The Conversation (Part The First)

I have two friends that are evangelical ministers. The first one is my friend from the gym (Edward) and the other is a guy named Jim. Jim is married to my first ever girlfriend and lives in a different state. He and I are Facebook friends and we often have political debates. He is very, VERY conservative and I've noticed our debates usually follow a similar pattern as they do here.

This is a real drag for me because I'm far less obnoxious on FB than I am here and I really like the guy. I have made a concerted effort to be as fair minded as possible but I've sadly come to the conclusion that when someone (liberal or conservative) knows less about a subject AND is very passionate about it, look out! That's when things become seriously FUBAR.

We recently had a debate about education and, as it usually does, I pointed out some of his BS and the conversation degenerated from there. What's even more odd is that he has told me several times (on FB and in person) that he is sick and tired of people being offended by everything. He couldn't stand it, for example, when Juan Williams got fired over his airplane comment. Being PC is not his thing yet he still reacted the way he did when I was critical of him.

The whole conversation was very confusing so I figured I'd share it with all of you and hear your thoughts. The topics in education that are raised are reason enough to copy and paste it. In addition to being a "voice inside of my head," I think it is very illustrative of several things which I will comment on as we go along. Jim's posts are in blue and mine are in red because I'm a communist who wants to pollute children's minds with leftist views and propaganda meant to destroy the very fabric of our culture.

He started with this post followed by a  link.

Jim: As Albert Shanker, the late, iconic head of the UFT, once pointedly put it, 'When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.'

The Failure of American Schools

The failing schools meme is getting quite tiresome to me. Nearly all of the examples given aren't fully illustrative of the various complexities involved with the challenges in education today. Worse, they ignore the success stories because they don't fit the narrative.

Mark: There's a much larger issue here than just the go to whipping boy of unions. The way our children are being socialized has been over run by the corporate owned mass media. With many parents checked out for a wide variety of reasons (good and bad), educative and community leaders can't compete with the glitter of materialism. As an educator, I know I lose every time against LeBron James and Beyonce. Until parents and community leaders re-assert themselves as the primary agents of socialization, union problems won't matter.
That's why what you do in your community is so important, Jim. You and I are on the front lines. Now we need more people like us to make it better!

Jim: I agree that a materialistic culture and uninvolved parents are part of the problem, but it's pretty discouraging (although not surprising) to hear a teacher blithely dismiss the massive problems with union cronyism, self-interest, protection of terrible teachers, and total unconcern with educational outcomes.

Please also note that charter schools operating with the same demographic mix and social realities of public schools have produced embarrassingly better outcomes.

Mark: Of course they have because the parents are more involved. Parents that send their kids to charter schools are the same ones that put in the effort. That's why I've always been supportive of home schooling because the parents are pro-active. Honestly, we need more of it.

I think your example here is an outlier although there are problems with unions. The biggest one is tenure. I also support the president and Secretary Duncan in their efforts with Race to the Top and CORE. Under performing teachers need to be fired immediately.

In the final analysis, though, it comes down to parent and community involvement. Our children's school works well because people are involved.

Not so bad so far but I could tell from past experience that once I pointed out to him the fact about charter schools, things weren't going to go well. Someone else in the thread also pointed out that fired teachers in public schools sometimes end up in charter schools. Being wrong=big no no!

Now we get to the good stuff.

Jim: And key roadblocks to the parental involvement which contributes to to academic success are intransigent unions, self-serving politicians, and a bloated educational bureaucracy. There will always be a percentage of dysfunctional families or disengaged parents. The current failing system discourages and disenfranchises the parents who could be involved and making a difference in their kids' success. And that failing system is set up to protect the interests of unions, politicians and bureaucrats who rabidly attack any attempt to change the status quo.

Mark: Well, now you are slipping into conservative propaganda and I'm going to have to disagree with you that this is the totality of the problem. Unions discourage parent involvement? That's simply not true. Ask a few teachers if they find themselves doing more parenting these days. Ask them what they think about that

Again, I will agree that unions have problems and tenure needs to go. I will also wholeheartedly agree that more money is not the answer. We need the right people willing to put in the time with the right attitude which is looking at themselves like overpaid missionaries and not underpaid teachers. Have you examined the efforts of the president and the education department?

Jim: Mark, I can't take you seriously when you respond with silly comments like "You're slipping into conservative propaganda." You're hearing what you want to hear and filtering my comments through your own biases.

You say in one breath that unions and politics are part of the problem, but then turn around and say that getting rid of them wouldn't make any difference. That's incoherent. If you really believe that we'd have the same problems in education without self-serving unions, political cronyism, and entrenched bureaucrats, then there's no point in talking.

After this, I left a comment which I regret not cutting, pasting and saving because he deleted it.  The gist of the comment centered around how schools would look without unions, how I was tired of union bashing, and how he should try to not narrow his focus so much and look more at the complexities of the situation. He then sent me a FB message which said this.

Jim: Mark, I deleted your last comment. You clearly communicated that your positions have been arrived at through careful thought, open-minded investigation, and big-picture thinking (like most liberals), while my positions are merely small-minded, single-focus repetitions of "conservative dogma." You've not even attempted to fairly read what I wrote, but simply read it through the filter of your own preconceived biases. This has become par for the course.

I'm not offended that you disagree with me; it's that your disagreement is consistently unlined with an arrogance which says I would agree with you if only I thought a little harder and expanded my vision. There's no ground for friendship or even working together from that starting point. You tell me you respect me and what I do, but you consistently interact with me as though I'm an ignorant fool who can't have arrived at his positions through thoughtful reflection.

I'm telling you this because I like you and seem in many ways like a genuinely good guy. But your intellectual arrogance, uncharitable reading of what I post, and cavalier dismissal of differing viewpoints are rude and offensive. It makes it hard to have any kind of relationship other than that of a sparring partner, which I'm not looking for.

We're coming at issues from different starting points. I suggest you read Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" if you haven't already. It's helped me understand why liberals think the way they do. It would help you understand how conservatives think, so you might be less likely to dismiss, disdain, and scorn their viewpoints because they're different from yours.

Ah, Sowell. He had to come up, didn't he? I also knew that things were going to get worse when I started talking about the corporate owned mass media. I'll never for the life of me understand how people have mixed capitalism and Christianity. Any sort of attack on corporations is considered heresy. It's fucking nauseating.

I'll have the rest of the conversation up tomorrow.

Sunday Blessings

I wanted Georgia to be known as a state that was friendly and welcoming to people. And while I absolutely believe in the rule of law and that people should be here legally, I think we should be hospitable and kind and compassionate. There’s a real legitimate worker shortage where there is a real fear and perception that Georgia is probably not a state to be seen in if you’re of a different color. And I don’t think that’s what Georgia wants to be known as.

---Former Governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue,Republican

Between now and the next year, as we go to solve this problem, everybody knows there’s going to have to be a compromise on some sort of revenue increases. Grover’s old news. It doesn’t matter what he says, it doesn’t matter what he wants.

---Senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, Republican

Praise Jesus, they are out there after all. I am happy to be wrong and if this sentiment continues it may be more often...which means I might not have much to bitch about, right? Hope springs eternal!

Three Dogmas that Don't Hunt

Trickle-down economics. The war on drugs. Private health insurance. These three staples of conservative dogma have been tested for decades and have all failed to deliver on their promises.

Trickle-down economics is the theory that tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy will create jobs. It didn't work in the 80s when Reagan introduced it (and George H. W. Bush dubbed it "voodoo economics"), and it didn't work in the 2000s when George Bush introduced his tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, some of the most prosperous times we had were in the 50s and 90s, when tax rates were higher than they are now.

The reason tax cuts don't create jobs is that corporations don't create jobs just to be nice. They do it to make money. And for the last 30 years it has been cheaper to create jobs in China, Singapore, Malaysia and Viet Nam. The only way jobs will be created in the US is to even the playing field, by raising the standard of living (and wages) in Asia, or by wage and benefit laws (as Europe does), or by restricting free markets in some way (which China and other Asian economies do), or by lowering the standard of living (and wages) in the United States.

The Republicans have been working to drive US wages down for years, and their efforts are now bearing fruit.

