I Support A Flat Tax

I do. For corporations. So no corporation can get out of paying taxes. You pay 20%, no loopholes.

And, to foster employment in the United States, there should be a penalty v bonus scale system, to reward companies that keep employment in the United States, and to punish companies that outsource plants and work.

Realize that even though corporate taxes in the United States are among the highest on the planet, as Republicans like to say on Fox News and to any organization that offers them a mic to spew spin at, that is true just in terms of statutory rates, not for effective rates. Many companies pay no tax. So you support a flat tax? Start by supporting a flat tax system for those who systematically use the law to pay no tax at all, and who use profits to destroy small businesses and export jobs abroad: large American corporations.

Yes, please.

Do get rid of the Electoral College system. It is an abomination that grants some states unbalanced power in the election of the President.

Fucking Liars and Their Fucking Talking Points

Thanks to the incomparable Joan McCarter of Daily Kos for drawing my attention to this chart, which exposes naked the Republican lie about the fact that too many Americans don't pay their fair share and pay no taxes.

The Greatest Scam Perpetrated by The Financial Sector on Unwitting Americans

Now that the title of the post got your interest, you do want to know what the greatest scam ever perpetrated on the unwitting American public is, right? 401Ks. There, I said it. And I have been saying that for a long time, to my friends and to my wife. And now, after a long time, they are starting to understand what I meant and still mean. And last night Rachel Maddow put things in perspective for you, with the help of Simon Johnson.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Republican Debate, Bonus Round

Here's a quick summary of the Republican Presidential Debate in Las Vegas, since there is a good chance you were among the 99%-ers (not that you were occupying anything, you were just not occupying your couch to watch it.) It's in the form of the answer each candidate might have given to the hypothetical question "What did you do last summer?".

Santorum: I spent last summer with my religious, entirely heterosexual family, trying to get google to change the search results hierarchy for Santorum.

Cain: Last summer I played Sim City a lot, and ate a lot of pizza, and then I fell asleep. And then the Archangel Koch came to me and told me "go and spread the 9-9-9 gospel." And I did not know what that crazy motherfucker was talking about, was it the price of pizza or some secret code for Sim City? What the fuck, motherfucker?!? Well anyway, I still don't know how, but I came up with my 9-9-9 tax plan.

Gingrich: When I was in Congress, in the summer of 1994, I ... oh, last summer? When I was in Congress in 1995...

Ron Paul: I didn't do anything last summer because the Federal Reserve is fucking us and our money and we need to get rid of the government, all of it! (Eyebrow falls off, head explodes.)

Rick Perry: When I left the house in the summer, I was packing heat. And a nukular weapon, in my pants. And I was wearing cowboy boots. And I hate Mormons.

Michele Bachmann: Last summer I was a business woman and a tax auditor for the I.R.S., I cooked for my 27 foster children and 5 natural children, did everything my husband told me to, and I have a message for all the white moms who are getting evicted from their nest: Hang in there! It's a shame you live in fear of losing your home while Barack Obama, that horrible black man, lives in a house. But help is on the way, and I am president Barack Obama will not have a house any more... either.

Mitt Romney: Look around, fellas. Who cares what I did last summer? Have you seen the other candidates? I am white, handsome, and love business. Who cares if I am a Mormon?

The End.

Cain's Jobs Plan

"Some people will pay more, but most people would pay less is my argument... Who will pay more? The people who spend more money on new goods. The sales tax only applies to people who buy new goods, not used goods. That's a big difference that doesn't come out." (Republican presidential aspirant Herman Cain, on last Sunday's Meet the Press.)
Yes, because what better way to create employment and jump start the economy out of a recession than to encourage people to stop buying new shit and trade in used shit instead? You know what else doesn't come out? A lot of people will pay zero tax, because they will rob the grocery store instead of paying for the stuff they used to buy. And as an added bonus, if you are caught stealing and go to jail, not only will you pay no income tax; the government has to feed you, too.
It amazes me that these Republican buffoons are even taken seriously.

They Might As Well Call It "The 999% Plan"

The Tax Policy Center's review of the 9-9-9 plan is in.

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan would raise taxes on 84 percent of U.S. households, according to an independent analysis released Tuesday, contradicting claims by the Republican presidential candidate that most Americans would see a tax cut.

The Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, says low- and middle-income families would be hit hardest, with households making between $10,000 and $20,000 seeing their taxes increase by nearly 950 percent.

Since the difference between 950 and 999% is actually petty, in the general scope of things, I hope someone renames Cain's evil/idiotic idea the 999% plan, to signify the increase in income tax that the poorest would be subjected to. But this is America, so there are plenty of people who should be protesting this evil tax reform plan who are actually rooting for it.

Immoral Games

Markos Moulitsas is right:

Every time you hear conservatives talk about the "rights of the unborn," remember this—their opposition to abortion has nothing to do with babies. If it was, they wouldn't oppose funding for pre- and postnatal care. If it was, they'd support wider dissemination of contraception and better sex education and family planning services. After all, the best way to avoid an abortion is to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

No, this has nothing to do with babies, and all about controlling human sexuality. If people can have abortions, if they can use condoms, then they will fuck—and that will somehow bring about "social collapse." Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to full term is, in their minds, a just punishment for being sluts.

To conservatives, sex is simply bad. (See Markos's full post here.)

It's typical of Republican/Conservative hypocrisy to fight their battles under false premises. Against taxing the oligarchs and plutocrats? Say you're defending job creators. Fighting for your donors in the oil and gas industries? Say environmental regulations are destroying America's job base. And the same applies to sex. Sexual freedom (as Orwell understood well) is one of the pillars of free society. Particularly sexual freedom for women. If you can control what people can do in the most intimate sphere of their lives, which is what they do with their bodies, is there really anything else you cannot control, squash, impose? So the Republicans' real agenda on sexuality is one of tyranny masked as compassion for the unborn, and it is quite telling that the Conservatives' compassion for human beings stops at the unborn. They have no problem condemning the unborn, once born, to a life of misery, poverty, tribulation, subjugation, modern slavery, ill health.

Shame on them, and on all those who enable them in defense of ideals that Republicans have betrayed daily for close to 50 years.

Mark Cuban's Money

You might know him as, among other things, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks. He has a boatload of money and, apparently, he is not looking at paying high taxes as class warfare.

So be Patriotic. Go out there and get rich. Get so obnoxiously rich that when that tax bill comes, your first thought will be to choke on how big a check you have to write. Your 2nd thought will be “what a great problem to have”, and your 3rd should be a recognition that in paying your taxes you are helping to support millions of Americans that are not as fortunate as you. (Mark Cuban, on his blog. Emphasis added.)

When he says "helping to support millions of Americans" I am sure he does not mean what Republicans usually mean, which is "helping to support leeches who do nothing and expect stuff in return." He means those who, try as they might, will never have the skills, the opportunities, and the blessings that a Mark Cuban earned. Well said.

Michele Bachmann: Liar, Ignorant, Manipulative or All of the Above?

Via Think Progress:
Bachmann Claims Wall Street Reform Is ‘Killing The Banking Industry’ As Banks Post Record Profits

Michele Bachmann on HPV

Via the Daily Kos.

"Okay, so what I'm hearing here is that there is a disagreement in the scientific community on this issue [of HPV vaccinations]. On one side you have the full weight of the medical and scientific establishment, and on the other side you have Michele Bachmann citing studies in the New England Journal of Some Lady I Just Met."
---Stephen Colbert

Welcome to Fascist America

Why don't Repuglycans just rename their Party to match their ideas? Uniion-busting? That is fascism. Ask Mussolini.

Read about the outsourcers' bill of rights that the Republican House just passed.

This is how Rep. George Miller (D-CA) had to say about the bill from the floor of the House:

Under this bill, a company can retaliate against a worker for trying to organize a union. The employer could layoff that worker and subcontract their work out.

A company can bust a union by setting up a shell company down the street and send all the work there until all of the union employees have lost their jobs. Workers would be out of luck because the NLRB would be prohibited from ordering the work returned to those now-unemployed workers.

