Tuesday, March 06, 2012
All You Needed To Know About Rush Limpballs
The fact that Rush Limbpballs said something ugly about Sandra Fluke is no surprise to anyone with half-a-brain (but, apparently, not to the people who worship the man who rants everyday with "half his brain tied behind his back.") I wrote everything that needed to be said about Rush Limpballs, and about his worshippers, here.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Left v. Right: The Worldviews
Hunter at the Daily Kos writes pithy, vivid posts that typically address the hypocrisy of the Right and the completely fantastic picture they paint of the world we live in, which has mighty little to do with the reality of the world we do live in. He writes sharp, scathing posts that connect the dots between seemingly unrelated but deeply interconnected actions and statements that arise on the Right day after day. But his latest post is different. It's not as scathing; it's profound and sad, and it captures better than many of his other excellent posts the nature of the debate that divides the Left from the Right.
Much has been written about how the liberals and conservatives are divided by a failure to communicate effectively using a common language. That is also the contention of Jonathan Haidt, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia who recently appeared on Moyers and Company to discuss his soon-to-be released book titled The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Haidt's book tackles the problem of how different moral intuitions and compasses shape our world view and how the failure to empathize leads to a breakdown in communication between political factions. It all sounds very refined, scholarly, and even convincing.
I like Moyers, and I usually like the points his guests make. I will probably buy Haidt's book and read it with curiosity, but I suspect that I will be disappointed by its premise, and by its conclusions as well. It seems to me that Hunter does a better job of capturing the essence of the divide that separates the Left from the Right: It's not one about failure to speak a common language, to understand the different but equally valid point of the opposition that causes politics to break down and fail its people. It's really about a battle about disappearing opportunities; about how the America of the present, with all its huffy and haughty pretenses at still being the land of opportunities and just rewards, is a nation that more and more picks winners and losers by birth right, by heritage, and by heirdom. It is a nation where the promise, let alone the achievement, of upward mobility has been on the decline for decades, and where birth places and conditions tend to determine the outcome in life more than anywhere else in the advanced world.
George Will, Thomas Sowell, and all the other conservative pundits that strike a pose of supremacy of knowledge and intellect, cannot explain--as Hunter points out--why there are such disparities in our society if the goal of the Left, with all its assumed power over the ignorant masses, is to create equal outcomes. Ineptitude? Or is it because the premise that the Left is constantly seeking to establish equal outcomes is an invention of those whose mission in life is to conserve and preserve the inequality that has played to their advantage? Hunter's post, in all its quiet desperation, can be summed up in this paragraph (Hunter's):
Much has been written about how the liberals and conservatives are divided by a failure to communicate effectively using a common language. That is also the contention of Jonathan Haidt, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia who recently appeared on Moyers and Company to discuss his soon-to-be released book titled The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Haidt's book tackles the problem of how different moral intuitions and compasses shape our world view and how the failure to empathize leads to a breakdown in communication between political factions. It all sounds very refined, scholarly, and even convincing.
I like Moyers, and I usually like the points his guests make. I will probably buy Haidt's book and read it with curiosity, but I suspect that I will be disappointed by its premise, and by its conclusions as well. It seems to me that Hunter does a better job of capturing the essence of the divide that separates the Left from the Right: It's not one about failure to speak a common language, to understand the different but equally valid point of the opposition that causes politics to break down and fail its people. It's really about a battle about disappearing opportunities; about how the America of the present, with all its huffy and haughty pretenses at still being the land of opportunities and just rewards, is a nation that more and more picks winners and losers by birth right, by heritage, and by heirdom. It is a nation where the promise, let alone the achievement, of upward mobility has been on the decline for decades, and where birth places and conditions tend to determine the outcome in life more than anywhere else in the advanced world.
George Will, Thomas Sowell, and all the other conservative pundits that strike a pose of supremacy of knowledge and intellect, cannot explain--as Hunter points out--why there are such disparities in our society if the goal of the Left, with all its assumed power over the ignorant masses, is to create equal outcomes. Ineptitude? Or is it because the premise that the Left is constantly seeking to establish equal outcomes is an invention of those whose mission in life is to conserve and preserve the inequality that has played to their advantage? Hunter's post, in all its quiet desperation, can be summed up in this paragraph (Hunter's):
[...] three stories sit on my computer desktop, all of which were written in the span of a few January days. A story about the damn redistributionists; a story about how America measurably fails its poor; a concrete case around which to question ourselves on what, as a society, we believe equal opportunity to mean. [Emphasis added]I added emphasis to the sentence "[A] concrete case around which to question ourselves on what, as a society, we believe equal opportunity to mean." because nations are not shaped by debates; they are shaped by how debates are translated (or not) into action. We have a concrete case to deal with. How we deal with it defines not only our idea of what future we want to build, but future itself.
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Republican "Strategery"
Grover Norquist recently made the following statement (paraphrased broadly): If we can hold on to the House and turn the Senate, all we need in the White House is a man who can work a ballpoint pen. In other words: Conservatives need not fear a Romney presidency. As long as Obama is out of the picture, game over.
Norquist's argument seems reasonable at first blush, but is typically disingenuous in true Republican fashion. Why? Because it is even better for Republicans if Obama wins a second term, while Republicans reconquer the Senate. Let me explain.
If Romney wins the White House and Republicans gain full control of Congress (and they keep their majority in the Supreme Court even if a Conservative on the court should retire or die), there will be no alibi for them. The failures of politics for middle-class and poor Americans will have a single father, for all to see: Conservatism. If on the other hand Obama retains the presidency for another four years, Republicans will presumably still be able to pass favorable legislation with the consent of a weakened White House, and they will also be able to blame their legislative failures on Obama's unwillingness to compromise (read: cave in to their wet dreams).
Either way you look at it, we're already screwed. Conservatives have already won the economic war. They can still fight the "morality" war, but the economic war is done. Warren Buffet has famously said it: There is a class war in the USA, and his class is winning.
Americans have given up on the reality-based world, where facts matter more than spin; they have come to accept Conservative platitudes, for example that high taxes are killing jobs, as are excessive environmental regulations. It doesn't matter that both are demonstrably false claims. No wealthy American pays anywhere the nominal tax rate. Take Mitt Romney, the would-be next President of the United States of Corporate America: The effective tax rate he paid on his income in recent years has been more or less 15%, not the 35& percent which he should have paid before all deductions and loopholes had been exploited to reduce his tax liability.
It seems to me that it makes much more sense for the Republican National Committee to pour money into electing as many Representatives and Senators as they can: It's cheaper than buying the White House and the return on investment is higher anyway. Much of the president's power is symbolic anyway; the real power rests with a few senators in small swing states. Also, rigging a state election is easier and carries less scrutiny than rigging a presidential election.
Republicans may run despicably (take their war against contraception, the latest example of their willingness to turn every non-issue into a war) but they don't run ineffectively. They are well-funded, better organized, and are more determined than Democrats. They represent the economic interests of a tiny percentage of the population, perhaps 2%, and yet they manage to get half of the votes, give and take a few millions, every four years. They fool us into believing that they don't have their act together by fielding a league of idiots, crooks, and liars for President in 2012, but they are masters of sleight of hand: While you are watching the hand that holds the nomination sideshow, with the other hand, the right hand, they are robbing us blind. In other words, they make strategy look like "strategery". But the joke's on us.
If Romney wins the White House and Republicans gain full control of Congress (and they keep their majority in the Supreme Court even if a Conservative on the court should retire or die), there will be no alibi for them. The failures of politics for middle-class and poor Americans will have a single father, for all to see: Conservatism. If on the other hand Obama retains the presidency for another four years, Republicans will presumably still be able to pass favorable legislation with the consent of a weakened White House, and they will also be able to blame their legislative failures on Obama's unwillingness to compromise (read: cave in to their wet dreams).
Either way you look at it, we're already screwed. Conservatives have already won the economic war. They can still fight the "morality" war, but the economic war is done. Warren Buffet has famously said it: There is a class war in the USA, and his class is winning.
Americans have given up on the reality-based world, where facts matter more than spin; they have come to accept Conservative platitudes, for example that high taxes are killing jobs, as are excessive environmental regulations. It doesn't matter that both are demonstrably false claims. No wealthy American pays anywhere the nominal tax rate. Take Mitt Romney, the would-be next President of the United States of Corporate America: The effective tax rate he paid on his income in recent years has been more or less 15%, not the 35& percent which he should have paid before all deductions and loopholes had been exploited to reduce his tax liability.
It seems to me that it makes much more sense for the Republican National Committee to pour money into electing as many Representatives and Senators as they can: It's cheaper than buying the White House and the return on investment is higher anyway. Much of the president's power is symbolic anyway; the real power rests with a few senators in small swing states. Also, rigging a state election is easier and carries less scrutiny than rigging a presidential election.
