Wednesday, November 3rd.

Tomorrow is the election. So what are our choices? A friend of mine on Facebook put it best.

Republicans - Toxic economic ideas, more interested in obstruction, power, and "winning the game" than actually helping people. Democrats -- Spineless. Unable to lead, inspire, or communicate the few good ideas they do have. Tea partiers -- Mostly too insane to hold office. Yay! Let's all go vote next Tuesday!

I completely agree. I think that many Americans do as well and that's why voter turnout will be low tomorrow. This, of course, favors the Republicans. If they win both or either house, what can we expect?

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one term president.----Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader.

So, it's not serve the American people. Winning is more important. What else can we expect?

This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles. ---John Boehner, likely Speaker of the House should the GOP win.

There will be no compromise---Mike Pence, GOP leader and Congressmen from Indiana.

Contrast this with what President Obama said would happen if the Republicans win.

If the Republicans don't agree with me on fiscal policy, maybe they'll agree with me on infrastructure. If they don't agree with me on infrastructure, I'll try to see if they agree with me on education. So I'm just going to keep trying to see where they want to move the country forward.

The answer, Mr. President, is nowhere. They want you to fail. They want you and the Democrats to lose. They could give two shits about the American people. All they care about is power and money. Why are Democrats so naive in thinking otherwise?

Another one of my Facebook friends had this question pose of him recently.

If all these things are so great, then why are so many Democrats shunning the President and running against him as well as Nanci Pelosi???

His answer was perfect.

Short Answer: "Poll Shows Americans Don't Know"

Longer Answer: We wouldn't have needed a stimulus package, had nearly 10% unemployment, we would have better than 2% growth if the economy had been managed properly during the previous administration.

Thank deregulation, lack of financial iindustry oversight, unnecessary, expensive and poorly executed wars/quagmires, and a ballooning government (have any idea how much the Department of Homeland Security cost?) during the Bush years. Instead of squandering the Clinton tax surplus and in-debting ourselves to China, it should have been used to pay down our debt and invested in infrastructure, energy independence and education.

The Republican platform that got us into this mess has not changed. There is no way to cut taxes and reduce the debt at the same time. There is no free lunch, Republicans. This isn't socialism, it's reality. Why don't people get this? Poll Shows Americans Don't Know

He's right. Take a look at this poll. And it's this lack of knowledge that the Republicans have exploited with fear and anger.

In a recent column, Thomas Friedman lamented how sad it is that you can't keep a bad idea down. Or several of them

--Let’s have more tax cuts, unlinked to any specific spending cuts and while we’re still fighting two wars — because that worked so well during the Bush years to make our economy strong and our deficit small.

--Let’s immediately cut government spending, instead of phasing cuts in gradually, while we’re still mired in a recession — because that worked so well in the Great Depression.

--Let’s roll back financial regulation — because we’ve learned from experience that Wall Street can police itself and average Americans will never have to bail it out.

--Let’s have no limits on corporate campaign spending so oil and coal companies can more easily and anonymously strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its powers to limit pollution in the air our kids breathe.

--Let’s discriminate against gays and lesbians who want to join the military and fight for their country.

--Let’s restrict immigration, because, after all, we don’t live in a world where America’s most important competitive advantage is its ability to attract the world’s best brains.

--Let’s repeal our limited health care reform rather than see what works and then fix it.

--Let’s oppose the free-trade system that made us rich.

--Let’s kowtow even more to public service unions so they’ll make even more money than private sector workers, so they’ll give even more money to Democrats who will give them even more generous pensions, so not only California and New York will go bankrupt but every other state too.

--Let’s pay for more tax cuts by uncovering waste I can’t identify, fraud I haven’t found and abuse that I’ll get back to you on later.

For those of you who wonder why I vote for Democrats, look to the statements in bold. The Democrats aren't perfect (and I do stand with Friedman on both of the issues he lays at their feet) but the Republicans are a fucking nightmare.

They will try their hardest (and may succeed) in adhering to every one of Friedman's statements that I have bolded. Make no mistake about it: all of these ideas are completely terrible for this country and are going to make our current situation worse.

As each of you head to the polls tomorrow, think long and hard about which party represents your interests...your best interests. And which one will do the best for your country.

It's abundantly clear to me.

Heads In Their Hands

I looked around the theater. More than a dozen times the nearly sold out crowd put their heads in their hands and cursed under the breath. Some quite loudly.

"Jesus...."

"Are you kidding me?"

"I had no idea..."

"God..."

"We are doomed..."

These were just a few of the words I heard coming out of the mouths of the patrons at the theater last night as I watched the shovel to the head stunning film Inside Job.

The film details the exact events which caused our economy to collapse in September of 2008. In several uncomfortable interviews, it puts the key people responsible (at least those that allowed themselves to be interviewed) on the spot. And turns them into gibbering messes. Here is the trailer.

To be quite blunt, it makes Michael Moore films look tame. The main reason for this is the film's director, Charles Ferguson, has a much mellower style than Moore. He asks simple questions and when his subjects try to stonewall he gently (totally unlike Moore) reminds what the facts are. And the film is loaded with such facts.

