As the tenth anniversary of the September 11th attacks approaches, I am very heartened to see that the people who attacked us on that day are being taken apart. One of the main reasons why I voted for Barack Obama was his promise to focus more heavily on AfPak (where Al Qaeda actually is) and alter the strategy for dismantling their operational capabilities. His policies have been tremendously effective and much more successful than his predecessor.
Osama bin Laden is dead and the data we seized from his compound that day has led us to strike another crippling blow to Al Qaeda. Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, Al Qaeda's #2, was killed in a recent missile strike in Waziritstan along with four other Al Qaeda members. From the article.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last month that al-Qaida's defeat was within reach if the U.S. could mount a string of successful attacks."Now is the moment, following what happened with bin Laden, to put maximum pressure on them," Panetta said, "because I do believe that if we continue this effort we can really cripple al-Qaida as a major threat."
Al Qaeda's defeat within reach? Amazing. There can be no denying that the Obama administration deserves the credit for this and I think that we may very well see Zawahari taken out by next year as well.
Once again, well done!
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Two Voices In My Head
It's been awhile since Rush Limbaugh has been on anyone's radar. That means it's time to haul out something racist.
And while we are on the subject of food...Sarah Palin recently confirmed, in an email discussing her attendance at the Iowa State Fair, just how much the right are like 8 year old boys.
I’m excited to try some of that famous fried butter-on-a-stick, fried cheesecake-on-a-stick, fried Twinkies, etc...in honor of those who’d rather make us just ‘eat our peas.’
WAAHHHH!!!! I don't wanna!!!
And while we are on the subject of food...Sarah Palin recently confirmed, in an email discussing her attendance at the Iowa State Fair, just how much the right are like 8 year old boys.
I’m excited to try some of that famous fried butter-on-a-stick, fried cheesecake-on-a-stick, fried Twinkies, etc...in honor of those who’d rather make us just ‘eat our peas.’
WAAHHHH!!!! I don't wanna!!!
Friday, August 26, 2011
Friday Bonanza (Part Four)
It was only a matter of time...
These programs [Social Security and Medicare} actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities. All of a sudden, for an increasing number of people in our nation, it was no longer necessary to worry about saving for security because that was the government’s job.
---Florida Senator Marco Rubio, 8-24-2011.
So, family members and neighbors can cough up the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to take care of someone today? I suppose they can magically solve the inefficiency of health care markets as well. Of course, he completely ignores the FACT that poverty in the elderly dropped by 40 percent as a result of Social Security so, no, these people were not being taken care of at all back in the days of yore. They got sick and died.
Aren't there a lot of elderly people living in Florida? Did they vote for this guy?
These programs [Social Security and Medicare} actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities. All of a sudden, for an increasing number of people in our nation, it was no longer necessary to worry about saving for security because that was the government’s job.
---Florida Senator Marco Rubio, 8-24-2011.
So, family members and neighbors can cough up the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to take care of someone today? I suppose they can magically solve the inefficiency of health care markets as well. Of course, he completely ignores the FACT that poverty in the elderly dropped by 40 percent as a result of Social Security so, no, these people were not being taken care of at all back in the days of yore. They got sick and died.
Aren't there a lot of elderly people living in Florida? Did they vote for this guy?
Friday Bonanza (Part Three)
With all the anti-science talk lately from the GOP candidates (save the only sane one, Jon Hunstman), I thought it appropriate to share this quote from one of my favorite authors.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" ---Isaac Asimov
Paging Thomas Sowell...
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" ---Isaac Asimov
Paging Thomas Sowell...
Friday Bonanza (Part Two)
A little while back in comments I submitted the idea that LBJ was complicit in the JFK hit. Apparently, I'm not the only one.
Friday Bonanza (Part One)
I have a bunch of smaller thoughts that I have been saving so I'll just spill them all out at once for a Friday Bonanza. First up is this piece about the Bachmann cover of Newsweek. Does she have the Crazy Eyes?
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Real Class Warfare
Every time someone talks about raising taxes on the wealthy, Republicans scream "Class warfare!" When Warren Buffett called on us to stop coddling the super rich in the New York Times, Republicans instantly labeled him a socialist.
But Bachmann is still demanding that these "freeloaders" pay "something" even if it's only a dollar. Why? It would cost much more than a dollar for the IRS to process a one-dollar payment. And what if they don't pay? Is Bachmann so vindictive she would sic tax collectors on all those waitresses who owe the symbolic $1, even though it would cost hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars to collect that delinquent one-dollar payment? That would ultimately waste billions and billions of tax dollars on pointless attempts to collect insignificant sums of money. And these same people complain in the next breath about wasteful federal spending.