Republicans may run despicably (take their war against contraception, the latest example of their willingness to turn every non-issue into a war) but they don't run ineffectively. They are well-funded, better organized, and are more determined than Democrats. They represent the economic interests of a tiny percentage of the population, perhaps 2%, and yet they manage to get half of the votes, give and take a few millions, every four years. They fool us into believing that they don't have their act together by fielding a league of idiots, crooks, and liars for President in 2012, but they are masters of sleight of hand: While you are watching the hand that holds the nomination sideshow, with the other hand, the right hand, they are robbing us blind. In other words, they make strategy look like "strategery". But the joke's on us.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Misunderstandings About Class Warfare
Like Warren Buffet said, "There's a class warfare all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
The letter that Dave Zweifel wrote about in The Capital Times underscores the fact that the rich are winning, and they are winning because they are pitting working people against each other. Apparently, some of the working people fail to grasp simple realities, as "Brenda"'s letter illustrates. The article is a must read.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Insignificant Markers
So the Dow Jones reached 13,000 for the first time since 2008. Hooray, yes? Could there be a better example that the index that measures the (supposed) health of public companies in this country is completely meaningless in terms of how the American middle class fares?
This is an important point, because all the measures and indexes that you hear quoted on a given day in all of the mainstream media are meaningless? Productivity? Gone up. Unemployment? Down. Wall Street? Up. They are all numbers that are designed to make us feel good and mean absolutely nothing to most of us. How is your purchasing power now, compared to 10 years ago? How did your salary fare in the last ten years? How much of your income goes toward non-discretionary expenses every month? If you look at those numbers, they all probably look worse now than they did last year, five years ago, ten years ago. That's why you never really hear them mentioned in polite Washington conversation. On the upside? Access to contraception would be much, much more difficult if Republicans have there way. That'll fix your life, won't it?
This is an important point, because all the measures and indexes that you hear quoted on a given day in all of the mainstream media are meaningless? Productivity? Gone up. Unemployment? Down. Wall Street? Up. They are all numbers that are designed to make us feel good and mean absolutely nothing to most of us. How is your purchasing power now, compared to 10 years ago? How did your salary fare in the last ten years? How much of your income goes toward non-discretionary expenses every month? If you look at those numbers, they all probably look worse now than they did last year, five years ago, ten years ago. That's why you never really hear them mentioned in polite Washington conversation. On the upside? Access to contraception would be much, much more difficult if Republicans have there way. That'll fix your life, won't it?
Sunday, February 19, 2012
You Don't Own Me
Mark Sumner wrote an interesting post at the Daily Kos, titled You Don't Own Me. The framing is a little weird, as it seems to start out as a North-South diatribe, but the contents are nonetheless worth a read. So, read it. Comments are welcome.
Friday, February 17, 2012
The Dishonesty and Hypocrisy of Republican "Stars"
I am often appalled by the idiocy and the hypocrisy of mediocre Republican figures. but when the idiocy and the hypocrisy come from one of the supposed "rising stars" of the Republican party, I find it even more appalling. Take the example of Gov Chris Christie.
In vetoing a bill that legalized same-sex marriage in New Jersey, Gov. Christie made the following statement: "I am adhering to what I've said since this bill was first introduced – an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide." If that statement does not bother you, think again: it should.
We live in a nation that established representative democracy as a form of government: We elect representatives to legislate and execute laws on our behalf. If we do not like what our representatives do, we can vote them out, and someone else in, at the next election. By this measure we judge everything our representatives do: Increasing or lowering taxes, enhancing or reducing social services, strengthening or . weakening law enforcement powers vs. the protection of individual rights, and so forth.
It really bothers me when some politicians think that some things are too sacred to be decided by legislators and sent the back to voters for further approval: The majority of the people already voted you in, so do you fucking job, which is to make a stand on principle from time to time, call an issue as you see it, and make decisions on our behalf, without making pitiful excuses.
Often, appeals to voters are made by reactionary politicians who want to maintain the status quo, and know that it is easier for 30-40 somewhat enlightened representatives (or 3, 4, or 5 judges) to repair a wrong, than it is for millions of voters that often include a majority of backward-thinking, religiously-motivated dullards who think that (their) God's view of morality be driving their vote, instead of rational, humane considerations. Do you think we should have patiently waited for the majority of Americans to eliminate racial segregation, antimiscegenation laws, or to decide whether Genesis or the theory of evolution by natural selection should be taught in science classes? If so, you need to live in a gated community of like-minded freaks. It's better for all of us if you do.
Referenda are the means that voters can use to right what they perceive to be a wrong perpetrated by a minority (their elected representatives or a handful of judges) after a decision has been made that is contrary to their general sensibilities. And courts have the final say because they are supposed to be composed of individuals of above average intelligence and education (and hopefully, some sense of impartial justice), who can recognize when a law goes against constitutional principles.
What bothers me even more is that referenda are often called into play with the excuse that the issues they are meant to decide are of foremost importance and consequence, but which in reality are fairly trivial, like gay marriage, the legalization of pot, the legalization of gambling, and so on, when compared to things that are hugely consequential in people lives. I would like to be called to vote on whether corporations are "people", in the sense that they should enjoy the same privileges that individuals do, without suffering any of the ill effects (like being sentenced to death when they wreck the world economy.) I would like to be called upon to decide whether we should have a national health care system, with a good deal of government intervention, versus a fragmented one in which the influence that power players exert (health care corporations, insurance companies, and Wall Street) greatly exceeds the ability of individuals to oppose them. I would also be liked to call to decide whether the water that I drink, or the food that I eat, or the drugs that I take, should be safe, whether the fuck the politicians want them to be or not. But that's not what happens as a matter of routine.
As a matter of routine, we let politicians represent us in the hope that they will weigh the public interest versus the private, and that they will legislate in good faith. And if, and only if, we disagree with the decisions they make, do we then have recourse to the courts or to undo what they did via referenda. For a number of reasons that make eminent sense, that's the way things should work and that's the way, for the most part, they have worked. I am sure that Gov. Christie knows that; which is why he is both a hypocrite and dishonest when he says that "an issue of this magnitude and importance... should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide." But if there is no dishonesty or hypocrisy in his statement, that might be an even worse fault, because it would be a sign that the governor does not understand how representative democracy works. If so, he is not fit to be a leader in one, and the people of New Jersey would do well to replace him as soon as they get a chance. And the rest of us should so hope that he never ascends to higher power than that of Governor, if that's his idea of how politics should work.
In vetoing a bill that legalized same-sex marriage in New Jersey, Gov. Christie made the following statement: "I am adhering to what I've said since this bill was first introduced – an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide." If that statement does not bother you, think again: it should.
We live in a nation that established representative democracy as a form of government: We elect representatives to legislate and execute laws on our behalf. If we do not like what our representatives do, we can vote them out, and someone else in, at the next election. By this measure we judge everything our representatives do: Increasing or lowering taxes, enhancing or reducing social services, strengthening or . weakening law enforcement powers vs. the protection of individual rights, and so forth.
It really bothers me when some politicians think that some things are too sacred to be decided by legislators and sent the back to voters for further approval: The majority of the people already voted you in, so do you fucking job, which is to make a stand on principle from time to time, call an issue as you see it, and make decisions on our behalf, without making pitiful excuses.
Often, appeals to voters are made by reactionary politicians who want to maintain the status quo, and know that it is easier for 30-40 somewhat enlightened representatives (or 3, 4, or 5 judges) to repair a wrong, than it is for millions of voters that often include a majority of backward-thinking, religiously-motivated dullards who think that (their) God's view of morality be driving their vote, instead of rational, humane considerations. Do you think we should have patiently waited for the majority of Americans to eliminate racial segregation, antimiscegenation laws, or to decide whether Genesis or the theory of evolution by natural selection should be taught in science classes? If so, you need to live in a gated community of like-minded freaks. It's better for all of us if you do.
Referenda are the means that voters can use to right what they perceive to be a wrong perpetrated by a minority (their elected representatives or a handful of judges) after a decision has been made that is contrary to their general sensibilities. And courts have the final say because they are supposed to be composed of individuals of above average intelligence and education (and hopefully, some sense of impartial justice), who can recognize when a law goes against constitutional principles.
What bothers me even more is that referenda are often called into play with the excuse that the issues they are meant to decide are of foremost importance and consequence, but which in reality are fairly trivial, like gay marriage, the legalization of pot, the legalization of gambling, and so on, when compared to things that are hugely consequential in people lives. I would like to be called to vote on whether corporations are "people", in the sense that they should enjoy the same privileges that individuals do, without suffering any of the ill effects (like being sentenced to death when they wreck the world economy.) I would like to be called upon to decide whether we should have a national health care system, with a good deal of government intervention, versus a fragmented one in which the influence that power players exert (health care corporations, insurance companies, and Wall Street) greatly exceeds the ability of individuals to oppose them. I would also be liked to call to decide whether the water that I drink, or the food that I eat, or the drugs that I take, should be safe, whether the fuck the politicians want them to be or not. But that's not what happens as a matter of routine.
