Rand A Go Go

I've been thinking a lot about Ayn Rand of late given that several of my readers are her all too willing zombies. And Atlas Shrugged is now a film. Oh joy..

I guess I'm trying to figure out how a woman who was a pro abortion, free love atheist got to be so popular with the right...the libertarians, I get, but the base? Why?

The other thing that's amusing and not as well known about Rand is that she happily took Social Security and Medicare when her time came under the name Ann O'Connor. Did she consider herself a "looter," a "parasite," or a "moocher?" Perhaps she figured that she paid into the system so why not take out of it when her time came. Getting lung cancer in 1974 and seeing her insanely high medical bills was more than likely another factor in her change in thinking later in life.

Even more interesting is the fact that, as scribe Mark Ames writes, Rand modeled her characters on sociopaths.

“Whenever you hear politicians or Tea Partiers dividing up the world between ‘producers’ and ‘collectivism,’” he wrote, “just know that those ideas and words more likely than not are derived from the deranged mind of a serial-killer groupie….And when you see them taking their razor blades to the last remaining programs protecting the middle class from total abject destitution—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—and bragging about how they are slashing these programs for ‘moral’ reasons, just remember Rand’s morality and who inspired her.”

Indeed. One has to wonder what sort of process would occur in the minds of a "law and order" Tea Partier upon learning that their religion is based on morally bankrupt individuals.

A recent piece by Jason "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario really nailed the whole Randian religion. Echoing Ames, he writes, "The more I thought about it, the more obvious it became. A conservative society is a borderline sociopathic society."

The whole piece is a very accurate analysis of the pathology that I talk about frequently. In fact, he says the same thing I have been saying lately.

Do you know why Rand’s laissez-faire utopia would fail? It’s the exact same reason a socialist utopia would fail; people are imperfect. We are greedy, envious, petty and selfish. There will always be some among us who will better themselves specifically to the detriment of others because they simply don’t care. There will always be those who, as they gain power and wealth, will want more at any expense.

Indeed. Both he and I are in agreement in curiosity in wondering what Rand would think at witnessing the Epic Fail of Wall Street in 2008.

These people are sociopaths, pure and simple.  

Rand was a big champion of no regulation at all.  Close your eyes and imagine what Wall Street could do with even less regulation than it had before.  Think of all the possibilities. Taste the freedom.

Yeah, no. That would be a no...one giant big NO for me. I've seen that film already and it ends with the Rand worshipers beating their chests and screaming about how entitled they are to loot the nation. I just don't get the worship of sociopaths. I never will.

Trumping Trump

For almost three years we've had to endure the endless drumbeat of nonsense about Obama's birth certificate, the various conspiracy theories about how he was really born in Kenya, that his grandmother planted stories in Hawaiian newspapers in 1961 so that infant Obama could get Medicare in his dotage (Medicare wasn't enacted until 1965), that he's a Muslim (which would be ultimately revealed when the mystical long-form birth certificate was finally unveiled), that he's an anti-colonial Kenyan (somehow the elder Obama imparted this legacy during the one visit to his 10-year-old son during a Dave Brubeck concert).

The release of Obama's official birth certificate should put an end to the controversy, but it won't. The birthers will now find fault with something else: he can't be real American because his father was born in a foreign country. Or they'll start pushing the closet Muslim theory again. Or that Hawaii isn't a real state.

So, in the birther spirit, let's apply the same rigorous analysis to their darling, Donald Trump.

Trump's mother was born in Scotland. Trump says he was born in New York, and produced a birth certificate to "prove" it. But it turned out that it wasn't the official birth certificate, it was just one ginned up to look like one issued by a hospital -- who knows when? It doesn't give the nationalities of his parents, or their places of residence or anything. And it wasn't even released by the government! After scurrying around for a bit, Trump produced a second birth certificate (this time for sure!).

But if you actually look at Trump's "birth certificate," it's obviously a photostat or a microfilmed reproduction and not the original. That means Trump has not produced the original document. It can't be analyzed forensically to determine authenticity. They tell us the original was destroyed after being microfilmed "to save space in the archives," but more likely it was to cover up Trump's actual birthplace, which is his mother's ancestral home on the Isle of Lewis. Yes, Trump is actually Scottish!