But Republicans are really the ones waging all-out class warfare, mostly against union members, workers in low-paying jobs and the poor. Scott Walker gutted union rights in Wisconsin. Mitch Daniels has been attacking unions in Indiana for years. Boeing is moving its aircraft production from Washington to South Carolina for the express purpose of destroying the union. When the National Labor Relations Board interceded Republican Congressman Darrell Issa filed subpoenas against the NLRB, interfering with an ongoing legal investigation.
Republicans aren't going to stop at unions: they're declaring war on low-paid workers as well. Tea Partyer Austin Scott of Georgia introduced a one-sentence bill to banish the Legal Services Corporation that even Herman Cain can read. Why? Because LSC helped a bunch of American workers sue Hamilton Growers, a company that was found guilty of preferentially hiring foreign workers from Mexico on H-2A visas over Americans.
Republicans will tell us that this is another government agency interfering with private individuals conducting their business as they see fit.
But when Republicans defend companies who are selling out Americans to foreigners, the hypocrisy should become apparent to all. It's not a question of government regulation or individual freedom. It's a question of employers who want to treat employees like interchangeable machines and slaves.
Now conservatives like Ann Coulter, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have gone into full frontal assault with class warfare, directly attacking the nearly half of all Americans who can't pay income tax. They call these people lazy, freeloaders, animals and all manner of nasty names.
What they don't bother to mention is that these people don't pay income tax because they make very little money, or draw Social Security (which is not taxed if you have no other income). They also neglect to mention that the "freeloaders" who draw a salary still pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, and all of them will pay federal gas taxes, federal cigarette taxes if they smoke, taxes on phone bills, state sales taxes, etc. A part-time waitress earning $20,000 may not pay income tax, but she will pay almost $1,000 in payroll taxes.
But Bachmann is still demanding that these "freeloaders" pay "something" even if it's only a dollar. Why? It would cost much more than a dollar for the IRS to process a one-dollar payment. And what if they don't pay? Is Bachmann so vindictive she would sic tax collectors on all those waitresses who owe the symbolic $1, even though it would cost hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars to collect that delinquent one-dollar payment? That would ultimately waste billions and billions of tax dollars on pointless attempts to collect insignificant sums of money. And these same people complain in the next breath about wasteful federal spending.
The Republicans have been using these divisive class warfare tactics for decades, bitching about illegal immigrants, welfare queens and "reverse discrimination." As with the Southern Strategy, they are stoking anger in a very specific segment of the electorate -- lower middle- to middle-class whites, or "real Americans" -- against an inferior segment of the electorate -- this time the working poor and the elderly -- by saying that the working poor and elderly are somehow getting a special deal that "real Americans" have to pay for.
By vilifying the poor and disadvantaged, the Republicans get "real Americans" to demand "justice" because the poor are getting things they don't "deserve." The unspoken code is that rich deserve everything they get, even though they pay proportionally less tax than the "real Americans" they've bamboozled into hating the poor, illegal immigrants and blacks.
Despots have used this trick throughout history to sway public opinion. In the modern United States it's easy to make people hate those they already feel are somehow undeserving and inferior (union members, the poor and other races), and harder to make someone hate that which we all aspire to (wealth and fame). In other countries in other times the targets were Jews, the bourgeoisie, communists, other tribes, Catholics, Protestants, and so on.
What people refuse to admit is that there are good and bad people in all strata of society. There are lazy poor people, and there are lazy rich people. There are union workers who use work rules to sit around, and there are corporate execs who just play golf and fly around on corporate junkets. There are welfare queens who just watch TV and wealthy trust fund babies who pay next to no taxes and just shop all day. There are illegal (and legal) immigrants who steal jobs from American citizens, and CEOs who send millions of American jobs to China and India. And there are poor people who work three minimum-wage jobs non-stop just to keep food on the table, and billionaires who have worked tirelessly to create thousands of jobs for people in this country.
But it's not practical to tax people who don't make enough money to feed, clothe and house themselves. And it's not right to make the wealthy pay for everyone else.
So, I'm not saying soak the rich. I'm saying Warren Buffett, CEOs, hedge fund managers and the clowns who caused the economic meltdown should pay taxes at the same rate as secretaries, doctors, nurses, engineers, janitors, cooks, construction workers and all the other people who actually make this country run.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
They Haven't Changed, Have They?
Wow. FDR sounds like he is describing right wingers in 2011 and not just those in 1936. Not much progress in 75 years!
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Bachmann, Paul and Prostitution
The Iowa straw poll gave an interesting result, with Michele Bachmann squeaking out an insignificantly tiny win over Ron Paul. The two are almost polar opposites in all ways.