As a matter of routine, we let politicians represent us in the hope that they will weigh the public interest versus the private, and that they will legislate in good faith. And if, and only if, we disagree with the decisions they make, do we then have recourse to the courts or to undo what they did via referenda. For a number of reasons that make eminent sense, that's the way things should work and that's the way, for the most part, they have worked. I am sure that Gov. Christie knows that; which is why he is both a hypocrite and dishonest when he says that "an issue of this magnitude and importance... should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide." But if there is no dishonesty or hypocrisy in his statement, that might be an even worse fault, because it would be a sign that the governor does not understand how representative democracy works. If so, he is not fit to be a leader in one, and the people of New Jersey would do well to replace him as soon as they get a chance. And the rest of us should so hope that he never ascends to higher power than that of Governor, if that's his idea of how politics should work.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Health Care Failures in the USA (UPDATED)
UPDATE: So, the bill for part of the surgery finally came in: $171,900. No, it wasn't a transplant, it wasn't open heart surgery. It was pretty routine surgery, the kind many women undergo every year. Yes, $171,900 seems a bit overpriced. As would have $71,900, as would have $50,000. In fact, I'd be really interested in finding out how much hospitals and surgeons in other countries charge for the same type of surgery. I'll do my best to find out.
I wonder: Does God only unleash hurricanes and other national calamities on "gay-infested cities" like New Orleans, or does he get pissed when doctors, hospitals and insurance companies combine to swindle the American public? Because, if He doesn't, His priorities are out of whack. Honestly, if I hear one more American sing the praises of the American health care system and rail against socialized health care I am personally going to beat the crap out of him.
------------------------------
So I finally have my own U.S. health care/health insurance horror story to tell.
I am among the lucky ones, I guess. Through my employer, I have a health care plan that covers most of my expenses. The only thing I have to worry about (until I find out otherwise) are my co-pays, which are fortunately manageable. Around 2 a.m. last Saturday, my wife (L.) started screaming for the pain in her lower abdomen. She was nauseous and could barely move. It was immediately clear that there was something seriously wrong with her, so I quickly got dressed and drove her to an E.R., which I will refer to as ER-1 from here on out.
We were at ER-1 from approximately 2:30 to 6 a.m. After ordering a complete blood count and a urinalysis, and after administering fluids, painkillers and anti-nausea meds to L., the doctor concluded that the best thing to do was to send her home and keep her on painkillers and anti-nausea for 12 hours, at which point if things hadn't improved we should return to the ER for a CT scan. (This visit was billed by ER-1 to our insurance company at $5,700 and change, and I had to write a check for $50 for the co-pay)
Come 6 p.m. things weren't better, they were the same. So, as instructed, we returned to ER-1, where L. was given CT contrast liquid in preparation for a CT scan, which she promptly threw up. Still in pain and as nauseous as she was in the morning, we asked for her to be admitted to the hospital. Armed with new negative blood and urine tests, as well as a CT scan), the doctor left us with a (botched) diagnosis of possible food poisoning, or viral gastroenteritis, or ielitis (an inflammation of the colon). The appendix was cleared as a culprit and we were advised to make an appointment with a GI for a colonoscopy on Monday. No antibiotics were administered, just the same painkillers and anti-nausea meds. We were sent home in spite of the fact that L. was evidently no better than when we first visited ER-1, some 15 hours earlier. (This second visit was billed at over $10,900 and I had to write another $50 check for a second co-pay).
Things did not get better on Sunday, and before we had a chance to make an appointment for a colonoscopy, L. woke up shivering and gnashing her teeth. She was running a fever of 103° F, and on the way back to ER-1 she threw up for the fifth time in 60 hours.
Back at ER-1, the admitting nurse told us to go and sit in the waiting room, which--contrary to the two Saturday visits--was quite crowded. I was quite shocked that they would tell us to wait, since they must have seen from their computerized records that L. had already been there twice on Saturday already even if they did not hear us say it when they taking information from L. 30-40 minutes after our arrival, we were still waiting to be called, so I decided I'd had enough of waiting, particularly since L.'s pain and nausea seemed to have abated, so I told the admitting nurse that we wished to sign a release and walk away, which we did to the nurse's seeming relief.
Since the situation was far from resolved, I immediately took L. to see her primary care doctor. While I parked the car they had already given her a urine test and measured her temperature and blood pressure. With that data in hand, they told me that in fact we needed to return to an E.R. and seemed to be wondering why we decided to leave ER-1. (I stand by my decision to leave because, while the emergency seemed obvious to me--a layman--it seemed equally obvious that the E.R. staff did not share my view.) We were advised to go to a different E.R. in the suburbs, which I will call ER-2, which we did.
At ER-2, doctors were visibly concerned with her low blood pressure and oxygen levels and treated her with a sense of urgency I had not yet seen. After a 9-hour visit in ER-2, which included another CT scan, ultrasound, blood and urine analysis, the administering of fluids, antibiotics, painkillers and anti-nausea meds, L. was admitted to the hospital at around midnight. Just over 24 hours later, she was scheduled for emergency surgery since she had failed to respond to treatment with antibiotics and she had been diagnosed with acute infection of several organs, as well as sepsis.
I am glad to report that the surgery went well and that, barring any unforeseen complications, L. is on the mend, pending a 6-8 week convalescence and absence from work. But the experience has left her scarred, figuratively and literally, and has left me drained. Since sepsis and low vitals were involved, it was a closer call than I probably realize. We were lucky that I did the "wrong" thing, by refusing to let my wife wait for treatment in a busy ER. We were also lucky that at ER/Hospital 2 L. received very good treatment, the kind most Americans imagine when they speak of the U.S. health care system, which they dogmatically believe to be the #1 in the world. And we are also lucky that our financial exposure should be limited to a series of manageable co-pays, thanks to my employment. (I have yet to see all the bills, but my insurance plan should cover all the costs after the co-pays; we'll see.)
However, no matter how good the care L. received at ER/Hospital 2, the fact remains that the staff at ER-1 did not seem to perceive the gravity of the situation, that we live with a system that discourages hospitalization as a diagnostic step, and that their inaction could have cost L. her health, even her life. That our insurance company was billed approximately $18,000 for two visits which amounted to barely 7 hours of work only adds insult to the injury that L. sustained, and further shows that even outrageous amounts of money (unless you think that $18,000 is a fair price for 7 hours in an ER and a handful of routine exams) cannot buy us good health care.
I shudder to think what would have happened to a couple who makes barely enough to fall outside the net of Medicaid, but not enough to buy insurance that covers all medical costs.
I wrote this very personal post because a reader of this blog who describes himself as a centrist blamed my disappointment with President Obama on the fact that he (the president) is not the flaming liberal I would like him to be (John, that's you). I blame President Obama not for being too much of a centrist, but for failing to fix (or even show that he was committed to fix) a system that fails the people it is supposed to serve. When President Obama ran away from true health care reform and into the arms of the insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals he had claimed he'd reform, that's when he lost me. It was a betrayal of trust that explains why I, and many people like me, are disgusted with politics as usual. It should not take a flaming liberal to take on and fix powerful interests that disrupt people's lives; only a person with a basic sense ofjustice fairness.
I wonder: Does God only unleash hurricanes and other national calamities on "gay-infested cities" like New Orleans, or does he get pissed when doctors, hospitals and insurance companies combine to swindle the American public? Because, if He doesn't, His priorities are out of whack. Honestly, if I hear one more American sing the praises of the American health care system and rail against socialized health care I am personally going to beat the crap out of him.
------------------------------
So I finally have my own U.S. health care/health insurance horror story to tell.
I am among the lucky ones, I guess. Through my employer, I have a health care plan that covers most of my expenses. The only thing I have to worry about (until I find out otherwise) are my co-pays, which are fortunately manageable. Around 2 a.m. last Saturday, my wife (L.) started screaming for the pain in her lower abdomen. She was nauseous and could barely move. It was immediately clear that there was something seriously wrong with her, so I quickly got dressed and drove her to an E.R., which I will refer to as ER-1 from here on out.
We were at ER-1 from approximately 2:30 to 6 a.m. After ordering a complete blood count and a urinalysis, and after administering fluids, painkillers and anti-nausea meds to L., the doctor concluded that the best thing to do was to send her home and keep her on painkillers and anti-nausea for 12 hours, at which point if things hadn't improved we should return to the ER for a CT scan. (This visit was billed by ER-1 to our insurance company at $5,700 and change, and I had to write a check for $50 for the co-pay)
Come 6 p.m. things weren't better, they were the same. So, as instructed, we returned to ER-1, where L. was given CT contrast liquid in preparation for a CT scan, which she promptly threw up. Still in pain and as nauseous as she was in the morning, we asked for her to be admitted to the hospital. Armed with new negative blood and urine tests, as well as a CT scan), the doctor left us with a (botched) diagnosis of possible food poisoning, or viral gastroenteritis, or ielitis (an inflammation of the colon). The appendix was cleared as a culprit and we were advised to make an appointment with a GI for a colonoscopy on Monday. No antibiotics were administered, just the same painkillers and anti-nausea meds. We were sent home in spite of the fact that L. was evidently no better than when we first visited ER-1, some 15 hours earlier. (This second visit was billed at over $10,900 and I had to write another $50 check for a second co-pay).