In a very simple and no nonsense way, Ferguson explains how lack of deregulation over the last 30 years brought us to where we are today. In many ways, it takes the theme of CNBC's House of Cards (shown to me by our esteemed Commenter in Residence, Last in Line) and takes it up a notch. Actually, about a hundred notches.

We being in Iceland where all was well until the country decided to deregulate everything. And then everything went to shit. And then the same thing happened here. Why? Well, the simplest answer is that people are greedy. Ferguson details the certain area of the brain that is stimulated by winning money. It's the same one that is stimulated from cocaine use and sex. Not surprising are the vast number of financial sector folks (including CEOs) that snort coke and hire prostitutes.

Every president from Reagan to Obama is blamed with the latter being held to the mat for hiring Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, two of the chief architects of the crisis. Men like Glenn Hubbard, Hank Pauslon, Frederic Mishkin, Martin Feldstein, Scott Talbot, David McCormick, Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Richard Fuld, and Joe Cassano are some of the many responsible for crisis. None of the are in jail. All of them retain their respected positions of power.

People lost their savings...their homes...everything. And all of these men kept their millions. My family lost around 40 thousand dollars. But that's not even the worst part. The thing that makes me sicker than anything right now is that I now have to hear that we need to "cut the private sector loose and watch the economy grow." This film details exactly how we tried that and how much of an absolute catastrophe it was.

In one very revealing scene, Dominick Strauss-Kahn, current managing director of the IMF, told a story of a party he attended in which some of the people mentioned above told Hank Paulson, "You have to stop us...regulate us...because we can't stop ourselves." I've been hearing a lot of complaints lately of Social Security being a Ponzi scheme. Yet these some people who offer these complaints...people who are so trapped in their own bias of pathological distrust of the government....want to give these men who actually got away with a Ponzi scheme more power! Completely. Fucking. Insane.

Basically, it comes down to this. Saying we need to cut the financial sector loose is like saying, "Hey, let's release the mass murderers we have locked up and deputize them."

When President Roosevelt set up financial regulations during his first term, he set the bar for how business was to be conducted. This lasted for about 45 years. During that time, there were no major financial crisis. From the time Reagan took office to today, how many have their been? Black Monday, the S and L crisis, the dot com bubble, and the Crash of 2008. How many more are we going to have to endure until we follow Jim Manzi's advice?

As we work to adapt our regulatory structure to fit the 21^st century, we should therefore adopt a modernized version of a New Deal-era innovation: focus on creating walls that contain busts, rather than on applying brakes that hold back the entire system.

We had those walls, as Ferguson details in great disgust, and every leader from Reagan to Obama has failed to do anything to put those walls back in place. For those of you who think that the Dodd-Frank bill is going to help with any of this, let's get together. I need a good laugh after seeing this film.

And for those of you who call for less regulation, I challenge you to see this film and share your thoughts with me. Will you change your mind? My hope is that you will because the definition of where we are at, as the film so perfectly and eloquently summarizes, is absolutely unacceptable. In all honesty, it renders most of the topics we debate on here moot considering the gravity of what our country has become in the year 2010. Both parties are to blame.

And so are all of us.

Friday Funnies

I don't think there is a limit to how many times I can state how much I love The Onion. Two recent stories there had me ROTFLMFAO. Target #1: The media and whiny liberals.

Democrats Could Lose Up To 8,000 Seats In Upcoming Midterm Election

With Democratic disapproval ratings in the quadruple digits, it's a foregone conclusion that Republicans will not only retake Congress, but hold it for the next 20,000 to 25,000 years. Experts also predicted the one-sided election results would cause Barack Obama to die on the spot, at which point the nation's leading conservative talk-radio host would be sworn in as president of the United States forever

Perhaps Democrats need to take a fucking chill pill, hmm?

The subject of race has come up recently in comments....

Tea Party Plans To Recruit More Coloreds This Fall

"We're bringing new voices and perspectives into the movement every day, and the addition of some more coloreds is only the beginning," Tea Party spokesman Michael Kealey told reporters, adding that he was "excited to welcome Negroes into the fold."

Please direct your competing victimization to the editorial board of The Onion.

Finally (the best for last, of course), the subject of "coercive government force to extract money from people" (aka Obama's taking Whitey's Money) has come up in comments again. For those of you who feel this way (special dedication to Flat Earther), will you you take this pledge?

I, __________ __________ __________ __, do solemnly swear to uphold the
principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word
that I shall strictly adhere to the following: I pledge to eliminate
all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of
and participation in any socialist goods and services including but
not limited to the following:

Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
US Postal Service
Roads and Highways
Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
The US Railway System
Rest Areas on Highways
Bridges
Sidewalks
Public Water/Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower,
dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
FDA Approved Food and Drugs
Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
Treatment at Any Hospital/Clinic That Ever Received Funding From
Local/State/Federal Government
Medical Services and Medications That Were Created/Derived From Any
Government Grant/Research Funding
Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and
Velcro (NASA Inventions)
Use of the Internets, email, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for
computer networking
Foodstuffs /Meats/Pro duce/Crops That Were Grown With/Fed With/Raised
With/That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies
Public Education
Government grants/loans for higher education
Attending publicly funded or state colleges/universities

SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF ____IN THE YEAR ____.