Welcome to Fascism, America.

Sen. Sanders on Countdown on How To Save Social Security

A sane man puts intelligence back in a national debate which epitomizes insanity and corruption.

Republicans Announce Their Picks For "Gang Of 12"

The Republican picks for the "Super-Congress", the "Gang Of 12", or whatever you want to call it, are out. All six have signed Grover Norquist's pledge not to raise taxes. Ever.

Whether the deficit-reduction commission ends up being the "stalemate commission" or the "cave-in commission" is, basically, entirely up to Democrats. Time to start packing your bags for friendlier, civilized countries, I fear.

How California (And Government In General) Wastes Tons Of Our Money

Mendocino Marijuana Raid.

Think about it: Add to the value of the marijuana seized ($800 million) the cost of running the operation, the cost of jailing the perps, the loss of revenue from money that could have been earned by California through other productive endeavors, and the cost of trying and jailing people for possession and/or distribution of the stuff, and you will see that the war on drugs is sheer insanity, particularly in a country that tried Prohibition and passed an amendment to repeal it.

Weekend Reading: Do It For Democracy

It's a beautiful day and, yes, you might think you have better things to do. Barbecue, go to a pool, go to a National Park, to a ballgame or to the mall. The choices are many. The couch potatoes will just stay home and blast the A/C and the TV instead.

Of course, that is kind of how we got to the predicament we're in. We stopped caring about the things that matter. We stopped reading, we stopped trying to find out what goes on in the world around us. We misinterpreted the role we play in a healthy democracy by reducing it to voting every two or four years (if at all) for people who are supposed to represent us. We became numb to the talking points of the few and inured to the pain they inflicted on our lives, as if inevitable.

Someone said that democracy is not a spectators' sport. It isn't, it shouldn't be. Not only we let it become a spectators' sport, we let it become a victim's activity. That's the prevailing thought of many, that we are all victims of an incessant stream of conspiratorial activities at the hands of the powerful is so dangerous and so destructive; because, if you believe that the world is run by a small number of conspirators that cannot be stopped, you stop fighting for what you, in theory deserve.

That is also why religion has such a devastating effects on the lives of Americans: because if you get used to submitting yourself to a higher, unquestionable authority in matters of spirituality, you will most likely retain that attitude in all facets of life. George Carlin put it best, when talking about the Ten Commandments, he said this about the 4th (or 5th, depending on which flavor of Christianity you submit to): "Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn’t be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent’s performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don’t, period." You can quibble with some aspects of Carlin's routine, but not with the central point: obedience and respect should not be automatic; not for parents; not for any authority, be it governmental or of any other kind.

But it's hard to question authority without being able to grade its performance, not based on belief or unsupported personal convictions, but on facts and logic. Of course, we have also been trained to believe that one man's facts are another's man fallacious opinions. That is not so: everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. It is true that facts and data are subject to interpretation; but the interpretation should rely on a consistent world view. Only when logic is twisted beyond recognition, do facts also lose their essential truth.

I hope that you will forgive me for this long preamble. To make a long story short, there are many things you could be doing this weekend. In truth, they are not all mutually exclusive, and that is precisely why I invite you to read these posts which I found engaging, illuminating, and--to a great extent--convincing.

How to Think About Standard and Poor's Downgrade
America in Decline
30 Years Ago: The Day the Middle Class Died

By all means, don't stop at these; they are just recommendations. If you don't like them, find your own reading. But, as surely as you must feed your body and your spirit, don't forget to also feed your mind. Your well-being, and the well-being of those you care about, depends on it, all the more so in an ailing democracy.

Beyond The Outcry for S&P's Downgrade Of The USA's Credit-Worthiness

(UPDATED with Robert Reich's perspective, below my original post.)

There are those who decry the decision of Standard & Poor's to dowgrade the credit-worthiness of the United States as laughable, indefensible, and wrong. I beg to differ. S&P did the right thing, and I hope that other rating agencies will follow suit. This does not mean that S&P and other credit rating agencies do not have credibility issues of their own, nor that we should take everything they say or write as the revealed word of god. But after the the pitiful spectactle offered by the two political parties in the standoff over the debt ceiling, which ended with the side of the hostage takers getting everything they wanted (98%, according to the Speaker of the House), and the other side, the Stockholm-syndrome plagued Democrats, acting as if we have to thank the kidnappers for releasing us after paying a 2.4 trillion ransom, how can anyone blame S&P for just taking reality into account?

The American government gave the world the worse possible performance it could have given, and we should expect everybody to applaud because it decided to honor its debts? How deluded are we if we think that the world regards the current political class as responsible and trustworthy, and that we are deserving of the best possible rating?

I believe that when all the dust has settled you will see that S&P's rationale for downgrading the United States' credit rating actually makes a lot of sense. Below are excerpts from their press release, in the order in which they appear. (Emphases added.)

• the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
  
  
• [we are] pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.
  
  
• The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.
  
  
• It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.
  
  
• Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues...

The conclusion of the press release states:

On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction–independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners–lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government’s debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at ‘AA+’.

The full report can be found on Standard and Poor's website.

P.S. You will hear that the Obama administration has levied accusations that S&P's numbers are off by a couple of trillion dollars, making the downgrade decision flawed or outright wrong. But you should also notice that much of the rationale for the downgrade lies in the intransigence of (Republicans in) Congress against raising revenues, and on the lack of credibility of Washington's political class. So the downgrade is less about numbers than it is about prospects and credibility. And the decision therefore falls squarely on the shoulders of those who decided to take the American economy hostage in the service of their wealthy overlords.

---

---------------------------------------------------------------
And now, as promised, is Robert Reich's take on S&P's downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. It is interesting, because Reich correctly points out that S&P has no business telling the United States how large a deficit it can run, unless its ability to repay its debts is in question.

While I respect Reich's point of view greatly, I still would not discount the weight that the credibility of American politics has in forecasting the nation's ability to repay its debts. In other words, I welcome S&P's downgrade IF, and that's a big if, it sends Washington the message that some things are off-limits to politicking. Which is why I also blame President Obama for not throwing the weight of the Fourteenth Amendment at the leaders of the Republican Party and at Tea Party members during the negotiations. The President is making many people regret their decision of supporting him instead of Hillary Clinton. It is hard to imagine that Mrs. Clinton could have done worse than he has in negotiations with Republicans, who have run all over him from Day 1 of his arrival in office. And that, which is that Obama is making us long for a Clinton presidency, speaks volumes to the magnitude of his failure so far.

Study Cuts Through The Fog Of Anti-Union Lies

Here is an important post regarding the strong correlation between a decline in union membership and declining wages.

News Flash For Eric Cantor

Rep. Cantor (R-VA) opposes extending unemployment "benefits" (really, unemployment benefits should be called unemployment insurance, which every worker contributes to via payroll taxes).

Perhaps Rep. Cantor needs to be reminded that getting unemployment insurance, Rep. Cantor, is not a choice. You cannot get unemployment insurance payment unless you are laid off. And the unemployed are not lazy bums who seek to ride on the backs of others, any more than people who receive Social Security payments that they themselves have funded throughout their working lives are.

Mind you, it's not that Eric Cantor is opposed to spending money altogether. It's rather that he is very selective in deciding whose money gets spent: If it's my money, to support corporations, wars, energy companies (except, of course, for renewable energy), then he has no problem with it. If it's the other way around, that is if the issue is collecting more money from those who have oodles of it, to support middle- and low-income families, then he marches to a very different tune. There is nothing he would not cut in order to preserve the right of the mega-rich, be it individuals or corporations, to hoard all their possessions.

I know unemployed people, and I know how unfavorably they live through their situation. First off, unemployment payments are not--by any reasonable standard--enough to make ends meet. Secondly, most people I know who are unemployed are actively seeking employment (which is a condition for continuing to receive payments). In the current economic climate, it is very hard to land an interview for most people, let alone a job offer, let alone an actual job. Most offers they receive are inadequate replacement for their previous income, you might even call them demeaning.