Employers constantly complain that immigration desperately needs reform because they can't find employees to do grunt work for slave wages, or high-skill labor for slave wages.

They have pretty much destroyed most private sector unions, and now they're working on public employee unions. They're hard at work destroying unions in the last sector of manufacturing where the US actually has a healthy export market -- aircraft -- with this Boeing flap.

Driving down wages in the US is ultimately foolish. This is the most desirable market in the world because we're so consumer driven. But if our workers aren't making any money, they can't consume. That's why Henry Ford starting paying his workers fair wages -- he realized that people had to make enough money to buy his cars.

Most of the people running American corporations today aren't like Henry Ford. Most of them didn't actually start their businesses. They either inherited the wealth (like the Koch brothers and Donald Trump), or they're just hired gun CEOs. The Fords of today are guys like Bill Gates, who happens to think that rich people don't pay enough taxes.

The war on drugs is another failed boondoggle. Declared by Richard Nixon in 1971, it involved military action in foreign countries where drugs are produced, drastically increasing prison sentences for drug offenses in the US, and even confiscating assets of people merely suspected of (not convicted of) drug crimes.

It has been an absolute failure. Our prisons are full. Mexico is practically a failed state because the criminals smuggling drugs into the US run rampant there. And drug use is unabated. We learned the lesson with Prohibition, why are we so dim-witted on drugs?

Lastly there's health care. The United States almost had socialized medicine in the 1950s. But many corporations at that time decided to provide health care as a fringe benefit, a cheap (at the time) recruiting tool. Since then, health care costs have been rising much faster than the general rate of inflation.

Countries like Sweden, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand spend much less than the United States on health care. They all have socialized medicine, and all have higher life expectancy rates. Some claim that this is due to more homogeneous populations and cultures, but that's wrong: Canada, Australia and New Zealand are immigrant nations like the United States, with a majority European ancestry, plus small indigenous populations and a wide variety of other ethnicities.

Some people blame rising health care costs on expensive new technologies. The odd thing is, similar technologies have increased productivity and reduced costs in all other industries in the United States. You would think that better imaging would drastically increase diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. New non-invasive arthroscopic surgical techniques have revolutionized orthopedic medicine: patients who underwent procedures that put them in the hospital for weeks 20 years ago now walk out the same day.

With all those advances, how can modern medicine be so much more expensive (in real terms and in terms of percentage of GDP) than it used to be?

The two big reasons are the health insurance model, and the health insurance companies themselves.

Insurance is just the wrong idea. Health care isn't like getting hit by a hurricane -- everyone will use health care, no matter how healthy they are. We all need immunizations and regular medical checkups, we all come down with colds, we all sprain our ankles, we all have children (or were once children). We all face the same dangers from epidemics like swine flu or E. coli outbreaks. The vast majority of us will have some kind of disease or require some kind of treatment for a non-trivial ailment, and the sooner we discover our problems the cheaper they are to deal with. And we all get old.

It behooves us all for everyone to be healthy -- sick coworkers cause us more work and cause employers to lose money. So it just makes sense to pool our resources to fund our common health care, the same way we pool our resources to fund fire and police departments. Certain individuals use the police and fire departments more than others, but we all contribute the same (unless we abuse those services).

But health insurance is a big business, and a very profitable one. These companies suck up a third of all our medical expenditures, and they're pure overhead. A bunch of useless corporate fat-cat bureaucrats, they decide who lives and who dies. And, like any big business, the only consideration is how much money they'll make. If denying coverage to those who need it most means a 20% boost in profits, that's what's gonna happen.

So, why do these three ideas retain so much currency among conservatives even though they haven't worked in 30 or 40 or 50 years? To quote Deep Throat from the Nixon era: follow the money.

Uh Oh

Tom Donohue may want to consider offering a more thorough explanation for this recent comment-a message for Tea Party folks who may vote against raising the debt ceiling.

We'll get rid of you.

Spokesman for Donohue say it was meant as a joke but it doesn't sound very funny ha ha to me. More importantly, this illustrates a very large crack that may be expanding between the business community and the Tea Party.

I've always said that one thing I share in common with some Tea Partiers is their disdain for big business and bail outs. If they played up this angle more instead of the otherism and paranoia about government, they might have me in their camp a little more.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out with the vote on the debt ceiling this summer and then with the election next year. If the business community does spend money to "get rid of these people" I think we'll see a fine example of who really runs this country.

Two Pieces

I've been struck by two pieces of writing lately. The first is a local fave of mine named Myles Spicer. On the whole, he and I are pretty well aligned when it comes to seeing clearly what so many miss.

The mantra of Republicans and conservatives has always been to bless the private sector and urge government to "get out of the way, and let capitalism work." Great! Then where are the jobs?

A question I recently asked and got rigid ideology for an answer. I'm still asking. We had tax cuts and no regulation. Look what happened.

Conservatives claim that government interference, especially taxation, is impeding our recovery; they just have no basis in fact. There is nothing at all that is preventing, obstructing, retarding or impeding American business from creating jobs ... except American business itself.

And why would they? They have a ton of money and are doing well without hiring. The best part, though, is that they can blame the government which results in a continued shift to privatize everything. I can't believe they say this with a straight face when 375, 000 public sector jobs have been lost since 2008 and hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs have been added since that time.

Spicer's best lines though, are about the "uncertainty" canard.

If you think today's environment is "uncertain," you did not live in the Depression. You missed World War II. You forgot about the times when mortgage rates got up to 20 percent. You skipped the turmoil and discontent of the Vietnam War. In fact, in the context of history, today's times are more tranquil and predictable than most. "Uncertainty" is a cop-out.

Actually, it's more than a cop out. It's part of the overall (and total) bullshit narrative that the invisible hand will take care of all of us. I'm wondering if Adam Smith would still offer the same views he does if he had to deal with the derivative, CDO, or credit default swap.

David Brooks sums it up quite nicely in his latest column.

The Republican growth agenda — tax cuts and nothing else — is stupefyingly boring, fiscally irresponsible and politically impossible. Gigantic tax cuts — if they were affordable — might boost overall growth, but they would do nothing to address the structural problems that are causing a working-class crisis.

Republican politicians don’t design policies to meet specific needs, or even to help their own working-class voters. They use policies as signaling devices — as ways to reassure the base that they are 100 percent orthodox and rigidly loyal. Republicans have taken a pragmatic policy proposal from 1980 and sanctified it as their core purity test for 2012.

A perfect summation. It is continually amazing to me that these middle class voters fall for their garbage when they make policies that adversely affect them.

Brooks and I part ways, however, when he lists four things we need to do to get this country moving again. It's not that I don't agree with them. In fact, I think they are all excellent ideas and I would support them wholeheartedly. Clearly, his bias prevents him from seeing that there is someone who is attempting to pull from all four of those baskets: President Obama.

The president has reformed health care and embraced the recommendation of Bowles Simpson regarding entitlement. He fervently supports ECFE and many other education initiatives. He passed a financial regulation package that is trying to break the unholy alliance between business and the financial sector. And he wants to overhaul immigration so it supports bringing in high quality human capital. So, I guess Brooks is an Obama supporter? He doesn't really sound like it most of the time.

Brooks is right when he says we all know what needs to be done. We aren't getting there because the central tenet of one side's ideology is to NOT think outside of the box. Until they can get past that, is there any point in even trying to find consensus?

A Frustrating Example

This is how it always goes.

A conservative friend of mine, in this case one of the two evangelical ministers I know, will send me a link like this one. With the headline being "The Pre-Partisan Caucus" one would at least be intrigued, right?

Further reading shows some very agreeable things.

If you are a thinking person interested in

1. Honest ground rules, for

2. Vital political debate, in service to

3. Unalienable rights given by the Creator for all people equally

Good so far. And I honestly don't mind that he calls himself a pro-life libertarian. Pro life people are fighting for what they believe is murder. Since no one knows for sure exactly when life begins, they might be right. They might also be wrong but let's not get off on the wrong foot.

He goes on with this one.

Part of the genius of the Declaration's appeal was that there was no denominational religion in view when making reference to the Creator. In the same wisdom, Article 6 of the Constitution abolished any religious test for political office.