_________________ _________________
Name/Town/State

Disconnect your computer from the internets,
sign and hand deliver to the appropriate agencies.

For the record, I will not be taking this pledge. I fully support all of these services which apparently means that I am supporting fascism.

Seig Heil!

She Had It Coming

I have now received over two dozen emails to comment on the Stompage in Kentucky. My first thought was....why don't any of these people leave comments? I guess they must be shy...

I'm not going to comment much on what happened outside of the Rand Paul event with Lauren Valle. As I expected, the victim has now been blamed and counter claims of "liberals do it too" have already flown out of the foaming mouths of right wing pundits. One example they tout is the union "beating" at a town hall event last summer. None of this surprises me. So, no, I won't be commenting directly on the Valle incident because it will serve no purpose. But I will comment on why that is (sadly) the case.

A long time ago on this blog, I predicted that someone in the Bush Administration would shoot someone and get away with it. And then Dick Cheney shot someone and got away with it. I caught a lot of hell for taking the stance that I did (especially from that ol' pookie last in line:)) but apparently time, once again, has proven me to be correct. No apology for Harry and 30 bits of shrapnel still remain in his body? Even after HE apologized to Cheney for the "embarrassment." This "Where Are They Now?" article was quite illuminating on a number of levels. It seems that the "official" version of the story was filled with lies and glaring omissions.

The reason why I bring this up today is that nothing the current form of the GOP and their supporters do surprises me anymore. Dick Cheney got drunk and shot someone. No problem. The things they say and do have gotten more and more ridiculous over the years. And, quite frankly, disturbing. It's a clear progression that is seen in their leaders. Dick Cheney to Sarah Palin to Christine O'Donnell. Who on earth could be next?

But there's really no point in seriously addressing this progression into disturbing lunacy any more because one has to "look at all sides" and "liberals do it too," right? Before long, as with Ms. Valle, the truth of what happened is completely lost and we are left with a group of about 30-40 million people that can pretty much do and say whatever they want...while monumentally frustrated people like myself try, in vain, to illustrate how the Democrats are actually NOT that way.

And that sometimes there is only one side to a story.

Again, though, it doesn't matter what I say. Don't believe me?

--Stephen Broden, the GOP candidate running in TX-30 said he would not rule out the violent overthrow of the federal government if the midterm elections don't turn out favorably for the Republicans, citing their "our nation was founded on violence" and the option is "on the table." Broden has received more campaign contributions than his opponent, Eddie Bernice Johnson.

--Sharon "2nd Amendment solutions" Angle, the GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada, says that Dearborn, Michigan and Frankford, Texas are now under Sharia Law and we must fight back to save them. This may be difficult considering the town of Frankford, Texas doesn't actually exist. Sharon Angle has received over 17 million dollars in campaign contributions.

--Last week, the office of Rep Raul Grijalva (AZ-7) received a toxic substance in an envelope illustrated with swastikas. This was the THIRD incident at his office since he has protested the new immigration law in that state. The first was a telephone call in which a person said he was going to "blow everyone's head off." The second was a bullet that had been shot through the window of his Yuma office in the middle of the night.

--A church carnival in Roseto, PA had a game which allowed players to shoot President Obama. The game was called "Alien Attack" and had cut out figure of the president holding a scroll that said "health bill."

These are four of hundreds of examples I have collected over the last year and a half. And it keeps getting worse.

In a post that made me profoundly sad, Kevin Baker linked a quote yesterday that mentioned our leaders swinging from lamp posts (because of the deficit) to which he replied, "You know, the hangman's noose is a remarkably simple thing to make." Yet, he bemoans continually the image of the "violent and crazed gun nut" as well as my questions on how exactly this sort of thinking is different from the sorts of things we see on hirabist web sites. I am at a complete loss as to how to explain this cognitive dissonance. Here, maybe this might help him jog him and his commenters out of it.

تعلمون ، حبل المشنقة هو شيء بسيط بشكل ملحوظ لجعل

That's his quote, translated in Arabic.

When I read what he wrote, as well as the ensuing comments, the first image that came to my head was this

and it made me sick to my stomach.

But none of that matters. The people that are likely to win control of the House of Representatives think that this is all perfectly acceptable because "liberals do the same thing."

--In their eyes, repeating their words back to them is somehow disagreeable(and, on this blog, voices in Mark's head, apparently) to the point of the threat of violence...even though they JUST SAID IT!

--In their eyes, passing a law that will save the United States money and help people with their health is a hanging or shooting offense.

--In their eyes, it's now OK to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (as conservative pundits do every day on their programs) and then....shoot the firemen!