Things did not get better on Sunday, and before we had a chance to make an appointment for a colonoscopy, L. woke up shivering and gnashing her teeth. She was running a fever of 103° F, and on the way back to ER-1 she threw up for the fifth time in 60 hours.
Back at ER-1, the admitting nurse told us to go and sit in the waiting room, which--contrary to the two Saturday visits--was quite crowded. I was quite shocked that they would tell us to wait, since they must have seen from their computerized records that L. had already been there twice on Saturday already even if they did not hear us say it when they taking information from L. 30-40 minutes after our arrival, we were still waiting to be called, so I decided I'd had enough of waiting, particularly since L.'s pain and nausea seemed to have abated, so I told the admitting nurse that we wished to sign a release and walk away, which we did to the nurse's seeming relief.
Since the situation was far from resolved, I immediately took L. to see her primary care doctor. While I parked the car they had already given her a urine test and measured her temperature and blood pressure. With that data in hand, they told me that in fact we needed to return to an E.R. and seemed to be wondering why we decided to leave ER-1. (I stand by my decision to leave because, while the emergency seemed obvious to me--a layman--it seemed equally obvious that the E.R. staff did not share my view.) We were advised to go to a different E.R. in the suburbs, which I will call ER-2, which we did.
At ER-2, doctors were visibly concerned with her low blood pressure and oxygen levels and treated her with a sense of urgency I had not yet seen. After a 9-hour visit in ER-2, which included another CT scan, ultrasound, blood and urine analysis, the administering of fluids, antibiotics, painkillers and anti-nausea meds, L. was admitted to the hospital at around midnight. Just over 24 hours later, she was scheduled for emergency surgery since she had failed to respond to treatment with antibiotics and she had been diagnosed with acute infection of several organs, as well as sepsis.
I am glad to report that the surgery went well and that, barring any unforeseen complications, L. is on the mend, pending a 6-8 week convalescence and absence from work. But the experience has left her scarred, figuratively and literally, and has left me drained. Since sepsis and low vitals were involved, it was a closer call than I probably realize. We were lucky that I did the "wrong" thing, by refusing to let my wife wait for treatment in a busy ER. We were also lucky that at ER/Hospital 2 L. received very good treatment, the kind most Americans imagine when they speak of the U.S. health care system, which they dogmatically believe to be the #1 in the world. And we are also lucky that our financial exposure should be limited to a series of manageable co-pays, thanks to my employment. (I have yet to see all the bills, but my insurance plan should cover all the costs after the co-pays; we'll see.)
However, no matter how good the care L. received at ER/Hospital 2, the fact remains that the staff at ER-1 did not seem to perceive the gravity of the situation, that we live with a system that discourages hospitalization as a diagnostic step, and that their inaction could have cost L. her health, even her life. That our insurance company was billed approximately $18,000 for two visits which amounted to barely 7 hours of work only adds insult to the injury that L. sustained, and further shows that even outrageous amounts of money (unless you think that $18,000 is a fair price for 7 hours in an ER and a handful of routine exams) cannot buy us good health care.
I shudder to think what would have happened to a couple who makes barely enough to fall outside the net of Medicaid, but not enough to buy insurance that covers all medical costs.
I wrote this very personal post because a reader of this blog who describes himself as a centrist blamed my disappointment with President Obama on the fact that he (the president) is not the flaming liberal I would like him to be (John, that's you). I blame President Obama not for being too much of a centrist, but for failing to fix (or even show that he was committed to fix) a system that fails the people it is supposed to serve. When President Obama ran away from true health care reform and into the arms of the insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals he had claimed he'd reform, that's when he lost me. It was a betrayal of trust that explains why I, and many people like me, are disgusted with politics as usual. It should not take a flaming liberal to take on and fix powerful interests that disrupt people's lives; only a person with a basic sense of
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
State Of The Union Analysis
No SOTU analysis this year. If you want, you can google it up and you will come up with hundreds of analyses by hundreds of pundits who will spew inanities on President Obama's vision for the future of America. I am not playing that game. Fool me once, shame on you...
The reality is this: The address was a campaign speech, designed to mobilize the base of the Democratic Party, and to lure independents to the polls come November. Mission accomplished? Time will tell.
Don't get me wrong, the President knows how to give a good speech, and last night's address was no exception. The problem has never been the President's ability to deliver a rousing speech; it's been his inability, or unwillingness, to follow through. We have had plenty of examples in the President's first three years in office. Do we need yet another State of The Union address to prove that there is a chasm between the President's talking the talk and his walking the walk?
Actions speak louder than words, as they saying goes, and this is an example of President's Obama's actions, as illustrated on (Bill) Moyers and Company last Friday night.
I have no faith in President Obama to do the right thing, not 3 years into his presidency. Like any politician, he will say anything he thinks he needs to say to get elected and do anything he thinks will keep him in power after he is elected. Still, the alternative being President Romney or President Gingrich, with the possible impact their election might have on the composition of the Supreme Court, we are stuck with the lesser of two evils.
Life sucks, at least in political terms.
The reality is this: The address was a campaign speech, designed to mobilize the base of the Democratic Party, and to lure independents to the polls come November. Mission accomplished? Time will tell.
Don't get me wrong, the President knows how to give a good speech, and last night's address was no exception. The problem has never been the President's ability to deliver a rousing speech; it's been his inability, or unwillingness, to follow through. We have had plenty of examples in the President's first three years in office. Do we need yet another State of The Union address to prove that there is a chasm between the President's talking the talk and his walking the walk?
Actions speak louder than words, as they saying goes, and this is an example of President's Obama's actions, as illustrated on (Bill) Moyers and Company last Friday night.
I have no faith in President Obama to do the right thing, not 3 years into his presidency. Like any politician, he will say anything he thinks he needs to say to get elected and do anything he thinks will keep him in power after he is elected. Still, the alternative being President Romney or President Gingrich, with the possible impact their election might have on the composition of the Supreme Court, we are stuck with the lesser of two evils.
Life sucks, at least in political terms.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Monday, December 26, 2011
Wherein Wendell Potter Takes Politifact to Task
Wendell Potter, former insurance company executive turned whistleblower, has written a post in which he takes Politifact to task for choosing a "Lie of the Year" that is actually true.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Sad, True, and Maddening
Hunter produced another quasi-perfect post at the Daily Kos. (The "quasi-" refers to a couple of typos.)
The post, titled The failure of Austerity, is a must-read for everyone, but in particular for those who subscribe to economic theories that far-right conservatives promote (far-right conservatives being 95% of conservatives around) and dim-witted supporters espouse and repeat mindlessly, regardless of any contrary evidence.
It is sad that about half of the U.S. population, give and take a few percentage points, has been manipulated into believing that the government can do no good when it comes to changing the course of the economy, and it is maddening that too many in government act as if that were a true statement.
In an excellent book titled Perfectly Legal, tax policy expert David Cay Johnston writes, and I paraphrase only slightly, that the organic pursuit of self-interest is what makes democracy work, and that for too long a vast number of Americans have subscribed to and supported economic policies that go in the opposite direction of their self-interest, which is a failure of democracy of the highest level.
That the ideologues and hacks should continue to promote economic theories that have as much connection to reality as alchemy does is understandable; after that's how they make a living and prosper. But the fact that a sufficient number of people believe their fantastic claims is sad and maddening, because they make life much worse than it needs to be for those who know that the idiots are buying from a seemingly inexhaustible supply of snake oil. And that is what Hunter articulates so well in his post.
The only thing that I have yet to resolve in my mind if most of the blame lies with the ideologues and the hacks, or if it should fall squarely on the shoulders of their dim-witted supporters. And the more I think about it, the more I believe the latter is the case.
The post, titled The failure of Austerity, is a must-read for everyone, but in particular for those who subscribe to economic theories that far-right conservatives promote (far-right conservatives being 95% of conservatives around) and dim-witted supporters espouse and repeat mindlessly, regardless of any contrary evidence.
It is sad that about half of the U.S. population, give and take a few percentage points, has been manipulated into believing that the government can do no good when it comes to changing the course of the economy, and it is maddening that too many in government act as if that were a true statement.
In an excellent book titled Perfectly Legal, tax policy expert David Cay Johnston writes, and I paraphrase only slightly, that the organic pursuit of self-interest is what makes democracy work, and that for too long a vast number of Americans have subscribed to and supported economic policies that go in the opposite direction of their self-interest, which is a failure of democracy of the highest level.