Yep. So far, he has me interested. He then goes on to detail his six pillars of honest politics.

• The power to give affirms that the unalienable rights given by the Creator belong to all people equally, and leaders in human government should serve such a gift.
• The power to live in the light means leaders in human government at every level should be as fully transparent as possible.
• The power of informed choice is rooted in an honest definition of terms in political debate, providing a level playing field for all ideas to be heard equally, apart from which political freedom is not possible.
• The power to love hard questions is in place when political leaders honor and answer those who pose them the toughest questions.
• The power to love enemies recognizes that even the harshest of political opponents share a common humanity and are to be treated with respect.
• The power to forgive recognizes the need to address our individual and societal transgressions against one another, and to work toward justice and reconciliation.

Again, all fantastic. At this point, I'm thinking that this guy's ideas have some real merit. In the interest of being agreeable, I'll forgive his Occam's Razor idiocy and simply move along.

Now, pay close attention to the parts I bolded as we take a look at some of the links in the rest of his site.

Under the "Education and Race" link, we see this:

The “public” schools today are no longer truly public or common, rather they are “government” schools where many educational elitists work out their self-serving theories on our children.

Ah, well, so much for sharing a common humanity and working towards reconciliation. I don't like it therefore it must be wrong/bad. He then goes on to talk about how schools should all be Christian themed and yet still be public. I'm wondering if he has been in a public school recently. Instructors don't have the time to work out self serving theories.

And what exactly are education elitists? Oh, yeah. The commies that have taken over our nation's schools (see: Bircher insanity).

Under the "Marriage and Pansexuality link, we see this:

It is the relentless agenda of a small core of homosexual-rights activists that will outlast the core of politically defined pro-family activists, unless biblical theology gains ascendancy.

Look out! Here comes the gay mafia!

Namely, they elevated same-sex marriage to the status of a “fundamental” or “basic civil right,” indeed, equal to that of an unalienable right. This reality almost never gains comment, but is the deepest substance of the decision, and its greatest threat to civil life.

And so much for unalienable rights given to all people. Can someone please tell me how gay marriage threatens civil life when the divorce rate for heterosexual marriage is over 50 percent?

I offer this site as an example of how I am not the problem. Guys like John C. Rankin are the problem because they pretend to be agreeable but they really aren't. Then, when people like me call them on their bullshit, they paint the people that disagree with them as being the real problem and very cleverly avoid their own mea culpa (see also: responsibility). It reminds me of one of my children saying," It was ____. They made me do it! It's really _____" Tsk, tsk...again with the childish dishonesty and a most excellent example of how frustrating all of this is.

If Rankin is serious about his six pillars of honest politics, that means he's going to have to (gasp!) change. Until people like him and many others on the right admit that their ideas aren't perfect and they are wrong sometimes, there is not going to be any pre-partisanship...unless of course it's defined as "my way or the highway"...which isn't really libertarian when you think about it, right?

All of Them?

Here's a little ditty that I saved from April.

The Architect Of Reaganomics Calls For The Bush Tax Cuts To End

Greenspan said, “I think this crisis is so imminent and so difficult that I think we have to allow the so-called Bush tax cuts all to expire. That is a very big number. But having put the rates back to where they were in the Clinton administration, I would argue that everything else should be either cutting spending or taking out the subsidies which are in the tax expenditures.”

Wow. There have been a lot of folks from the Reagan era (Bartlett, Stockman) that have all been c coming out against the policies that they used to support. I think that represents some serious reflection and critical thinking at a time when our country needs it.

However, he's one of the morons that got us into this mess and now he's suddenly "seen the light?" Yeah, maybe listening to him might not be a good idea either. There's no fucking way I'd support repealing ALL of the Bush tax cuts. All of them? Really? No way.

More and more every day I am convinced we need some constructivist thinking. I hear "we have a spending problem" and that makes me throw up. We can't repeal the Bush tax cuts for everyone in this sluggish economy. Returning the rates to the Clinton levels on the upper folks is a start but it's clear it won't be enough.

We need to think out of the box and be as non partisan as we possibly can on this one and that means everyone. Any ideas?

How Sarah Could Win

I haven't really talked about Sarah Palin in awhile as I have refused to be a part of the bizarre relationship she and the media have with one another. She pretends to hate them but needs them desperately...doing an excellent job of playing them any chance she gets. In return, most of the media talk about how stupid she is yet they still fall all over each other to cover her.

Honestly, it's pathetic. She's at the point right now where she can say whatever she wants and get away with it. The Paul Revere thing is an example. She says something factually wrong, the media go ape shit, her supporters foam at the mouth and accuse the media of asking her gotcha questions, and she becomes the headline.

Maher had an interesting take last night on how Sarah Palin could win the 2012 election. First, we have 40 percent of the country who would never vote for the president even if he personally saved them from drowning. One can see the validity of this statement by reading my comments section. Second, people tend to vote for who they dislike the least not who the like the best. In looking at Sarah's negatives, it would seem that people dislike her more. But figure in the economic situation coupled with the fact that she is hot and it could turn out to be her that they dislike the least. Finally, it sucks that is has come to this but anyone could get elected in this dumb fucking country.

That last one is a frustration but it really is true. If Sarah Palin were 300 pounds, had short hair, and was missing teeth, would she still be as popular? Would anyone even be listening? No, they wouldn't. We not dumb because we lack intelligence, although that is part of it. We are dumb because looks matter more than skill. Appearance and what is cool is more important than competence. That's the Michael Jordan Generation, though.

We don't give a shit about the steak. All we care about is the sizzle.

Explaining the Drop

Many people are scratching their heads at the latest violent crime figures. 2010 saw a 5.5 percent drop in violent crime and a 2.8 percent drop in property crimes. Most of the experts are puzzled as nearly all of them predicted that crime levels would go up due to tough economic times. But they didn't.

So why is crime down? I suppose gun rights folks will say it's because of the loosened gun laws around the country. And so many since Barack Obama has become president. I wonder how those people who ran out to buy guns after Election Day 2008 feel now. Are they still worried that he is going to take away their guns?

Others say the crime drop is related to increased enforcement of current laws as well as local police simply doing a better job. I think it is for another reason. This is purely opinion and based on no hard evidence whatsoever but I think it's because people in this country are just too fucking lazy to commit crimes. It's as simple as apathy.

After all, Americans have their X Box and Wii. Who wants to put the effort into a crime and lose valuable Facebook time? With literally millions of texts flying back and forth between our nation's young people, perpetrating a crime would cut in to their LOLs and OMGs. Besides, they won't need the money once they get their long term record deal or NBA contract, right? Once they win American Idol, The Voice, or get that winning lottery ticket, their financial future will be set. So why risk it all and break the law?

America's soft power doesn't simply work on an international scale. Domestically, it has made us soft as well. I've talked about the downside of this with the MJG. This the upside.

People can't be bothered to put down their remote and get off the couch to do...well...anything.

T-Paw's Plan

GOP candidate Tim Pawlenty has released his plan for saving the economy and, quite predictably, it adheres to conservative fiscal dogma. Let's take a look at a few of the points.

Eliminate capital gains tax, interest income tax, dividends tax and the estate tax.

We already have a problem with the cap gains tax and now he wants to eliminate it? Great. The wealthier people in this country already claim more of their income in cap gains since the rate is only 15 percent. This would shift even more of it under that protective umbrella and we'd lose even more revenue.

Cut business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent.

Well, as Notes From The Front has shown recently, they already pay less than zero so what does it really matter?

Privatize the Postal Service, Amtrak, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I'd actually go further on Fannie and Freddie...how about eliminating them entirely? I suppose privatizing them would accomplish the same goal. But privatizing Amtrak and the Post Office are not good ideas. With the former, one need only look to the deregulation of the airline industry to see how well privatization has gone. Find a pilot and ask them about the differences between today and when the government used to set the price. It's also amusing that the PO is now the right's favorite whipping boy. UPS and FedEx are both private companies and have the same crappy service issues that the post office has today.

Individual rates would be whittled to two tiers: 10 percent on income up to $50,000 ($100,000 for married couples), and 25 percent for "everything above that."