It's hard to gauge the real significance of the Ames straw poll, because the candidates are basically buying votes -- candidates ship their people in on buses, there is a registration fee, which the candidates pay, and the candidates usually provide lunch. My guess is that the real reason Pawlenty withdrew from the race was because he paid for many more votes than he actually got. If you can't even buy votes, your campaign is in serious, serious trouble.
The mainstream media have completely ignored the Paul result, which has been noted in niche media such as the Daily Show.
The reason Paul is such an embarrassment to mainstream Republicans is that he illustrates perfectly what a disaster Republican laissez-faire policies would be if carried to their logical conclusions. Paul is opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our involvement in Libya. The rest of the Republican field believes military spending should be increased. Paul believes drugs and prostitution should be legal. The rest of the Republican party wants stricter government controls on all social activity, even restricting divorce laws.
While a group of us, four men and three women, were discussing Paul and Bachmann, two of the men concurred with Paul that prostitution should be legalized (is it a coincidence that one weighs upwards of 250 lbs and the other more than 350 lbs?). The more fervent advocate for prostitution has libertarian leanings, and he stated that in the places where it's legal and well-regulated, there are few problems.
Prostitution is handled in four basic ways: illegal outright, legal but regulated, legal but unregulated, and in places like Sweden accepting money for sex is legal, but paying for sex is illegal. That is, it's legal to be a prostitute, but illegal to be a john.
In countries where prostitution is legal and regulated, prostitutes typically work in highly-controlled brothels, are subject to regular testing, and safety precautions such as condoms are required. The problem with regulation is that it's limiting. Not using condoms is illegal because of the risk of infection, but most men don't like using condoms. Certain practices (anal sex) carry a higher risk of condom failure. Many johns like rough sex, including spanking, slapping, hitting, biting, whipping, etc.
This is the inherent contradiction in the legalization of prostitution. The more you regulate it to make it safer, the more incentives you create to get around those regulations. For example, Elliot Spitzer, former governor and attorney general of New York, was himself put away for soliciting prostitutes. His proclivity for going "bareback" has made him the object of much ridicule.
Thus, attempting to legalize prostitution creates a new class of prostitutes that will operate outside the limits of legal prostitution. This is borne out in countries where prostitution is legal. Human trafficking is a serious problem in those countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Turkey. Foreigners -- usually from Eastern Europe -- are abducted, shipped into the country and forced to have sex.
Illegal prostitution almost always involves some kind of coercion. Proponents of legalization claim it would eliminate this. I am unconvinced. How much latitude do prostitutes have to refuse to service clients that they find objectionable in some way? If prostitution were legalized throughout the US, how long would it take conservatives like Rush Limbaugh to start complaining that women on welfare should get off their asses and get on their backs and starting earning their keep?
But if you ignore all that, the real coercion in prostitution is the repeated exposure of workers to parasites and diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, HIV, and hepatitis multiple times a day. Testing prostitutes does nothing to protect them from an HIV-positive man who "accidentally" breaks his condom.
If you're serious about making prostitution safe, all johns would have to be licensed, registered and tested, just like prostitutes. Since there are incubation times, a waiting period would be required after testing. All the johns' sex partners would also have to be registered and tested. All sex acts in this network would have to be recorded in order to track the vector of any infections. Johns would have to be certified psychologically stable (violence against prostitutes is common) before being licensed, and prostitutes would have to be undergo training in conflict management.
To achieve this Libertarian ideal of safe and clean prostitution, a tremendous amount of regulation would be required of both johns and prostitutes.
But that's the rub, so to speak. "Libertarian regulation" is an oxymoron.
It's hard to gauge the real significance of the Ames straw poll, because the candidates are basically buying votes -- candidates ship their people in on buses, there is a registration fee, which the candidates pay, and the candidates usually provide lunch. My guess is that the real reason Pawlenty withdrew from the race was because he paid for many more votes than he actually got. If you can't even buy votes, your campaign is in serious, serious trouble.
The mainstream media have completely ignored the Paul result, which has been noted in niche media such as the Daily Show.
The reason Paul is such an embarrassment to mainstream Republicans is that he illustrates perfectly what a disaster Republican laissez-faire policies would be if carried to their logical conclusions. Paul is opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our involvement in Libya. The rest of the Republican field believes military spending should be increased. Paul believes drugs and prostitution should be legal. The rest of the Republican party wants stricter government controls on all social activity, even restricting divorce laws.
While a group of us, four men and three women, were discussing Paul and Bachmann, two of the men concurred with Paul that prostitution should be legalized (is it a coincidence that one weighs upwards of 250 lbs and the other more than 350 lbs?). The more fervent advocate for prostitution has libertarian leanings, and he stated that in the places where it's legal and well-regulated, there are few problems.