Donald Trump is a Brit. A Tory. A limey. A god-damned pommy git! He's a king-loving, America-despising, anti-American Revolutionary War zealot. Isn't it obvious from his high-flying lifestyle that he fancies himself royalty? He thinks he's better than the rest of us because he's rich and can spin a good lie.

But that's not all: he hates America, and American women. Trump is a serial bigamist, shacking up with foreign women from Communist countries over and over. He's been married to Czech and Slovenian women for 21 of the last 34 years. That means he has -- or at least his private parts have -- lived outside the United States 62% of the time. He's spent hour after hour listening to these cunning vixens spout Socialist propaganda, brainwashing him into donating to Democrats. From the Washington Post article, he tries to hide his true motives behind realistic opportunism:

“Everyone’s Democratic,” he told Fox News in an interview about his potential candidacy. “So what am I going to do — contribute to Republicans? One thing: I’m not stupid. Am I going to contribute to Republicans for my whole life when they get heat when they run against some Democrat and the most they can get is 1 percent of the vote?”

What exactly is Trump saying here? Is he saying that he agrees with the Democrats, or just buying their favor with campaign contributions? If he was a real American, he wouldn't dream of consorting with those liberal pinkos. Hell, if he was a real American he wouldn't even live in New York, a place crawling with welfare queens, hedge fund managers, real estate tycoons, stand-up comics and librarians.

And then there's religion. Trump says he's a Presbyterian. But he's also said he was a Catholic, and a member of the Dutch Reformed Church. And then he got married to his third (!) wife in an Episcopal Church. Why can't this guy make up his mind? Or is he really hiding something? But let's go with his latest statement: Presbyterian. Did you know that the Presbyterian Church started in Scotland! Yes, Trump has pledged his soul to a foreign god!

And then there's that hair. What is he hiding? If he had any stones he'd man up and just admit he's bald. That means he must be hiding something. But what? Oh, oh. Now I get it. He's actually doing the reverse Londo to hide the fact that he's really an alien from Centauri Prime!

The Budget Director

I enjoyed David Stockman's recent piece on what has to be done in order to reign in our nation's debt. Likely, no one is going to like what needs to be done including myself. He gets right to the point very quickly.

The resulting squabble is not only deepening the fiscal stalemate but also bringing us dangerously close to class war. This lamentable prospect is deeply grounded in the policy-driven transformation of the economy during recent decades that has shifted income and wealth to the top of the economic ladder. The share of wealth held by the top 1 percent of households has risen to 35 percent from 21 percent since 1979, while their share of income has more than doubled to around 20 percent.

The culprit here was the combination of ultralow rates of interest at the Federal Reserve and ultralow rates of taxation on capital gains.

Hmm...who else has been saying these same things? Me. And I was never lucky enough to be the Budget Director for Ronald Reagan. So, Stockman's not exactly a liberal although by the current GOP's standards he's probably a communist. Later in the article, he puts forth some solutions, one of which I don 't agree with at all.

We are about to descend into class war because the Obama plan picks on the rich when it should be pushing tax increases for all, while the Ryan plan attacks the poor when it should be addressing middle-class entitlements and defense.

Well, there it is. At least someone had the guts to say it. Everyone needs to have their taxes raised. Except I can't see how that would be helpful given the decided lack of consumer confidence. Given that consumers make up two thirds of our economy, raising taxes on the lower 90 percent, in my opinion, would be disastrous. The middle class is the engine that drives this economy and they do not need any more burdens place upon them.

Overall, Stockman's piece states the obvious. Everyone wants solutions but no one wants to sacrifice. Worse, political theater is driving all of this which means nothing is getting done. I've stated many times on here that, as far as I'm concerned, everything is on the table including Social Security and Medicare. Hell, simply controlling the growth of Medicare would make a significant dent in our deficit and debt. Of course, that would mean controlling the cost of health care which means government regulation which means a pile of skulls, right?

Fucking Classic!

You'll be hearing a lot more about Republican Jesus in the coming days:)

Thinking Of Q

On this Easter Sunday, I've been thinking about the Q Document. For those of you who don't know, the Q document is the supposed source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke, specifically the material not contained in the gospel of Mark which was written before any of the others.