That the ideologues and hacks should continue to promote economic theories that have as much connection to reality as alchemy does is understandable; after that's how they make a living and prosper. But the fact that a sufficient number of people believe their fantastic claims is sad and maddening, because they make life much worse than it needs to be for those who know that the idiots are buying from a seemingly inexhaustible supply of snake oil. And that is what Hunter articulates so well in his post.
The only thing that I have yet to resolve in my mind if most of the blame lies with the ideologues and the hacks, or if it should fall squarely on the shoulders of their dim-witted supporters. And the more I think about it, the more I believe the latter is the case.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Too Little, Too Late, If You Ask Me
Tom Foreman reports on cnn.com:
A president who could not achieve anything he could have achieved, had he wanted to, in the two years when he could count on a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a clear majority in the House will achieve nothing noteworthy after both houses of Congress will have switched to the opposition, something very likely to happen in 2012.
Sigh.
Among the chief complaints of many voters: Obama has been too quick to compromise, too weak in taking on opponents and too much like just another politician intent on triangulating re-election, rather than being the transformative, bold leader they thought they were electing.If you ask me, too little, too late. If he gets re-elected it will be because the G.O.P. candidates are weak and ridiculous beyond belief. And yes, Obama would be a slightly better president than any Republican who might get elected. For the millions of Americans who are hurting and were looking for a "transformative, bold leader", it will be small comfort.
[...] The White House is now clearly launching an offensive aimed at shifting voter disappointment from their man to the opposition.
A president who could not achieve anything he could have achieved, had he wanted to, in the two years when he could count on a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a clear majority in the House will achieve nothing noteworthy after both houses of Congress will have switched to the opposition, something very likely to happen in 2012.
Sigh.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
If It's Good For Bill Kristol, Well, It's Not Very Good
Hunter did it again at the Daily Kos.
In 6 brilliant, cutting paragraphs (plus two perfectly appropriate quotes) he destroys the mythical wisdom of serious Republicans such as that of the unfortunately very real Bill Kristol.
My favorite passage is this:
The rest of Hunter's post is here.
In 6 brilliant, cutting paragraphs (plus two perfectly appropriate quotes) he destroys the mythical wisdom of serious Republicans such as that of the unfortunately very real Bill Kristol.
My favorite passage is this:
In any event, the sort of people that intellectual giant William Kristol praises as fellow intellectual giants should, at the least, give a person pause. The fellow who is currently pining for Paul Ryan to come save conservatism from the wreck of the current campaign season was previously pining for Sarah Palin to fill the same role.
The rest of Hunter's post is here.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
Stop The Presses
Here's an interesting statement for my (10) Republican/Libertarian friends to ponder:
Go read, and ponder.
I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.The statement was made in Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators, a Bloomberg op-ed by entrepreneur Nick Hanauer, who "founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in 2007 for $6.4 billion [and] was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)."
Go read, and ponder.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
The Virus of Republican Ignorance
Eric Alterman has a pointed post on Alternet about the virus of GOP ignorance and the role that the mainstream media plays in spreading it.
Happy Thanksgiving, Unless You're a Far-Right Islamophobe
Happy Thanksgiving to all men and women of good disposition.
And to all far-Right Islamophobes, may you choke on halal turkey. :-) Pamela Geller, Frank Gaffney: That includes especially you.
And to all far-Right Islamophobes, may you choke on halal turkey. :-) Pamela Geller, Frank Gaffney: That includes especially you.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
News Flash from the Republican Debate on National Security
What national security issue do you worry about that nobody is asking about, either here or in any of the debates so far?
Rick Santorum: The spread of Socialism.
Ron Paul: Overreacting to non-existent threats and starting new wars.
Hermann Cain: Cyber-attacks
Mitt Romney: Latin America (and Socialism)
Rick Perry: Communist China
Newt Gingrich: Electromagnetic pulse attacks, WMDs in American cities, cyber-attacks.
Michele Bachmann: Who the fuck knows? Al Shabaab?
John Huntsmann: Joblessness and lack of opportunity, debt, lack of faith in our institutions
News flash for Republican presidential aspirants: Neglect the growing fury of jobless Americans at your peril. You are going to have to deal with them on a national security level long before a terrorist with a briefcase nuke plants it up your ass. It seems Huntsman and Perry are the only ones who are even remotely attuned to the gravity of the situation.
Rick Santorum: The spread of Socialism.
Ron Paul: Overreacting to non-existent threats and starting new wars.
Hermann Cain: Cyber-attacks
Mitt Romney: Latin America (and Socialism)
Rick Perry: Communist China
Newt Gingrich: Electromagnetic pulse attacks, WMDs in American cities, cyber-attacks.
Michele Bachmann: Who the fuck knows? Al Shabaab?
John Huntsmann: Joblessness and lack of opportunity, debt, lack of faith in our institutions
News flash for Republican presidential aspirants: Neglect the growing fury of jobless Americans at your peril. You are going to have to deal with them on a national security level long before a terrorist with a briefcase nuke plants it up your ass. It seems Huntsman and Perry are the only ones who are even remotely attuned to the gravity of the situation.
News Flash for Republican Candidates
Michele Bachmann: It's the UniTED States, not the UniNED States.
Hermann Cain: It's killed not keeled.
Rick Perry: It's nuke-lear not new-cool-ar.
I'm sure I missed a few, but if I have to live through another ten debates, I'm not saying you need to master your language, just pronounce it properly. Thank you.
Oh, yes! It's pundit, not pundint, pundant, or pendant. Again, thank you.
Paul Krugman's Perfect Take Down of Newt Gingrich
Krugman, on ABC's This Week With Christiane Amanpour:
"Newt [...] is the stupid man's idea of what a smart person sounds like."
Classic.
No Persons In Their Right Mind
While my "love" for Democrats (with a few notable exceptions) is close to hitting the nadir, no middle-class Americans in their right mind can vote for a Republican. Period. I repeat. No middle-class Americans can vote for a Republican. I say this after watching all but one of the presidential Republican debates.
But I don't just mean the Republicans running for president, the sanest and most principled of whom is Ron Paul (and that's all anyone needs to know). I mean any Republican, for any office. Including Blue Dog Democrats. Period.
Why? Because Republicans stand in antithesis to everything that is in the interest of the 99% of Americans (even if, apparently, about 50% of voting Americans don't know it). Read the previous post, David Michael Green Is At His Very Angriest Best
David Michael Green Is At His Very Angriest Best
Read We Are Not Your Human Resources, David Michael Green's latest rant on The Regressive Antidote blog.
Here's a taste of it:
Here's a taste of it:
Our solutions no longer reside, if they ever did, in the ballot box. The Republicans are a sheer criminal enterprise, whose entire function is to redistribute wealth from the rest of us to already wealthy elites. But the Democrats are actually worse, because they do exactly the same thing, while trading on the party’s past reputation for representing the public interest. For my money (which, along with yours, is precisely what is at stake), Obama and Clinton and their ilk in Congress have betrayed me and the country more than, say, any of the Dicks – Cheney, Armey or Nixon. You expect the asshole kid on the playground to live up to his reputation. It hurts a lot more when your best friend is the one sticking in the knife.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
On The NBA Lockout
Though I have nothing intelligent to say about the NBA lockout, I can still recognize an intelligent article about it by someone else. Enter Bill Simmons's Business Vs. Personal.
Writes Simmons: "We were coming off of one of the top-five NBA seasons ever, now it's November, the league isn't playing … and nobody really cared. Imagine the outrage if pro football disappeared for an entire month. Where's the clamoring for regular season pro basketball?"
Though I like basketball, I'm really in the "and nobody really cared" camp. After reading Simmons's take on the whole debacle, I'll admit my interest has been aroused..
Writes Simmons: "We were coming off of one of the top-five NBA seasons ever, now it's November, the league isn't playing … and nobody really cared. Imagine the outrage if pro football disappeared for an entire month. Where's the clamoring for regular season pro basketball?"
Though I like basketball, I'm really in the "and nobody really cared" camp. After reading Simmons's take on the whole debacle, I'll admit my interest has been aroused..
I Don't Know How To Do It
I don't know how to do it, and I don't think anyone knows how to either, but until money is out of politics for good we are going to get the Congress that money wants us to get (it's a must read).
Another Open Letter to President Obama
Dear President Obama:
If the Super Committee on Deficit Reduction fails to do the work that it was assigned to do, will you finally become convinced that Congress has reached a complete stalemate, because the two parties (one in particular) are unable or unwilling to cede any ground to their opponents? And, more importantly, will you then make a stand on behalf of the American people and veto any bill which does not include an increase in revenues financed by tax increases on the wealthy individuals and entities, those who make it their daily business to look for new ways to lower their own taxes, and evade their responsibilities as good citizens of this nation? Or will you continue to be an accomplice, willing or unwilling it does not matter, of a system which is designed to stick it to hard-working middle-class and poor Americans?
I am still looking forward to the day when your uplifting speeches actually translate into comparable policies, a la FDR.
