemes to repeal the accomplishments of the New Deal (and the Great Society) is the drive to privatize Social Security, and to axe the benefits that working Americans of all beliefs, political convictions and walks of life, were promised by people greater than the current ilk.
This push to cut benefits, which has the ultimate goal of moving the bulk of Social Security savings into the rapacious hands of Wall Stree investment fund managers, is particularly insane because it comes in the wake of a worldwide financial crisis that has crippled the savings of people the world over. Imagine if, instead of being deposited into a guaranted Social Security benefit fund, you had been forced to invest your lifetime savings into stock or any kind of fund subject to the fluctations of a market managed by greediest, soulless, immoral people on the planet.
Alas, I have no faith in the American people to rise against these evil raiders of the social good, as they should if this was a country populated by rational human beings, and not fattened, mesmerized, lifeless drones. If this were France, England, Germany, or anywhere where people understand that unity is what wins these battles against pure evil, people would have taken to the streets at the first whiff of cuts to Social Security, present or future. Unfortunately, this is the country where people like Rand Paul get elected, who feel no shame in declaring that there are no rich and poor, that we are all united in the economic bloodstream of the nation and that taxing the least of us more (in proportional terms) than those who have amassedd huge wealth in no small part thanks to idiots like Rand Paul is the logical thing to do.
Who will help us if we cannot help ourselves?
I have to admit, a couple of days on, that wishing evil people dead may be a human and understandable gut-reaction to hatred directed at us, but it does not solve the problem, simply because the number of people who should drop dead for things to improve is so large it would boggle the mind.
Unfortunately, thought, it seems that wishful thinking is the last recourse of the sane man in America, because the powers at work to literally destroy what remains of a middle-class that made American and the world great are relentless, well-financed, and overwhelmingly represented in the rooms where decisions are made. In other words, the little people (whereby I am not referring to people of modest physical stature, but of insignificant economic means) are going to be hopelessly crushed by those who profess to act in the interest of Main Street but are acting on behalf or on the orders of Wall Street.
Latest among the despicable schemes to repeal the accomplishments of the New Deal (and the Great Society) is the drive to privatize Social Security, and to axe the benefits that working Americans of all beliefs, political convictions and walks of life, were promised by people greater than the current ilk.
This push to cut benefits, which has the ultimate goal of moving the bulk of Social Security savings into the rapacious hands of Wall Stree investment fund managers, is particularly insane because it comes in the wake of a worldwide financial crisis that has crippled the savings of people the world over. Imagine if, instead of being deposited into a guaranted Social Security benefit fund, you had been forced to invest your lifetime savings into stock or any kind of fund subject to the fluctations of a market managed by greediest, soulless, immoral people on the planet.
Alas, I have no faith in the American people to rise against these evil raiders of the social good, as they should if this was a country populated by rational human beings, and not fattened, mesmerized, lifeless drones. If this were France, England, Germany, or anywhere where people understand that unity is what wins these battles against pure evil, people would have taken to the streets at the first whiff of cuts to Social Security, present or future. Unfortunately, this is the country where people like Rand Paul get elected, who feel no shame in declaring that there are no rich and poor, that we are all united in the economic bloodstream of the nation and that taxing the least of us more (in proportional terms) than those who have amassedd huge wealth in no small part thanks to idiots like Rand Paul is the logical thing to do.
Who will help us if we cannot help ourselves?
Monday, November 08, 2010
Let Texas Secede
If any Tea-Partying state wants to secede, let Texas lead the way. My friends in Texas can always come and stay with us in Colorado. Until Colorado finally joins the secessionists and we regularly-brained people have moved to Germany.
They Won't Be Happy Until They Have Completely Destroyed The Middle-Class
When Al Franken wrote "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot", still recommended after all these years, he left one adjective out: evil.
How else would you explain this?
You heard right: On Rush's daily ode to Mammon, pre-existing conditions are welfare.
My wife tells me that it is not good to wish for people to die, but I will take Rush Limbaugh as my mulligan.
Let's be unequivocally clear: I am not advocating for anyone to kill him, but an oxycontin overdose? All I am saying that if karma did its job, sooner rather than later, it would be better for Americans, particularly those with a pre-existing condition known as life.
And let's be clear about something else: Rush Limbaugh is not Hitler, nor Stalin, nor Pol Pot. But the ideas and policies he pushes and advocates for, such as the idea that pre-existing conditions are welfare (an idea that taps an unprecedented level of idiocy and evil even for Rush Limbaugh) are truly evil. And by the time he is done spewing evil on the airwaves he and many of the Republican shills in Congress will have a great number of dead Americans on their conscience. If they had one.
How else would you explain this?
You heard right: On Rush's daily ode to Mammon, pre-existing conditions are welfare.
My wife tells me that it is not good to wish for people to die, but I will take Rush Limbaugh as my mulligan.
Let's be unequivocally clear: I am not advocating for anyone to kill him, but an oxycontin overdose? All I am saying that if karma did its job, sooner rather than later, it would be better for Americans, particularly those with a pre-existing condition known as life.