In fact, Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark and this mysterious document which may not have been a document at all. Many biblical scholars believer that it was simply stories that were finally written down in the form of Matthew and Luke. This I find to be very fascinating as it's stories that truly define us.

One of the things that drive me nuts about our culture is how we define success...indeed, how we define our lives. Last in Line is fond of asking folks, "How's your dash?" meaning the "-" that people have on their tombstones. It's clever in a dark sort of way and I've always loved it. I've always found it frustrating that people define their dash by what they do.

If you find yourself in any sort of social situation, invariably you will meet someone new and they will ask or you will ask, "So....what do you do?" The conversation usually devolves from there into heretofore unseen depths of boredom. I've talked about this before but how about the next time this happens say, "Tell me a story." Most people tend to shy away from this so have a few stories ready of your own and tell one to make them feel comfortable in telling theirs.

When they do tell it, listen closely to what they say and within just a few minutes you will find out quite a bit about the person. Are they an introvert or an extrovert? Are they intrinsically motivated or extrinsically motivated. More importantly, are they happy or sad? All of this can be heard and seen with the kind of story they tell.

As with the Q document, there is always a bit of mystery with every story but that's what makes us who we are. How we interact with each other is just as important to how we develop as how we function within our culture. And, it's stories, not what we do for a living, that we should be talking about. The stories of Jesus Christ created a magnificent tapestry that has lasted for over 2,000 years. As Jesus said,

"Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these.."

What stories could we tell today that will last for that long?

Indeed

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves, not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires----John Steinback.

Earth Day

Being that it is Earth Day today, I thought I would point out a few interesting pieces I've seen over the last few weeks about climate change. In many ways, Dick Lugar was right.  President Obama's energy message has failed and it's largely due to political reality. The right has been very successful at shifting the message from "It's happening" to "It's a hoax" and they've done it with no facts or science whatsoever. They've succeeded in portraying leading scientists as a doomsday cult of true believers. Attack your opponent with what is, in fact, your greatest weakness...surprise, surprise...

So where are we at on this Earth Day 2011?

1. Glacier National Park once had 125 glaciers. It now has 20.

2. A shipping lane has now opened through the Arctic.

3. 400 coal-fired plants around the United States emit an average of 366,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants per year -- mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. These kill an average of 15,000 people per year.

These three items are absolute facts. If you still are in doubt (and I know some of you are), go ask your local science teacher to show you how a greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) warms the atmosphere. It's actually pretty cool to see first hand.

What's been interesting of late is to see how some energy companies have been changing their tune.

Richard Kelly, CEO of XCel Energy, is now saying that a $20 per ton carbon tax would translate into an extra 5 bucks on a 100 dollar a month bill. He's also saying that Xcel could find a way to conserve more energy and admits they waste quite a bit. This way the extra tax wouldn't be passed on to the customers. He, along with other energy leaders, see the future.

So what is it and why are they saying all of this? Because climate change is a security threat. I've put up articles from the DoD detailing that they are moving forward regardless of what the knee jerk debunkers think. In 2010, the human species burned 6 billion tons of coal. Energy demand is expected to rise by 30 percent by 2030, which means burning roughly 8 billion tons per year. From the article:

If climate change continues unchecked, we will see millions of people displaced globally, countries destabilized and U.S. troops mobilized to address these new threats.

The Defense Department calls climate change a destabilizing influence and “threat multiplier.” There is no better example of climate change as a destabilizing force than what happened in Pakistan last year. More than one-fifth of Pakistan was flooded by torrential rains and insurgents have pounced on the chaos-created opportunity to turn Pakistan into a breeding ground and safe haven for terrorist activity.

This is very, very serious folks.

So, why don't Americans believe in global warming? The Economist nailed it and offered an excellent solution.

A somewhat constructivist approach to building public concern would be to build up the issue-linkage between climate change and the search for renewable-energy sources. This would help mitigate the economic and psychological concerns (the latter because it's easier to accept a problem exists if you have a way of addressing it.) And renewable energy doesn't have the political or epistemological baggage of climate change. As my colleague said yesterday, "The idea that sustainable-resource use and renewable energy is some kind of socialist hippy hobby is incredibly naive and frivolous, and extremely damaging to the American economy.