--In their eyes, discussions of hangman's nooses has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the fact that there is a black man in the White House. Nope. No prejudice here...move along...move along....

This is our reality now. Y'know, I had a brief glimmer of hope when I saw the perfectly peaceful and quite civil Glenn Beck rally a couple of months back. This hope was kindled further when I saw several on the right making concerted efforts to be a peaceful social movement. But all of this has gone out the window now with a veritable cavalcade of completely unacceptable words, speeches, and actions.

Anything goes, folks and if you think the 2010 election was bad, wait until 2012 starts on November 3rd, 2010. The couple of dozen example I have bookmarked will pale in comparison to the pile I will have over the course of the next two years. As David Frum put it recently, President Obama is takin' Whitey's money and there's a gonna be hell to pay!

And what about Lauren Valle?

Well...I guess she had it coming.

Did FOX News Engineer the Whole Juan Williams Flap?

During this election cycle, haven't Republicans been saying that the deficit is the most important thing? And when asked exactly what programs they'll cut, what's just about the only thing they'll say they'll cut? Isn't it NPR and NEA?

So isn't it curious that last week Bill O'Reilly asked Juan Williams a leading question about Muslims? One that Williams answered two parts: the first part making himself sound bigoted, and then going on to make himself sound reasonable? And then isn't it odd that some shadowy "liberal group" circulated a carefully edited video of his comments?

Doesn't this have all the shades of the Shirley Sherrod charade? And we all know who arranged that video, don't we?

And isn't it interesting that two days after Williams was fired from NPR he received what some people consider a two million dollar payoff from FOX News?

Have people who listen to NPR during Williams' tenure on the network noticed a change in his perspective? Hasn't he been parroting right-wing talking points on his appearances on NPR ever since he began working for FOX? Why didn't Williams heed the several warnings NPR management gave him to avoid making such comments? Did FOX hire Williams to get a spy into the NPR news room? Is FOX News fanning the flames of terrorism and inciting the bomb threat against NPR?

And hasn't NPR bent over backwards in all areas to avoid seeming partisan? Haven't they banned their employees from attending the Jon Stewart/Steven Colbert rally unless they're covering it? And aren't NPR and PBS just shills for corporate interests anyway? Don't they get like 60% of their money from corporate sponsorships and grants, 40% from local stations, and only 1.5% from the CPB? So, wouldn't cutting funding for CPB have no effect on NPR, and only hurt rural public radio stations that depend on CPB funding?

Is it even proper for NPR to employ someone like Williams, who works for a rabidly partisan political organization like FOX, which makes no secret of the millions of dollars it pumps into Republican political campaigns? An organization run by Roger Ailes, a notorious Republican political hack? An organization that pumped up the Tea Party and falsified video in order to make Tea Party rallies seem larger than they really were?

You couldn't blame anyone who thought that FOX cooked up the whole Juan Williams affair in order to discredit the last news organization that actually produces hard, no-nonsense news, could you?

Hey, can you blame me if people think these things? Can't I just ask a few questions?

Site Update

If you look to your left, you will see that the Electoral-Vote.com icon has changed. These are the new numbers for the House and Senate based on the polls and Andy's algorithm. They will change as his site updates them.

MythBusters

After having yet another in a series of extremely frustrating conversations at the gym last night with my ultra conservative friend Eric, I have decided to publish a short list of absolute myths that we have been hearing in the latest elections cycle. His insistence that Social Security was a Ponzi Scheme (it's not and here's why) got me to thinking about some of the other myths that far too many people believe.

First, we have this new and soon to be classic

1. President Obama has tripled the deficit.

FALSE.

President Bush's last budget had a 1.416 trillion dollar deficit. President Obama's first budget reduced that to 1.29 trillion dollars. The deficit came to 8.94 percent of gross domestic product for the year ended September 30, versus 10 percent in fiscal 2009. These are the facts.

2. President Obama raised taxes.

FALSE

Check out this recent story from the New York Times.

At Pig Pickin’ and Politickin’, a barbecue-fed rally organized here last week by a Republican women’s club, a half-dozen guests were asked by a reporter what had happened to their taxes since President Obama took office.“Federal and state have both gone up,” said Bob Paratore, 59, from nearby Charlotte, echoing the comments of others. After further prodding — including a reminder that a provision of the stimulus bill had cut taxes for 95 percent of working families by changing withholding rates — Mr. Paratore’s memory was jogged.“You’re right, you’re right,” he said. “I’ll be honest with you: it was so subtle that personally, I didn’t notice it.”

Few people apparently did.

(Sigh) if only my commenters were as open minded as Mr. Paratore.

3. President Obama bailed out the banks.

FALSE

It was President Bush that bailed out the banks long before Obama took office.

4. The stimulus didn't work

FALSE

According to the CBO, the raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.

Want to see how the stimulus is working in ways that the "liberal" media won't show you? Check out these stories on YouTube, courtesy of the DOT.

5. Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.