Which leads me to the next consideration: Why should anyone be expected to take a job, any job, regardless how demeaning or beneath one's education, when the pay that comes with it barely tops the money they are receiving for their unemployment? In what completely upside-down world could anyone talk of the dignity of work, when the work you are offered does not match your qualifications, nor your legitimate salary expectations, particularly if you have experience and you are good at what you do, or used to do? The moment you accept an inadequate job your chances of pursuing adequate jobs are diminished: it becomes harder to search for a good job and harder to interview for one, so the benefits of having inadequate employments are dwarfed by what you lose in comparison.

Many people think that dignity automatically comes with work, any sort of work. That is a a view that benefits only ownership, as opposed to workers. There is no dignity for an out-of-work teacher flipping burgers for $7.25 an hour. There is no dignity for an unemployed engineer working on an assembly-line for $12 an hour. And yet too many people are taught that there is more dignity in that than in holding out for work commensurate with one's ability and earning expectations and collecting unemployment. So yes, we should try go get people off unemployment and put them back to work again, but not off unemployment and into any job.

It's an upside-down world indeed, one where people like Rep. Cantor can shoot their mouths off about things they don't know or don't understand and collect $193,400 a year for it. It's the kind of money not even teachers should be making, and they work to make people's lives better. He makes it, on our backs, by doing everything he can to destroy the American middle-class. If this country has any hope left within, it must start with booting people like Cantor out of office.

Kudos To Gov. Christie (R-NJ)

It' not often that I will praise a Republican, but even Halley's Comet pays us a visit every now and then.

Gov. Christie' response to people who objected to his appointment of Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim-AMERICAN judge, to a state bench deserves a big round of applause.

They are criticizing him because he is a Muslim American…I was disgusted, candidly, by some of the questions he was asked by both parties at the Senate judiciary committee…Sharia Law has nothing to do with this at all — it’s crazy! It’s crazy. The guy’s an American citizen…This Sharia Law business is crap. It’s just crazy, and I’m tired of dealing with the crazies. It’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background. (Via Think Progress)

Perhaps a few others can follow suit.

And here is an extensive video of Gov. Christie's remarks on the Sohail Mohamed/Sharia Law controversy. With a standing ovation for him, no less.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It's the President's Birthday. Yawn.

You can always count on The Onion to keep things in due perspective: Obama turns 50.

An Ounce Of Preventation Is Worth...

What, preventation does not exist? True. Neither does the adjective preventative. Please.

The correct form is "preventive". Do not believe those that say that they are equally acceptable. Preventive, as in "preventive medicine", is correct. Preventative is tolerated (not by me, really) just because it has become so widespread, but it is not correct. The fact that many people use it does not make it right, just like the fact that many people use "it's" does not make it a possessive adjective.

What The H Really Stands For

The President's middle initial is starting to look more like an H for Herbert than H for Hussein. That would be Herbert as in Herbert Hoover, the president that led the nation to its greatest economic depression yet.

And I am not the only one to fear so.

And, as Hoover, he is almost certain to be end up as a one-term president, which means that things are only going to get worse for the next six years, at least.

The ship is sinking, start looking for a lifeboat.

Because Not All Christian Leaders Are Repugnant Backers Of The Rich And Powerful Over The Weak

Jim Wallis: "[S]lashing programs for the poor while exempting the rich from sacrifice is repugnant to our spiritual values and contrary to scripture." Apparently the span covered by the adjective "our" needs to be further defined, since this is not true for all Christians.

Read The Moral Default, by Jim Wallis.

The Age Of Greed

The Age of Greed is the title of a new book by Jeff Madrick. It comes with the recommendation of Michael Winship, senior writer on the now defunct Bill Moyers Journal.

At a minimum, Winship's review of it. The book itself sounds like a good read, too.

Matt Damon Is My New Hero (As He Schools a Dumb Reporter)

I always liked Matt Damon, now I like him another bit more.



This is exactly how to confront the drivel of too many libertarians and Republicans, and their platitudes about economic incentives in the free market.

A More Equal America?

Doing Debt Ceiling Battle the FDR Way is a very timely post by Sam Pizzigati on the history of debt ceiling battles while FDR was in the White House. Very instructive, and a little depressing, considering how low we have sunk since then in our national conscience.

The Return of the SHITTERS

Fox ‘Expert’ Blasts Expanding Access To Birth Control: ‘Are We Going To Do Pedicures And Manicures As Well?’ (via Think Progress)

Need I say more?

A Reply to "Facts on Taxes"

Over at The Constructive Curmudgeon, a highly tendentious post appeared in the last 24 hours entitled Facts on Taxes.

This is my rebuttal.

If the title of your post had been Opinions on Taxes, I would have not written this response. But you chose to call it Facts on Taxes. Can you please source the facts, with data and not the names of known partisans like Thomas Sowell?

I like to accompany the opinions I express on my blog with facts, as I did in a post called On The Fantasy That "Taxing Job Creators Is Wrong", which is my view on the myth that taxing "job creators" is wrong. Please read it, as it addressed the fallacies of your assumptions in this post.

Envy, by the way, has nothing to do with asking for the rich to pay a higher rate on some of their income. Progressive taxation is based on the assumption that it is fair for those who have more discretionary income to pay more than those whose income is barely sufficient to make ends meet. Not to mention the fact that the rich benefit more from public services and infrastructure more than low-income Americans, directly or indirectly.

Besides, for someone who believes in the "religion of the free-market", can't you see that a strong economy needs to leave more money in the pockets of those who are more likely to spend it--lower-income Americans--than in the pockets of those who are more likely to save it, or invest it--often outside of the United States?

Finally, if I hear one more time that "we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem", I am going to throw up. It's just a talking point, a clever but mendacious one for the most part.

Of course we have a spending problem, mostly driven by elective wars and the greed of mega-corporations in the oil, banking, and health services industries. But we also have a revenue problem, created by George W. Bush tax cuts which were supposed to have "sunset" by now, and have been extended by the outrageously weak and inept President Obama. Or did you miss the news that revenues are at their lowest point in at least 50 years, if not since the Great Depression, and that top tax rates are at their lowest point since Eisenhower (with the exception of one of the Reagan Years)?

Ironically, remember, that President Obama was accused by his opponents of being the most liberal Senator when he was running, a lie easily born-out by his first 30 months in the White House. He is a centrist at heart, and has been governing from right of center. Of course, in a country where politics is dominated by right-wing extremists, governing from right-of-center still makes you look a liberal extremist, I guess. But compare Obama's policies with FDR's, Johnson's, and even Carter's, and you will see that he is a pro-business, pro-establishment politician. Far from being the socialist populist he has been depicted as by most of the media, he is a corporate socialist.

Peace out.

Country [Club] First!

Rememeber the McCain/Palin campaign slogan? Country First? They almost had it right. It should have been "Country Club First", as easily visible in the Republican intransigence at closing loopholes and raising taxes on the richest Americans.

I have read somewhere that asking the rich to pay their fair share is actually envy (a sin, according to the Christian fundie who wrote it), masked as a cry for social justice. Well, well... is that the nutshell that American Christ-ies see in the debt ceiling "debate", Republican-style? That the elderly, the dispossessed, the jobless, the evicted, the sick in this country should be asked to pay their "fair" share by Republican leeches for the rich, instead of being "soooooo envious"? Or is the righteous exasperation of the trodden-upon being mistaken for envy by the deluded and by the peddler of the "American exceptionalism" delusion?

You should ask yourselves, because the answer is readily available. In fact, it is available in a very readable, astute, and acerbic post by Hunter on the Daily Kos. The guy tells it like it is on the wholly Republican debt ceiling debacle, and this is the paragraph that--best of all--captures the folly of the whole affair:

We're at this point because Republicans insist that the rich pay not one penny more in taxes, despite enjoying the lowest effective tax rates in modern U.S. history. Instead, Republicans demand cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Straight-up class warfare, though they will send for the fainting couch if you point that out.