I completely agree. Let's focus on the renewable energy as a tool to mitigate security concerns and bolster our economy.

Yet, we also need to call out the fact free science crowd and revel them for what they are: bullies.  They don't like to lose and they will do everything in their power to win. As with most of these debates, the only way victory is achieved is through money.

If Americans can see that they stand to lose money as a result of carbon emissions and stand to reap huge rewards for renewable energy, we can wave bye bye to the professional debunking of climate change.

Time to get out the spectacles!

Ultimately Counterproductive

The Republican Party across the country has declared all-out war on abortion and birth control. The budget bill earlier this year was almost thrown off the rails because of amendments to defund Planned Parenthood. Several states are passing laws to further restrict abortions to 20 weeks. John Kyl infamously lied on the Senate floor, saying that abortion constituted 90% of Planned Parenthood's services, only to later characterize the lie as a statement "not intended to be factual."

Yet for decades now Republicans have been constantly harping on welfare queens, anchor babies and "breadwinners" who bear children only to get government money.

The best way to ameliorate these problems is to make birth control and abortion easy, safe and cheap. Yet Republicans and conservatives are doing everything in their power to cause the people they seem to despise to reproduce in greater and greater numbers.

For some religious conservatives I can understand: they truly believe that abortion is wrong and should be stopped.

But the ostensibly libertarian Tea Party Republicans don't seem to have moral compunctions about anything, as long as it saves them a dollar. They don't seem to give a damn about abortion, chastity, abstinence, or the sanctity of marriage. Remember when Rush Limbaugh was caught with a Viagra prescription for another man? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Heroes of the Tea Party like Limbaugh, Gingrich and Trump go through wives like other men go through SUVs.

But stopping abortions and preventing Planned Parenthood from dispensing birth control to the poor (who are overwhelmingly black and Hispanic) seems counterproductive to the greater goal of saving money on social programs like welfare and Medicaid, as well as education, prisons, etc. Furthermore, demographic trends indicate that white Americans will be in the minority in the not-to-distant future, which has the potential to spell doom for the Republican Party.

Are the Republicans just a little bit afraid of getting tarred with the Hitler brush if they appear to be advocating eugenics by letting the government pay for birth control?

Or are they just so stubbornly cantankerous that they can't stand the idea of paying for someone else to have sex without getting punished for it with pregnancy?

Or is it a cynical ploy to pretend to deliver on the promise to end abortion that they've dangled in front of religious conservatives for decades?

Practically speaking, it will cost us a whole lot more in the long run to force women to bear children they don't want and can't afford. By eliminating birth control and abortions for the poor welfare and Medicaid costs will increase, hospital emergency rooms will be overloaded, education costs will increase, future unemployment rates will go up, and crime rates will rise as unwanted children grow up with no prospects for any kind of decent life. (There's a school of thought that the reduced crime rates we've seen since the 90s are in large part due to the legalization of abortion.)

The Republican Party seems to be bound and determined to cut off birth control and abortion; this will be ultimately counterproductive in the extreme. It will only serve to magnify the deficit and other social problems. Sometimes you need to spend a little money to save a lot of money.

Where are those practical, hard-headed, penny-pinching conservatives when we need them?

Six Signs of A True Believer

I've been talking a lot lately about the true believers of the conservative and libertarian movements. A recent discussion with a former student reminded me of the Kegley-Raymond text The Global Future. On page 150 of that book, the authors list six characteristics of transnational religious movements. I thought of, Katie, my acquaintance at the gym and smiled.

1. View existing government as corrupt and illegitimate because it is secular and not sufficiently rigorous in upholding religious authority or religiously sanctioned moral and social values.

While this certainly isn't true of libertarians, it is very true of the base.  Not only do you have to be a Christian but you have to be a Christian in THEIR WAY. President Obama and the entirety of the Democratic party are not sufficiently Christian.

2. They subscribe to a particular set of behavior and opinions that they believe political authority must reflect, promote, and protect in all governmental and social activities. The government must be in the hands of believers.