And let's be clear about something else: Rush Limbaugh is not Hitler, nor Stalin, nor Pol Pot. But the ideas and policies he pushes and advocates for, such as the idea that pre-existing conditions are welfare (an idea that taps an unprecedented level of idiocy and evil even for Rush Limbaugh) are truly evil. And by the time he is done spewing evil on the airwaves he and many of the Republican shills in Congress will have a great number of dead Americans on their conscience. If they had one.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Oxy-Morons
About Faux News reporting on the supposed costs of President Obama's trip to India.
'nuff said.
'nuff said.
If President Obama Keeps Ignoring Nobel Winning Economists, Why Do We Keep Saying He Is A Really Smart Guy?
It seems to me that when a smart lawyer gets advice from Nobel-prize winning economists to change course on many of his ill-advised policies (the advisors being foxes in the henhouse like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner), he should take it. President Obama is such a lawyer and Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman are two such economists. He routinely ignores these top world economists' advice. Either he is not smart, or he is taking us for a ride.
America, Land of the Free to Be Stupid
I think the title of Elizabeth Wurtzel's op-ed for the Guardian is a bit ingenerous and not totally accurate. It should be: America, Land of the Free to Be Manipulated, Duped, AND Stupid. As it were, it is just America, Land of the Free to Be Stupid. (via Common Dreams)
Saturday, November 06, 2010
FAIR, on Keith Olbermann's Suspension
As you may know, Keith Olbermann has been suspended by MSNBC for making political contributions that he failed to disclose to MSNBC.
The issue, in my opinion, is not whether Olbermann's suspension is justified or not (it probably is, as many corporations have specific disclosure rules about political contributions). The issue is the hypocrisy in this case, so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting points out that NBC and General Electric have an obvious hypocrisy problem.
The issue, in my opinion, is not whether Olbermann's suspension is justified or not (it probably is, as many corporations have specific disclosure rules about political contributions). The issue is the hypocrisy in this case, so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting points out that NBC and General Electric have an obvious hypocrisy problem.
The Greatest Banana Republic The World Has Ever Seen
The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof penned an op-ed titled Our Banana Republic. It seems to me the that Tea Party and the Republican Party, true to the American tradition of leadership, are hell-bent on making the United States "number one!" Among Banana Republics, that is.
P.S. If you are wondering why I used corruption as a label, it goes without saying that you do not become a true Banana Republic without a corrupt political system. It's just that here we call it "lobbying" Congress.
P.S. If you are wondering why I used corruption as a label, it goes without saying that you do not become a true Banana Republic without a corrupt political system. It's just that here we call it "lobbying" Congress.
Once Again, On False Equivalences
Bill Maher hits the nail on the head on the subject of the left-wing V right-wing media (false) equivalence. (Forgive his mispronunciation of retired Gen. Antonio Taguba's name.)
Oklahoma Bans Sharia Law And Other Idiocies
I picked this up on the Daily Kos, and it's a true gem.
There are, believe it or not, those who praise the wisdom and foresight of Oklahomans. And I cringe at the thought that it will be the Roberts Court that rules on the obvious unconstitutionality of such a ban once the issue gets to the Nine. (You should also know that the referendum, which voters passed, sought to ban courts from considering or using international law, which is obviously unconstitutional per Article VI of the United States Constitution, which teabaggers looooooove!)
Personally, I welcome any and all referenda that seek to ban the undue influence of religion on the lives of U.S. residents (citizens or non-citizens). Oh, wait: Shouldn't the First Amendment already do that? Oh, but you are right, the concept of the separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Constitution. If you are a dim-witted teabagger senatorial candidate, that is.
But really, in a country where supposedly intelligent, loving, and reasonable Christians want Intelligent Design taught in schools alongside the Theory of Evolution, where they believe that stem cell research should be banned on religious grounds, where they feel comfortable analogizing homosexuality to alcoholism on national TV, where they view global warming as a hoax or a conspiracy perpetrated on the American public for the monetary gain of a few, why should Oklahomans busy themselves with banning Sharia Law instead of their own science-averse and discriminatory beliefs?
Incidentally, the Sharia Ban is not the only likely unconstitutional referendum that Oklahoma's voters approved of: They also approved of a requirement that would allow residents to opt out of any federal health care mandates (in a pretty clear contravention of the Commerce Clause.)
I am curious to see what Christians can come up with in the way of an intelligent response.
"[In] Oklahoma, voters overwhelmingly approved state question 755 [to ban Islamic Sharia law], one of the most important initiatives in their state's history. This is great news. Just because something doesn’t exist doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ban it. That's why I have long fought for ballot measures to ban cat pilots, baby curling, and man-futon marriage."
---Stephen Colbert
There are, believe it or not, those who praise the wisdom and foresight of Oklahomans. And I cringe at the thought that it will be the Roberts Court that rules on the obvious unconstitutionality of such a ban once the issue gets to the Nine. (You should also know that the referendum, which voters passed, sought to ban courts from considering or using international law, which is obviously unconstitutional per Article VI of the United States Constitution, which teabaggers looooooove!)
Personally, I welcome any and all referenda that seek to ban the undue influence of religion on the lives of U.S. residents (citizens or non-citizens). Oh, wait: Shouldn't the First Amendment already do that? Oh, but you are right, the concept of the separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Constitution. If you are a dim-witted teabagger senatorial candidate, that is.