And this is the apt closing:

This has been the worst display of governmental incompetence for a very, very long time, and that is saying something. If ever we needed an example of partisanship clearly and unambiguously taking precedence over the economic needs of the country, this would be the textbook example. Let's hope we still even have textbooks a year from now, though, because the one thing have been Republicans are being most unyielding on is the demand that we do all of this all over again within six months or a year or so, in order to let them extract even deeper cuts and even more asinine demands.

Crooks, the lot of them.

Read the rest of Hunter's post here.

Republicans Playing Politics With The Future of America?

As Pat Garofalo points out at Think Progress, "when the Republicans held both chambers of Congress from 2003 to 2006, and had a Republican in the White House, they not only didn’t approve a balanced budget amendment, they never even held a vote on it."

Wait! You mean that the debt ceiling frenzy of the last few months is just political posturing to gain advantages for the people the Republican party truly represents, i.e. the super-rich? Get out of here!

The Job Creation Myth

Hello! I just stumbled across a post on the "job creators" myth on the blog of a radio personality from St. Louis: Paul Harris. The guy has the right ideas about job creators and he hosts a show on poker. How bad could he be?

Businessweek: Republican Leaders Voted for Debt They Blame on Obama

Via Joan McCarter of the Daily Kos:

Businessweek: Republican leaders voted for debt they blame on Obama.

No big news there: Republicans are behaving like the hypocrites they are. But look at the chart in McCarter's post. And memorize it. And print it. And show it to all the Republicans and Libertarians and Ayn Randers who will no doubt try to lecture on out-of-hand spending and the problem is not on the revenue side, and all like bullshit.

You should be tired. You should get mad. You should take to the streets, like they do in the rest of the world when they learn the politicians are playing games with their future. And you should rebel against this kind of hypocrisy and stomp it out. Or it will continue to grow like an incurable cancer in your lives.

Another Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President.

Stop pussyfooting: Raise the damn debt ceiling already. You are a constitutional scholar, so you should know that the Constitution of the United States says that the national debt shall not be questioned. And, in fact, it never was. Particularly, it never was questioned by your opponents, who are now posturing as the most principled financial sages when in fact they raised the debt ceiling over and over again without batting an eyelid for decades.

You, Mr. President, like to call yourself "the adult in the room". That may be so. But you are not behaving like the type of adult anyone should take as an example. You like to say that you are seeking compromise because the House is in the hands of your opposition. It is true now, but it was not when you negotiated health care reform from a losing position, after surrendering to every demand your opponents made of you, even when the Democratic Party held the majority in both chambers of Congress.

Mr. President: If your goal was to show that there is nothing Republicans will say yes to, you have proved your point. Enough already. Let the chips fall where they may but, for our sake, it's time to move on.

Be the man we thought we helped elect. For once. Please. Or the only good thing that I'll be able to say about your presidency is that at least you weren't McCain.

Sincerely,

[Name withheld]

Here Are Your Job Creators

When Republicans say that we can't raise taxes on the rich because they are the job creators, they must be thinking of these two:
Borders
Cisco
And remember, the idea is that not raising taxes is the key to job creation. It makes you laugh when you look at this.

And I am listening to Grover Norquist, the insufferable servant to the powerful who is saying that government should not raise taxes under any circumstances, including the debt ceiling deal proposed by the President, which says raise taxes one dollar for every four in spending cuts. Go to hell, Grover.

On The Fantasy That "Taxing Job Creators Is Wrong " (And Why, Poor Things, We Should Not Raise Taxes on Them)

The key to achieving success, motivational speakers and business leaders will tell you, is being able to envision the future you want to achieve for yourself. Everybody can start a successful company and contribute to the success of others by creating jobs and opportunities for them. All you have to do is dream big, think bigger, and pursue your goal with a singularity of intent. Such is the power of the myth of America, the land of opportunity, and so is born the myth of the "small-business job-creator" that Republicans mythicize. Perhaps it is so. Perhaps, and I don't for one believe it--Ayn Rand was right in dividing individuals into the equivalent of superhuman achievers, forces of nature that cannot and should not be messed with on the one hand and leeches on the other. But--and I don't know about you--I am starting to get beyond annoyed at hearing this little nugget of conservative PR: "This is the exactly the wrong time to raise taxes on 'job creators'."

The logic of this insidious, fallacious, and dishonest argument goes more or less like this: the economy is in deep trouble, unemployment is high, people need jobs, and raising taxes on those who are in a position to create jobs is plain dumb." Even at first blush there are so many things wrong with this mendacious line of thinking that one does not know where to begin rebutting it. But I'll try.

We'll start with 9/11. When 9/11 hit, the economy was already in a recession, or so Bush-friendly economists liked to point out. To be fair, it is not just Bush-friendly economists who agree with the basic idea that the economy was already in a period of downturn when Bush inherited the presidency, from Clinton and from the Supreme Court. So be it. So, enter George Dumbya. He almost immediately lowered taxes. On everyone, sure, but much more for the benefit of the wealthiest Americans. From here on, we'll refer to these wealthy Americans as "job creators", both to please conservatives and because living in a fantasy is sometime a necessary refuge from everyday life (particularly the type of live engineered by conservatives). It was supposed to be a temporary thing to help the country recover after 9/11, but you know how things go. Nothing in life is as permanent as the supposedly temporary.

Anyway, at the end of George Dumbya's eight years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the net job creation (1st term in office vs. last term in office) amounted to 3 million, give or take a few heads. That's meager, particularly at a time when taxes were the lowest since Ronald Reagan's last year in office. Compare that figure with the 23 million jobs created under 8 years of Bill Clinton. Now add to that the fact that during the same time that jobs grew by 3 million (or +2.3% in term of payroll expansion) the population grew by 22 million, or 7.7%, and you will see that job creation did even remotely keep up with population expansion. (Under Clinton the population grew more rapidly, by 25.2 million or 8.9%, but roughly one job was created for each new arrival).

When George Dumbya left office, he left Obama a country in shambles. (Be it known that I think President Obama did a horrid job during the first 2.5 years in office.) Taxes under the new president remained untouched for the first 2.5 years, and yet joblessness continued to grow, from 7.8% when he came into office, to the current 9.2%.

To recap: taxes have remained at their lowest than at any time since Reagan's last year in office for the last 10 years or so, but the unemployment rate has continued to rise--from 4.2% when Bush came into office to 9.2% under Obama at present. Aside from the not tiny but conveniently overlooked fact (by conservatives) that most of this rise in unemployment came under George Dumbya (4.2% when he arrived, 7.8% when he left eight years later = +3.6%), where are the jobs that the job creators should have created under the most favorable tax treatment of them in 30 years? It seems that the correlation between low individual tax rates and job creation is dogmatic at best.

But, you will say, the economy is not doing well, so Obama should actually lower taxes. Really? How low is low enough for jobs to magically start appearing? There is only one thing that's worse than making the same mistake over and over again and expecting different results: doubling up on the same mistake.

But, you might also add in a desperate attempt to save the conservative day, corporate income taxes are very high. You would say that because you probably heard that corporate taxes in the United States are among the highest in the industrialized world. Of course, the fact that you heard it does not means that it is true; it is simply a consequence of the existence of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the Republican party. Simply hearing/saying it though doeth not truth make.

Consider, if you will, the fact that Citizens for Tax Justice estimated that only Icelandic companies pay lower income taxes than U.S. companies [pdf reader required] (for the 28 OECD countries for which data are available). Also, check out this list of 15 tax escape artists, compiled by The Daily Beast. Only the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican congressmen/women, and Joe the Plumber could say with a straight face that taxes are killing American jobs.