FALSE

Businesses will hire when they get more customers. In order to get more customers, we need to focus on the engine that drives our economy: the middle class. One of the main reasons why President Clinton was so successful in his tenure was his adherence to this fact. More people had more money so they spent more. Demand for goods went up because people weren't facing the rising cost of....well...everything...like they are today. Trickle down and supply side economics were proven to be failures.

With Warren Buffet paying 17 percent of his income in taxes and his secretary paying over 30 percent, the possibility of more customers seems unlikely.

6. Health Care reform costs 1 trillion dollars

FALSE

The law will actually reduced government deficit by 138 billion. This is from the CBO.

7. Government spending is bad for the economy.

FALSE

This one is especially frustrating for me. President Eisenhower used tax payer money (the top rate was 90 percent in his time in office) and built the national highway system. Clearly, this had an enormously positive effect on the economy, literally changing the American way of life and bringing us the system of commerce we have today. Improving infrastructure makes it more attractive for companies to set up shop in our country and is the key element to improving our economy.

It's become increasingly difficult for me to be fair minded with people that refuse to look past these myths. The old axiom that "there are two sides to every story" really needs to be ejected from the capsule for several of these issues. I have no problem entertaining a debate on the pros and cons of welfare capitalism, for example.

But when statements like "Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme" are made, there is only side to the argument that is correct. It should come as no surprise to me, then, that Eric, even after all of the facts regarding the behavior of our nation's financial services system have come to light, pines for the privatization of Social Security.

Really? Still?

And people wonder why I question awareness of self interest. Sheesh...

File Under: No Shit

Oh My God...I think I'm Gonna Barf...

Really?

So, they spend years telling everyone how is Satan and now they pine for him? "Good ol Bill?" Pardon me while I heave a giant load of vomit into the toilet.

As I have been saying all along, they are wrong about nearly everything. And they always will be.

Please Donate Today...Hurry!

I just finished reading Dana Milbank's column today and still can't believe it.

On the morning of Oct. 14, a cyberinsurgency caused servers to crash at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The culprits, however, weren't attacking the chamber; they were well-meaning citizens who overwhelmed the big-business lobbying group with a sudden wave of online contributions. It was one of the more extraordinary events in the annals of American populism: The common man voluntarily giving money to make the rich richer.

These donors to the cause of the Fortune 500 were motivated by a radio appeal by the de facto leader of the Tea Party movement, Glenn Beck, who told them: "Put your money where your mouth is. If you have a dollar, please go to ... the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and donate today." Chamber members, he said, are "our parents, our grandparents. They are us."

Wow.

It's simply amazing to me how ridiculous this has gotten.

Only in this day and age can Ron Johnson, a multi millionaire who worships Ayn Rand, run against Russ Feingold in Wisconsin as a non elite representative of the people. As Milbank goes on to mention....

The Tea Party, he wrote, will "constrain the elite's economic and cultural hegemony."
Oh? Who will do this constraining of the elite's hegemony? Why, people such as the Tea Party's Senate candidate from Alaska, Joe Miller (Yale Law School), and from Kentucky, Rand Paul (Duke Medical School), and from Colorado, Ken Buck (Princeton University).

Is this a joke? Really?

I know several people personally who post comments on here. They aren't multi millionaires protecting their power and pot of gold. They are ordinary, hard working people...many making less than my family...and yet they are staunch supporters of the latest version of the GOP...staunch enemies of President Obama and the Democrats...and I have no idea why. It makes no sense whatsoever.

They are willingly supporting people whose chief goal is to maintain the current system of maximum stratification. They view people who are actually trying to make their lives better as mortal enemies in some sort of sick and twisted reality. They act in direct conflict with their own self interest. And vilify anyone who points that out to them.

It's a sad fucking day in our country, my friends. Very fucking sad.

File Under: No Shit

Just saw this headline in the New York Time.

Global Climate Change Doubt is Tea Party Article of Faith

Wow. I'm shocked.

“Climate change is real, and man is causing it,” Mr. Hill said, echoing most climate scientists. “That is indisputable. And we have to do something about it.”

A rain of boos showered Mr. Hill, including a hearty growl from Norman Dennison, a 50-year-old electrician and founder of the Corydon Tea Party.

“It’s a flat-out lie,” Mr. Dennison said in an interview after the debate, adding that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. “I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”

I wonder if Mr. Denison posts on this blog?

And I really love his insistence that the Earth was made for man to exploit. I wonder if he ever stops for a moment and thinks about the effect of climate change (man made or not) on international security issues which could lead to destabilizing economies in various states around the world.

Skepticism and outright denial of global warming are among the articles of faith of the Tea Party movement, here in Indiana and across the country. For some, it is a matter of religious conviction; for others, it is driven by distrust of those they call the elites. And for others still, efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth. But all are wary of the Obama administration’s plans to regulate carbon dioxide, a ubiquitous gas, which will require the expansion of government authority into nearly every corner of the economy.

Any of you fall into these categories?

Ah, well. At least they are "thinking" as opposed to simply letting their emotions run away with them:)

Man Crush

While I admire and support President Obama, I do not have a man crush on him. I do, however, have a man crush on this guy.