But really, in a country where supposedly intelligent, loving, and reasonable Christians want Intelligent Design taught in schools alongside the Theory of Evolution, where they believe that stem cell research should be banned on religious grounds, where they feel comfortable analogizing homosexuality to alcoholism on national TV, where they view global warming as a hoax or a conspiracy perpetrated on the American public for the monetary gain of a few, why should Oklahomans busy themselves with banning Sharia Law instead of their own science-averse and discriminatory beliefs?
Incidentally, the Sharia Ban is not the only likely unconstitutional referendum that Oklahoma's voters approved of: They also approved of a requirement that would allow residents to opt out of any federal health care mandates (in a pretty clear contravention of the Commerce Clause.)
I am curious to see what Christians can come up with in the way of an intelligent response.
Rick Perry Advocates Ending Social Security As We Know It
Rick Perry, the guy who will run to become fear-mongerer in-chief (i.e. the Republican nominee for the White House) in 2012 wants to end Social Security as we know it. Think Progress points out the insanity of the plan. This guy is truly, truly dangerous for the future of this country.
Maddow On Point
As usual, Rachel Maddow shines for clarity and accuracy on the MSNBC v. Olbermann fiasco (re: political contributions).
Watch.
Watch.
How Great A President Was Ronald Reagan? This Great!
For those who regard Ronald Reagan as an example for our young people to follow (and conversely consider Jimmy Carter's presidency a failure), I offer this picture...
Circled in the photo are the solar panels that President Carter had installed on the roof of the West Wing in 1977, and that President Reagan chose to have removed in 1986. Here's how:
President Carter, regarded as a failure of a president by many Americans, promoted renewable energy in 1977. Germany, now the world leader in solar energy technology, lit up to the idea of solar panels 24 years later, in 2001. China has overtaken the U.S. in the production and adoption of solar technology. In the United States we have a class of ignorant, idiotic, and dangerous politicians who spend their time pushing for new oil exploration in ANWR and right outside of Arches and Canyonlands in Utah, and who allow fracking in their states.
That is the legacy to our generation of that revered president, Ronald Reagan. Without him, who knows, the United States may well have been on the road to less and less dependence from foreign oil, and the manufacturing sector could have benefited from substantial public investments in renewable energy. Why, there may even have been no 9/11.
And the right wants him carved on the face of Mt. Rushmore?
Circled in the photo are the solar panels that President Carter had installed on the roof of the West Wing in 1977, and that President Reagan chose to have removed in 1986. Here's how:
Then came “a clear, calculated campaign by the [Department of Energy] in the years of the Reagan administration to crush the solar energy program of the federal government” according to Denis Hayes, an expert on solar energy who worked for the government at the time. According to another expert involved in Carter’s original solar panel installation, Reagan’s Administration “felt that the equipment was just a joke… and he had it taken down.” [From The Forgotten History Blog]
President Carter, regarded as a failure of a president by many Americans, promoted renewable energy in 1977. Germany, now the world leader in solar energy technology, lit up to the idea of solar panels 24 years later, in 2001. China has overtaken the U.S. in the production and adoption of solar technology. In the United States we have a class of ignorant, idiotic, and dangerous politicians who spend their time pushing for new oil exploration in ANWR and right outside of Arches and Canyonlands in Utah, and who allow fracking in their states.
That is the legacy to our generation of that revered president, Ronald Reagan. Without him, who knows, the United States may well have been on the road to less and less dependence from foreign oil, and the manufacturing sector could have benefited from substantial public investments in renewable energy. Why, there may even have been no 9/11.
And the right wants him carved on the face of Mt. Rushmore?
Friday, November 05, 2010
Obama v FDR's Majorities
I stumbled across a really interesting comparison of Obama and FDR's presidencies, and I completely agree with the writer of this post, who says: "So the point isn’t about the size of majorities. It isn’t clear Obama would have been in any better shape had he had FDR’s majorities." You have to read the post to find out the rest of the compelling opinion.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Fire Tim Kaine
Tim Kaine has been a disastrous replacement for Howard Dean as head of the DNC, and that's another failure we have the President to thank for. It's hard to imagine that Dean would have failed to knock off a few weak Republicans in this election cycle, and that he would not have held some seats (like Grayson, Feingold and Perriello, for example) that were lost last night.
Kaine's gotta go. And unless Obama changes his tune in the next two years, he's gotta go too (and it won't be a problem).
Kaine's gotta go. And unless Obama changes his tune in the next two years, he's gotta go too (and it won't be a problem).
Time To Give Up?
After a night like tonight (last night, already?) the urge to give up is great. I cannot really say that I am disappointed with election results. I am disappointed with what happens in between elections.
This time I am particularly disappointed, because Democrats held the legislature whole, and the executive, and they still managed to fuck things up. Democrats squandered a once in a lifetime opportunity to accomplish meaningful reform. They did everything too timidly, like--for example--they way the handled so-called health care reform: they compromised everything desirable away, and the remaining meaningful provisions, like insurance exchanges, will not kick in until 2014. Are you kidding me?
For a couple of weeks leading up to the elections, the President scuttled around the nation saying "Lookee here! Look at all we have done!" People must not have been impressed, if the results of the elections are to be believed. Rightly so, I might add.