What in fact is killing good American jobs is the fact that the policies promoted by Congress after Congress make it easy, even rewarding, for American companies to export capital, and the jobs that go with it, overseas. What is killing good American jobs is the fact that conservatives have been waging an all-out war on unions and the middle-class ever since Ronald Reagan took office and that there is no countervailing force to the power of corporations. The United States have by and large stopped making added-value products, and they are no longer competitive against the rising competition of places like China and India, to name but two where labor is a slave-based commodity. The one thing that is not killing jobs is the effective tax rate that corporations pay, thanks to the loopholes that they themselves have written into the tax code only to cheat us out of what we should reasonably be able to expect from in return for all the legally-sanctioned tax breaks they have already been granted.

So what could a good government do to reverse the death spiral in which the American economy and labor market seem trapped?

To begin with, the last thing it should do is listen to the deficit hawks who say that we should cut spending and have balanced budgets without raising taxes. The exact opposite is true. Sure, in a strong economy we could in theory leave all in the hands of the so-called free-market (another expression as void of practical meaning as job creators). But what about the economy we currently "enjoy", as opposed to the economy we are asked to fantasize about? The economy we have is one in which everyone knows someone who is unemployed, as opposed to the fictional economy where Joe the Plumber, the plumber without a plumbing license, can talk about the business he is trying to protect from Obama's socialism as if it existed anywhere in the real world instead of being a figment of his closed, ignorant, and fevered mind?

In an economic situation such as our present one, you should learn to recognize the government as the buyer of last resort. When no one wants to buy or spend money, when corporations have more incentive in investing outside of the United States, the government could and should stimulate the economy by thinking big, by building big things, renewing infrastructure, public education, transportation routes and systems, that sort of thing. Instead, the power to think big has been squeezed out of the minds of our leaders to such an extent that they are incapable of simply following the successful steps laid out by their predecessors in the successful New Deal and Great Society eras.

The government could and should also disincentivize the pernicious but consolidated practice of American companies that follow profits anywhere profits can be pursued, regardless of the methods used and the damage requisite in reaping them. It could also raise taxes a bit and--yes--redistribute it (!) to those who could pump it back into the economy by simply purchasing life's necessities that they currently cannot afford.

A fair government could also punish, instead of rewarding them, those who gamble with other people's money because they know that when their Ponzi scheme comes to light they can can get away with a slap on the wrists and a bailout. It could, in my dream world at least, bolster the middle-class confidence by decreasing the eligibility age for Medicare, instead of increasing it; that move alone might help people to leave a job they are currently hanging on to only because they need to make it to age 65, opening job opportunities for those who are currently relying on public money to outlast the doldrums. It could, ideally, assure the nation that no changes are going to be made to the benefit structure of Social Security until the last wasted penny has been cut from the D.O.D., or until the last cent has been recovered from the tax cheats that game the system to pay no income tax on epochal profits.

That, and not the mythical faculties of job creators, is something worth fantasizing about. Why, if you can dream about it, you might even be able to make it come true.

Mowing Down Everything That Stands In The Way Of Unreason

Republicans and their corporate overlords have a pretty clear agenda: to mow down everything that stands in the way of their unreasonable claims and policies.

Scientist overwhelmingly agree that humans influence the climate? Defund science.

Public schools teach curricula that include evolution but not creationism and it's younger sibling, intelligent design? Defund public schools.

Research shows that the risk of unwanted pregnancy in sexually active young women is to make cheap contraceptives available? Defund Planned Parenthood and sex education.

The list of such examples is endless.

The goal of the Republican Party and of its funders is to remove all obstacles to unfettered corporate domination of our lives, to create an endless reservoir of easily replaceable and uneducated laborers (hence the drive to push the cost of tuition up and to eliminate public education as we know it), to destroy critical thinking, to establish a social climate which makes it easier to control individuals by making them live in fear of real and imaginary threats, and to control people's sexuality, which--as Orwell understood--is the primitive seed and the last bastion of individual freedom.

It does not come as a surprise, then, that the great Republican minds that control the House of Representatives--in particular those that inhabit the House Appropriation Committee--have devised yet another scheme to demolish science that stands in the way of their goal. As the Huffington Post reports

The House Appropriations Committee is set to put the final touches on a funding bill Wednesday that proposes to slash the government's data collection arm by 25 percent -- a cut that economists and statistics experts say could end up costing taxpayers and businesses billions.

"It's essentially turning out the lights as economic policymakers are trying to do their work," said Andrew Reamer, a George Washington University professor who focuses on economics and U.S. competitiveness.

[...] the cuts in question target the Commerce Department's Census Bureau -- recently one of the bogeyman of the right. The cuts would take effect in October, leaving the bureau little time even to plan to mitigate the impacts.

[...]

"[The cuts] would have major, permanent impacts on the nation's economic and demographic statistics," the bureau said, according to Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), a member and past chair of the House Joint Economic Committee.

If numbers, real numbers, stand in the way of your plan, just stop collecting them, or weaken our ability to collect them and analyze them meaningfully. Then your opponents will have nothing on which they can base their criticism of your policies, because it will no longer be a case of what you say versus facts; it will be a case of he says, she says. Absent hard data, factual findings and scientific analysis truth will cease to have any meaning. That is what Republicans understand and what they have been working to achieve since at least the Reagan presidency. It's just a fact, and if they have their way, they'll make it disappear, too.

An Open Letter to President Obama

Mr. President:

I am a 46 year-old male who understands that if a couple of Presidents like you should succeed you, I will not retire at 65, nor probably at 70. Most likely, I will not retire in the United States; if I have enough to retire on anywhere else, I will have to leave, my money with me.

If you are really thinking of raising the eligibility age for Medicare and of cutting Social Security Benefits in your desire to be re-elected or to appear as an adult who is capable of striking political compromise with unrelenting opponents, then know this: you are a traitor.

If you think that traitor is too strong a word, please consider this: In doing what you propose, why even in simply proposing it, you are betraying the promise that past generations have made to future ones, that they would get what they had been promised, when they were due to get it.

Worse, you are choosing to cut benefits (because a delayed benefit or a smaller benefit are cuts) instead of going to get the money we'd need to keep things intact where you should be looking for it: reducing the size and the budget of the military, which are ridiculously bloated; going after corporations who export not only profits (to tropical tax havens), but American jobs (read "lives); taxing the truly rich at rates that would be higher than they have been since President Clinton left office, but still lower than the rates the rich have paid, even for most of the Reagan presidency. Those, may I suggest, are a few things that a progressive President would have fought for. Instead, you are ready to sacrifice the futures of people who have already sacrificed much and have little left to look forward but the hope of relative tranquility in retirement. In essence, you are saying to them that seniors have it too good, and that delaying their life-saving benefits for two years would be a step in the right direction.

If that is not betrayal, Mr. President, I don't know what is.

Moreover, the message you are sending to those who would vote for you or any other Democrat is this: Why bother? If electing a Democrat means that things will get worse just a little slower than under a Republican, and not better, than you are giving your party's potential electors a good reason not to bother. In fact, perhaps it would be better if the country went to hell faster, under a series of Republicans. That way we'll find out quicker where rock bottom is, and what will happen when we hit it.

Planned Parenthood Defunded in New Hampshire

Another state has joined the long string of states who have decided to defund Planned Parenthood. It's New Hampshire this time. But that is not the news. This is:

Councilor Raymond Wieczorek of Manchester added that he opposed funding for birth control and condoms altogether. "If they want to have a good time, why not let them pay for it?" he told the Concord Monitor last week. [via Huffington Post]

The councilman's comments are insensitive, sexist, and plainly dumb.

"If THEY want to have a good time..."? Let's remind the Councilman that no abortion can follow lesbian intercourse. Once we have established that, let's then remind the councilman that in the type of intercourse he presumably prefers a man (at least) has to be involved. Sure, the councilman could possibly have meant that both the man and the woman who have unprotected sex are equally to blame. Call it a hunch, though: I will venture that when the councilman said "they" he was only thinking of the female half of the couple.

If you are a woman, or if you are a man who has a mother, sister or daughter, know this: defunding Planned Parenthood hits the poor the most, and does not only defund abortion; it also defunds access to cheap contraception, pap smears, STD testing, psychological assistance to women. That's why saying "If they want to have fun..." is not only sexist, it's also dumb. Councilman Wieczorek and the others on the New Hampshire Executive Council who voted to cancel the state's contract with Planned Parenthood did not simply defund "fun", they also defunded health care. Which is par for the course for socially conservative men and women in this country and for the Republicans who choose to put corporate health ahead of human health on a daily basis.