Prostitution is handled in four basic ways: illegal outright, legal but regulated, legal but unregulated, and in places like Sweden accepting money for sex is legal, but paying for sex is illegal. That is, it's legal to be a prostitute, but illegal to be a john.
In countries where prostitution is legal and regulated, prostitutes typically work in highly-controlled brothels, are subject to regular testing, and safety precautions such as condoms are required. The problem with regulation is that it's limiting. Not using condoms is illegal because of the risk of infection, but most men don't like using condoms. Certain practices (anal sex) carry a higher risk of condom failure. Many johns like rough sex, including spanking, slapping, hitting, biting, whipping, etc.
This is the inherent contradiction in the legalization of prostitution. The more you regulate it to make it safer, the more incentives you create to get around those regulations. For example, Elliot Spitzer, former governor and attorney general of New York, was himself put away for soliciting prostitutes. His proclivity for going "bareback" has made him the object of much ridicule.
Thus, attempting to legalize prostitution creates a new class of prostitutes that will operate outside the limits of legal prostitution. This is borne out in countries where prostitution is legal. Human trafficking is a serious problem in those countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Turkey. Foreigners -- usually from Eastern Europe -- are abducted, shipped into the country and forced to have sex.
Illegal prostitution almost always involves some kind of coercion. Proponents of legalization claim it would eliminate this. I am unconvinced. How much latitude do prostitutes have to refuse to service clients that they find objectionable in some way? If prostitution were legalized throughout the US, how long would it take conservatives like Rush Limbaugh to start complaining that women on welfare should get off their asses and get on their backs and starting earning their keep?
But if you ignore all that, the real coercion in prostitution is the repeated exposure of workers to parasites and diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, HIV, and hepatitis multiple times a day. Testing prostitutes does nothing to protect them from an HIV-positive man who "accidentally" breaks his condom.
If you're serious about making prostitution safe, all johns would have to be licensed, registered and tested, just like prostitutes. Since there are incubation times, a waiting period would be required after testing. All the johns' sex partners would also have to be registered and tested. All sex acts in this network would have to be recorded in order to track the vector of any infections. Johns would have to be certified psychologically stable (violence against prostitutes is common) before being licensed, and prostitutes would have to be undergo training in conflict management.
To achieve this Libertarian ideal of safe and clean prostitution, a tremendous amount of regulation would be required of both johns and prostitutes.
But that's the rub, so to speak. "Libertarian regulation" is an oxymoron.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Uncertainty? Really?
Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, had this to say recently about President Obama during a conference call.
And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems -- that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money.
and
Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America. The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.
Fairly typical of what we hear every day now from the president's critics. It's the "uncertainty" and the "socialism" that is holding back the private sector. What makes these statements so unusual, though, is what was said earlier in the call.
We had a great first quarter, the best in our history. And we went through it -- we were just around $400 million in the first quarter. We are $447 million this time, and that quarter was about 59% better than a year ago. And in fact, for the 6 months, we're 62% better than a year ago. We are all, in this organization, heartened by the results.
On January 3, -- excuse me, on July 3, I got a phone call. I was in a different city from my colleague, Marc Schorr, and he told me that on the third day of July, we equaled in Las Vegas, our cash flow, our profits of the entire year of 2010. That was a very supercharged thing to hear, but we did $271 million last year and we hit $271 million on the third of July. So for the balance of the year, everything from here on in, in Las Vegas is improvement. And we benefited from a very favorable whole percentage.
So let me see if I have this line of thinking down here...President Obama is a "giant wet blanket" to business...there are examples that "prove" this...and he is a (snore) socialist. All of this has led to the best quarter they have ever had? And it only took six months this year to make what they made last year? Uh.....what?
There is no logic or reason to the irrational feelings these people have. They make statements simply based on personal preference, not reality. They are making record profits and they still hate him. It's no different than someone like me saying that the Dave Matthews Band sucks. It's an opinion with no basis in fact.
Why can't they simply admit that it's the same thing with the president?
And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems -- that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money.
and
Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America. The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.
Fairly typical of what we hear every day now from the president's critics. It's the "uncertainty" and the "socialism" that is holding back the private sector. What makes these statements so unusual, though, is what was said earlier in the call.
We had a great first quarter, the best in our history. And we went through it -- we were just around $400 million in the first quarter. We are $447 million this time, and that quarter was about 59% better than a year ago. And in fact, for the 6 months, we're 62% better than a year ago. We are all, in this organization, heartened by the results.
On January 3, -- excuse me, on July 3, I got a phone call. I was in a different city from my colleague, Marc Schorr, and he told me that on the third day of July, we equaled in Las Vegas, our cash flow, our profits of the entire year of 2010. That was a very supercharged thing to hear, but we did $271 million last year and we hit $271 million on the third of July. So for the balance of the year, everything from here on in, in Las Vegas is improvement. And we benefited from a very favorable whole percentage.