Austan Goolsbee is the chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors. He is the Robert P Gwinn Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, Booth School of Business (currently on leave while he works for the president). He is a centrist and primarily focuses on human behavior as it relates to economics.

I can't think of a more concise and perfect explanation of President Obama's accomplishments in pulling us from the brink of disaster. Maybe it's his voice that aides in this...very deep and manly...hence the man crush. It's almost as if he's going to go and kick the crap out of someone after he's done with this briefing.

So, will this demonstration of numbers, facts, and policies be enough to convince my commenters that President Obama pulled us out of the ditch? Probably not. I anxiously await the remarks from people who have less than one percent of the knowledge and experience in economics juxtaposed with Mr. Goolsbee's presentation.

Remember, naysayers, it is alright to admit when you are wrong.

If You Prick a Corporation Does It Not Bleed?

The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that corporations are people is legally, morally and ethically flawed. Can a corporation testify in court? Can a corporation hold public office? Can a corporation vote? Can a corporation be a parent? Can a corporation be imprisoned for its crimes? If you prick a corporation does it not bleed?

No. A corporation is not a person by any commonsense definition, most specifically because it is not a citizen.

Over the past few years the right has rationalized that illegal immigrants and terror suspects have no rights because they are not citizens. We are, as the argument goes, therefore free to expel, imprison and interrogate them as we see fit.

Consistently applying this rationale to corporations means that the only rights they should have are the rights that are bestowed upon them by the laws that govern their creation and operation. By any commonsense definition corporations are not people and the government is free to dictate restrictions on their behavior, which it still does in excruciating detail.

Unlike citizens, corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution says that a corporation is a person. They are given no rights by the Constitution. A slave (euphemistically called a person "bound to Service for a Term of Years") is worth three-fifths of a person. A corporation? Zero.

If fact, corporations as they exist today did not exist at the time the Constitution was written. They did not become "artificial persons" that "possess individuality and immortality" until 1819 in another notorious Supreme Court decision.

Corporations exist solely to allow individuals to band together to avoid personal responsibility for collective actions. In particular, corporations are formed (in preference to partnerships) to avoid personal financial liability in the event of bankruptcy or other legal responsibility. This isn't evil or bad, it's necessary to run a business. But it's the reason why corporations aren't people.

As long as the officers of a corporation don't mix personal and corporate finances, and commit no crimes, they can run a company into bankruptcy and walk away without personal consequences. For example: let's say the officers of MegaMaint, a large building maintenance services corporation, build a new building with fancy offices for themselves and a fleet of nice new trucks, all with big loans from a bank. The building -- built by the lowest bidder -- has huge cost overruns, is poorly constructed and eventually collapses before completion. The trucks all break down -- lowest bidder again. MegaMaint goes bankrupt. The assets of the company are liquidated and the bank gets almost nothing. The bank goes after building contractor and the truck company, but they declare bankruptcy and their corporate officers skip out as well.

Now let's say that Jim is a small businessman who runs a sole-proprietor window-cleaning business. He doesn't have the money or wherewithal to hire a lawyer and set up a corporation. Jim borrows money from the bank to build a new outbuilding and a new truck. Then he falls off his ladder and breaks his back. Jim doesn't have health insurance because he's in a high-risk occupation and the premiums are too high. He goes bankrupt from medical bills and lost income.

The difference between the MegaMaint CEO and Jim is that Jim is on the hook for everything. The bank and the hospital can go after everything Jim and his wife own in bankruptcy proceedings: their house, their bank account, their lake cabin, her jewelry, their stereo, their TV. They are forced to sell their house and property to pay off the bank loan and the medical bills.

The MegaMaint CEO is free to go out and do it all over again. Jim is out of his house, stuck in bed, broke, with a broken back.

How is that fair?

This is the key difference between a person and a corporation. No one is responsible in a corporation. As long as there's no proof of crime or entanglement with personal and corporate finances, no one is held accountable for a corporation's -- or the CEO's -- mistakes. To be fair, corporate bankruptcies are rarely this clear-cut. The CEOs are always giving themselves bonuses while the company's going bust, lying about financial prospects, or cutting deals with subsidiaries they secretly own. So CEOs are always involved with litigation after a bankruptcy.

Now the Supreme Court has also decided that corporations should be allowed to freely manipulate the electoral process via the media, by hiding behind "non-profit" slush funds that allow corporations to avoid responsibility for slanderous attack ads against their enemies. They can secretly donate millions of dollars to get candidates elected to office who have promised to do what these giant corporations want them to do: i.e., deregulate industries dominated by huge multinational corporations like Koch, BP, FOX News, Toyota, GlaxoSmithKline, etc., allowing them to escape even more responsibility for the things they do.