Note to Republican voters: the percentage of Planned Parenthood's work devoted to abortion services is 3%. The other 97% is not. If you agree with the New Hampshire Executive Concil's decision not on fiscal grounds, but on moral grounds, then could you please consider the greater good of the other people you are hurting? Oh, I forgot, you are Republicans. Never mind.

What Do You Call 288 People Who Work Tirelessly Against 98% Of Americans?

Congressional Republicans AND the President of the United States, that's what you call them. Funny how during the 2008 Presidential campaign, Republicans liked to call then Senator Obama the most liberal guy in the U.S. Senate. You know, a socialist.

But now, as the Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports, it turns out that Obama offered to raise Medicare eligibility age as part of grand debt deal. No, your eyes are not failing you.

Two years ago, this guy had the opportunity to lower the Medicare eligibility age when health care reform was on the table. Economist after economist after health care expert indicated that lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 55 would have done more to lower health care costs in the country than the bill that actually made it into law. Many went so far as saying that Medicare For All would have been the best way to address the health care crisis that this country faced and is still facing. But the President, or Traitor-in-Chief, as I will from now on refer to him, gave the negotiating platform away to prove how liberal he was, presumably.

Two years later, and he still has not stopped betraying the people who put all their faith in him after eight years of nation-wrecking at the ends of George W. Doofus and Dick(head) Chain-him (and waterboard him, too, while you're at it). Not only did Obama blow the best chance this country has ever had for aligning itself with the likes of Germany and Japan, the countries that the best generation had reduced to rubble but 66 years ago or so, in providing decent, sure, and affordable health care to everyone; he apparently decided that seniors have it too good, and that delaying their life-saving benefits for two years would be a step in the right direction. Balancing the budget on the back of seniors? Good move, genius.

We do not need a Republican president in 2012. We need a Democrat with balls, a spine, and a heart for the little guy. Primary challenge, anyone?

What Do You Call 287 People Who Work Tirelessly Against 98% Of Americans?

Congressional Republicans, that's what you call them.

They will stop at nothing in order to preserve privileges for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, particularly for the top 1%, and even more so for the top 0.01%.

They will slash aid to the poor, to students, to most wage earners, and they will seek to destroy what's left of the unions, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, government oversight, public safety, health care, public transportation, environmental protections, education, you name it. They will protect at all costs the "right" of PhRMA, Big Oil, hedge fund managers, CEOs, big agribusiness, defense contractors, and transnational corporations to get away with paying less taxes than anyone in the world except for Iceland and Norway, to own tax-sheltered private jets and to conceal their income in tropical tax havens.

They will use anything they can in pursuit of their goals, aided and abetted by the criminally spineless or stupid president du jour, by the stupidity of almost half the electorate, which includes a stupefyingly high number hypocritical rubes, ignorant dupes, and ready-to-be-raptured imbeciles, and by too many incompetent, uninquisitive, or sympathetic media figures. Not to mention the many idiots on the other side of the political spectrum who believe that in order to get elected they have to move further to the right, instead of to the left.

It's a pretty vicious cycle, which is made possible to a large degree by timid Democrats like our current president, who fail to see that they are playing into the Republican devils' hands every time they refuse to act boldly. Tinkering at the edges of a failing system, they are doomed to fail and sink us deeper. As they do, the public is made more pliable to the Republican sirens who say that the only way out of the mess is to further cut taxes for the richest 1% of the population, the so called job-creators. When no jobs are created, and things get worse after a new cycle of Republican rule, Democrats get another stab at fixing things, except that they are apparently incapable of learning from their previous failures and they end up repeating the same mistakes and fail again. When they get clobbered in the next election cycle, the lesson they learn is not that they did not act boldly enough, but that they did not become move enough to the right. With every iteration of this vicious cycle, the political balance swings further to the right, the conquests of the New Deal and the Great Society are further eroded, and things get inevitably worse.

Meanwhile, other nations are not waiting for Americans to catch on to the Republican scheme and leave them gasping for air in the dust(bin) of history.

It is amazing that most people on the right believe that the New World Order is a liberal scheme conceived by the Buffets and the Soroses of the world, when in fact it is thriving thanks to the efforts of people like Grover Norquist, the Bushes, the Boehners, the Cantors, the Thomases, the Roberts and the Scalias of the world, with the help of traitors to the Democratic cause like Blanche Lincoln and Max Baucus, to name just two shameful examples. Their goal is to transform as much of the laboring world into an endless reservoir of modern slaves who toil their lives away for the benefit of the new slaveholders (corporations), only to be replaced by new blood when the old has been spilled.

287 (give or take a few) is the number of actors it takes to keep a nation in yoke for the benefit of "the chosen ones". You may call them Republicans, saint patrons of the oligarchs, or The Commission, as you like. They redistribute wealth to the top, the robber baron way, all the while decrying the dangers of socialism and statism. And a complicit electorate, at least a good half of the electorate, blesses their efforts year in, year out.

Republican Voters Are Enablers Of Their Own (And Everybody Else's) Misery

I think the title of this post encapsulates the jist of yesterday's final New Rule on Bill Maher's Real Time in the title of the post.

Obama Is A Timid Right-Leaning Centrist Fool

The jobs report for June is out, and it's not good. Meanwhile the President continues to be a timid fool about how to boost employment. What we need is a national jobs program to rebuild infrastructure and help consumer spending. Many authoritative economists had warned him that he should have focused on boosting employment by initiating a recovery program centered around rebuilding and renewing America's crumbling infrastructure, But no, the timid fool has let Republican hijack the spotlight away from job creation and move it to the budget, the debt ceiling, and mounting deficits. So government jobs have actually declined in the 2 1/2 years Obama has been president.

I am not even sure he means well any more. He is just another centrist fool in a long string of foolish presidents. Makes Nixon and Carter look like progressive giants.

Surprise, Surprise? Nah!

President Obama and Congressional Democrats tried to pass (minor) health insurance reform for health care reform. Anyone who followed things closely could have told you that it was, for the most part, a sham, a scheme aimed at giving the impression of taking action when in fact the goal was to leave things as they were and, if possible, to expand the revenues of a powerful industry. Mission accomplished, for the industry at least. For Americans? Who are we kidding?

The Lone Tree Declaration Dissected

The Constructive Curmudgeon re-posted The Lone Tree Declaration, which is a conservative manifesto "released in conjunction with the upcoming Western Conservative Summit, sponsored by Colorado Christian University."

1. In our adherence to the self-evident truths of the American Founding, we are conservatives.

2. In our debt to the civilizational heritage of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London, and Philadelphia, we are Westerners.

3. In our concern for the mounting threat to liberty, seeing freedom in the balance, we convene with solemn purpose at this Summit.

4. We seek a conservative renewal for our country through civic action that puts principle above party, resists the corruption of power, bridges intramural disagreements or rivalries, and protects an open public square centered on the nation’s Judeo-Christian core.

5. We commit ourselves unswervingly to a political and social order that upholds individual freedom and personal responsibility, limited government and the rule of law, free enterprise and private property, traditional family values and sanctity of life, compassion for the poor and voluntarism in service to others, natural law and morality, strong defense and secure borders, all in keeping with the original intent of the Constitution.

6. We reject, and will resist, the socialist temptation, transnational progressivism, secular utopian illusions, appeasement, disarmament, or capitulation to jihad and sharia.

Since I live just a few miles from Lone Tree, I feel I have a stake in this. Though the Declaration, which has a thinly-veiled undercurrent of xenophobia, is obviously not representative of the views of all Coloradans (or Lone-Tree-ers), it nonetheless will get the endorsement of many, particularly many who are easily swayed by declarations which appeal to the limbic system more than to the cerebral cortex. I thought of sending the following response to the blog where I found the Declaration, but then I thought I'd rather post here instead. So here's the point-by-point response.