So let me see if I have this line of thinking down here...President Obama is a "giant wet blanket" to business...there are examples that "prove" this...and he is a (snore) socialist. All of this has led to the best quarter they have ever had? And it only took six months this year to make what they made last year? Uh.....what?
There is no logic or reason to the irrational feelings these people have. They make statements simply based on personal preference, not reality. They are making record profits and they still hate him. It's no different than someone like me saying that the Dave Matthews Band sucks. It's an opinion with no basis in fact.
Why can't they simply admit that it's the same thing with the president?
The Highly Skilled International Player
As I write this, the 40 year rule of Libya by Muammar Gaddafi is coming to a close. Once brutal and now psychotic, Gaddafi is the latest (and probably not the last) in a line of Arab dictators that have fallen from power. The fire of democracy is spreading in the Arab World and, at this point, there is nothing that can stop it.
Combined with the successful mission to take out Osama bin Laden, the president has clearly shown that he is very adept at foreign policy. His initial Libyan policy, criticized at the start by the usual collection of naysayers, has worked. One of the key elements that led the Libyan rebels to victory was direct assistance from US intelligence that led to pinpoint strikes against Gaddahi's forces.
The president has, once again, fully proven himself to be a highly skilled international player. The "Obamateur" narrative is now seen for all it was ever worth: a pile of shit.
Combined with the successful mission to take out Osama bin Laden, the president has clearly shown that he is very adept at foreign policy. His initial Libyan policy, criticized at the start by the usual collection of naysayers, has worked. One of the key elements that led the Libyan rebels to victory was direct assistance from US intelligence that led to pinpoint strikes against Gaddahi's forces.
The president has, once again, fully proven himself to be a highly skilled international player. The "Obamateur" narrative is now seen for all it was ever worth: a pile of shit.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
When The Only Tool In Your Tool Kit is the Apocalypse...
It's Sunday and I find my thoughts turning to prophecy. This is largely due to my recent pop in over at Kevin Baker's site. I give him a look every week or so to see if he's still spouting Bircher nonsense. Most of the time, this is usually the case. But a post from last Friday caused me to sadly shake my head.
Kevin put up a quote from another site which essentially was no different than a Chuck Manson looking dude holding up a sign on a street corner which says, "The End of the World is Coming." Kevin himself than commented, "Our major cities may very well burn." The ensuing comments detail possible alignments in inter-city warfare. I've seen a few of these types of posts here and there but this one was starker than I have ever seen. Honestly, if this is what he and his readers truly think, I find little difference between them and your typical apocalypse cult. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as the right has been trending that way since the evil socialist gun grabber, Blackie McBlackerson, took office.
These sorts of things never end well. Take a look at Glenn Beck. He was riding high at Fox-spewing dire warning after boiling pit of sewage prophecy-and when it kept not happening, he lost viewers and Fox gave him the boot. He still has his radio show and will likely find some sort of TV outlet but people have stopped paying attention to him. Being a member of the right wing blogsphere, as Kevin is, means that he will always have that niche just like Beck does.
But I have to wonder...what is the half life for predicting the end of America? Doomsday scenarios have become more prevalent as human beings have less ordinary things to worry about but, folks, Red Dawn never fucking happened! The logic of the United States' geostrategic position made that scenario impossible. Yet, we still things like Home Front, a video game written by John Milius ( a fave of Kevin's), that depicts yet another one of these faux scenarios. There is no doubt in my mind that there are many people who think that this has a good chance of happening. This leads us to recall point #1 from Boaz's 14 points.
1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.
I don't know. I mean, I get that they have no real solutions to offer that work in reality and likely are avoiding real problems in their own lives which leads to the creation of these paranoid fantasies but with this sort of talk, I have to question their sanity.
Kevin put up a quote from another site which essentially was no different than a Chuck Manson looking dude holding up a sign on a street corner which says, "The End of the World is Coming." Kevin himself than commented, "Our major cities may very well burn." The ensuing comments detail possible alignments in inter-city warfare. I've seen a few of these types of posts here and there but this one was starker than I have ever seen. Honestly, if this is what he and his readers truly think, I find little difference between them and your typical apocalypse cult. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as the right has been trending that way since the evil socialist gun grabber, Blackie McBlackerson, took office.
These sorts of things never end well. Take a look at Glenn Beck. He was riding high at Fox-spewing dire warning after boiling pit of sewage prophecy-and when it kept not happening, he lost viewers and Fox gave him the boot. He still has his radio show and will likely find some sort of TV outlet but people have stopped paying attention to him. Being a member of the right wing blogsphere, as Kevin is, means that he will always have that niche just like Beck does.