This is what Katie meant by "taking our government back." It must be back in the hands of believers. Of course, they mistakenly see people like me and President Obama as believers as well but really that's how their perception works. Again, Obama and all Democrats are destroying our country.

3. They are exclusionists. They tend to see their views as part of the inheritance of everyone who is a believer. 

4. They are militant and willing to use coercion to achieve the only true end.

This is what I was getting at the other day when I spoke of the similarity between the current conservative movement and the Nazi party in Germany in the 1930s.  Their fervent belief is overwhelming and I especially find it troubling in the economic beliefs of libertarians.

5. They attack the inability of government to address social problems.

This is where the abortion and gay marriage issue comes in. They see both as pure evil and the government as being complicit in allowing them both to transpire. 

6. They are universalists. They see their views as part of the inheritance of someone who is a believer. 

Perhaps the most frightening of all.  This is quite evident in how they continually and massively deride the left. Look no further than my comments archive.

From now until the election, look closely for any or all of these traits coming from the right. No doubt, these characteristics will become increasingly magnified as we move closer to November 6, 2012

Yep

From a recent item in my news feed on Facebook...

I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes because I'm an adult and that's part of the deal.

The Reagan Myth Shattered

What I Would Do

There have been plenty of times I've been called a communist in the blogsphere. Marxy is nick name that has never really bothered me. In fact, nearly all of the derisive comments online don't really bother me. And I've had students call me just about every name name in the book so my skin is pretty thick.

But Katie accusing me of being a communist really hit a nerve with me. Not so much personally but from the point of view of an educator. Doesn't she know what happens when we go down this path? I think it was her tone and the blind rage that I saw in her eyes. That never leads to anything good.

This is why I could never support a dictator even if he or she held my exact ideology. I don't want anyone forced into my vision of the world nor am I that certain that all of my ideas are valid. She was and that's what really scared me. Generally, I know what works and what doesn't based on events and experience. I am not so blind in any thing I believe in that I would use my fear, anger and hate to justify a total authoritarian regime.

I haven't asked her yet what she would do but I have to admit that after the other day, I'm frightened to know the answer.

A Voice In My Head (on steroids!)

This past weekend, I was at my gym working out as I often am. Up sauntered the merry little band of true believers that hang out with me and BS politics. We have the doctor (Sean), the evangelical pastor (Edward), the retired gym teacher (Katie) and the female body builder (Erica). Erica is married to a one of the chief Tea Partiers in Minnesota and actually used to be super liberal. But she married him and suddenly she was super conservative. I guess it's not surprising. After all, she simply traded one naive idealistic viewpoint for another.

I've talked about these folks for quite some time using different names but the names I listed above (not the real ones, obviously) are going to stay the same from now on. They've said too many "wonderful" things over the years that it's high time I got more organized and used them as demonstrative characters. Granted, they aren't representative of the whole of the conservative movement but they do say things that echo many of the things I hear on here all the time. In essence, they are the perfect true believers. More importantly, they are testimonials to the effect that there are no voices inside my head:)

This last conversation got into spending right away. Edward made his usual comments about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme (he doesn't even say "like" a Ponzi Scheme anymore), Sean was his usual rage filled self hating everything Obama does, and Katie had quite a bit to say about Planned Parenthood (all they do is provide abortions) as well as the "drive by" media. Erica didn't really say much but threw in a comment about libtards before she left.

It was right after this that the following conversation occurred.

Katie: It scares me to death that you teach our children, Mark.
Me: Why?
Katie: Because you are a communist.
Me: I'm not a communist.
Katie: Yes, you are. The things you say...you are a communist.
Me: No, I assure you I'm a capitalist. And it's not my job to share my opinions when I'm in class. I'm more interested in my students' opinions and moving them to a higher level on Bloom's Taxonomy. It's enough work to get them to pay attention, be inspired, and get their work done.
Katie: But you can't help it, though. Your ideas just ooze out...you are a communist...and it frightens me that you teach our children. 