We were promised health care reform. We got an expansion of the current, morally and financially bankrupt(-ing) insurance system.
We were promised Guantanamo would be closed. It's still open.
We were promised the end of war, and all that happened was that more troops were sent to Afghanistan and the soldiers who remain in Iraq were simply re-classified as non-combat troops. Go tell the Iraqi insurgents who routinely attack them.
We were promised financial reform. We bailed out the people that ruined us with hardly any consequences for them.
We were promised help to the middle class. Ask the middle-class folks who lost their job, their home, their savings.
What's worse, pundits will tell us that the mid-terms show that progressivism is the big loser, because Feingold lost his Senate seat and Alan Grayson and Tom Perriello lost their first-term House seats. And I am afraid they might be right, because those who say that progressives stayed home because they felt betrayed cannot apply to Grayson and Perriello. It simply looks like fear won once again, as it does so often.
We were promised hope. No promise was ever betrayed more egregiously.
This time I am particularly disappointed, because Democrats held the legislature whole, and the executive, and they still managed to fuck things up. Democrats squandered a once in a lifetime opportunity to accomplish meaningful reform. They did everything too timidly, like--for example--they way the handled so-called health care reform: they compromised everything desirable away, and the remaining meaningful provisions, like insurance exchanges, will not kick in until 2014. Are you kidding me?
For a couple of weeks leading up to the elections, the President scuttled around the nation saying "Lookee here! Look at all we have done!" People must not have been impressed, if the results of the elections are to be believed. Rightly so, I might add.
We were promised health care reform. We got an expansion of the current, morally and financially bankrupt(-ing) insurance system.
We were promised Guantanamo would be closed. It's still open.
We were promised the end of war, and all that happened was that more troops were sent to Afghanistan and the soldiers who remain in Iraq were simply re-classified as non-combat troops. Go tell the Iraqi insurgents who routinely attack them.
We were promised financial reform. We bailed out the people that ruined us with hardly any consequences for them.
We were promised help to the middle class. Ask the middle-class folks who lost their job, their home, their savings.
What's worse, pundits will tell us that the mid-terms show that progressivism is the big loser, because Feingold lost his Senate seat and Alan Grayson and Tom Perriello lost their first-term House seats. And I am afraid they might be right, because those who say that progressives stayed home because they felt betrayed cannot apply to Grayson and Perriello. It simply looks like fear won once again, as it does so often.
We were promised hope. No promise was ever betrayed more egregiously.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Today's Vote
Hold your noses and go vote.
Here are a couple of commentaries that should shed light on what happens if you do not.
Today is the day.
To which I would add: I know that calling yourself an independent makes you feel all grown-up, but it assumes that there are Republicans who have your best interest at heart. There aren't.
Don't kid yourself: Republicans are, generally-speaking, the party of the one-percenters, the unspeakably wealthy seeking to get wealthier to your detriment, the regressives, those who would love nothing more than the uncontested rule of moneyed interests, the party of the Bushes, the Scalias, the Roberts and the Thomases. The party of those who love to say that they love to love (opportunity for all Americans), whereas in fact the opportunity they conceive of does not include health care for all, a minimum wage (let alone a living wage), the choice not to carry a pregnancy to term even when the baby's daddy is the mummy's daddy or drunk uncle, or a rapist, where blacks and minorities are only included in photo-ops, not in real discussions about their future. They are the party of people who will trivialize anything (Clinton's indiscretions, Obama's birth certificate) in order to get everything they don't already have.
Republicans are the party that spent millions of dollars on astro-turfing, the practice of enlisting angry folks under the banner of rage, by making them believe that they were part of a grass-root effort, when in fact they were being co-opted only to stop clean energy from replacing a slice of the fossil-fuel cake with something that will slow down the killing of the environment, or to privatize that grand and evil socialist scheme, Social Security, thanks to which your grandparents live at home instead of roasting in your attic or sinking in your basement. Imagine the glee with which Wall Street would have incinerated your parent's lifetime savings in one of the many financial crises that have occurred or will follow these times.
If you still want to go out and vote Republicans, hey! it's a free country, not in name only. Not yet.
Here are a couple of commentaries that should shed light on what happens if you do not.
Today is the day.
To which I would add: I know that calling yourself an independent makes you feel all grown-up, but it assumes that there are Republicans who have your best interest at heart. There aren't.
Don't kid yourself: Republicans are, generally-speaking, the party of the one-percenters, the unspeakably wealthy seeking to get wealthier to your detriment, the regressives, those who would love nothing more than the uncontested rule of moneyed interests, the party of the Bushes, the Scalias, the Roberts and the Thomases. The party of those who love to say that they love to love (opportunity for all Americans), whereas in fact the opportunity they conceive of does not include health care for all, a minimum wage (let alone a living wage), the choice not to carry a pregnancy to term even when the baby's daddy is the mummy's daddy or drunk uncle, or a rapist, where blacks and minorities are only included in photo-ops, not in real discussions about their future. They are the party of people who will trivialize anything (Clinton's indiscretions, Obama's birth certificate) in order to get everything they don't already have.