Well, you can forget about that 25 percent as most people in this tier will just put all their earnings in the newly minted 0 percent taxes on cap gains. But he does get closer to an idea that hasn't been floated out there in a while and that's the flat tax.

Suppose everyone was taxed at the same rate. For purposes of this demonstration, let's say 25 percent. And let's say that all the loopholes were removed so no matter what, 25 percent was what everyone paid. A person making 50K a year would pay $12, 500 dollars a year on federal income taxes. A person making 100K a year would pay $25,000 a year. Seems like everyone is paying their fair share, right? That's why it will never happen. We don't hear anything about the flat tax anymore from the right because they know they can game the system so they will always pay less.

So, how is Pawlenty selling all of this?

"If you can find a good or service on the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it."

Huh. Well, I can find web sites that show me how to make explosives. Does that mean the army should stop making them? I can also find web sites that can teach me how to hack into other countries' computers that control their weapons and power systems. Or teach me how to spy on people. Should our government stop providing those services as well? Well, probably not since that falls under the "protecting us from bad guys" umbrella.

Once again, the overly simplistic approach to solving problem is laid bare. Personally, I'd rather have a president who understands the complexities of the world as opposed to someone who speaks awshucksian.

The real head scratcher to all of this is Pawlenty would roll back ALL federal regulation renewed by Congress. How he gets to this point after seeing the very clear causes of the collapse of 2008 is completely puzzling. Like many of my readers here, he must be cloaked in his Randian shield-impervious to the mere suggestion that governments can, in fact, sometimes improve market outcomes.

Like the socialist utopia, his eyes are filled with fantasies of a libertarian paradise where the people at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo would (gasp) never consider behaving like money grubbing whores. Even if they did, the magical power of the market would always allocate its resources efficiently, right? None of them would ever put the entire financial system at risk simply due to ambitious greed.

Geez, something like that has NEVER happened!

A Most Excellent Quote

From the same source as below...

"The fascists of the future will be called the "anti fascists" - - Winston G Churchill

Out of the mouths of babes...!

Paging Jonah Goldberg:)

A Most Excellent List

Apparently, we have Christian teenagers reading Notes From the Front. Should I be worried? Ah, maybe not.

One of them sent me an email with a link which contained this wonderful list.

102 Things NOT To Do If You Hate Taxes.

Nikto was recently taken to the mat for saying this:

It is a staple of conservative dogma that government can do no right.

Well, take at look at the list of 102 things and count how many you think are legitimate functions of government and are worthy of your tax dollars. I could only find two items on the list that should not be government funded (#74 and #75). Because of my bias against fish (the smell is simply disgusting) and animals (giant pain in the ass) I have to recuse myself from being able to think rationally about either of those expenditures. I'm completely fine with all the rest.

I'd say if you disagree with a majority of them, you pretty much fall in line with Nikto's statement.

Wiener's Weener

I wasn't going to let the whole Wiener storyline go without a remark but I saw an opportunity to use it as a teachable moment.

NOTE TO THE MEDIA: There people in this country living in tents and/or without health care. Do we really give a rat's ass about someone sending sexy photos of themselves over the internet?

The media has once again proven themselves to stare and drool at the bright shiny object-in this case Wiener's weener. Recall that the mass media is one of the five primary agencies of socialization and the one, I believe, has overrun the other four (family, school, peer group, community). Somehow, the union of puritanical hysteria and the corporate owned media have created a bastard of a child that feeds on insanity like this. For the life of me, I can't figure out why Chris Lee resigned after a shirtless photo of him came out. So fucking what??!!??

Can we please get over this ridiculous rigidity about sex? All it produces is a preponderance of attention paid to a whole bunch of shit that doesn't matter one wit. We have serious problems in this country and this is a serious fucking waste of time, people.

What do we have to do to stop giving a shit about this garbage? I submit that we stop watching, reading, or listening to it and let the sponsors of any media who report this shit that WE DON'T CARE.

Go Forth and Worship Thy Derivative

One of the notions that always perplexed me is the worship of wealthy people in this country. I really don't get how business leaders and Jesus are somehow cut from the same cloth. Considering what Christ said about rich people in the Bible, it makes no sense.

But even if you are part of the non religious right, the leaders of the private sector are to be revered in a god like way. Somehow, if someone is wealthy, they: a) are successful in business so b) they would be a great president.

Take Mitt Romney, for example. He is viewed as a success in business simply because he has always been rich. He is rich because of his father and his time in the business community was largely spent gutting companies and reselling them for profit. I've held George Romney up many times as an example of what success used to mean (eg refusing a bloated salary, more thought towards the workers) but that doesn't make his son someone who can turn the economy around...especially since his perception of success is based on what is systemically wrong with our country as a whole.

Donald Trump is another example. He is viewed as a success. He inherited money from his dad and then proceeded to lose it all...get it back again...lose it all...get it back again...does anyone know how much he is really worth?

The point of all of this (as Maher details quite eloquently in the final new rule below) is that being a businessman doesn't mean you will be a good president. The government is not "for profit"...especially the United States government. Kindly leave your foot licking of corporate leaders at the door and remember whose feet were being licked in September of 2008 after these "titans" nearly destroyed the world economy.

Yet Another One

Hmmm...I must be imagining this..it must be...a voice inside my head.

Adult Supervision Required

It is a staple of conservative dogma that government can do no right. Many conservatives denounced President Obama's decision to prevent GM and Chrysler from going bust and folding. Now both companies are on the mend and the US government is set to sell its stake in Chrysler to Fiat. Obama's decision saved thousands of American jobs, and was undeniably the right thing to do.

I have to admit that I, too, would have liked to stick it to Detroit for making giant gas guzzlers. They did so because such cars were immensely more profitable than fuel-efficient smaller cars. But the truth is, they were just making the kind of cars that Americans wanted, even though it was stupid and ultimately self-defeating.

A lot of the guys who were responsible for Detroit's problems were given the ax when the government bailed them out, unlike the bankers whose greed engineered the crash of 2008. And that's part of the problem: the banks still have had very little government oversight since the bailout. Notably, one of the first things many bankers did was give themselves huge bonuses.

The irony of the whole "government involvement in business is bad" mantra is that best economy in the world right now is China's. It's run by the Communist Party. If guys in private industry screw up bad enough (like the ones who put melamine in infant formula) the Chinese government will kill them. I'm sure some of us would like to see the heads of the bankers responsible for the crash of 2008 on pikes, but I'd be satisfied to see them in jail alongside Bernie Madoff. And that requires better laws and more vigorous regulation.

The problem is that the financial industry and Republicans in Congress are still doing everything they can to sabotage the relatively weak legislation that Obama did manage to get passed to take some control of the banks that screwed us over. If this sabotage succeeds, another crash will be soon in coming.

The last 10 years have shown us what a disaster lax government oversight of markets, energy production and food and product safety can mean. But the resurrections of GM and Chrysler have shown that government can do things right, when the right people make the right decisions.

The energy companies, Detroit and Wall Street have been acting like kids running loose in a candy store. The only problem is that when they gorge themselves on greed, the whole country winds up with a tummy ache.

Random Economic Thoughts For Friday

Economic bad news from a number of quarters today starting with the unemployment number going up to 9.1 percent. As expected, President Obama is getting all the blame for it. GOP front runner Mitt Romney says that the president is destroying our country and "we are only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy." Here's why that is a load of shit. 

What I find amusing about all of this is these same people that are doing the blaming seem to forget that if he did more than he is doing then we would be slipping into a more centrally planned economy. There's not anything he can do about high gas prices or the tsunami in Japan, the two main reasons the job market is so weak, so why put the blame on him?

Simply put, people aren't spending money. Whether it's individuals or governments, no one is spending which means businesses aren't making money which means they aren't hiring. Public sector job losses are seeing the biggest hit with 28,000 job losses last month, the most since November of 2010. 18,000 of those jobs are in education.

The only good news out of all of this is that most economists think these are temporary setbacks. And I tend to look at reports like this with a grain of salt. These days, economic reports have the emotional balance of a 14 year old girl. One day, everything is amazing. The next, all is lost and we are drowning in a boiling pit of sewage.

Through all of this, we have the debt ceiling dithering. At this point, anything coming out of the mouths of the GOP is silly when you consider these 10 points.