Katie was adamant and there was really no convincing her that I wasn't a commie so I told her to try not to let fear rule her life and think a little more critically about politics. She then started going off about GE paying no taxes and Obama being in their back pocket which I actually took as a sign of progress as well as further proof that their is some  potential for common ground between someone like me and her. But then she went back to personally insulting me and screaming about taking our country back so I went off to do some cardio.

The whole exchange, especially the end where she angrily called for taking our country back, made me think of a scenario which I'm going to throw out to all of you. I'm certainly going to present her with it as well at some point. I started to reflect on her statements and realized that she was directing most of her venom at me (a teacher) and the media. Whenever folks narrow their rage at the those two outlets of information, I can't help but think about how those were items #1 and #2 on the list in Germany circa 1933. So, here's my scenario.

Suppose a candidate comes along named John Smith. He is the living embodiment of a perfect conservative. He is your ideal candidate. Now, I know we have some variation with conservatives here so each of you imagine your perfect guy. This guy has the backing a very large group of people and is accumulating so much support that he has enough power to run the country exactly how you want him to run it. In other words, there are enough like minded people for him to run the country as a single and authoritative body.

Given that he embodies perfectly your ideology, would you support him in this endeavor? Be honest. Remember, he is going to do everything you want him to do. He has "taken the country back" and is carrying your ideology into action. I'll put up what I would do tomorrow.

Who's He Think He Is...Bo Diddley?

Heathers has always been one of my favorite films. I don't know if it's the dark humor or the fact that Winona Ryder is mega fucking hot but I've always loved it. I haul it out every year and proceed to laugh my ass off even after more than 20 viewings.

The characters of Kurt and Ram, classic adolescent bullies, remind me quite a bit of the right  these days. The first scene of the film finds both of them wondering who the new kid (Christian Slater's character, Jason Dean) is and why is staring at Veronica (Winona Ryder). "Who's he think he is...Bo Diddley?" Ram asks Kurt. The question, of course, makes no sense and it's quickly obvious to anyone with a brain that Ram is an idiot but I find myself of late having the same reaction when having a discussion with folks on the right these days. They, much like Kurt and Ram, can be characterized as this:

Idiot bullies saying things that don't make sense sucking me (and all of us, really) into their small mindedness and misery.

They can't stand the fact that someone might actually know more than they do. They don't like it when it's me and they REALLY don't like it when it's President Obama. Who's he think he is, Bo Diddley? At least they got the skin color right with him.

In essence, that was their reaction to President Obama's speech last Wednesday. Most of it made complete sense and, unlike the Ryan plan, was not partisan at all. It contained many spending cuts and restructuring ideas that are anathema to the Democrats. Since it also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthy, it was branded with a red T and labeled as destructive. Translation: We also believe in welfare and want to make sure the wealthy hold onto their money since we revel in being piss boys and water carriers. 

I think they mix up the buckets sometimes:)

Let's dispense with a couple of myths once and for all. First, the wealthy are always going to have plenty of money. There weren't any wealthy people in the 1950s when they were taxed at 90 percent? I must have imagined all those lavish homes and diamond wearing women. So, enough with the apocalyptic brown shirt paranoia. Second, without a stable economy, they won't have ANY of their money. This is a point that seems to have been lost on them. They are so trapped in the peasant envy meme that they can't see that they need the middle class to drive this economy....to BUY THEIR SHIT. They need the services the government provides just as much as the rest of us.

The simple fact is that consumer spending accounts for two thirds of our economy. Now, I'm not a math genius but if there are less and less consumers spending money than how does that effect our economy? We will not be able to maintain any sort of stable framework with spending by such a small group people. The CitiGroup plutonomy document should be taken as a frightening warning and not as the biased ravings of the left.

Another important myth that needs to be ejected from the capsule is that top earners pay most of the taxes. The people that assert this aren't looking at the big picture. Well, actually, they aren't even entirely accurate. The top one percent paid 2 percent less of a share in 2008 than they did in 2007. The real fault with this notion, though, is lack of width of vision. Very wealthy people don't even pay that much in taxes.

The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.

This article does have some pretty surprising numbers and I say this knowing what kind of reaction I will get from the true believers when they read it but we've been over all of this before. Where we haven't been, however, is here.