Republicans are the party that spent millions of dollars on astro-turfing, the practice of enlisting angry folks under the banner of rage, by making them believe that they were part of a grass-root effort, when in fact they were being co-opted only to stop clean energy from replacing a slice of the fossil-fuel cake with something that will slow down the killing of the environment, or to privatize that grand and evil socialist scheme, Social Security, thanks to which your grandparents live at home instead of roasting in your attic or sinking in your basement. Imagine the glee with which Wall Street would have incinerated your parent's lifetime savings in one of the many financial crises that have occurred or will follow these times.
If you still want to go out and vote Republicans, hey! it's a free country, not in name only. Not yet.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Truth About President Obama
On Wednesday, President Obama was a guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It was a weird interview, which started fairly jovially and ended with the president looking annoyed at Stewart's line of questioning, with the host calling the president timid in his policies in spite of the promise of audacity which he used as a backdrop for his campaign.
Just over a week earlier, the always fiery David Michael Green had already explained why the president's performance fell so egregiously short of the high expectations progressives had two years ago:
But, wait! Green has another theory about the president's failure, and it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that he may be right.
Just over a week earlier, the always fiery David Michael Green had already explained why the president's performance fell so egregiously short of the high expectations progressives had two years ago:
Perhaps a better explanation for the failure of Obama and his ilk to fight hard for the country’s welfare and for progressive values is that he is no progressive at all. I’ve been arguing that for a long time, and he is certainly helping to reaffirm that notion right now by appealing a federal court decision ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, a policy which he claims to oppose. But, in fact, the Obama ideology ship sailed a long time ago. He previously also went to court defending the Defense of Marriage Act. He bailed out Wall Street a hundred pennies on the dollar, and demanded nothing of them in return. He has tripled the US presence in Afghanistan, and is bombing the snot out of Pakistan. He has not closed Guantánamo, and has an even worse record on civil liberties than Bush and Cheney did. His health care bill is a total gift to insurance corporations, and now we’ve just learned from Tom Daschle that the president had never considered the public option at all, having cut a deal with those corporations in advance promising that there would be no such component in the legislation. And so on, and so on. Stupid voters make the erroneous assumption that politicians like Bill Clinton are liberal because they are Democrats, and because the right and the media keep telling them that these guys are liberals. Most of the country has now done the same for Obama, but of course the opposite is true. So maybe the explanation for his failed presidency is simply that he has adopted the same regressive policies that have been killing the country for three decades now.
But, wait! Green has another theory about the president's failure, and it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that he may be right.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Self Portrait
Enjoy, for a good weekend.
(Steps Ahead: Michael Brecker - tenor sax; Mike Mainieri - vibraphone; Chuck Loeb - guitar; Victor Bailey - bass; Peter Erskine - drums. Umbria Jazz Festival, Perugia, Italia, July 13th, 1985)
(Steps Ahead: Michael Brecker - tenor sax; Mike Mainieri - vibraphone; Chuck Loeb - guitar; Victor Bailey - bass; Peter Erskine - drums. Umbria Jazz Festival, Perugia, Italia, July 13th, 1985)
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Ken Buck, Bad for the Brain, Bad for the World
You know how people (well, OK, not people, religious people) say that homosexuality is a choice? I always considered it really stupid argument. So, to me, it's particularly offensive and dangerous when a person who is running to represent us, like the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Colorado, Ken Buck, takes the position that homosexuality is a choice. Adultery (if you believe in such a construct) is a choice. Drinking, as opposed to abstaining, is (to a large degree) a choice. But sex? Really, in the 21st century there are still people who believe that sex is driven by choice?
It's a stupid argument for me, because I never chose to like women. I was attracted to girls since I was a boy and never did it cross my mind that I might, one day, choose to be with men (not that there's anything wrong with that, of course). I think this probably goes for the overwhelming majority of human beings. Truly, if my life depended on it and I had to tell you the day I "chose" to like girls, I'd have to lie and make up a date. Because, in all honesty, that is one answer I don't have to give. I like girls, period.
Really, then, what religious people are asking us to believe is that it would be becoming, for our gay and lesbian (and bisexual) brothers and sisters, to give up their natural (god-given?) sexual orientation to please a god that chose to make them different... to do what exactly? To tease them? To make an example of them. Or, worse, these people really believe that sexual orientation is not a natural feature but a preference.
The way to silence these selfish and dangerous individuals, if they were able to stop and think and shut their gob in humility, would be to ask them to pinpoint, at least to the month and year, the time they choose to like girls and not boys, or viceversa. The usual argument from them, at this point, is that bestiality and pedofilia are also natural, so should we indulge people with such proclivities? That is usually the moment I have to bite my tongue until it bleeds, count to 100, and then say--as politely as possible under the circumstances: "Don't you think that, perhaps, what consenting adult do is different from what an adult imposes on a five year-old? Also, there are some really good laws against Uncle Timmy abusing his little niece Amanda." If that logic does not break trough their concrete brains, then I have to walk away in a hurry because my next instinct would be to punch them. And I am against using force as a mean to show others the errors of their ways.
To add insult to injury, these self-declared Christians and their elected representatives tell us that their religion is different because it's a loving religion, and because we can all choose to have a personal relationship with their god, and that their goal is not to establish a theocracy, unlike--say--Islam. Of course, it wouldn't be a theocracy. It would just be a place where gays and lesbians would not be able to serve openly in the military, one where they would not be able to get married like everybody else (unless we wanted people to go down the slippery slope of marrying donkeys), one where they could not adopt, or even one where they should not be able to teach the children of straight folks. Again, a big difference from a theocracy, why can't you see it? And these people have the gall to call themselves, their god and their religion "loving."