The corollary to the "corporation is a person" that makes this possible is the other perversion of the Constitution that the court has perpetrated: to wit, that "money is speech." The Constitution doesn't say that money is speech. TV didn't exist when it was written. The government tightly regulates the public airwaves for content, so it obviously has jurisdiction over what's broadcast. Why aren't the original intent guys all over this obviously overreaching radical activist Supreme Court ruling? Speech means standing on the street corner haranguing passers-by, or printing hand-bills with your manifesto. Multi-million dollar ad buys weren't never once mentioned by the Founding Fathers.

We have no idea who's giving to the political slush funds that finance these scurrilous ads. There are no reporting requirements. It could be foreign corporations or even foreign governments. Which would be a crime. But there's no way to find out because five guys on the Supreme Court think Target, Exxon, Burger King and Coca Cola are just regular folks.

To paraphrase conservatives's argument from a few years back: if they're not doing anything wrong, why don't they just tell us who's giving them all that money? Why are their donors afraid to stand behind their own words? Why aren't they offering their donor lists in order to help the government ferret out potential foreign corruption of the political process?

For a more concrete example of corporate irresponsibility, consider the BP oil spill. Because it involves at least three corporations and dozens of engineers and rig workers, it will be impossible to find the person responsible for the spill in the Gulf. But BP has a history of serious safety lapses resulting in numerous explosions, deaths and spills from the Gulf, to Texas, to Alaska. Their safety record is abysmal, even compared to other oil producers.

Corporate management at BP is responsible for this climate of irresponsibility. People and animals have died, economies have been trashed and our land and seas have been despoiled. Undoubtedly a few lackeys will be fingered as the fall guys who caused the spill. But the ones truly responsible, the ones at the top who demanded that they get the oil out as fast as possible no matter what, will never be brought to justice. And that's the whole purpose of corporations: to dilute personal responsibility so that the guys at the top enjoy all the benefits and never face the consequences of their mistakes.

Now the Supreme Court has given over financing of elections to these people.

It's the Bizarro version of the old maxim: with great power comes no responsibility.

Defining the Players

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Perfect Summation

Peter Baker has an excellent piece in today's Times on President Obama. Before you read it, check out the gallery of photos by Ashley Gilbertson that accompany the article. Amazing, right?

The paragraph that really jumped out at me was the one that dealt with this question: can a modern day president succeed and if not, what are the obstacles? Baker thinks that a modern day president really can't succeed and here's why.

An implacable opposition with little if any real interest in collaboration.

Mos def. It's their way or the highway. They want him to fail (for a number of reasons) and will do everything in their power to make certain this happens regardless of the public well being.

A news media saturated with triviality and conflict.

The story of the 2010 elections was written last August. The Democrats are going to lose big time on November 2nd and it will be because voters have rejected Obama due to his "failed" policies. Quite typical of the "liberal" media. But the triviality is the key here. We saw stories about education for about a week and then it was back to stories of trailer trash and ghetto crime.

A culture that demands solutions yesterday.

Ah, yes. Our hyper instant gratification society exemplified perfectly by Thelma Frank who told President Obama last month that she wasn't "feeling" the recovery yet. What does that even mean? And does she expect me to feel pity for her that she has to buy hot dogs and beans while still shelling out 50K a year for private school for her children?

This impatience has been pounced on by the Koch Brothers through their Tea Party network and exploited beyond all rationality. It's absolutely stunning to me that people who make less than 100K a year are listening to a word the Kochs and their cronies are saying. If we get the type of government that the current form of the GOP is striving for, the little that remains of the middle class are clearly going to be hurt the most.

A societal cynicism that holds leadership in low regard.

This one is probably the worst. We have a knee jerk reaction to hating leaders now. This used to not be the case. I lay the blame for this solely at the feet of the GOP in their insanity over President Clinton....an insanity which has now been conveniently forgotten (more on that giant pile of bullshit later).

A common mistake made by the Right is that people like me just hated Bush for no reason. This is an excellent example of hating in others what we fear in ourselves. I never hated Bush and simply thought he was incompetent. I think the results that came from his actions speak volumes. But they do hate Obama, though, and for no reason other than to be deliberately contrary. This would be why millions of people believe a shouting, mouth foamer when they say "Obamacare is threatening our freedom" without a shred of evidence to back it up. Or an alternate and detailed plan to replace it.

Since many Americans have this natural cynicism, they're going to distrust or even hate President Obama no matter what he does. As Baker concludes, a president in modern day America can, at best, hope for being average. Given our country's recent history that is filled with leaders that deserved accolades and respect, I find this entire, collective attitude to be completely nauseating.

Nope, No Racism Here

From a billboard in Colorado...

Move along...nothing to see here...no mention of the word racism which could cause anaphylactic fits of rage...move along...

Sitting in Wonder

I'm perplexed about something.

Why is it that 30 years later it's perfectly acceptable to rip Jimmy Carter new one after new one yet, only two years after he left office, the slightest word of blame or one that is even mildly derisive of George W. Bush sends conservatives into anaphylactic fits of rage?

Just curious...

What The Heck Do We Want?

With the election just over two weeks away, all of us are hearing a lot of sentences that start with "The American people want..." The question is does anyone who says this really know?