1. Republican Leaders Agree U.S. Default Would Be a "Financial Disaster"
2. Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt
3. George W. Bush Doubled the National Debt
4. Republicans Voted Seven Times to Raise Debt Ceiling for President Bush
5. Federal Taxes Are Now at a 60 Year Low
6. Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Pay for Themselves or Spur "Job Creators"
7. Ryan Budget Delivers Another Tax Cut Windfall for Wealthy
8. Ryan Budget Will Require Raising Debt Ceiling - Repeatedly
9. Tax Cuts Drive the Next Decade of Debt
10. $3 Trillion Tab for Unfunded Wars Remains Unpaid

What about #5? Taxes are low and people still aren't spending their money. So the argument that taxes need to be cut more makes no sense. Corporate Taxes, as I demonstrated the other day, are in the negative in some cases. Yet they are still holding on to their cash. Why? Because of the evil gubmint? That makes no sense either. They have everything they want and no taxes.

Honestly, I'm not sure I have the answer. Part of it does have to do with the plutonomy we created but are people really that stupid to hoard cash when they know it will ultimately bring down the system they need to remain wealthy?

None of this makes any sense.

Sobering Statistics

"40 percent of the people in this country doesn't even pay taxes!!!!"

We here that quite a bit from people that regularly go into anaphylactic shock regarding taxes. I wonder if they know about this..

How Our Largest Corporations Made $170 Billion During Great Recession And Paid No Taxes

Twelve of the nations largest Fortune 500 companies, while making $170 billion in profits during the period of The Great Recession, paid an effective tax rate of negative 1.5%.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Not only have these twelve companies paid zero in taxes for the years 2008-2010, they actually received tax subsidies that added $62.4 billion to their bottom lines.

Perhaps I need to revise my view on corporate taxes.

The fact that our economy isn't really recovering make more sense now. It's not just the banks that are hoarding money and lending out very little. It's corporations like Exxon, Verizon, and Honeywell. And we wonder why our debt and deficit are so high. Anyone who has any significant amount of money isn't paying taxes.

Moreover, these numbers prove that the idea that companies will just "go offshore if we raise taxes" is sub moronic. They are paying no taxes and still going off shore.

I take comfort in the fact that Ungar is a kindred spirit.

Seriously, people, do we need an anvil to fall on our heads before we get it?

Even that won't work, Rick.

The Big Lie Crumbling?

The subject of the comparison regarding the right and Nazis has come up again in comments. How serendipitous then is this opinion piece from Walter Rodgers.

Let’s recall the herculean tasks Obama has already accomplished:

• He stabilized the worst economy since the Great Depression. Though unemployment remains stubborn, the stock market is basically back to where it was before the global economic meltdown. His stimulus bill kept America humming and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, while his rescue of General Motors saved an industrial icon.
• His administration kept thousands of over-extended Americans from losing their homes by laboring mightily to forestall foreclosures.
• In spite of ferocious opposition, he passed long-overdue reforms of our health-care system that had eluded the reach of many past presidents.
• He signed into law a bold package of regulations to boost consumer protection and restrain Wall Street’s greed.
• He negotiated a historic nuclear-arms reduction treaty with Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev.

Forgetting these and other accomplishments, the public has regrettably bought into the corrosive and dishonest campaign to degrade Obama. Goebbels-style nihilism that rejects anything Obama does as odious remains a powerful narrative.

Add in killing bin Laden, repealing DADT, increased gun rights, increased security at the border, increased immigration arrests as well as a whole host of other things and any rational person would say he was a good president.

Sadly, we are not dealing with rational people.

Worth Several Trillion Words

Who Will You Honor Today?

I think I will start with my grandfather who served as a combat engineer in the Pacific from 1942-1945. He lived from 1916 to 2008 and saw the country change and evolve in a dramatic way. He had more integrity than any person I have ever known. I'm thinking about you today, Pop. You will always be with me!

Between a Rock and a...Rock

In so many ways, the Republican Party is fucked. As I have wondered previously, what are they good at? And why do people vote for them? They don't really have any solutions for the myriad of challenges our country faces and seem to only be capable of harnessing fear, hate and anger. A recent article demonstrates the problem is much deeper than that.

I've been thinking along the same lines myself since Election Day 2008. In essence, the Republican Party is in the same disaster state today as it was nearly three years ago. I may have been naive back then when I predicted their demise (I must remember to never forget about paranoia, racism, and greed) and certainly premature but honestly, I think their days are numbered.

While it's true that they did win elections in 2010 which resulted in them taking back the House, the only reason they did was because of the Tea Party. Take them out of the equation and the Democrats win every election. Put them into the equation and they primary candidates that aren't far enough right...candidates that can't win a general election because the country simply isn't that far right. This is why I say the Republicans are fucked.

This problem was illustrated quite clearly in the recent special election in NY-26. A Democratic victory in a district that has been largely a Republican stronghold for over 150 years. How did this happen? Blame Paul Ryan and his plan to privatize Medicare which further illustrates the fucked-ness of the GOP. Ryan's plan has now become a litmus test for conservatives. If you don't support it, your ass is going to be primaried by the only reason the GOP has a pulse...the Tea Party. Yet if you do support it, say goodbye to 70 percent of the voters. So, it's not really a rock and a hard place. It's a rock and a rock. Because the only way out of their dilemma is to admit that their party is, quite literally, over.

And we all know their track record on admitting defeat.

Still More Epic Success

Further proof that our government bailing out GM worked beyond expectations was seen in April's sales figures. In fact, all three automakers in Detroit showed faster growth than Toyota and other Japanese brands. High gas prices helped GM which sold more of its hybrid vehicles.

In April, GM sold 18 percent more vehicles than Ford. GM's market share through four months this year is 19.6 percent, up from 18.7 percent last year while Ford's market share has fallen to 16.2 percent from 16.7 percent. Toyota's share is 14.1 percent, from 15.4 percent a year ago.

In addition to all of this good news for GM, the company has begun to hire back thousands of employees that it laid off with plans for expansion on the horizon. Check out this video.



Listen to the stories of the people in this piece. Not only does this demonstrate the remarkable comeback of GM but it shows why we did it in the first place. People's lives would've been ruined in an industry with so many interlocking mechanisms, not to mention that GM (from a PR standpoint) is the United States, that ordinary bankruptcy would've been colossally devastating. Considering that GM's GNI/Revenues rank higher than several countries in the world, bailing them out was a very smart thing to do.

And we see every day that it was an epic success.

Apocalypse Not

Whew. Another apocalypse has been averted.

Harold Camping, who--the media must point out in every article about him--was once a civil engineer, predicted that on May 21st at 6:00 PM the world would be inundated by earthquakes, floods and all manner of calamities, and that all the faithful would be assumed bodily into heaven by the Rapture.

The Rapture apparently didn't happen. A couple days after the appointed date, Camping explained that May 21st was actually an "invisible judgment day" to separate the faithful from the non-faithful, and that God had given us more time to prepare for the actual physical apocalypse that will really-really-really-no-doubt-about-it take place on October 21st.

All in all, a pretty lame explanation. Did Camping suddenly find a footnote in Revelations about invisible apocalypses that he missed the first thousand times he read the bible?

A better and more honest explanation would have been that the Rapture did take place, and that Camping and all his followers were left behind because of their hubris. But alas, that was one Revelation not forthcoming.

People like Camping have been around forever. And suckers have flocked to them. This time thousands of people spent their hard-earned dollars paying for billboards around the world announcing the apocalypse. Camping's radio ministry has taken in millions of dollars of donations in the run up to the non-apocalypse. When asked whether he would give back those donations Camping said he didn't see any reason why he should. I guess incorrect apocalypse predictions are non-refundable.

Camping expressed the same level of confidence in his October 21st prediction as he did in his May 21st prediction, and no doubt in his 1994 prediction. The question is, why do people fall for guys like this? And continue to fall for his nonsense even after he's been proved wrong multiple times?

How is Camping any different than Jim Jones, David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite? (Applewhite was the founder of the Heaven's Gate cult, and one of the 39 of who committed suicide in 1997 so that they could be assumed into heaven by the spaceship trailing after comet Hale-Bopp.) Sure, Camping doesn't advocate suicide. But many of his followers are despondent and out a lot of money. Camping has ruined many lives.