I still believe that there is hope for humans, but it pains me that it takes so long to win even fights with a certain outcome, so that most people won't be alive to reap the fruits of the seeds of reason they sowed. But the fight is worth fighting and it start with voting, to ensure that people like Ken Buck do not get the opportunity to advance their evil, discriminatory beliefs.
It's a stupid argument for me, because I never chose to like women. I was attracted to girls since I was a boy and never did it cross my mind that I might, one day, choose to be with men (not that there's anything wrong with that, of course). I think this probably goes for the overwhelming majority of human beings. Truly, if my life depended on it and I had to tell you the day I "chose" to like girls, I'd have to lie and make up a date. Because, in all honesty, that is one answer I don't have to give. I like girls, period.
Really, then, what religious people are asking us to believe is that it would be becoming, for our gay and lesbian (and bisexual) brothers and sisters, to give up their natural (god-given?) sexual orientation to please a god that chose to make them different... to do what exactly? To tease them? To make an example of them. Or, worse, these people really believe that sexual orientation is not a natural feature but a preference.
The way to silence these selfish and dangerous individuals, if they were able to stop and think and shut their gob in humility, would be to ask them to pinpoint, at least to the month and year, the time they choose to like girls and not boys, or viceversa. The usual argument from them, at this point, is that bestiality and pedofilia are also natural, so should we indulge people with such proclivities? That is usually the moment I have to bite my tongue until it bleeds, count to 100, and then say--as politely as possible under the circumstances: "Don't you think that, perhaps, what consenting adult do is different from what an adult imposes on a five year-old? Also, there are some really good laws against Uncle Timmy abusing his little niece Amanda." If that logic does not break trough their concrete brains, then I have to walk away in a hurry because my next instinct would be to punch them. And I am against using force as a mean to show others the errors of their ways.
To add insult to injury, these self-declared Christians and their elected representatives tell us that their religion is different because it's a loving religion, and because we can all choose to have a personal relationship with their god, and that their goal is not to establish a theocracy, unlike--say--Islam. Of course, it wouldn't be a theocracy. It would just be a place where gays and lesbians would not be able to serve openly in the military, one where they would not be able to get married like everybody else (unless we wanted people to go down the slippery slope of marrying donkeys), one where they could not adopt, or even one where they should not be able to teach the children of straight folks. Again, a big difference from a theocracy, why can't you see it? And these people have the gall to call themselves, their god and their religion "loving."
I still believe that there is hope for humans, but it pains me that it takes so long to win even fights with a certain outcome, so that most people won't be alive to reap the fruits of the seeds of reason they sowed. But the fight is worth fighting and it start with voting, to ensure that people like Ken Buck do not get the opportunity to advance their evil, discriminatory beliefs.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The "Dangers" of Going The Way of Europe
Over at The Constructive Curmudgeon, Douglas Groothuis warns his readers that the upcoming mid-terms are going to be "an election of consequence." If, says Groothuis, Republicans don't make substantial gains, the American Experiment could be lost to Obama's statism, the growth of the federal government, outrageous deficits, an imperial presidency, and--shake in your boots--America may go the way of Europe.
Groothuis and us, we must be living in different worlds, because--the last I checked--the outrageous deficits Groothuis speaks of where largely inherited from the Bush presidency, as noted by David Michael Green, and so was the imperial presidency; not to mention the fact that conservatives tend to forget that massive deficit expansion that took place under their idol, Ronald Reagan. But that's okay, we expect selective memory from Republicans, that's what they do best.
But perhaps the greatest irony is that we are supposed to fear going the way of Europe, just when Alternet released an interviewed by Thomas McNally with Thomas Geoghegan, author of Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?. Go read the interview and see for yourself why we should be so afraid of going the Europe's way. Perhaps it's because
Or maybe we should fear going the way of Europe because "European nations spend far less than the United States for universal healthcare rated by the World Health Organization as the best in the world" and are way ahead of the United States in creating and using renewable energy technology and in environmental protection laws.
I wasn't born here. I came by choice. I thought this was the place to be, the land of opportunity, one that rewarded initiative over inherited wealth and status. I have to reconsider.
American health care has never been a model for the world to imitate, but it has gotten even worse than it was when I arrived, more unfair.
Politics have deteriorated into the circus that we see today, in which Tea-Party clowns like Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle are regarded as serious contenders, Sarah Palin is considered a political leader and the Chamber of Commerce is a money-laundering organization for foreign entities that seek to more easily influence the political process than they could before. We have gone through the impeachment of one president whose crime was lying about getting "serviced" in the White House, while another who declared an illegal and criminal war on a nation that had not harmed us served his entire two terms out without so much as a congressional inquiry, perhaps because the Republican Congress was so busy rubberstamping everything that they were too busy wondering why four different justifications, none valid, were given for the invasion of Iraq.