But I have to wonder...what is the half life for predicting the end of America? Doomsday scenarios have become more prevalent as human beings have less ordinary things to worry about but, folks, Red Dawn never fucking happened! The logic of the United States' geostrategic position made that scenario impossible. Yet, we still things like Home Front, a video game written by John Milius ( a fave of Kevin's), that depicts yet another one of these faux scenarios. There is no doubt in my mind that there are many people who think that this has a good chance of happening. This leads us to recall point #1 from Boaz's 14 points.
1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.
I don't know. I mean, I get that they have no real solutions to offer that work in reality and likely are avoiding real problems in their own lives which leads to the creation of these paranoid fantasies but with this sort of talk, I have to question their sanity.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
False Statement Friday
The last week has seen a whole slew of patently false statements from the GOP contenders. First up, we have Rick Perry's assertions that he is a job creator and President Obama is a job destroyer. Well, here are the numbers
Seems to me that President Obama not only pulled us back from the brink of disaster but has added many private sector jobs. How about Governor Perry? Anderson Cooper analyzed all of this in a segment on his show Wednesday night. It turns out that federal government jobs were up 7% in Texas and state government jobs were up 8.4 percent. Local government jobs were up 6.1 percent. Of the many new jobs arising in Texas, some are government jobs and some come from President Obama himself! In addition, Perry took 6.4 billion dollars in federal stimulus money in 2009 so one has to wonder how much of that had to do with Texas' job growth.
Governor Perry also told a young boy on the campaign trail that Texas teaches both creationism and evolution in schools. Completely false, as explained here. And, for whatever bizarre reason, Perry recently said there was a federal regulation that required farmers to obtain a commercial license to drive their tractor on the highway. Also, not fucking true.
Perry, of course, isn't the only one saying things that are complete lies. Mitt Romney recently stated that the United States is "inches away" from not being capitalist anymore. That earned him a "Pants on Fire" rating from Politifact. Apparently, he was doubling down on his earlier "inches away from not having a free market" statement last June. Well, I guess he has the audience for this garbage so why not just say whatever he feels like regardless of the facts.
It will also come as no surprise that Michele Bachmann has joined in as well. This statement
What people recognize is that there’s a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward. And especially with this very bad debt ceiling bill, what we have done is given a favor to President Obama and the first thing he’ll whack is five hundred billion out of the military defense at a time when we’re fighting three wars. People recognize that.
is filled with so many ridiculous things I don't even know where to begin. The rise of the Soviet Union? Seriously? Bachmann also has naturally blamed the S&P downgrade on the president and offered her position against the raising of the debt ceiling as being proof she was right. The problem here is that S&P's reason for the downgrade was because of Ms. Bachmann's views.
In an interview on Fox News, Standard & Poors' managing director John Chambers seemed to express disapproval that it took so long for Congress to raise the debt ceiling. He said President Barack Obama "characterized the political system as dysfunctional, I think that's a good word. We got to a position where we were within 10 hours of having a major cash flow problem. This is not what happens in other countries," Chambers said on Aug. 8.
I suppose we are all going to have to get used to this malarky for the next 14 months. When they are this ridiculous, however, one has to wonder...who are the people out there that believe this shit?
Seems to me that President Obama not only pulled us back from the brink of disaster but has added many private sector jobs. How about Governor Perry? Anderson Cooper analyzed all of this in a segment on his show Wednesday night. It turns out that federal government jobs were up 7% in Texas and state government jobs were up 8.4 percent. Local government jobs were up 6.1 percent. Of the many new jobs arising in Texas, some are government jobs and some come from President Obama himself! In addition, Perry took 6.4 billion dollars in federal stimulus money in 2009 so one has to wonder how much of that had to do with Texas' job growth.
Governor Perry also told a young boy on the campaign trail that Texas teaches both creationism and evolution in schools. Completely false, as explained here. And, for whatever bizarre reason, Perry recently said there was a federal regulation that required farmers to obtain a commercial license to drive their tractor on the highway. Also, not fucking true.
Perry, of course, isn't the only one saying things that are complete lies. Mitt Romney recently stated that the United States is "inches away" from not being capitalist anymore. That earned him a "Pants on Fire" rating from Politifact. Apparently, he was doubling down on his earlier "inches away from not having a free market" statement last June. Well, I guess he has the audience for this garbage so why not just say whatever he feels like regardless of the facts.
It will also come as no surprise that Michele Bachmann has joined in as well. This statement
What people recognize is that there’s a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward. And especially with this very bad debt ceiling bill, what we have done is given a favor to President Obama and the first thing he’ll whack is five hundred billion out of the military defense at a time when we’re fighting three wars. People recognize that.
is filled with so many ridiculous things I don't even know where to begin. The rise of the Soviet Union? Seriously? Bachmann also has naturally blamed the S&P downgrade on the president and offered her position against the raising of the debt ceiling as being proof she was right. The problem here is that S&P's reason for the downgrade was because of Ms. Bachmann's views.