Camping's not the only prophet to outlive Judgment Day. The Jehovah's Witnesses have prophesied Armageddon numerous times. When Doomsday failed to arrive in 1914 the Witnesses said that they had screwed up, and what had really happened was that Christ had just become King of Heaven. I guess God wanted to retire and take it easy once WWI started?

We can be sure that come October 22nd Camping will have yet another lame excuse for why the world didn't end. Maybe he'll kick the can down the road 40 days, or five months, or another year and give us another solid date. But more likely, he will say that his calculations were flawed. That you can't accurately sync the ancient Hebrew lunar calendar and modern Gregorian solar calendar. That his leap months and leap days got messed up. That it's impossible to affix an actual date to Noah's flood. In the end, he will say that he doesn't know exactly when Armageddon will come, only that it'll be "soon" and only God can know the true date.

If it was just Camping and his brand of nuttiness, that would be one thing. But it's not. A large segment of the American population believes that the End Times are near. Many Republicans believe the founding of the modern Jewish state heralds the second coming of Christ and the destruction of the world as we know it. That's not just an odd quirk of faith.

These beliefs cause us to make foreign policy decisions in the Middle East that are not in the best interests of the United States, but instead further a misguided religious agenda. Believing that the world will end soon lets you ignore serious problems like global warming, environmental degradation, overpopulation, and declining natural resources. Because if God will kill all the non-believers and repopulate the cleansed earth with the newly resurrected Chosen Few, you don't need to worry about running out of oil, or poisoning our water supplies with toxic fracking compounds.

The thing is, people have always thought the world would end any day now. In some Christian teachings the world was originally supposed to end at the millennium. The first millennium, 1011 years ago. And you can be damned sure they thought the world was ending when the Black Death killed half the population of Europe in the 14th century. But, inexplicably, here we are, centuries later, still kicking.

Really, what's the difference between modern-day prophets like Camping and L. Ron Hubbard and relatively recent -- and still controversial -- religious figures like the Jehovah's Witnesses' Charles Taze Russell and the Mormons' Joseph Smith? And what's the difference between guys like Russell and Smith and venerated figures such as Mohammed, the writer of Revelations, Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama and Moses?

Between 1400 and 3000 years, give or take a few centuries.

Picking On Liz

I suppose it was inevitable that Elizabeth Warren, the defacto head of the new consumer protection agency in the government, would get attacked by Republicans. What I'm trying to figure out is why. Since I know many of you hate her immediately and the very idea of the CPFB, I am curious as to what I know will be your firm and unyielding convictions.

Now, I am already aware that some of you feel that she is going to come to your homes, take away your guns, and forcibly take the fruits of your labors to fund brown shirt factories and reeducation camps. No need to go over that point. What is perplexing me is this: after all that has come out about the massive amount of fraud that led directly to the 2008 financial crisis, why would you not want the government to regulate these guys? More importantly, why on earth would you vote for a republican (nose holding or not) like Patrick McHenry who seeks to continue this fraud? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The whole point of the CPFB is to streamline the regulatory process. It's the first step in undoing the Wall Street government that we currently have. It has to happen because we can't keep going through this cycle every few years. This is the global economy we are talking about not a fucking casino.

Stopping the Next Bubble

Over the last couple of months my colleague has been writing about why the rich are different. That is, how they can make money in ways that are impossible for mere mortals based on their connections and preexisting -- often inherited -- wealth.

In a recent column, Joe Nocera gives a great example of one of those ways that Mark mentioned: stock IPOs. Nocera wrote about LinkedIn's recent IPO:

[LinkedIn] had hired Morgan Stanley and Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch division to manage the I.P.O. process. After gauging market demand — which is what they’re paid to do — the investment bankers priced the shares at $45. The 7.84 million shares it sold raised $352 million for the company. For this, the bankers were paid 7 percent of the deal as their fee.

For a small company with less than $16 million in profits last year, $352 million in the bank sounds pretty wonderful, doesn’t it? But it really wasn’t wonderful at all. When LinkedIn’s shares started trading on the New York Stock Exchange, they opened not at $45, or anywhere near it. The opening price was $83 a share, some 84 percent higher than the I.P.O. price. By the time the clock had struck noon, the stock had vaulted to more than $120 a share, before settling down to $94.25 at the market’s close. The first-day gain was close to 110 percent.

Who was able to buy those shares at $45 and immediately turn around and sell them at $120? The rich and the powerful favored customers of Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch. If you had $10,000 or $20,000 you wanted to invest in a block of LinkedIn stock you would have been out of luck--those brokers won't even consider giving you access to an IPO.

They actually have rules that supposedly protect small investors with insufficient assets from participating in such offerings because they are "risky." I know this because my wife and I have been in on IPOs in the past, and we had to be vetted in order to participate. It's all about who you know and how much money you spend with the broker.

This really calls into question the purpose and even the utility of the stock market. Ostensibly stock exists in order for companies to attract investors so that they can get money to grow their business and recoup their original investment costs.

But LinkedIn didn't make anywhere near as much money as some of the people who bought their stock for $45 and immediately flipped it, some for as much as three times what they paid for it. The people who do all the actual work are getting stiffed.

Once a share is sold the company never sees another nickel from it. Too often shareholders are only interested in driving the price up so that they can sell it: they don't give a whit about what the company is doing, or whether it is really viable. Shareholders often demand CEOs do things just to raise the stock price, even though they harm the ability of the company to do its work (like the ever-popular ritual laying off the employees). They just want to cash out as soon as possible to flip the next IPO.

For that reason stock market profits should be taxed at regular rates -- not the ultra-low capital gains rate -- unless you're selling IPO stock more than a year after you bought it. Buying stock from someone who just bought it from another guy is not a real investment--it's just flipping. However, income from dividends and bond interest really are investments and should get long-term capital gains treatment.

The worst thing about the LinkedIn deal is that this kind of stock trading causes bubbles, like the tech bubble that burst in the late nineties. Is LinkedIn stock worth anywhere near $94 or $120 a share? Of course not. Just like Yahoo was never worth what people paid for it, and most of the other tech stocks that traders ran the price up on in order to flip them. Google is another stock that's overvalued, but Google at least has some substance behind all the hype: its search engine business is legit and the Android operating system has become the foundation for millions of cell phones and tablets.

These days the bulk of stock trades are made by computers that make decisions based on minuscule fluctuations on the scale of microseconds. This computer trading was the cause of last year's flash crash.

Computer trading has a lot in common with the "quantitative analysis" that brought us the credit default swaps and other crazy investment vehicles that tanked the economy in 2008. These schemes use mathematics and computer programming to take responsibility, human decision making and common sense out of the equation in order to make money ever faster out of thin air.

That's why a transaction fee should be levied on every stock trade. Republicans in Congress are complaining about high taxes and are threatening to cut funding to the very regulatory agencies that should have stopped the banks' foolhardy investment vehicles. These agencies were already understaffed during the Bush administration; cutting back on them now would be a colossal error.

A transaction fee would be the best way to put the expense of regulation on the companies that are most likely to cause the next crash, as well as put a damper on the riskiest and most egregious financial transactions.

High-speed computer trading has the potential to bring the entire world economy crashing down in an outright depression. This is one technological innovation best nipped in the bud before it gets out of control.

Out Of The Mouths Of Babes...

I have found quite a few of your statements regarding the Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted.

The above statement is a perfect illustration of why I no longer post on Kevin Baker's site nor (for the most part) engage people who seek to have their paranoid fantasies legitimized. Kevin, along with his merry band of sycophants, are completely and utterly defined by the statement above. The fact that it was made by a tenth grade girl in a letter addressed to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann makes it terribly ironic considering Kevin's one note samba about our nation's schools.

Sadly, though, where Amy Myers (the author of the statement above) has failed in her educational pursuits is what the people who she is criticizing are capable of doing. Take a look at this.

"A lot of them are calling me a whore," 16-year-old Amy Myers said, referring to anonymous comments reacting to online news reports about her challenge to the 55-year-old Minnesota congresswoman.