Talking about Congress, the American Congress is one of the most corrupt in the Western world. I am not talking about bribes or kickbacks. I am talking about the system of election funding that induces "public servants" to act in the best interest of their corporate sponsors. A perverse system in which money equates free speech, meaning that you and I are crushed before the race starts. One that rewards ignoring the creation of well-paying jobs, fair living conditions, the protection and preservation of the Commons, equal access to justice for all, an educational system where everybody has a shot. A system that rewards focusing energy and effort on protecting the sanctity of the unborn while the living rot, on ensuring that the unconstitutional discrimination against gays continues, on forcing rape and incest victims to carry the fruit of violence to term, on denying science, why, even on denying that the President was born a U.S. citizen.
Sixty-five years ago the United States saved the world. Now they are incapable of saving themselves from the spiral of greed and dishonesty that has all but destroyed the America dream. This once great nation is becoming a Banana Republic, populated by people too ignorant, misled and apathetic to notice that their elected "representatives" have been pulling the wool over their eyes (and ears and mouths) for at least 30 years.
Remember this, since I arrived less than 20 years ago, the share of the nation's income that goes to the top 1% of earners has grown, since I arrived in 1992, from just over 40% to almost 65%, while at the same time it has dropped for the bottom 90% of earners from 30% to just over 10%.
Could it be that the thing the world should fear is going the way of America, the Republican-backed Corporate America version that Douglas Groothuis is so eager to expand?
Groothuis and us, we must be living in different worlds, because--the last I checked--the outrageous deficits Groothuis speaks of where largely inherited from the Bush presidency, as noted by David Michael Green, and so was the imperial presidency; not to mention the fact that conservatives tend to forget that massive deficit expansion that took place under their idol, Ronald Reagan. But that's okay, we expect selective memory from Republicans, that's what they do best.
But perhaps the greatest irony is that we are supposed to fear going the way of Europe, just when Alternet released an interviewed by Thomas McNally with Thomas Geoghegan, author of Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?. Go read the interview and see for yourself why we should be so afraid of going the Europe's way. Perhaps it's because
Germany has somehow managed to create a high-wage, unionized economy without shipping all its jobs abroad or creating a massive trade deficit, or any trade deficit at all. And even as the Germans outsell the United States, they manage to take six weeks of vacation every year. They're beating us with one hand tied behind their back.
Or maybe we should fear going the way of Europe because "European nations spend far less than the United States for universal healthcare rated by the World Health Organization as the best in the world" and are way ahead of the United States in creating and using renewable energy technology and in environmental protection laws.
I wasn't born here. I came by choice. I thought this was the place to be, the land of opportunity, one that rewarded initiative over inherited wealth and status. I have to reconsider.
American health care has never been a model for the world to imitate, but it has gotten even worse than it was when I arrived, more unfair.
Politics have deteriorated into the circus that we see today, in which Tea-Party clowns like Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle are regarded as serious contenders, Sarah Palin is considered a political leader and the Chamber of Commerce is a money-laundering organization for foreign entities that seek to more easily influence the political process than they could before. We have gone through the impeachment of one president whose crime was lying about getting "serviced" in the White House, while another who declared an illegal and criminal war on a nation that had not harmed us served his entire two terms out without so much as a congressional inquiry, perhaps because the Republican Congress was so busy rubberstamping everything that they were too busy wondering why four different justifications, none valid, were given for the invasion of Iraq.
Talking about Congress, the American Congress is one of the most corrupt in the Western world. I am not talking about bribes or kickbacks. I am talking about the system of election funding that induces "public servants" to act in the best interest of their corporate sponsors. A perverse system in which money equates free speech, meaning that you and I are crushed before the race starts. One that rewards ignoring the creation of well-paying jobs, fair living conditions, the protection and preservation of the Commons, equal access to justice for all, an educational system where everybody has a shot. A system that rewards focusing energy and effort on protecting the sanctity of the unborn while the living rot, on ensuring that the unconstitutional discrimination against gays continues, on forcing rape and incest victims to carry the fruit of violence to term, on denying science, why, even on denying that the President was born a U.S. citizen.
Sixty-five years ago the United States saved the world. Now they are incapable of saving themselves from the spiral of greed and dishonesty that has all but destroyed the America dream. This once great nation is becoming a Banana Republic, populated by people too ignorant, misled and apathetic to notice that their elected "representatives" have been pulling the wool over their eyes (and ears and mouths) for at least 30 years.
Remember this, since I arrived less than 20 years ago, the share of the nation's income that goes to the top 1% of earners has grown, since I arrived in 1992, from just over 40% to almost 65%, while at the same time it has dropped for the bottom 90% of earners from 30% to just over 10%.
Could it be that the thing the world should fear is going the way of America, the Republican-backed Corporate America version that Douglas Groothuis is so eager to expand?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Religion's Contribution to Science
Here's a pretty definitive argument to silence believers when it comes to their criticism of science and its inability to answer the mysteries of life, the universe and everything:
Name one factual, falsifiable, and essential contribution made by religion, any religion, to the understanding of nature and the development of life and the universe.
I thought so. Or, surprise me.
Name one factual, falsifiable, and essential contribution made by religion, any religion, to the understanding of nature and the development of life and the universe.
I thought so. Or, surprise me.
Tea Partiers Enabled The Mess We're In, And Now They Wanna Solve It?
[Knocking on tea-partier's skull] "Hello? Hello? Anybody in? Didn't think so."