In an interview on Fox News, Standard & Poors' managing director John Chambers seemed to express disapproval that it took so long for Congress to raise the debt ceiling. He said President Barack Obama "characterized the political system as dysfunctional, I think that's a good word. We got to a position where we were within 10 hours of having a major cash flow problem. This is not what happens in other countries," Chambers said on Aug. 8.
I suppose we are all going to have to get used to this malarky for the next 14 months. When they are this ridiculous, however, one has to wonder...who are the people out there that believe this shit?
Note To Anonymous Posters
Over the last few weeks, there has been a plethora of anonymous posters on the blog. I've kicked around a bunch of ideas on the best way to deal with the confusion and frustration that results from this and here's what I have come up with for a solution.
Since pretty much anything goes in comments, I won't change the settings to restrict people from posting anonymously. From this day forward, however, I will no longer respond to anonymous comments regardless of their ideological bend. I'm also not going to respond to the person or persons that continually changes their moniker when it's clearly the same person.
I say "continually" because I know there are people that post under 2 different names. These individuals I will continue to respond to because they are at least attempting to be inventive in taking on a different persona. I liken this to having two different avatars or players in an online game so that's cool but the obnoxious rotation from "Sarah Palin Fantasy Perverts" to "Civil War Reenactors?" Nope.
I would urge all of you who post under the same name and continually have stood by your words to do the same. I can't force you, obviously, but I think this is in the best interests of the site so we know who we are addressing and people have a continuity as to who stands by their words. Granted, this may not be a perfect idea but we'll work the kinks out as we go.
Since pretty much anything goes in comments, I won't change the settings to restrict people from posting anonymously. From this day forward, however, I will no longer respond to anonymous comments regardless of their ideological bend. I'm also not going to respond to the person or persons that continually changes their moniker when it's clearly the same person.
I say "continually" because I know there are people that post under 2 different names. These individuals I will continue to respond to because they are at least attempting to be inventive in taking on a different persona. I liken this to having two different avatars or players in an online game so that's cool but the obnoxious rotation from "Sarah Palin Fantasy Perverts" to "Civil War Reenactors?" Nope.
I would urge all of you who post under the same name and continually have stood by your words to do the same. I can't force you, obviously, but I think this is in the best interests of the site so we know who we are addressing and people have a continuity as to who stands by their words. Granted, this may not be a perfect idea but we'll work the kinks out as we go.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Fact Checking Warren
Here is Politifact's piece on Warren Buffett's column from this week. Plenty of data and facts to examine...if you are willing, of course.
People Invest To Make Money
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
We hear a lot of garbage from the right about how higher taxes will lead to lack of investment and job losses. These same people lapse into their ridiculous hubris and assume that anyone left of center doesn't know anything about how business works. They do, of course, despite all evidence to the contrary. The above quote is from someone who knows business a great deal more than most and has the wealth to prove it. Before I get to who it is, let's take a look at some more facts from his recent piece.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
So, their taxes have gone down and their wealth has gone up.Why they are bitching is a complete mystery. Why people who make 40K a year are proxy bitching for them is borderline insanity.
Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains.
Hmm...Nikto and I have been saying the same thing.
So who is the author who has clearly and factually related this information? It's Warren Buffett, one of the three richest men in the world. Now, given that he is a shining example of success in the world of investments and business as well as knowing a thing or two about jobs, it follows logically that we should heed his advice: let's stop coddling the super rich....as in right fucking now.
If we are going to make spending cuts, we have to follow with an overhaul of how we collect revenue. That means no more subsidies, tax shelters for the wealthy, and the end of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. In short, a complete overhaul of the tax system. This is what has to be done to seriously address the issue of our debt and prop up the overall health of our economy.
The time for make believe and managing fantasies is over. We need to destroy the bizarre myths that the right have created regarding taxes. They must be exposed as the catechisms of true believers that they are and have no place in reality. They are holding us back from fixing our country and propelling us in a positive direction towards the future.
I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
We hear a lot of garbage from the right about how higher taxes will lead to lack of investment and job losses. These same people lapse into their ridiculous hubris and assume that anyone left of center doesn't know anything about how business works. They do, of course, despite all evidence to the contrary. The above quote is from someone who knows business a great deal more than most and has the wealth to prove it. Before I get to who it is, let's take a look at some more facts from his recent piece.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
So, their taxes have gone down and their wealth has gone up.Why they are bitching is a complete mystery. Why people who make 40K a year are proxy bitching for them is borderline insanity.
Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains.
Hmm...Nikto and I have been saying the same thing.
So who is the author who has clearly and factually related this information? It's Warren Buffett, one of the three richest men in the world. Now, given that he is a shining example of success in the world of investments and business as well as knowing a thing or two about jobs, it follows logically that we should heed his advice: let's stop coddling the super rich....as in right fucking now.
If we are going to make spending cuts, we have to follow with an overhaul of how we collect revenue. That means no more subsidies, tax shelters for the wealthy, and the end of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. In short, a complete overhaul of the tax system. This is what has to be done to seriously address the issue of our debt and prop up the overall health of our economy.
The time for make believe and managing fantasies is over. We need to destroy the bizarre myths that the right have created regarding taxes. They must be exposed as the catechisms of true believers that they are and have no place in reality. They are holding us back from fixing our country and propelling us in a positive direction towards the future.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Loving the Government
Michele Bachmann recently won the Iowa Straw poll so it's only fitting that we take a day to shine the spotlight on her and see if lives up to her tough words. Does she really mean it when she says that President Obama is engaging in "fantasy economics" and that, if elected, she would abolish the EPA? Is the federal government the anathema that she says it is? A closer examination of the available evidence gives us the answer.
Let's start off by pointing out that Ms. Bachmann has personally relied on federally subsidized home loans. In addition, her husband Marcus's clinic relies on Medicaid payments. Straight away, we can see that the federal government isn't really all that bad.
Further, we see that she has sent several letters to Secretary Vilsack and Secretary LaHood requesting stimulus money for her district. You remember the stimulus aka the root of all evil? Here is a copy of one of those letters, asking for money for the Northstar commuter line. Hey, I guess there is a GOPer that likes choo choos...sweet!
In a private letter to Mr. Vilsack, she wrote, "Your efforts to stabilize prices through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products are very much welcomed by the producers in Minnesota, and I would encourage you to take any additional steps necessary to prevent further deterioration of these critical industries, such as making additional commodity purchases and working to expand trade outlets for these and other agricultural goods."
Wow. Really? The government can make market's more efficient? Yes. Yes they can...especially if there is a crisis as there was with pork and H1N1 that year.
So, the government can and does help out in a wide variety situations. As President Obama said yesterday when he was visiting my home state:
Don't buy into this whole notion that somehow government doesn't do us any good; government is what protects us. The government is what built the Interstate Highway System. Government is what sent a man to the Moon. It's what invested in the research and development that created innovations all across this country.
Let's start off by pointing out that Ms. Bachmann has personally relied on federally subsidized home loans. In addition, her husband Marcus's clinic relies on Medicaid payments. Straight away, we can see that the federal government isn't really all that bad.
Further, we see that she has sent several letters to Secretary Vilsack and Secretary LaHood requesting stimulus money for her district. You remember the stimulus aka the root of all evil? Here is a copy of one of those letters, asking for money for the Northstar commuter line. Hey, I guess there is a GOPer that likes choo choos...sweet!
In a private letter to Mr. Vilsack, she wrote, "Your efforts to stabilize prices through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products are very much welcomed by the producers in Minnesota, and I would encourage you to take any additional steps necessary to prevent further deterioration of these critical industries, such as making additional commodity purchases and working to expand trade outlets for these and other agricultural goods."
Wow. Really? The government can make market's more efficient? Yes. Yes they can...especially if there is a crisis as there was with pork and H1N1 that year.
So, the government can and does help out in a wide variety situations. As President Obama said yesterday when he was visiting my home state:
Don't buy into this whole notion that somehow government doesn't do us any good; government is what protects us. The government is what built the Interstate Highway System. Government is what sent a man to the Moon. It's what invested in the research and development that created innovations all across this country.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Yet Another Voice In My Head
Just got back from lifting at the gym. While I was there, I got into a conversation about the state of our culture with one of my conservative friends named Erica. Recall that Edward, Sean and Katie are my other three conservative friends from the gym. Erica is one that I generally don't talk politics with as she has readily admitted that she "hates to read political books and just lets her husband give her the cliff's notes."
We were talking today about overweight children and how their parents seem to enable it. This led to an overall discussion about entitlement which led to her saying the following.
I mean...like...people who are on welfare have diamond rings and flat screen TVs...what's up with that?
When I said that corporate welfare was much worse, she gave me a quizzical look.
Ah yes, another Voice In My Head.
We were talking today about overweight children and how their parents seem to enable it. This led to an overall discussion about entitlement which led to her saying the following.
I mean...like...people who are on welfare have diamond rings and flat screen TVs...what's up with that?
When I said that corporate welfare was much worse, she gave me a quizzical look.
Ah yes, another Voice In My Head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)