Amy and Wayne Myers said the comments on conservative websites alarmed them most. Several commenters threatened to publish the Myers' home address.

Others threatened violence, including rape, they said.

"I got a call from the principal that the main office received threatening mail," said the computer programmer and single father.

I wish I could say I'm surprised but I'm not. This is the place you go to when you are a True Believer. Amy, like many students across the country, represent what the right fears the most: critical thinkers. She needs to understand that they will react like this because it threatens their continued relevancy. This is why the drumbeat from the right has continually been that education is filled with socialists/communists/fascists that want to brainwash our children (B to the W-I wonder if any of them can tell the difference any more between the three).

Because the truth is that the right is attempting to do their own version of brainwashing which naturally leads them to the perception bias that current educators are doing the same. Further (and Kevin is fantastic example of this), they never stop to think and reflect that maybe many children like Amy won't listen to their warped view of history, civics, and education because it's simply "factually incorrect, inaccurately applied, or grossly distorted." Why are they incapable of seeing this? Because when you strip all the paranoia, hate, and anger away all the only conviction they truly have is their own vanity.

I hope that Amy realizes all of this as she moves forward in her life. Although being a confident and intelligent student of history, she need only look at the threats of intimidation and violence that occurred in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s for insight as to what happens when you challenge the Tea Party "goddess" (also ironic when you consider the cries about Obama's brown shirts but that's just another example of perception bias again).

Oh, and no response as of yet from Congresswoman Bachmann's office as to whether or not she will accept Amy's challenge.

Sunday Prayers

Well, things were certainly interesting at the State Capital on Friday. Bradlee Dean, a controversial pastor from our state, delivered the morning prayer. In it, he said that "Jesus Christ was the head of his denomination as every president up until 2008 has acknowledged. And we pray it in Jesus' name." Dean has also been known to say that homosexuals should be jailed and/or executed.

First of all let me say that anyone named Brad who spells their name like that should be completely ignored. Last in Line and I have often wondered why parents choose to spell their children's names in the most ridiculous ways. Can't they just let their personality's demonstrate how different they are from the other Brads, Toms, Janes, and Marys? Imagine if my name were spelled Mahrq. Or Nmarc...with the silent "N" at the beginning. What the fuck is the matter with people? And I thought hyphenating last names was bad.

Dean's prayer couldn't have come at a better time, though. I think our state needs to see how truly despicable the supporters are of the gay marriage ban amendment. The amendment did pass today and will be on the ballot in 2012. I say...FANTASTIC! Polls in the state have shown that more will vote against it and polls nation wide have flipped over the years to show that most people support the right for gay people to marry than do not. Honestly, this is just a political stunt to get the fag haters out to vote against President Obama next year.

The election is a ways off but the trend shows that more and more people are supporting gay couples marrying every day. The political and economic power behind the support for gay marriage is going to build over the next 17 months and I think the supporters of the ban are going to be in for a very rude awakening come election time.

Perhaps at that time we can dispense with this bull shit and focus on more important matters like...oh...I don't know....the economy, education, climate change, security, immigration...you know, the little things...

Thoughts On The Speech?

President Obama certainly stirred up a shit storm this week with his "Arab Spring" speech. Israel denounced his call to return to the pre 1967 borders for land swaps as detrimental to its security even though Netanyahu (currently heavily engaged in the finest example of the two level game I have seen in a while) said the same thing himself earlier this week in a speech to the Knesset. Both Hamas and the PLO denounced it as "throwing dust in the eyes of Palestinians" and a slap in the face to their people.

All of this tells me he's basically on the right track:)

Newt's Swan Song?

When New Gingrich first appeared on the national scene in the early Nineties I kind of liked him. He was a proponent of space exploration at a time when the nation on the whole was backing away from it, and that endeared him to me. He wasn't your typical nitwit concerned with only mundane political and economic matters: he could see a bigger picture.

But Newt Gingrich's personal life and career have been a long, sad story of deceit and distortion. He presented his first wife with divorce papers when she was in the hospital. He carried on a full-blown affair with an aide during the Clinton impeachment hearings. He engineered the Republican resurgence in the House during the Clinton administration, in part by providing careful advice on how best to smear your opponent in speeches and commercials.

Recently he justified cheating on his second wife by claiming that he was working so hard and so patriotically that he was practically forced to have sex with his aide. I suppose it was patriotism that forced him to help prop up the economy by buying between quarter and half a million dollars worth of jewelry from Tiffany's.

And then this twice-divorced weasel had the gall to convert to Catholicism. I would give almost any other person the benefit of the doubt on this one. But I know that this was just another cynical political ploy for Newt. The man seems to be a psychopath -- very intelligent, but without any shame or empathy for other human beings.

So it's rather ironic that a man who has spent his entire life lying, cheating and smearing should be taken down by telling the truth. According to this CBS News report, when Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press he said:

"I'm against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change," Gingrich told NBC's David Gregory. "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering... I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."

The reaction from Republican quarters has been scathing. But Newt quickly returned to form, saying:

Any ad which quotes what I said Sunday is a falsehood. I have said publicly those words were inaccurate and unfortunate. And I'm prepared to stand up, when I make a mistake – and I'm going to on occasion – I want to stand up and share with the American people that was a mistake, because that way we can have an honest conversation.

In essence, Newt is saying, "I screwed up -- I told the truth." He wants a complete do-over, to take back everything he said, as if he could put another quarter in a video game and get three more lives.

Newt is a smart guy. That's why his particular brand of hypocrisy galls me more than most Republicans. When Michele Bachmann says something stupid and mendacious, it's because she doesn't really know what she's talking about.

But when Newt says something stupid and mendacious, he knows full well he's lying. You can see it in his face and his body language. He has that coy little smile, like a ten-year-old kid who thinks he just got away with shoplifting a copy of Playboy.

Why was Newt so uncharacteristically candid and honest on Meet the Press? Perhaps he thought he could attract the political center and the elderly, who have been reacting very negatively to the Ryan plan. Newt needs those voters desperately, because any evangelical family-values Republican could not possibly support this two- and three-timing cheater with a clear conscience.

Why was the Republican reaction to Newt's sudden burst of honesty so vitriolic? They know the Ryan plan for Medicare is a non-starter and will cost them big in the next election if they continue to push it . But like any organized criminal enterprise, the whole thing falls apart if there is no loyalty. As soon as one member of a gang starts spilling the beans, the whole thing falls apart. The Republican Party has been built on a scaffolding of lies for decades now (trickle-down economics, WMDs in Iraq, all regulation and all government is bad).

We can only hope that other Republicans will finally admit what Newt has really been all along, and that he will drop out of the race as precipitously as that other self-promoting, lying hypocrite, Donald Trump.

More Of This

Check out this story.

Don't you think we need a lot more of this in our country today?

Will It Happen?

Well, now it's up to government prosecutors. The case has been perfectly laid out by the Senate subcommittee on Investigations in their 650 report entitled Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse. As Matt Taibbi recently put it in his latest magnum opus,

We now know exactly what Goldman Sachs executives like Lloyd Blankfein and Daniel Sparks lied about. We know exactly how they and other top Goldman executives, including David Viniar and Thomas Montag, defrauded their clients. America has been waiting for a case to bring against Wall Street. Here it is, and the evidence has been gift-wrapped and left at the doorstep of federal prosecutors, evidence that doesn't leave much doubt: Goldman Sachs should stand trial.

Their unusually scathing bipartisan report also includes case studies of Washington Mutual and Deutsche Bank, providing a panoramic portrait of a bubble era that produced the most destructive crime spree in our history — "a million fraud cases a year" is how one former regulator puts it.

They broke the law. They should all go to fucking jail. Period. They are the reason why we have the economy we do today. For those of you who are still in doubt, the links I have provided have detailed information. I understand if you don't have the time to read the entire 650 page report but the executive summary is only 15 pages long. And Taibi's piece is a great wrap up to his work on this story-one of the biggest in our country's history.

The question now is...will anyone do anything about it? Or will we continue to worship the financial sector of this country and let them get away with it?

Being the cynic and sad pessimist that I am, I'm not holding out any hope. Our government's neutering may be too far gone thanks to the true believers.