You can still become what you promised you would be for the hundreds of millions of suffering Americans, in spite of all the pressures that you are subjected to to maintain an indefensible status quo.
Respectfully,
Watch This (UPDATED)
UPDATE: So I was wrong. For now.
----------------------------------------------------
Sam Stein of the Huffington Post reports that there may be a deal in the making to exclude the Pentagon from the automatic sequestration that would be triggered if the so-called Super Committee (on deficit reduction) fails to reach an agreement by the coming Wednesday. If a deal is reached to exclude the Pentagon, you can bet your first-born's life that it will be yet another cave-in by Democrats. In other words, Democrats will get nothing in return, but they will accept to save the Pentagon from cuts because they are afraid to lose a huge constituency, the military, in the 2012 elections.
Democrats will publicly reason that there can be no partisan disagreement that the Pentagon's budget should not be sacrificed, without granting the same grace to the lives of the many hard-working, retired, or unemployed Americans who will suffer because of the cuts that will be made to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
And, in the ultimate mockery of the intelligence of thinking Americans, they will also reason, publicly or secretly, that by caving in they are protecting the interests of America because taking a principle stand might make them the minority party in both branches of Congress and contribute to losing the White House to a Republican. All of this while never asking the question: What good can come of a party that never takes a principled stand for its core constituencies in the name of self-preservation? Who needs it? I am increasingly convinced that the Democratic party is inching closer and closer to the apex of total uselessness.
Watch what happens on Wednesday, if you don't believe me.
----------------------------------------------------
Sam Stein of the Huffington Post reports that there may be a deal in the making to exclude the Pentagon from the automatic sequestration that would be triggered if the so-called Super Committee (on deficit reduction) fails to reach an agreement by the coming Wednesday. If a deal is reached to exclude the Pentagon, you can bet your first-born's life that it will be yet another cave-in by Democrats. In other words, Democrats will get nothing in return, but they will accept to save the Pentagon from cuts because they are afraid to lose a huge constituency, the military, in the 2012 elections.
Democrats will publicly reason that there can be no partisan disagreement that the Pentagon's budget should not be sacrificed, without granting the same grace to the lives of the many hard-working, retired, or unemployed Americans who will suffer because of the cuts that will be made to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
And, in the ultimate mockery of the intelligence of thinking Americans, they will also reason, publicly or secretly, that by caving in they are protecting the interests of America because taking a principle stand might make them the minority party in both branches of Congress and contribute to losing the White House to a Republican. All of this while never asking the question: What good can come of a party that never takes a principled stand for its core constituencies in the name of self-preservation? Who needs it? I am increasingly convinced that the Democratic party is inching closer and closer to the apex of total uselessness.
Watch what happens on Wednesday, if you don't believe me.
Hope, After All
As an uplifting companion to my previous post, titled Sad and Outrageous, I offer this clip from last week's Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
Please spread the words of this wise, clear-minded 84 year-old.
Please spread the words of this wise, clear-minded 84 year-old.
Outrageous and Sad.
I was going to post this as a comment on Douglas Groothuis's Facebook page, but I decided against it. Not because I am afraid of the consequences, but because I did not want to start a long, pointless tirade against me by a few of Douglas's hundreds of friends. While I have no ambition and no delusion to pose as a teacher or a professor, I do hope that Douglas finds this post here and that he learns something good from it.
On his Facebook page, Groothuis-- who is a professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary--recommended Mark Levin article with the following title: Mark Levin on Occupy: ‘What are these pieces of crap contributing to society?’ Levin is known for his hateful commentaries against all things liberal and I am not linking to his post because I do not want to foster undeserved publicity for him and his hateful thoughts.
Occupy, of course, is short for Occupy Wall Street, the protest movement which for the last two months has brought the issue of how big financial institutions have brought economies all around the world to their knees, without any of them paying the price for their actions. One of his Facebook friends posted the following response: "My son, a gainfully employed New Yorker, marched on Thursday. We are all made in the image of God and we've all have fallen short. People are not pieces of crap." Another wrote "Pieces of crap, huh That's not what my theological anthropology says." And I wrote: "Merry Christmas to Doug and Mark Levin, too." That's it. On the other hand, Groothuis's recommendation earned 3 "Likes", but I am sure that number will rise before long.
The fact that Groothuis has chosen to recommend the link without so much as a disclaimer about the title can only be taken to mean that he endorses not only Levin's message but the way it was phrased as well. And that would be no surprise, since Groothuis is not new to these attacks on OWS protesters. A few weeks ago he made a comment to the effect that Tea Partiers are better dressed and smell better than OWS protesters.
Since the birth of OWS, Groothuis has not missed a chance to take the worst possible examples offered by protesters and build negative generalization upon generalization of the movement's participants and their, admittedly, varied goals. At the same time, Groothuis likes to post about Christian apologetics and often quotes passages from the Bible on his page. What a curious mix of Christianity and contempt for fellow human beings.
Unfortunately Groothuis has some influence in Evangelical circles, often talks at Churches and public fora around Denver, and has a loyal following on Facebook, so his frequent posts decrying all opponents of conservative politics, and particularly President Obama, as socialists, un-American, unintelligent, hypocritical, deceitful, etc, carry some weight.
What never ceases to amaze me is that very few people call him out on the dissonance that exists between his avowed love of Christ and Christianity and his pedestrian rhetoric about anyone who has a different point of view. In doing what he does, and in how he does it, Groothuis trespasses the line that separates Christian advocacy and political indoctrination. You can be a credible advocate for Christianity or you can be a mouthpiece of the worst elements on the Right, but you cannot be both.
It is a shame that only few of his followers on Facebook attempt to show Groothuis what a sad, outrageous, and indefensible example of Christianity he offers, and that many of them choose to laud him and encourage him instead of calling him to use better judgement. Well, I am glad to be one who is willing to call him on the madness of his words, with the hope he will see the error of his ways.
On his Facebook page, Groothuis-- who is a professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary--recommended Mark Levin article with the following title: Mark Levin on Occupy: ‘What are these pieces of crap contributing to society?’ Levin is known for his hateful commentaries against all things liberal and I am not linking to his post because I do not want to foster undeserved publicity for him and his hateful thoughts.
Occupy, of course, is short for Occupy Wall Street, the protest movement which for the last two months has brought the issue of how big financial institutions have brought economies all around the world to their knees, without any of them paying the price for their actions. One of his Facebook friends posted the following response: "My son, a gainfully employed New Yorker, marched on Thursday. We are all made in the image of God and we've all have fallen short. People are not pieces of crap." Another wrote "Pieces of crap, huh That's not what my theological anthropology says." And I wrote: "Merry Christmas to Doug and Mark Levin, too." That's it. On the other hand, Groothuis's recommendation earned 3 "Likes", but I am sure that number will rise before long.
The fact that Groothuis has chosen to recommend the link without so much as a disclaimer about the title can only be taken to mean that he endorses not only Levin's message but the way it was phrased as well. And that would be no surprise, since Groothuis is not new to these attacks on OWS protesters. A few weeks ago he made a comment to the effect that Tea Partiers are better dressed and smell better than OWS protesters.
Since the birth of OWS, Groothuis has not missed a chance to take the worst possible examples offered by protesters and build negative generalization upon generalization of the movement's participants and their, admittedly, varied goals. At the same time, Groothuis likes to post about Christian apologetics and often quotes passages from the Bible on his page. What a curious mix of Christianity and contempt for fellow human beings.
Unfortunately Groothuis has some influence in Evangelical circles, often talks at Churches and public fora around Denver, and has a loyal following on Facebook, so his frequent posts decrying all opponents of conservative politics, and particularly President Obama, as socialists, un-American, unintelligent, hypocritical, deceitful, etc, carry some weight.
What never ceases to amaze me is that very few people call him out on the dissonance that exists between his avowed love of Christ and Christianity and his pedestrian rhetoric about anyone who has a different point of view. In doing what he does, and in how he does it, Groothuis trespasses the line that separates Christian advocacy and political indoctrination. You can be a credible advocate for Christianity or you can be a mouthpiece of the worst elements on the Right, but you cannot be both.
It is a shame that only few of his followers on Facebook attempt to show Groothuis what a sad, outrageous, and indefensible example of Christianity he offers, and that many of them choose to laud him and encourage him instead of calling him to use better judgement. Well, I am glad to be one who is willing to call him on the madness of his words, with the hope he will see the error of his ways.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Why The Founding Fathers Were Wiser Than You Know
"Ridiculous veneration for the Constitution of the United States." Those are the words of Sanford Levinson, constitutional scholar, who has written a wonderful book that I highly recommend, both to those who understand its greatness and its limits and--particularly--to those who regard it as a sacred document, on par with Scriptures.
The book is Constitutional Faith, and you should buy it and read it as soon as you can.
And by the way, I wrote a post almost 4 years ago wherein I made many of the points that Levinson makes about the Constitution.
The book is Constitutional Faith, and you should buy it and read it as soon as you can.