Simply put, our economy will not survive with this sort of disparity. If two thirds of our economy is consumer spending and the average income of for the bottom 90 percent has declined this dramatically, how can we have any sort of stability? Combine this with the drop in national income and I'd say we have a whole lot of Marie Antoinettes out there that need to wake up. The bottom 90 percent need to wake up as well and realize that the top earners are making a butt load of money WITHOUT hiring. They don't give a shit about you so giving them tax breaks will absolutely NOT result in more jobs. Clean that plaque out of your head most ricky fucking tick.

So, Kurt and Ram, you guys need to wake up. Put aside your nonsensical bullying and open up your minds. Enough with the paranoia about socialism, fascism, statism, and wealth envy. By ignoring this ever growing flaw, you are actually moving us closer to what you fear. Set aside your true beliefs, need to constantly win an argument and admit that you are wrong. Conservative economic policies have rarely worked even on the micro level. They call it "trickle" down for a reason and our economy simply can't take any more of this abuse.

President Obama is trying to save capitalism and, by extension, your asses. So am I. His plan is the problem solver, not Paul Ryan's plan, because it actually has everything on the table in terms of addressing the debt. Relax. He's not coming to get you. He's not Hitler or Stalin.

And he isn't Bo Diddley either.

Weekend Funnies

I just found this hilarious site that all of you must check out. The headline that got me was this one.

Paul Ryan calls President Obama’s budget speech “excessively partisan”, Dr. Freud unavailable for comment.

I'll have something tomorrow on the Obama v. Ryan duel.

Bril!

Just got this on Facebook.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR, and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401k's, took billions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves millions in bonuses, gave unlimited and undisclosed amounts of money to politicians, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither.

Wonder Why Our Country Is Broke?

The above was the title of an email forward courtesy of Last in Line. Clearly, Last sent this to me to get my goat and does not subscribe to the titanic level of racism contained in it. But I guess I'm wondering what some of you think of it. Regardless of what my readers think, though, this is another fine example of a "Voice Inside My Head." This is where a lot of the anti tax, Tea Partier shit originates.

The bread winner in the family....interesting!

Bread Winner...


I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20s came to the ER with her 8thpregnancy. She stated, "my momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family."
He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money for the family. It goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Child and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care.


The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois .


Total yearly income:
$144,000 tax-free, not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include WIC and other welfare programs.. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" for the family.
This is how the ruling class spends our tax dollars.
Sebastian J. Ciancio, M.D. Urologist, Danville Polyclinic, LTD
Is this a GREAT COUNTRY or what...
Don't forget to pay your taxes!!!
There are a lot of “Breadwinners” depending on you & me

Not A Factual Statement

If only more conservatives were like John Kyl and just admit it! Also, I think I have to start shopping more often at Walgreen's!

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Pap Smears at Walgreens
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Width of Vision Redux

President Obama's statement on the debt ceiling, which I posted yesterday, says quite a bit about the guy. First, it demonstrates that he's not spend crazy. The fact he knows that this is large problem should give people around the country, regardless of their political stripe, hope.

Second, the statement doesn't exist in a vacuum. One has to look at why he said it and what happened afterwards. He said it at a time when President Bush was essentially not vetoing a single bill from Congress. Clearly, he has the foreknowledge to see that this was going to create a problem. And it has.

The problems we have today were caused by the actions of the GOP led Congress and President Bush. Contrary to the catechisms of the anti spending hysterics, the crash of 2008 gave us only one, albeit pretty crappy, option: bail out/stimulus. Without both, the world economy would have collapsed. The world in 2006 was a much different place than it is in 2011.

My point in all of this was to show that people (especially true believers) have to think outside of the box when seeing a statement like this. In other words, critically think about it. In many ways, this illustrates what the president told Bill O'Reilly before the Super Bowl a few months back. He said that by the time something gets to his desk, it's so FUBAR (my words, not his:)) that every solution really stinks. So which do you want to have-vomit or diarrhea?

Width of Vision

Let's illustrate what I mean by "true believer." Check out this quote:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem.

No, this wasn't a Tea Partier that said this. It was then Senator Barack Obama who said it back in 2006. So, what do you think? Be honest.

My analysis tomorrow.