More Than A Toe

Last week, President Obama stuck his toe into the water of the immigration debate. Not much happened largely because he needs to stick in more than a toe. I realize that there are other things going on in our country that, on the surface, appear to require more of his attention but this issue relates to many important aspects of our society.

As Jim Manzi wrote in his epic piece, "Keeping America's Edge," we need to look at the immigration issue from the standpoint of human capital. To begin with, we can't simply deport millions of undocumented workers and their children. It would be crushing to our economy (particularly the food industry) not to mention the really awful PR. Imagine train loads of Mexicans being shipped back to a country that already has crushing poverty and violence. Truly, a terrible idea.

But granting them amnesty, however, could increase revenue without raising taxes on most Americans. More importantly, making it easier for people to immigrate to this country means we can stay competitive in the global economy. As of right now, we are in a unipolar world with America being the central power. But that is changing and part of the reason for this is valuable human capital living elsewhere in the world (see: India and China). We need to encourage them to stay here.

All of this starts, however, with protecting and securing the borders, right? Let's take a look at how President Obama has done on that since he took office.

As of April 9, 2011, we have 20,759 border patrol agents in this country with 17, 659 stationed in the southwest. That's up from 17,499 border patrol agents at the end of September 2008, four months before Obama took office (an 18 percent increase).Singling out just the border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border, the number has increased from 15,422 to 17,659 (a 14 percent increase).

In 2004, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was created, reorganizing several federal agencies under a single roof. That year, the agency had 10,500 agents to patrol land borders. That number now stands at nearly 21,000. In the aftermath of 9-11, President Bush beefed up security along the border so he deserves the credit for starting this increase. President Obama continued it and, in the proposed 2012 budget calls for increasing the the number of border patrol agents to 21,370.

President Obama has also increased the number of deportation of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. Deportation has to be a focused effort as President Obama has detailed.

But I want to emphasize we’re not doing it haphazardly. We’re focusing our limited resources and people on violent offenders and people convicted of crimes -- not just families, not just folks who are just looking to scrape together an income. And as a result, we’ve increased the removal of criminals by 70 percent.

That's where the complexity of this issue needs to be managed and he is doing a great job of it.
According to data provided by the Department of Homeland Security, the number of illegal immigrants "removed" rose about 6 percent -- from 369,221 to 392,862 -- between the end of September 2008 (four months before Obama took office) and the end of September 2010. But a much larger percentage of those deported were convicted criminals. In 2008, 31 percent were criminals; but by 2010, the percentage jumped to 50 percent. The raw number of convicted criminals who were deported went from 114,415 in 2008 to 195,772 in 2010. That's 71 percent. 

Data for the first half of the 2011 fiscal year (which began at the end of September) suggests that trend is continuing, with about 52 percent of the deportations involving convicted criminals. And that's just where the focus should be-the violent offenders. On securing and protecting the borders, we are doing a better job and that is because of President Obama's policies.

So what does that leave? We need to embrace the the people we have here who are not violent offenders and integrate them into our economy, The DREAM act is a good start but we need to go further. There are 11 million undocumented workers in this country-the vast majority of which are simply trying to live a better life. If we grant them amnesty and put these people into our economy, we'd help ourselves out in a number of ways.We'd strengthen businesses and add revenue to city, state and federal governments.

More importantly, the "soft power" aspect of this policy would attract Manzi's much needed human capital from the rest of the world so we can keep pace with China and India-the two countries who are showing us every day that we are heading towards a multipolar world.

Fucking. Brilliant.

Many of us, at one time or another, has had a person come up to them on the street and say something crazy. "The universe is white" was something I got recently. I made the silly mistake of engaging that person and asking how exactly the universe was white. About five minutes of gibberish later, I quickly extracted myself from the situation and moved on to the pub.

As I began to sip my first pint moments later, I realized that what had just happened was a perfect illustration of a major fault of nearly all on the left. When they engage the paranoid fantasies of the right, they elevate the insanity to the point of relevance and, more importantly, the mainstream. And most of it these days isn't fucking relevant. Hell, it isn't even factual and is quite often infantile. Yet Democrats feel the need to respond, playing constant defense, and somehow whatever bit of bullshit was squirted out becomes part of the lexicon.

"Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme" is one of such example of this childish dishonesty. "Mark =Brave Sir Robin" is another. Obviously, the next step after the former statement is "Social Security is responsible for 90 percent of the abortions that go on in this country." The latter statement, after a recent review of the Back to the Future movies, reminded me of the exchanges between Needles and Marty. Classic adolescent bullying.

So what does the left need to do? This:

Dear Representative Bachmann,
My name is Amy Myers. I am a Cherry Hill, New Jersey sophomore attending Cherry Hill High School East. As a typical high school student, I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted. The frequency and scope of these comments prompted me to write this letter.

Though I am not in your home district, or even your home state, you are a United States Representative of some prominence who is subject to national media coverage. News outlets and websites across this country profile your causes and viewpoints on a regular basis. As one of a handful of women in Congress, you hold a distinct privilege and responsibility to better represent your gender nationally. The statements you make help to serve an injustice to not only the position of Congresswoman, but women everywhere. Though politically expedient, incorrect comments cast a shadow on your person and by unfortunate proxy, both your supporters and detractors alike often generalize this shadow to women as a whole.

Rep. Bachmann, the frequent inability you have shown to accurately and factually present even the most basic information about the United States led me to submit the follow challenge, pitting my public education against your advanced legal education:

I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics.

Hopefully, we will be able to meet for such an event, as it would prove to be enlightening.

Sincerely yours,
Amy Myers

Way to go, Amy! First of all, I'd like to congratulate her civics instructor. Whoever they are, they are fucking brilliant and clearly did a good job on the enduring understanding front. Second, this is an excellent illustration of playing offense AND not managing fantasies. It's straight to the point and puts a direct challenge out there in a public forum. Can you imagine what this debate would be like?

Obviously, it's never going to happen. Ms. Bachmann would be destroyed if she did it. By not doing it, she'll have to put up with that childish gnawing from her own ideological camp of being "chicken" but that's an easier pill to swallow. Better that than have your entire psychotic narrative be displayed for all its falsehood.

As is often the case with me, I stand humbled by a student's brilliance. I think I'm going to take a page out of Amy's book as should we all. In fact, I'm hoping that Amy engages the many Constitutional fantasists on the right in whatever career she chooses. But none of this is even the best part...

Students like Amy prove that our eduction system, though flawed and in need of improvement, does actually produce people that are very skilled in knowledgeable in matters of civics and history...so much so that they are willing to take on a sitting US Congress person on the subject of the United States Constitution. The example of Amy essentially torpedoes the Bircher notion that communists have taken over our school system. Her letter is demonstrative of the many students who won't coddle paranoia.

I should know. I see them every day.

Coming Back Gently

I'm going to put up some smaller posts until I feel comfortable that Blogger has its head out of its buttocks. Here's a story that from file of links that I save for post ideas.

Six Most Generous Nations: US Ties For Fifth

Really? I thought we were the most generous nation on Earth helping everyone else out while running up our debt. Turns out we aren't. Switzerland is tied with us with Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia rounding out the Top Five. Ireland strikes me as an odd one. With all of their financial problems, more people donate there than they do here.

WTF, Blogger?

As most of you already know, Blogger has been down for the better part of two days. I'm just throwing this post up to see if things go well with comments etc and then (hopefully) we can be back to regular posting again soon. Feel free to use this post for anything you want to bitch about or cheerlead.

Extraction?

Check out this article in the latest CSM.

Arizona's conservative politics – and Phoenix's dominant role – lead some in Tucson to call for secession. It's a divide that dates back to the 1800s.

Isn't that where Kevin Baker, the "classically liberal" steward of The Smallest Minority lives?

While I see nothing actually coming from this, I can't help but chuckle at the tiniest possibility that it might happen. He'd be trapped!! In a sea of  Democrats...with all those warm and wonderful laws that once comforted him like the best blankie ever a mere county away in Maricopa...

(Jim Kirk voice)....Poison Gas....(gasp)...Can't breathe....

Folks, we just might have to place a call to JSOC for an extraction.