Tea Partiers, says Prof. David Michael Green, were the great enablers of the mess we are in. And they are the one bitching the loudest. And now? Oh yeah, they want your vote. So they can fix the mess they helped create? Jabberwocky.
Tea Partiers, says Prof. David Michael Green, were the great enablers of the mess we are in. And they are the one bitching the loudest. And now? Oh yeah, they want your vote. So they can fix the mess they helped create? Jabberwocky.
Real Republicans
Ken Buck, Colorado.
Carly Fiorina, California.
Democrats are lame, but Republicans are positively dangerous.
The worst that can happen is that you will find some Democrats, in some districts, who are as bad as the Republican candidate. But, as a rule, Republicans are far worse for regular folks (a.k.a. non-wealthy, non-millionaires.)
No brainer, no choice. Vote Democrat or suffer (more).
Carly Fiorina, California.
Democrats are lame, but Republicans are positively dangerous.
The worst that can happen is that you will find some Democrats, in some districts, who are as bad as the Republican candidate. But, as a rule, Republicans are far worse for regular folks (a.k.a. non-wealthy, non-millionaires.)
No brainer, no choice. Vote Democrat or suffer (more).
Monday, October 11, 2010
Curing Homosexuality
These people who advocate that gays can be cured of their homosexuality, what do you call them... ah, yes believers. I wonder about them. There is more evidence that homosexuality is not a choice (and even if it were a choice, so what?) than there is for the Universe being created by an all-loving, perfect, all-knowing (and therefore not free), all-caring god. I think we need more classes to cure religious people than ones to cure gays. Delusion being more dangerous than sexual preference, i.e.
On a related note, watch this segment from last night's Rachel Maddow Show.
Why anyone would vote for people like these is beyond me. It's quite disgusting when it's just people like the ones depicted in Maddow's segment who decry Sharia Law, when they themselves want to impose the Christian equivalent of it. I'll have none of it, will you?
On a related note, watch this segment from last night's Rachel Maddow Show.
Why anyone would vote for people like these is beyond me. It's quite disgusting when it's just people like the ones depicted in Maddow's segment who decry Sharia Law, when they themselves want to impose the Christian equivalent of it. I'll have none of it, will you?
Poll Respondents
I am no die-hard fan of President Obama, but I know the difference between a disappointment and a complete failure made possible by evil and idiocy. Unlike 41% of the CNN poll shown above.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Leprechauns, Religions and Science
Jerry Coyne, in USA Today, explains why science and religion are incompatible, and why religions deserves no more concessions from science than leprechauns do.
Class Warfare Hypocrisy
Interesting article on class warfare. The real one, that is.
Beware of those who accuse governments that try to bring relief to the poor and huddles masses as statists, while hailing those whose intent is to crush the same masses into servitude and submission as paladins of freedom.
Beware of those who accuse governments that try to bring relief to the poor and huddles masses as statists, while hailing those whose intent is to crush the same masses into servitude and submission as paladins of freedom.
Monday, October 04, 2010
This Is One Fucked Up Country
If you want proof that this is one really fucked up country, and that some of the people who inhabit it are indefensible morons, all you have to do is ready the following two articles from Think Progress:
National Review Writers Defend County Whose Subscription-Only Firefighters Watched Home Burn Down.
All I have to say is: If we have to subscribe to firefighting services, what on earth are we paying taxes for: corporate welfare and wars? In that case, I might add, sign me in for opt-in corporate welfare and opt-in military. I loath the former, and on the latter you don't even want to get me started.
The second article should be all you ever need to convince your Republican, Libertarian and teabagging friends that voting Republican is, in essence, like kissing your money, jobs, and freedom away. It describes the fact that Mike Pence, a contender for the 2012 Republican nomination for the presidency, believes that the way to fix the economy is to keep gays from marrying.
Just so we're clear, the problem is not that there are people who promote stupid ideas, such as that you should opt-in for firefighting services or that preventing gays from marrying is as much of a national priority as fixing the economy. The problem is that there is quite a large number of people who vote for candidates who promote those ideas. In any country that was not a Banana Republic, such candidates would be laughed out of debates, and kicked out of political parties.
It's getting increasingly harder to feel any pride for being Americans.
National Review Writers Defend County Whose Subscription-Only Firefighters Watched Home Burn Down.
All I have to say is: If we have to subscribe to firefighting services, what on earth are we paying taxes for: corporate welfare and wars? In that case, I might add, sign me in for opt-in corporate welfare and opt-in military. I loath the former, and on the latter you don't even want to get me started.
The second article should be all you ever need to convince your Republican, Libertarian and teabagging friends that voting Republican is, in essence, like kissing your money, jobs, and freedom away. It describes the fact that Mike Pence, a contender for the 2012 Republican nomination for the presidency, believes that the way to fix the economy is to keep gays from marrying.
Just so we're clear, the problem is not that there are people who promote stupid ideas, such as that you should opt-in for firefighting services or that preventing gays from marrying is as much of a national priority as fixing the economy. The problem is that there is quite a large number of people who vote for candidates who promote those ideas. In any country that was not a Banana Republic, such candidates would be laughed out of debates, and kicked out of political parties.
It's getting increasingly harder to feel any pride for being Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)