1) It will be news to the liberals in this country that adhering to the allegedly (and hazily-defined or undefined) "self-evident truths of the American Founding" leads to conservatism.

2) It will be news, and unflattering news at that, to the Native-Americans, the Asians, Africans, the millions of immigrants from Eastern Europe, and many more, that "we" are Westerners.

3) You probably have to be a signatory of the Declaration to see freedom in the balance and liberty under a mounting threat. (And then again it might be, but not at the hands of foreigners and "Islamofascists"; rather at the end of the Supreme Court Justices who found for the plaintiff in Citizens United v. FEC, or who ruled that a class action suit brought against Walmart by 1.6 million women had no standing because the class lacked the element of sufficient commonality)

4) That's commendable, but what exactly does putting "principle above party" mean? Is it the same principle that allows transnational corporations to ship jobs out of the United States at the expense of Americans, for the glory of corporate profits? Methinks "principle" needs defining.

5) The unswerving commitment to "a political and social order that upholds individual freedom and personal responsibility" is also commendable, but it should not be at the top of the list (in order of appearance), otherwise it looks like a sneaky act of bait and switch: Traditional family values and the sanctity of life should be mentioned at the top, as they obviously trump the individual freedom and personal responsibility of individuals in the LGBT community, or those of incestuously raped or life-endangered girls and women who would presumably be forced to carry their pregnancies to term if the Lone Tree Declaration happened to be the founding manifesto for law of the land. The unswerving commitment to free enterprise and private property, for example, is mentioned ahead of compassion for the poor, which is obviously the right ranking for conservatives, seeing how supposedly compassionate conservatives prioritize budgets: Tax breaks for everybody who doesn't need any more money and crackers and catsup for the poor; you know, "vegetables" in the diet. Or no subsidies for heating oil. It took America to popularize the concept of free-enterprise, and American conservatives to give the concept a bad name.

6. 4 out of 6 items in this list appear desirable to me. The non-desirable ones are appeasement and capitulation to jihad and sharia. In fact, one should never appease those who seek to establish a religiously inspired form of government, no matter which religion.

Corporate Tax Whiners

You know the meme that corporations are overtaxed, that the tax rates on corporations in the United States is one of the highest in the world, and that cutting all kind of taxes (corporate, capital gains, and individual taxes on millionaires and billionaires) would create jobs? Well, it's a meme, as I said. But don't believe me: Check out Marie Diamond's article at Think Progress.

Happy Fourth of July!

Grand Lake, CO - 4 Jul 2011

Well Done, Tom Petty!

Sue Michele Bachmann for damages or change the title to Un-American girl.
Good for you, Tom!

Rewarding Hard Work, The Republican Way

Here's another great idea from starlet crackpot presidential candidate Michele Bachmann: Let's do away with the federally-mandated minimum wage. And why not? Anyone should be able to "live" on $2 a day, as they do in much of the world anyway.

What is wrong with a country in which a large number of people promote/are swayed by this kind of supposedly pro-employment drivel? What is wrong with a country where we cannot agree that dignity and work should go hand-in-hand, and where the minimum wage is less than half of what is needed just to make ends meet (i.e. to live with dignity, not in the lap of luxury)?

When a presidential candidate's solution for the dire straits in which the middle-class navigates life in the USA these days is to remove even the paltry protection from complete exploitation that the minimum wage offers, instead of rising against corporations that pay no U.S. taxes in spite of reaping epochal profits; when you live in a country where a presidential candidate can answer, without a shade of shame, "that's uniquely American" to a woman who had just told him that she had to pick up three jobs just to make ends meet, and people re-elect him for another four years of making fools of us all; when Republican leaders hold the middle-class hostage and the ransom is extended tax cuts for corporation and Uncle Scrooges and cuts for social programs: that is the sign you live in a country that has fucked-up priorities. In that, at least, we still seem to be number one.

America's Last Stand

"No, we will not balance the budget on the backs of working families, the elderly, the sick, the children, and the poor, who have already sacrificed enough in terms of lost jobs, lost wages, lost homes, and lost pensions. Yes, we will demand that millionaires and billionaires and the largest corporations in America contribute to deficit reduction as a matter of shared sacrifice. Yes, we will reduce unnecessary and wasteful spending at the Pentagon. And, no we will not be blackmailed once again by the Republican leadership in Washington..."

So begin Sen. Bernie Sanders's remarks, given today on the floor of the Senate. Please read Sen. Sanders's entire floor speech, particularly if you are inclined to support the Republicans' view of budgetary issues. Perhaps you will be touched by the senator's words, perhaps you won't. If that's the case you are an ideologue and nothing will move you. I just hope that you will never find yourself in the situations that Sen. Sanders's correspondents described to him.

But if you do not emphatize with Sen. Sanders's plea and with the cry for help of those who sent their prayers to him, if you don't realize that these are not people who are looking for handouts but regular folks, who are tired of being financially raped by those who rule unopposed (not the politicians, but those that buy their services) while they themselves struggle to keep a roof on their heads, food on their table, life-saving medication in their pill-box, and gas in their tank in spite of doing everything they were told and taught to do, then maybe I should wish the same dire predicaments on you as well, for that might be the only way you can regain the humanity you lost somewhere along your ephemeral trek on this planet. No one is born without a shred of humanity.

We are, save rare exceptions, all born with the ability to feel our kin's suffering, to feel empathy for one another, to be compassionate. We are taughtby the masters of the ideology of selfishness, the children of Ayn Rand and of American biblical fundamentalism's incestuous relationship with corporate power, to look at others as if they were so different from ourselves, to think that if they need help it's because they have failed, because they made the wrong choices, because they are lazy, and because they expect the tyrannical state to help them instead of an imaginary god, be it the Christian god, or Mammon or who knows what other irrational distortion of reality.

If you are so lost in your own selfish idolatry that you fail to be moved by Sen. Sanders's words, I pity you because you are a failure to the god you worship, whatever it is, and a miserable fellow traveler in this life.

Michele Bachmann's Derangement Is A Threat To This Nation's Future

You MUST read Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone scathing and frightening article about rising Republican star Michele Bachmann. Death Star is probably more appropriate*, since everything she stands for (hypocrisy, theocracy, indoctrination) is antithetical to the well-being of the United States.

Bachmann, who likes to rail against the evil of socialism (which in her complete ignorance, or deviousness, she equates with communism) and the infiltration of the U.S. government by socialist elements, works feverishly to bring about a much more dangerous form of government than the European style socialism that she inveighs against: A Christian fundamentalist theocracy that is posed to plunge the nation into a new intellectual dark age.

It is therefore no surprise that she is earning the endorsement of Christian fundamentalists all over the place. Christian fundamentalists are the ones who do not understand (or choose to not understand) the humongous gulf that separates socialism from communism, progressive taxation from confiscation of wealth, or big government from a form of government that seeks (or should seek, in principle) to eradicate discrimination, to lessen the societal blight of hereditary privilege, to protect the right of all citizens to believe (or not to believe) without institutionalizing favoritism for one creed over another, to promote access to education, healthcare, and good nutrition, for all children regardless of the societal standing of their parents, and so forth.

I do know to consider Bachmann a serious candidate for the President's Office in 2012 seems ludicrous, but we live in a nation that has begun a long time ago to make politics tragicomical matter, instead of the serious business that successful countries are supposed to value. Like Taibbi says in his article, there are millions of Americans who are determined to make laughter at Bachmann's expense the fuel to rocket her into the White House. Even if it will make America the laughingstock it would deserve to be should that happen.

*Just so you know, I used the term death star before I got the end of Taibbi's article only to find he had used the same term at the end of his article, although in a slight different manner.

A Pioneer Dies, R.I.P.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian died today at age 83. No introduction should be needed. This is a man who will hopefully be remembered as the man who charted a new path for human dignity.