No, they don't. Why? Because the American people are basically Sally Field in the film Sybil. Check out this recent poll from the Washington Post. Americans say they want limited government but they also think that Social Security and Medicare are very important. The also want the federal government to be involved in schools, reduce poverty, and half of us want them to be involved in regulating health care. Only 39 percent asked in this poll want the government to cut spending. Wow. Really? This is down from 53 percent in 1994 when the GOP took over both houses.

What I found to be quite surprising was this poll showed that 50 percent wanted more government spending to fix the economy...regardless of the deficit. Even I'm not in that 50 percent. Combine this formation with this recent poll about the tax cuts and one wonders just how far Democrat's heads are up their arses. 65 percent of Dems, 64 percent of Republicans, and 63 percent of independents all said that the tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. What a stunning campaign opportunity completely lost. Still, it's better to have a disappointing friend than someone who acts in direct conflict with the interests of virtually the entire country. More on this notion later.

There might be a lot of anger out there about entitlements but the majority of Americans do support these programs. As election day draws closer, I'm becoming more of the mind that Tea Party victories could end up being a very good thing. Generally speaking, people don't care about something until it's taken away from them. If the Tea Party gets a decent size caucus in the House and a few candidates in the Senate, we will get to see how they govern. It's not going to be pretty for a number of reasons.

The mischievous part of me can't wait to see the public reaction. It's going to be quite a show. After all, the American people want to have their cake and eat it too:)

A Sign for The Future

If you want to see what life would be like if the New and Hulked Out GOP is given control of anything in the future, take a look at the story of Gene Cranick.

Mr. Cranick is a resident of Obion County, Tennessee which requires its residents to pay a $75 fee to put out fires. Yea! No stinkin' socialism here, folks. Cranick forgot to pay it so firefighters would not come out to his home when he called. They did arrive, however, to spray down a water line between his neighbor's house (who paid the fee) and Cranick's burning abode. They stayed there to make sure the fire didn't spread and watched Cranick's house burn to the ground despite pleas and a payment in hand.

This isn't fear mongering for a future that isn't here yet. This is real. It happened. And it makes on wonder if the possible future so eloquently detailed in the film Repo Men (in which all government is neutered and corporations run health care at insanely high interest rates) might not be fear mongering at all. Robert Creamer put it best recently on HuffPo

Competitive markets are extremely efficient at encouraging innovation, increasing productivity and distributing goods and services in many arenas. But there are other arenas where history and experience have demonstrated that it is both more efficient and more humane to provide goods and services through government -- which, as Congressman Barney Frank likes to say, is the name we give to the things we have chosen to do together.

The core difference in values between the right wing and progressives is whether we create a society where we're all in this together, or all in this alone.

Mainstream Americans understand that there are a number of areas where it makes much more economic and moral sense to guarantee goods and services to everyone in the society and ask our citizens to finance them by paying their fair share of taxes rather than paying for them "ala carte".

More humane. Think about that for a minute. Which party do you think is more humane? I think that the Republican Party, in its all out effort and zeal to build a nation of rugged individualists, has forgotten the value of teamwork. In fact, they shit all over it.

The reaction to this story from the right is predictable. Why should Cranick "sponge off his neighbors" to get helped out, as Glenn Beck said recently. Except there was no sponging because he simply forgot to pay the fee as he had in the past. And if they had tax money covering the fire department he would be paying his fair share as well. I'm wondering what happens if you can't afford the fee. What then? I guess all the poor people in Obion county are fucked.

Adam Cohen put it best in his recent Time Blog on this subject

Today, there are politicians and commentators who want to push in the other direction: to water citizenship down, and turn Americans into mere customers. In this view, you should get things — including basics like fire service — not as a right of citizenship, but as a privilege with a price.

Indeed. So, in the GOP's vision of a perfect world, the only rights we would have as citizens are contingent upon how much money we have. Which party is it again that is the party of privilege? More importantly, which party continually blames the victim?

If the Flannel Shirt fits...

Apparently, a talent agency that was hired by the GOP to produce the ad below in the West Virginia Senate race called for actors who have that "Hicky, Blue Collar look." Here is a further explanation of the type of look they wanted.

These characters are from West Virginia so think coal miner/trucker looks. Each character should bring several options and stay away from all black or all white or thin stripes (thicker stripes and plaid are good).

The talent agency also made several additional clothing suggestions, including a "Dickie's type jacket with t-shirt underneath," "Down filled vest," "John Deer hats (not brand new, preferably beat up)," and "Trucker hats (not brand new, preferably beat up)."

My oh my, what a stereotype! Adding further insult to injury was the fact that the ad wasn't even shot in West Virginia. It was made entirely in Philadelphia. So much for "grass roots." If I were Joe Manchin, I'd counter with an ad of him talking to people on the street in West Virginia with the tag line "Made entirely in West Virginia, not Philadelphia."

The other thing about this ad is that it is such a great example of how fake these things are. They're all paid actors playing a role that suits a narrative that is largely false. Take a look