And by the way, I wrote a post almost 4 years ago wherein I made many of the points that Levinson makes about the Constitution.
Friday, November 11, 2011
The Strange History of "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
I just finished viewing The Strange History of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" on HBO, a documentary about the long process that led to the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell", the U.S. Military policy that relegated our gay and lesbian brother and sisters who serve in the military to the role of second-class soldiers. Sen. McCain and his efforts AGAINST the repeal were prominently featured.
I can only say two things about the Senator: How sad it is that a man who sacrificed as much as he did for this country would fail to see how his efforts against the repeal were an utter betrayal of American values. And, how lucky we are that he did not become president of this nation.
I can only say two things about the Senator: How sad it is that a man who sacrificed as much as he did for this country would fail to see how his efforts against the repeal were an utter betrayal of American values. And, how lucky we are that he did not become president of this nation.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
The God Delusion
I found this on Facebook:
Oh, dear!
In this person's diseased mind (because I am of the opinion that religious belief is truly a mental disorder), religion stands for truth, reason, substance, logic, sound argumentation, and life. Atheism, which is the rejection of the irrational, fantastic being(s), whose existence cannot be proven and whose influence on human affairs and nature is also impossible to prove, is false, emotional, vacuous, absurd, litigious thinking and, cherry on top, dead(ly).
This is the kind of "logic", "substance", "reason", "truth", "argumentation", and (sanctity of) "life" that we need to overcome if our species is to advance beyond our superstitious stage. Disheartening. But hey, the number of atheists is rising, so there is some hope at least.
Why I reject Atheism?
By xxxxxxxxxx · Wednesday, September 29, 2010 [name withheld to protect the author's privacy]
I prefer truth over falsehood.
I prefer reason over emotionalism.
I prefer substance over vacuity.
I prefer logic over absurdity.
I prefer sound argumentation over provocative assertions.
I prefer life over death.
Oh, dear!
In this person's diseased mind (because I am of the opinion that religious belief is truly a mental disorder), religion stands for truth, reason, substance, logic, sound argumentation, and life. Atheism, which is the rejection of the irrational, fantastic being(s), whose existence cannot be proven and whose influence on human affairs and nature is also impossible to prove, is false, emotional, vacuous, absurd, litigious thinking and, cherry on top, dead(ly).
This is the kind of "logic", "substance", "reason", "truth", "argumentation", and (sanctity of) "life" that we need to overcome if our species is to advance beyond our superstitious stage. Disheartening. But hey, the number of atheists is rising, so there is some hope at least.
Monday, November 07, 2011
Duh!
Here's a report from the reputable Guttmacher Institute, showing that public funding contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies.
Of course, the United States is full of morons who think that abstinence education is the only solution to unwanted pregnancies, that we should not subsidize the lifestyle of poor "sluts" who "choose" to have sex, get pregnant and would seek an abortion, if state law allowed it. I also understand that Congress is full of callous, truly evil politicians who view abortion as the immortal wedge issue that can be applied to a stupid electorate every election to obtain the desired results; so these politicians cut public funding for reproductive care, in hopes that the "moral" divide between good Evangelicals and bad everyone else will play their advantage.
What I don't understand is how people of average intellect cannot see through the ploy of those who speak against abortion, and say they would like it to be banned, and also fight against access to contraceptive care. They are obviously not paladins of morality. They are just manipulative liars who care not one iota about women and their children and would say just about anything that people are dumb enough to believe to hold on to and expand their own power.
Of course, the United States is full of morons who think that abstinence education is the only solution to unwanted pregnancies, that we should not subsidize the lifestyle of poor "sluts" who "choose" to have sex, get pregnant and would seek an abortion, if state law allowed it. I also understand that Congress is full of callous, truly evil politicians who view abortion as the immortal wedge issue that can be applied to a stupid electorate every election to obtain the desired results; so these politicians cut public funding for reproductive care, in hopes that the "moral" divide between good Evangelicals and bad everyone else will play their advantage.
What I don't understand is how people of average intellect cannot see through the ploy of those who speak against abortion, and say they would like it to be banned, and also fight against access to contraceptive care. They are obviously not paladins of morality. They are just manipulative liars who care not one iota about women and their children and would say just about anything that people are dumb enough to believe to hold on to and expand their own power.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Hunter Is Quickly Becoming My Favorite @ The Daily Kos
Always on target, always acerbic, with a keen eye for the absurdity of the all situation, Hunter is quickly becoming my favorite blogger at the Daily Kos (with the excellent Joan McCarter).
Today, Hunter took it upon himself to dismantle a) the intellectual (?) confusion at Fox News over Halloween, and b) for the twofer, the apocalyptic stupidity and shamelessness of Republicans in Congress, in a story you have to read to believe: House to vote on reaffirming 'In God We Trust' motto: All other problems apparently solved
Today, Hunter took it upon himself to dismantle a) the intellectual (?) confusion at Fox News over Halloween, and b) for the twofer, the apocalyptic stupidity and shamelessness of Republicans in Congress, in a story you have to read to believe: House to vote on reaffirming 'In God We Trust' motto: All other problems apparently solved
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Personhood Insanity
The "personhood" amendements referenda that, for a few years now, have been popping up in different states are a despicable example of the way in which insane religious beliefs are morphed into a political tactic to help a party (the Republican Party, of course) and are a step toward a theocratic state, the disclaimers of such referenda's proponents notwithstanding.
Theocracy is not simply the imposition of religious rule over secular rule. That, of course, would be bad enough in a modern, civilized society. The real danger of theocracy is that it seeks to establish the rule of indefensible myths and unfounded belief over reason and science. And because modern theocrats have become more despicable and astute in their tactics, they have understood that it is important to camouflage their evil intents as science. Hence the unscientific drivel that is intelligent design is presented as a viable alternative to the scientific theory of evolution. Hence those who oppose the curbing of human activities that are taken as a very likely factor in the increase of global warming (a likelihood expressed in scientific terms to a 90% degree of certainty) do so with the pretext of conducting better science.
The theocrats' tactics are typified in these "personhood" amendments, which when you think about it have little meaning when the Party that supports them also support the ridiculous concept of "corporate personhood". Take for example the despicable referendum on the ballot in Mississippi. While the text of the amendment itself does not specifically mention science, the website set up by the amendment's supporters poses as scientifically sound. Falsehoods and misleading facts are presented in such a way that would have the ignorant believe that science backs the fantastic notion that a fertilized egg should be accorded the same rights that humans gain after birth. Keep in mind that the fertility specialists community view this as a laughable notion, since most fertilized eggs do not implant into the uterus or develop further.
Note that abortion would not be the only casualty of the passage of Amendment 26 in Mississippi; Many forms of contraception would be banned as well (for example the "day after" pill, under the unscientific pretense that every fertilized egg represents the first step toward human life. That would be true, if only it weren't scientifically false.
I invite to go over at the Daily Kos and read Kaili Joy Gray's excellent post, The Personhood Amendment: Rights for eggs but not for women for an expanded discussion of why this theocratic fantasy only shows that a majority can be of the Right and often be wrong, particularly if they are ignorant and/or dupes, the way most religiously-motivated voters are about scientific matters.
Theocracy is not simply the imposition of religious rule over secular rule. That, of course, would be bad enough in a modern, civilized society. The real danger of theocracy is that it seeks to establish the rule of indefensible myths and unfounded belief over reason and science. And because modern theocrats have become more despicable and astute in their tactics, they have understood that it is important to camouflage their evil intents as science. Hence the unscientific drivel that is intelligent design is presented as a viable alternative to the scientific theory of evolution. Hence those who oppose the curbing of human activities that are taken as a very likely factor in the increase of global warming (a likelihood expressed in scientific terms to a 90% degree of certainty) do so with the pretext of conducting better science.
The theocrats' tactics are typified in these "personhood" amendments, which when you think about it have little meaning when the Party that supports them also support the ridiculous concept of "corporate personhood". Take for example the despicable referendum on the ballot in Mississippi. While the text of the amendment itself does not specifically mention science, the website set up by the amendment's supporters poses as scientifically sound. Falsehoods and misleading facts are presented in such a way that would have the ignorant believe that science backs the fantastic notion that a fertilized egg should be accorded the same rights that humans gain after birth. Keep in mind that the fertility specialists community view this as a laughable notion, since most fertilized eggs do not implant into the uterus or develop further.
Note that abortion would not be the only casualty of the passage of Amendment 26 in Mississippi; Many forms of contraception would be banned as well (for example the "day after" pill, under the unscientific pretense that every fertilized egg represents the first step toward human life. That would be true, if only it weren't scientifically false.
I invite to go over at the Daily Kos and read Kaili Joy Gray's excellent post, The Personhood Amendment: Rights for eggs but not for women for an expanded discussion of why this theocratic fantasy only shows that a majority can be of the Right and often be wrong, particularly if they are ignorant and/or dupes, the way most religiously-motivated voters are about scientific matters.
Friday, October 28, 2011
A New Category
I have decided to create a new category to underscore Republican mischief in knowingly using either made up stats, or factually inaccurate data, to goad their stupid electorate into following them to the brink of disaster and beyond. The new category/label is going to be named "M.O.E.", which does not stand for "margin of error", as the statistically savvy among you might have logically guessed, but for "margin of evil", which is the threshold of inaccuracy that no disreputable Republican fears to trespass in his/her pursuit of unfettered personal or corporate power.
So welcome, "M.O.E. (margin of evil)", our newest labeling category.
So welcome, "M.O.E. (margin of evil)", our newest labeling category.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Occupy Wall Street Protesters Aren't Against All Capitalism
There is an excellent piece on the Huffington Post that everybody who is mindlessly pooh-poohing the Occupy Wall Street movement and repeating the hateful, mindless drivel that the right's bullshit-emitting volcanoes, Rush Bimbo and Faux News, are making up of whole new cloth, day in, day out. (Yes, I do have in mind more than a couple of friends/acquaintances who fall in the category of mindless pooh-poohers. Not to say that none of them has a mind. Unfortunately some do, which makes them pretty evil in my book).
Anyway, you should read the whole post, Not Here To Destroy Capitalism, But To Remind Us Who Saved It. And here's an excerpt, to get your appetite for intelligence up:
Anyway, you should read the whole post, Not Here To Destroy Capitalism, But To Remind Us Who Saved It. And here's an excerpt, to get your appetite for intelligence up:
Kristof's right to suggest that the Occupiers aren't "half-naked Communists aiming to bring down the American economic system." This isn't the "Project Mayhem" of Chuck Palahniuk novels -- we're talking about a movement that's spurring people to move their money from "too big to fail" banks into credit unions. That's not exactly "smash the system." That's more like a group of people seeking out a means to maximize their power within the system, or using consumer choice to preserve, enhance and improve the best parts of the system. As Matt Taibbi notes in a fitting companion piece to Kristof's, "These people aren't protesting money. They're not protesting banking. They're protesting corruption on Wall Street." [Emphasis added]
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
If You Read Nothing Else For The Rest Of The Year, Read This
Go to The Daily Kos, and read A Voice From the 1%. It speaks about the perspective of the Occupy Wall Street movement as seen from a person who "made it" in life.
I was particularly moved by this passage, which is obvious to those with an ounce of perception and intellectual ability, but not to the typically brainwashed right-wing American:
With this cherry on top, which answers the most irritating criticism that conservatives like to triumphantly level at the OWS movement, i.e. that no one really knows what the protesters stand for (as if it should stump anyone with a brain):
I was particularly moved by this passage, which is obvious to those with an ounce of perception and intellectual ability, but not to the typically brainwashed right-wing American:
I was not amazed but disgusted when John Boehner and his crew tried to justify the extremity of their position by rebranding the wealthy as "job creators." While true in a very basic sense, it obscures the fact that jobs are a cost that is voluntarily incurred only as a result of demand. Hiring has no correlation at all to profits or to income - none. Let me keep more of my money without increasing customer demand and I will do just that - keep it. Perhaps I will spend a little more of it, though probably not, but even if I do it won't help the economy very much. Here is another secret of the well-to-do: we don't really buy much more stuff than everyone else. It may be more expensive stuff, sure, but I don't buy cars, or appliances, or furniture, or anything else more frequently than the average consumer. The things I do spend more money on are services such as travel, entertainment, restaurants and landscaping, none of which generate well-paying middle class jobs. There, in a nutshell, is the sad explanation of what has happened to the American economy over the last 25 years of "trickle down" economics.
With this cherry on top, which answers the most irritating criticism that conservatives like to triumphantly level at the OWS movement, i.e. that no one really knows what the protesters stand for (as if it should stump anyone with a brain):
As George Orwell wrote in "Homage to Catalonia" about fighting fascists, I don't always need to know what I am fighting for when it is clear what I am fighting against.
This Is Why I Find The New Republican Breed Unbearable
Paul Ryan is slowly but surely becoming the face of the Republican party of future years, the supposedly "serious-thinker" in-chief. And still he says stupid, misleading, and irritating things like this:
"[It] appears that the politics of division are making a big comeback." Of course, he is saying it without a hint of irony. But to Congressman Ryan's credit, it is always hard to see a problem clearly when you're part of it yourself.
For decades, the Republican Party has fostered division in this country with its policies and with its rhetoric. It finds no shortage of socially useful programs to slash or defund, while it opposes any tax increases for those who have more than they could possibly ever need, or spend.
For 2 years Republicans talked about the dangers of death panels coming to American health care if we let "Obamacare" become the law of the land, when in fact death panels are a staple of the American health care system. (Tell Rep. Ryan to read Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans, Wendell Potter's account of how the America health insurance sector plays Americans for fools is not. Wendell Potter was a VP at Cigna, he should know. Or suggest that he watches Michael Moore's "Sicko", a portrayal so accurate of the American health care system that even Fox News didn't find anything bad to say about it.)
For years Republicans have said that they would not support any tax hikes. But now their true message is finally surfacing: They don't want to raise taxes on the "job creators" (their wealthy übermasters), but it's okay to raise them on those who cannot afford a tax increase (the poorest in particular). That would be the effect of any flat tax plan, a Republican wet dream, that did not include significant exemptions for those in the lowest income tiers.
Actually, Think Progress has it right, in a post titled Talking About Income Inequality Isn’t Dividing America, Actual Income Inequality Is.
"[It] appears that the politics of division are making a big comeback." Of course, he is saying it without a hint of irony. But to Congressman Ryan's credit, it is always hard to see a problem clearly when you're part of it yourself.
For decades, the Republican Party has fostered division in this country with its policies and with its rhetoric. It finds no shortage of socially useful programs to slash or defund, while it opposes any tax increases for those who have more than they could possibly ever need, or spend.
For 2 years Republicans talked about the dangers of death panels coming to American health care if we let "Obamacare" become the law of the land, when in fact death panels are a staple of the American health care system. (Tell Rep. Ryan to read Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans, Wendell Potter's account of how the America health insurance sector plays Americans for fools is not. Wendell Potter was a VP at Cigna, he should know. Or suggest that he watches Michael Moore's "Sicko", a portrayal so accurate of the American health care system that even Fox News didn't find anything bad to say about it.)
For years Republicans have said that they would not support any tax hikes. But now their true message is finally surfacing: They don't want to raise taxes on the "job creators" (their wealthy übermasters), but it's okay to raise them on those who cannot afford a tax increase (the poorest in particular). That would be the effect of any flat tax plan, a Republican wet dream, that did not include significant exemptions for those in the lowest income tiers.
Actually, Think Progress has it right, in a post titled Talking About Income Inequality Isn’t Dividing America, Actual Income Inequality Is.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
What The Fuck?!?
"Uh, yeah. Huzzah. It's great that 300 congressmen had the guts to stand up for mom, apple pie and baseball."
This is from a post by Barbara Morrill of the Daily Kos, announcing great bipartisan agreement on celebrating the baseball Hall of Fame. Finally, bipartisanship at work on something that really matters to Americans, particularly unemployed, underemployed, and sick Americans. And by the way, minority party: a good way to handle such a meaningless, offensive vote would have been not to to vote for it. Stay away from the floor of the House, until the discussion moves on to things that are relevant to the country's well being.
It reminded me of Matt Taibbi's The Great Derangement, in which the Rolling Stone magazine's reporter says that the only business which is transacted on the floor of Congress these days is the naming of post offices and schools. We have to get rid of the bums, all of them. Start from scratch, ban political advertising, bring on free, public debates and public campaign financing. We won't get anywhere fast until we do.
This is from a post by Barbara Morrill of the Daily Kos, announcing great bipartisan agreement on celebrating the baseball Hall of Fame. Finally, bipartisanship at work on something that really matters to Americans, particularly unemployed, underemployed, and sick Americans. And by the way, minority party: a good way to handle such a meaningless, offensive vote would have been not to to vote for it. Stay away from the floor of the House, until the discussion moves on to things that are relevant to the country's well being.
It reminded me of Matt Taibbi's The Great Derangement, in which the Rolling Stone magazine's reporter says that the only business which is transacted on the floor of Congress these days is the naming of post offices and schools. We have to get rid of the bums, all of them. Start from scratch, ban political advertising, bring on free, public debates and public campaign financing. We won't get anywhere fast until we do.
Monday, October 24, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, October 21, 2011
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.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
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
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Immoral Games
Markos Moulitsas is right:
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.
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.
Monday, September 19, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Friday, September 16, 2011
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
"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
Thursday, September 15, 2011
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:
Welcome to Fascism, America.
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.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
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.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, August 05, 2011
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 conclusion of the press release states:
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
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.
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.
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.
At a minimum, Winship's review of it. The book itself sounds like a good read, too.
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
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.
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?
Need I say more?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)