There are millions of fundamentalist Christians out there who will no doubt not grieve his death, many will even rejoice (luckily not all believers will do so). Dr. Kevorkian was reviled by many because his convictions were viewed in stark contrast with the concept of the sanctity of life. That is quite ironic, since only a person who had high regard for human life and human dignity would concede that a human being should not have to endure prolonged and needless suffering for the sake of not offending a supposedly benevolent life-giver and creator and the feelings of the adherents to his religion, regardless of whether the terminally ill, suffering poor sonofabitch who seeks to end his torture is a believer himself or not. (This, by the way, is why people like me don't believe those fundamentalist Christians who maintain that their goal is not to establish a theocracy: it is, don't be fooled, and in many ways they have succeeded in furthering their goal.) Only a person who is serious about the value of the life, all life--not only his own but that of others as well, would choose to sacrifice a large chunk of his own by going to prison for upholding his convictions. So today all people with a good heart and sound rational powers, in the United States and around the world, should mourn the loss of Dr. Kevorkian, whether they agreed with everything he stood for or not.

What is particularly ironic is that religious advocates of the sanctity of human life are often on the same side of the ideological divide with those who show absolutely no regard for the life of anything which is not a zygote or a foetus or, at the other extreme, a corporation. Anything in between is fair game for predators, political, ideological, and financial.

As Jon Stewart deftly showed on last night's Daily Show, those who are adamant that they would not raise taxes on the wealthiest among us are also quite adamant that people affected by the recent swarm of deadly tornadoes should sweat for every penny of aid they seek from the government (it's their money, too, by the way).

Long live the memory and the legacy of Dr. Kevorkian, a true pioneer, a man who has done more to advance the cause of human dignity than the vast majority of those who reviled his convictions as murderous.

Religion, Atheism, and Altruism

When dealing with Christians, I am often confronted with the statement "Altruism in an atheist = mental disorder" or some similar offensive and silly remark. In fact, I have just encountered that silly accusation (passed incidentally not as a matter of religious conviction but as a scientifically sound fact) on a blog I follow. The foundational assumption that allows such a statement to be mad is as clear as it is flawed: Atheists all believe in evolution; scratch that: Atheists believe in Darwinism, which is all about selfishness, so any atheist who acts in an altruistic fashion is doing so in opposition to natural selfishness and is, to oversimplify, mentally ill. This is such a simplistic, incorrect, and demeaning view of atheists (and of the scientific theory of evolution) that I don't even know where to begin in rebutting it. In fact, it assumes so many wrong preconceived notions that I am not sure it is even worth trying to do it. So, on careful consideration, I have decided not to. Instead, I would like to ask the following questions:

Consider the following definitions:

1. "Altruism is acting out of concern for others with no concern for oneself. As opposed to Egoism, which is to act only in ones own, rational, self-interest." (From The Arrogant Atheist Forum)
   
2. Unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others. (Merriam-Webster, definition 1)
   
3. Behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species. (Merriam-Webster, definition 2)

Which of the definitions above best approaches your view of altruism and its existence?

Also, when dealing with Christians I am often given examples of altruistic, why, completely selfless behavior that some Christians have been capable of, as if at that point my natural reaction should be "Really? Oh my! I am a believer now that I have been faced with such incontrovertible evidence of the existence of your god."

On a deeper level, though, I wonder if you can call an act that benefits others with no regard for the effects it may have on yourself an altruistic act, when such an act is performed under the conviction that it is what your god would want you to do to honor him, his desires, and his teachings. Not to mention that there could be horrific negative consequences for defying that god's wishes. I wonder if a Christian can be justified in acting as morally superior to an atheist, or in believing that he is acting in a healthy manner, as opposed to the "mentally defective" manner that he would attribute to an atheist performing the same act(s) of selflessness.

Notice that, in reality, both the Christian and the atheist can expect future benefits from the performance of an altruistic act: The Christian can combine his faith with good deeds to expect rewards in the afterlife that he takes as a given; the atheist in all likelihood will assume that, while selfless behavior may have dramatic consequences for him and his family, up to and including his own death, he will leave the world a better place, both by setting an example for others to follow, and by performing an act that, while detrimental to himself in the immediate, may yield a better future for the species.

It is my firm conviction that Christians who demand that altruism, moral order, and justice, among many positive societal values, should by necessity descend from divinity are guilty of denying those traits in human nature that have led to benefits for the human race as a whole throughout millenia. But why shouldn't Christians reason as they do? After all the believe in the fall of mankind from grace, and that alone requires that we should be saved in spite of ourselves.

Consider all the humans that lived before the Hebrew and Christian god decided, in his assumed infinite generosity and goodness, to reveal himself to a small subset of the human population, leaving all others at the mercy of missionaries and preachers for centuries. Were their lives doomed to selfishness, completely devoid of altruism? Of course not. Imagine this scenario: Members of different tribes come face to face with a deadly predator. The predator attacks a member of one tribe. While members of his own tribe stand frozen in fear, incapable of defending their fellow tribesman, members of the other tribe unite in attacking the predator, ultimately killing it. What motivated them to act in defense of the member of a competing tribe, an individual that on any other day they would have been glad to see die: Altruism? An overwhelming instinct for self-preservation? The expectation of a future potential benefit? Was the man who led the attack (an atheist, perhaps) affected by a mental defect? Most importantly, does any of it matter? Shouldn't the real question be: Was the performance of an act that would appear to be, to a large extent, selfless represent a step backward or a step forward for mankind?

The Christian will contend that my imaginary scenario has nothing to do with altruism in his sense of the word, because no moral judgment was necessary or present in the scenario I have given. Really? Whose morals? Christian morals? If we know anything about morals and moral judgement is that they are not written in stone. Why, we know that even from how Christians handle morality themselves. With the exception of a few biblical literalists and Christian fundamentalists, aren't Christians very flexible in their application and interpretation of morality and moral law? When was the last time you saw an adulteress stoned to death, for example? Oh, but my objection shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world changed with the first coming of Christ. And that's where I lose any interest in debating them or arguing with them. They can always have the last word, in any situation, in any conversation. It's a 3-letter word that ends all doubt, all debate, all honest attempt at advancing the understanding of human nature, behavior and interaction. And no, it's not ego.

I Second This Thought

I read on an Italian blog that the only way the condition of the lower class is going to improve is if you tie a congressman's salary to the salary of the poorest person in the nation. You would quickly see the salaries of the poor rise.
(The other possibility is that congressmen would accept that condition because they could make money "on the side", if you know what I mean. But don't many of them already do?)

On The Folly of Mainstream Religion

Greta Christina has written a lenghty, irate, appropriately righteous piece about the complete folly easily discernible in William Lane Craig's defense of genocide and infanticide. Read the whole article, it's worth it.

To whet your appetite, here's my favorite passage:

[A]theists are commonly accused of moral relativism: of thinking that there are no fundamental moral principles, and that all morality can be adapted to suit the needs of the moment.

But it isn't atheists who are saying, "Well, sure, genocide seems wrong... but under some circumstances, it actually makes a certain amount of sense." It isn't atheists who are saying, "Well, sure, infanticide seems wrong... but looked at in a certain light, it really isn't all that bad." It isn't atheists who are prioritizing an attachment to an ancient ideology over the clearest moral principles one can imagine: the principle that entire races ought not to be systematically exterminated, and the principle that children ought not to be slaughtered.

I have just one question for William Lane Craig: how do you muster such sophistry that allows you to defend the sanctity of life and, at the same time, defend the extermination of innocents?

On the DOJ Ban on Online Poker in the USA

Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and a poker player to boot, has a post about Rep. Barney Frank's (D-MA) position on the DOJ's strike against online poker sites operating within the U.S.A. Frank ridicules the DOJ's effort with typical wit. One highlight: he mocks the DOJ for wanting to protect the public "from the scourge of inside straights." You can read Ed's post here.

The Liberal Media Meme Debunked, Once Again

You don't dispute right-wing bullshit with more bullshit. You do it with facts. And that's what Rachel Maddow does every day, including last night.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy