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.

True Believers

A while back, I renounced using the term "Cult" to describe the conservative movement in this country. I did so because my neighbor informed me that Barack Obama was the anti-Christ and had the number of the beast tattooed on a hidden skin flap on his arm. This neighbor, incidentally, is now stockpiling water for the coming apocalypse. How long has the world been ending again?

But I was wrong for a whole host of other reasons regarding my use of the word "Cult" to describe the current form of the GOP. For example, being in a cult implies small numbers. That's not true at all. The conservative movement is quite large and, more or less, dictates the policy of this country. This happens when they are in power or not. Why? Because the Democrats are, for the most part, incompetent when it comes to dealing with them.

Give the Dems a break, though, because there's not much they can do.Because when it comes to the conservative base of this country, one has to take into account that they are true believers. Essentially, the only thing cult like about them is summed up simply in one word: Faith. And, man oh man, do they have it in abundance. As Kevin Smith wisely wrote, "You can change an idea but you can't change a belief."

On the surface, you notice this right away. Their perceptual framework sees everyone as being true believers. I, along with many liberals/Democrats/progressives, are accused daily of having religious fervor when it comes to our ideology. I am constantly taken aback by this because nothing could be further from the truth. I'm certain that nearly everyone else on the left is as well. I have my ideas regarding religion and morality but beliefs? Nope. Beliefs about politics? Economics? Sociology? Psychology? History?

Nope. No beliefs. I deal with what actually happened and what actually works. Aside from a few micro examples here and there, none of the ideas that conservatives offer have ever worked. Nearly all of them have actually made things worse in our country on a number of levels. It's why we are at the position we are in today. The true belief of deregulation...the true belief of realism in the international arena...the true belief of

All this has dawned on me over the course of the last six years that I have been friendly with an evangelical minister at the gym where I work out. I've written about him before. He takes his religious beliefs and uses that framework as his basis for politics. Michelle Bachmann, for example, is his choice for president in 2012. Why? Because like him he is a believer and she can be trusted. Never mind that she is completely incapable of being president. She believes and that's all that is needed. Yet, look at the Democrats. You won't catch the Democrats rallying behind Dennis Kucinich or Hank Johnson any time soon.

Another way to notice what I am talking about is how the true believers on the right react to political discussions. I make it a point to not attack people personally yet they take everything personally. Why? It's their faith and they are clearly insecure about it. What other reason would they have for insisting upon the fact that they are right about everything? So, they respond in kind with personal attacks because their faith is weak. I've seen many insults directed towards me on this blog and during my time over at Kevin's blog. As time has gone on, these attacks bother me less and less. Some of you have wondered politely if I like being abused. Not true at all. It's because I don't have a true believer mind set so the personal doesn't really enter into it.

Likely, the right will never get this. I know that the chances of changing their perception on this are about as likely as a conservative admitting that tax cuts for the wealthy don't work. But true believers it is, folks, and not a cult. We see it in how they look at the Constitution, the Bible, the ever increasing control of power and money in this country by the wealthy, the focused effort to strip average Americans of power, economics, cultural diversity, education, climate change, and health care. Check out any of Bill Whittle's videos (links of which have been posted lately in comments) for excellent illustrations how true believers practice their faith.

All of this is deeply frustrating to me because their beliefs put them on the wrong side of most issues...fighting angrily against what would actually benefit them in the long run and give them more freedom. Even saying something like this evokes shrieks and howls of protests. How dare I know what is best for them? How dare I this...how dare I that....blah blah blah...all of these protestations are also illustrative of how ingrained their belief is and how insecure they are about it.

As I have said recently, managing the fantasies of the true believers is a waste of time. I'm more or less finished with it. I'm hoping that other people in the country--either in the media or ordinary citizens like me--cease paying attention to people who think, for example, that is absolutely nothing wrong with less people having more and more money every day. You're not going to see me coddling the worship of CEOs any longer, pampering the auto debunk of climate change skeptics, and gently reminding people that  the Democratic Party won't lead us to this:

Paranoid Fantasy. Absolute Lie.

True believers, get some fucking ideas...new ones would be nice...and lose the back and forth between 8 year old boy temper tantrums and adolescent power fantasies. Start being part of the solution and cease being part of the problem. I know it's a lot to ask but you are going to have to change your beliefs. Not only have they damaged, are damaging, and will damage this country but they are holding us back from taking an action vital to our future.

Moving Forward.

Our Little Plutocracy

A fine example of where we could be headed if we don't wake up. Class war, indeed. But are we too apathetic and/or deeply ingrained in the belief that we'll make it just like Charlie Sheen and Lloyd Blankfein? Here's to hoping not.

An Illustrative Slice

The following question was asked of me recently in comments.

How do you manage to get such a undeservedly high opinion of your own judgement?

In order to answer this one, let's take a look at the recent fight over the budget. As I am writing this, it seems like the sticking point is Planned Parenthood. Let's take a look at what each side has to say about it.

The Democrats say that the GOP is holding out so they can prevent poor women from getting cancer screenings.

It's a spin filled way to make a point and takes a page from the fear mongering play book. But it is technically true. The GOP wants to defund Planned Parenthood and PP does provide health care for people with lower incomes.

The GOP says that the Democrats want to use taxpayer money to fund abortions.

Not only is this statement filled with fear mongering, it's also inaccurate. They Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from being used for abortions. But, being the scorched earth paranoids that they are, the GOP want Planned Parenthood destroyed.

As you can see, it doesn't take a genius to make a judgement call on which of the two parties lives in a fantasy land. We (as in our entire country) could move forward if we didn't have to spend time managing their fantasies.

This would be one of the primary reasons I have this blog: to call them on their bullshit. Democrats have bullshit too but it's not anywhere at the level of the GOP these days. Liberals, by their very nature, are more reflective. I certainly am. I think Dennis Kucinich is naive, nuts and completely full of shit. Hank Johnson is really off his rocker and Barney Frank is a dick. Most of the left think so as well. These are all opinions, of course, but they honestly are true. Yet I would these same words to describe Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Other than a stray comment here or there (juris would be one, although he is not a conservative), conservatives won't rip those two or anyone else (see: Donald Trump of late) who say crazy shit because they know that's how they appeal to their base.

Essentially, liberals have better judgement than conservatives, generally speaking, because of the very meanings of each word.

LIBERAL: Open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

CONSERVATIVE:a person who is reluctant to change or consider new ideas; conformist. Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

People that are that reluctant to change, admit when they are wrong, refuse to consider new ideas, and protect their own regardless of how batty they are demonstrate a clear lack of good judgment.

In other words, it's that my judgment is perfect. It's that their judgment, by their very nature, is so incredibly bad.

Three For Thursday

Wisconsin Election

This would be an example of something that I "won" but really lost. Am I the only one that feels sorry for both candidates? What a mess. Let the recount dance begin...again....barf. There's no victory in this for anyone and I'm really beginning to question the election of judges. Shouldn't they just be appointed like they are at the federal level? The whole thing has become so partisan with both sides screaming activism. I am happy that voter turnout was high, though. It needs to stay that way but I doubt it will considering our culture can't focus on anything for more than a few minutes. Speaking of which...

Happy Trails, Glenn

Glenn Beck and Fox News have parted ways. His show will end at the conclusion of this year. I've received some emails and a few posts in comments wondering what I thought so I thought I'd at least mention it. First of all, it was only a matter of time. The same thing happened to Rush and then he went back into his niche on radio. That's where Glenn will be and he will do quite well. Second, I think we may have seen the zenith of short wave radio fantasy peddlers. They'll still have their core audiences and will make zillions of dollars off of fear, anger and hate but it's not going to be as mainstream anymore. After all, you can only say the country is going to be thrown into a boiling pit of sewage by evil communists for so long. When it doesn't happen, then what do you say? It works in the right wing blogsphere (cue the photos of skulls) with so many true believers there but not in the more widespread media where the public, thankfully, isn't that moronic.

An interesting tandem to this is the decline of Sarah Palin. As soon as the "liberal" media stopped covering her, she suddenly didn't seem to matter much anymore. Maybe she should do another interview with Katie Couric to rile up the base again.

Ryan's Road Map

Paul Ryan has some good ideas in his long term plan. Restructuring Social Security and Medicare certainly has to happen. As is always the case with folks like him, he didn't stop to think and realize that the under 55 crowd, if they are paying more for health care, probably won't be much of a revenue generator for the government. Essentially, his ideas are very one sided and they will likely make our deficit worse. Surprise, surprise!

I have noticed of late that every word from the right has been about spending cuts. Honestly, it's become such an obsession that I doubt they are thinking clearly at all. They have to confront the revenue question seriously. We are wasting too much time managing their anti tax fantasies. Of course, that's what you get when the John Birch society takes over your party. When they start to talk about revenue and honest cuts in defense, I'll start to take them more seriously. But for right now, they are not thinking rationally.

Wrong Adversary

I'm continually amazed that many folks on the right are still a feared of the gubmint. In their minds, we are getting closer every day to jack booted thugs coming to all our homes and seizing the fruits of our labors. Many think this is already happening (see: taxes). At least they are right about it already happening...and it isn't the government.

Banks Accused of Illegally Breaking Into Homes

The culprit, Ms. Ash soon learned, was not a burglar but her bank. According to a federal lawsuit filed in October by Ms. Ash, Bank of America had wrongfully foreclosed on her house and thrown out her belongings, without alerting Ms. Ash beforehand.

Huh. Would this be another example of a private corporation forcing their way into someone's home? Yes. Yes, it would.

In Texas, for example, Bank of America had the locks changed and the electricity shut off last year at Alan Schroit’s second home in Galveston, according to court papers. Mr. Schroit, who had paid off the house, had stored 75 pounds of salmon and halibut in his refrigerator and freezer, caught during a recent Alaskan fishing vacation.

“Lacking power, the freezer’s contents melted, spoiled and reeking melt water spread through the property and leaked through the flooring into joists and lower areas,” the lawsuit says. The case was settled for an undisclosed amount.

Bank of America had the locks changed? Not the government? Well, they must have used the government as a tool, right?

In Florida, contractors working for Chase Bank used a screwdriver to enter Debra Fischer’s house in Punta Gorda and helped themselves to a laptop, an iPod, a cordless drill, six bottles of wine and a frosty beer, left half-empty on the counter, according to assertions in a lawsuit filed in August. Ms. Fisher was facing foreclosure, but Chase had not yet obtained a court order, her lawyer says.

Nope. Contractors, huh. Where is the government in all of this? Oh yeah, I forgot. Neutered by the conservative movement in this country.

These would be (more) specific examples of a private corporation fucking people over, Not only did they seize Schroit's house but they ruined his food! Now, I'm not an expert but, in addition to food being required for nourishment, was the fish not the "fruit of his hard earned labor?"

Wrong adversary, Tea Partiers. Wrong adversary. But I suppose, in the end, it's OK, though because Bank of America has a lot of money. And we all know that if you have a lot of money, Jesus loves you more and you can do whatever you want.

Perks Are Fun! (10, 11 and 12 of 20)

As I have demonstrated repeatedly on here, many people in our country don't like the rules. One such rule is taxes. They may say they simply want to pay their fair share and moan about how if our taxes were lower, businesses wouldn't leave to go elsewhere but really that's a crock of shit. Unless there were zero taxes, they would still move offshore. Why? Because they are human and people are pretty greedy.

The best part about being wealthy, though, are the perks. And the priority status, of course.

Banks, credit-card companies, wealth managers, airlines, and hotels all fiercely compete for the business of the super-rich, and the result is perks and deep discounts their other customers never know about.

Recall the Citigroup Plutonomy document.

Further examples of this can be seen in my home state of Minnesota.

Executive perks have not just survived the worst economic downturn in five decades. They are flourishing.

In Minnesota, dozens of top executives continue to get free medical benefits, access to private jets, country club memberships, free financial planning services, generous hiring bonuses and other rewards, in some cases even as they cut costs elsewhere.

Flourishing, you say? In an economic downturn? Of course, making any derisive comments about this automatically means I must be jealous. Or a socialist. Or Hitler. Right? It can't possibly be that I want to warn of the lessons of history regarding societies that were too stratified. It REALLY can't be that I want the middle class to be the engine of the economy again because that is what has been proven to actually work. Nah, none of that pinko shit. I'm jealous/a socialist/Hitler...pick whatever one you want.

Even firms that have dramatically downsized their workforces are keeping perks intact for senior managers. Hutchinson Technology Inc., a disk drive component maker in Hutchinson that has downsized three times since 2008 and just announced plans to shed 30 to 40 percent of its workforce over the next year, last year paid about $430,000 in perks to seven senior executives. CEO Wayne Fortun received an $11,770 car allowance and free financial planning services, on top of his salary and stock.

Hey, that sound great! One simple question, though. Who is going to buy stuff when no one, save a few, has any money?

Executives worried about the tax bite of these corporate goodies can often rest easy. The reason: Corporate boards often reimburse senior managers for taxes owed on fringe benefits -- essentially a "perk on a perk."

But wait, I thought corporate taxes were too high? WTF?!!??

"It's not good for morale when employees see their executives living in a world of their own, while the guy next to them just lost his job," said Eleanor Bloxham, founder and CEO of the Value Alliance, a board advisory firm in Columbus, Ohio.

No shit.

Funny, though, they aren't simply living in a world of their own. They are being supported by some of my readers who are under the (very) mistaken impression that either none of this matters or someday they will be rich too if they just work hard.

At least United Health Care learned their lesson.

Minnetonka-based health insurer UnitedHealth Group got rid of most of its executive perks after revelations emerged in late 2006 that former CEO William McGuire and others at the company had been granted stock options "backdated" to a day when the stock price was at a low price. Prior to the change, McGuire and four other top executives were collecting more than $600,000 a year in freebies, on top of millions of dollars in stock options and other compensation.

In last year's proxy statement, UnitedHealth stated, "We do not believe that providing generous executive perquisites is either necessary to attract and retain executive talent or consistent with our pay-for-performance philosophy."

I wonder what it will take for more companies to adopt this attitude. Maybe some new thinking on the part of the Tea Party and its supporters who seem to feel that the wealthy need their welfare. Any chance it will happen soon?

It's Official: I Love Science

"Here, let me show you."
After a few minutes, he did.
"Cool. Or warm, actually," I said smiling.

Mr. Cunningham, the science teacher in our building, had just demonstrated to me how carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere.

"So, what about all this business that carbon dioxide isn't really warming the atmosphere?" I asked
"Well, what did you just see, Mark?"

I've mostly avoided the science areas of the school in the past but something tells me I should hang around there more often. As I have been told many times on this blog, reason, logic, and facts are great things. I must admit fault in avoiding math and science over the years. I didn't have the greatest teachers in either subject and that, combined with my horse shit attitude about the subjects, were why  I chose to pursue other subjects with greater inspiration and motivation.

Now, though, I'm pretty inspired because, as some of you have been telling me,  I've discovered that if one invests some time in looking at the facts and the evidence through science and math, one can see clear evidence in support of all sorts of things. Like....massive inequality in the United States, for example. Or climate change. As soon as one sets their mind to science, they start to notice information like this:

Scientist Beloved by Climate Deniers Pulls Rug Out from Their Argument.

We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups. The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature trends. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought.

Really? Well, hey, that's pretty cool. Or warm, actually. Check out the graph, too. So much for the skepticism on that one.

There's also information like this:

Scientists connect global warming to extreme rain

Extreme rainstorms and snowfalls have grown substantially stronger, two studies suggest, with scientists for the first time finding the telltale fingerprints of man-made global warming on downpours that often cause deadly flooding.. Two studies in Wednesday's issue of the journal Nature link heavy rains to increases in greenhouse gases more than ever before.

What an interesting article. Gosh, science can be fun!

Honestly, I have to say that I've been such a fool. If I'd only had better teachers and paid attention more in science and math, imagine where I could be today. Well, I'm still a young man and there's no time like the present, eh?

Mr. C (not his real name btw:)) has said that I'm always welcome in his room during my prep block.

Always a Winner (8 and 9 of 20)

A few readers are under the assumption that I have forgotten about Steverman's Secret Financial Weapons of the Super Rich. Rest assured, I have not. Let's take a look at the next two shall we?

Lower Fees

Rich investors "should be able to get the absolute maximum discount," says Paul Sutherland, president of Financial and Investment Management Group, a wealth manager. They can wind up paying only 15 percent of a mutual fund's maximum fees, he says.

Financial Advice

The super-rich can afford the best advice. They can hire lawyers and accountants to lower their tax bills, insurance experts to get them the best deals and protection from losses, and personal financial advisers to scrutinize each investment.

So, yet another answer to the question, "How do the wealthy fuck people over?" is that the game is rigged in their favor. They always win. No wonder the right loves them so much!

Rand Paul's Potty Mouth

In a recent congressional hearing where incandescent light bulbs were being discussed, Rand Paul went a tirade about his toilets.

“Frankly, my toilets don’t work in my house, and I blame you and people like you who want to tell me what I can install in my house,” Paul said. He added, “I find it insulting.”

Instead of blaming the company that built his defective toilet, Paul is blaming the government. We have low flow toilets in our house, and have had them for ten years, and they work just fine. Now, I suppose it's possible that Paul is so full of it that he needs an extra-high capacity toilet, but he could adapt his flushing technique to accommodate his great . . . needs.

Why do we have low-flow toilets? To save water, obviously. Why should we save water? If you live in LA, or Phoenix, or Las Vegas or pretty much anywhere in the southwest, or you live in Atlanta, where they recently suffered from a years-long drought, you know how wretched it is to not have enough water.

Big, thirsty toilets are just about the worst possible use for clean, fresh water: does it really make sense to waste 3.5 gallons of water to wash away a few ounces of urine? (Low-flow toilets use 1.6 gallons or less.) The average person flushes 5 times per day. With 300 million Americans, that comes out to 5.25 billion gallons a day. Using low-flow toilets reduces that to 2.4 billion gallons.

Water-wasting toilets require local governments to build extra large sewer systems and sewage treatment plants. They require development of larger water supplies, more municipal water towers for storage, and on and on. Wasting things costs money, and wasting common resources costs everybody money. Higher demand for a commodity raises its price, especially when it's in short supply -- that's Econ 101. Why should I pay more for water just so Rand Paul can waste it?

We use water for things other than toilets and showers and watering the lawn: industry needs a lot of water for fabricating ICs, generating power, making aluminum, etc. In California alone, low-flow toilets can save more than 100 billion gallons of water a year: water that farmers could use to feed the city folks who are literally pissing away the water farmers need.

Government regulations such as these save money and save lives. Those pesky government regulations for seat belts, air bags, crumple zones in cars, and so on, have saved thousands of lives. Those annoying regulations that require lead-free gas, catalytic converters, mercury capture in coal-plant emissions have saved millions of lives since they were enacted. They have lifted many of the ugly gray-brown clouds of filth that used to mar every city's skyline.

And who was that vile bureaucrat who signed the low-flush toilet act into law in 1992? Well, it was that commie pinko tree-hugging George H. W. Bush. The enviro-fascist who enacted the light-bulb law that Paul and Michele Bachmann were bitching about? George W. Bush (the Energy Independence and Security Act, enacted in 2007).

It used to be that Republicans were actual conservatives, wanting to conserve the past, our natural resources and our heritage. Now they seem to only be interested in conserving the right to be wastrels, and corporate profits that require ever-increasing rates of consumption to keep the stock market mavens and corporate take-over artists happy.

Why is it that every conservative these days has to trot out their petty grievances about every possible inconvenience in life and blame it on the government? Grow up, Rand Paul. You're embarrassing your kids with all this toilet talk.

House of Cards

Here is the entire House of Cards documentary from CNBC. It's an excellent bookend piece to Inside Job.

Voices in My Head

The Rules They Don't Live By

A while back, Vann Jones (former climate guy for President Obama and current socialist/fag lover/grandma plug puller/statist who wants to rape all of our children) was asked why the Republicans get to behave the way they do. His answer?

"Because they are assholes."

He got fired over the remark by President Obama.

Gotcha right winger James O'Keefe captured former NPR exec Ron Schiller saying that the Tea Party was racist and generally slamming conservatives. He was fired along with Vivian Schiller (no relation) from NPR for his comments.

Sensing a pattern here? Other than the fact that Jones and Schiller were both accurate, of course:)

It's pretty simple. Generally speaking, the right wing of America does not have to live by the rules. They are, in fact, assholes and get to do pretty much whatever they want. They can call Barack Obama "the magic Negro" and it's not racist. They can sting other people in heavily edited videotapes but refuse to allow themselves to be videotaped as is the case with Mr. O'Keefe (so much for him being the right's answer to Michael Moore as Moore can wait to have his mug anywhere people will have him). Or they can say things like this:

Pussy. And YOU ARE STILL WRONG. NPR is run and produces nothing but liberal drivel. Pussy.

Yet I am the one with "voices in my head."

Democrats, liberals, and progressives have to live by the rules. Conservatives don't. And the more the left lives by them, the less the right does. This has lead to the right trying to "catch" the left in not living by them so they can (in typical school yard bully fashion) point and say, "See? They do it too!! N'yah N'yah!" See, when people like Schiller or Jones say things like they did, they get fired. When Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin says it, they get more money and supporters cheering them. Understand the difference between conservatives and liberals these days? It gets worse.

Governor Walker and the rest of the GOP in Wisconsin ignored a judge's ruling and are moving ahead with the bill they passed anyway. Starting on April 21st, union dues will no longer be collected from workers paychecks. The state of Wisconsin will also begin deducting more money for health benefits from each state worker's check. They had the law published already which basically means they are already in contempt. If they actually take this next step, they will have defied a judge's ruling twice. But, hey, she's a fucking commie so fuck her!

Will they do it? They say they are going to but I'm more interested in their frame of mind which is pretty much how most conservatives around the country think. They are under the (quite mistaken) impression that liberals cheated when they passed health care. Libs shoved it down their throats and rammed it through (time out for a chuckle on the penis metaphors) and, in their very warped minds, they can now do the "same" thing. Except it's not the same but they don't really know the difference. We are dealing very low emotional intelligence after all.

I'm curious to see how far they will get-both with the law and the American voter-but one thing is very, very true and I've said it all along. It's not that they don't like government. That's just their t 8 year old boy temper tantrum talking and looking for something to pick on. It's that they don't like certain laws and think that they don't all apply to them. Out of this comes a general attitude and perception-which is hilariously ironic when you think about it but perfectly consistent with their interaction and behavior with people on the left. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, given how they continually flaunt the rules, that they feel this way and it's one simple word.

Entitled.

Free!

Thanks to Last in Line for this link which has the film "Inside Job" in its entirety for no charge. If you haven't seen it, check it out!

How Does This Play Out?

I had a very enjoyable exchange with one of the many anonymous posters in comments. I'm not sure who he or she was but even though we were ideologically in different places, we actually had a reasonable and substantive debate.

The poster said something which stuck with me and left me curious.

I submit to you and your readers, that most people could handle the complexities of life if they were just allowed to do so. At some point, your mother 'cut the apron strings' and allowed you to 'sink or swim'. Unless we are all still breast-fed, adversity was overcome starting at an early age.

Conservative vs. Liberal seems to disagree on the amount of adversity a citizen should be allowed to experience before 'the system' provides for that individual.

I enjoy this person's optimism and agree that people in our culture need to handle the complexities of life in a more diligent and effective way. They are very emotionally retarded about it now and I see it every day. I constantly pummel my own kids with "Figure it out yourself." In the end, it will help them.

Yet this comment evokes several questions. First, who is not "allowing them" to manage complexities? Second, what is meant by "cutting the apron strings and allowing you to sink or swim?" I would assume the latter means cutting or eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Is that correct? I'm not just asking the poster. I'm asking all of you because that seems to be a general sentiment.

By intimating that some people will "sink" (sort of Darwin's survival of the fittest thing), how do any of you envision that will play out? Social Security, for example, has been proven to have reduced poverty in the elderly. So when the plug is literally pulled on grandma, are you going to be alright with that?

As the poster said, conservatives and liberals do disagree on the amount of adversity a citizen should have to face before aid steps in. I'm just wondering if the conservatives have really thought how "sink or swim" works as a practical application in reality. We're talking about the elderly in our population here and they are already treated like crap by a culture trapped in the hubris of worshiping youth.

So, I'm hoping that the poster clarifies his comments because I could easily have misinterpreted them. Anyone else should feel free to offer their slant...as always:)

GE's Bright Idea: No Taxes

Recently General Electric announced that it made $14 billion in profit last year ($5.1 in the US). Its tax bill? Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zip. In fact, it claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

It did this through a maze of loopholes and tax breaks, and by not moving profits back to the United States. According to the Times article:

In a regulatory filing just a week before the Japanese disaster put a spotlight on the company’s nuclear reactor business, G.E. reported that its tax burden was 7.4 percent of its American profits, about a third of the average reported by other American multinationals. Even those figures are overstated, because they include taxes that will be paid only if the company brings its overseas profits back to the United States. With those profits still offshore, G.E. is effectively getting money back.

In other words they're playing a shell game to avoid paying taxes. This has serious implications for the rest of us:

Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation's tax receipts -- from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.

This is not the first time GE has done this sort of thing:

As it has evolved, the company has used, and in some cases pioneered, aggressive strategies to lower its tax bill. In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. — a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman — was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.

“I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.

Some people don't find anything wrong with this, and think that corporations should pay any taxes at all. "It's double taxing," they'll say. Or, "They'll just pass it on to the customer."

First, it's not double taxing: corporations deduct all their expenses -- including salaries they pay to workers, cost of materials, local and state taxes, cost of production, even hotel stays and meals for CEOs -- to calculate profit.

As for passing the cost on: since taxes are only on profits, that price increase may be insignificant. Let's say I buy a blender for $100 and the company's profit is $10. Let's say the manufacturer's effective tax rate is 6%, or 60 cents on that blender. If the company's tax rate goes to 30% it will pay $3.00 in taxes. If it passes every penny of that on to me -- which is not a given for many reasons -- the blender will cost $2.40 more, or 2.4%.

But more importantly, if I don't buy a company's products, they won't be passing the cost on to me at all. If I save my money instead of buying big sailboats, and giant TVs and $500 tickets to football games, I won't be paying the taxes for those companies.

The money to pay for things like roads and the military has to come from somewhere. By reducing corporate tax burdens we are increasing the tax burdens on regular people. If corporations pay more, citizens can pay less.

But when you come right down to it, most everything the government spends its money on -- weather satellites, the FBI, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, highways, bridges, harbors, ports, the military, education -- is for the benefit of business. Yes, individuals benefit from these things, but they would have never happened without business demanding them.

For example: if you're like most people, the majority of the time you spend driving is between home and work. The highways are filled with trucks delivering stuff to businesses. Almost every time a new highway is proposed the argument is, "it'll be good for business."

Our military is used to "protect our interests" abroad. Those interests are entirely business interests. We invaded Iraq to ensure a stable supply of oil from a volatile region. We need oil to run our businesses. Shouldn't businesses help pay the salaries for the men and women in uniform who are protecting their interests?

Even the education system is essential for business. Without a system of free public education the United States would be totally uncompetitive in the world marketplace.

To be honest, there are some taxes that corporations already do pay their fair share of: Social Security and Medicare, the biggest part of the federal budget. Corporations should contribute their fair share to the rest of the federal budget as well.

Finally, when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the political process they declared that a company is a person for the purposes of free speech. If a corporation has the same right to free speech as a person, it should have the same responsibility as a person to pay taxes.

I'm not talking about sticking it to big corporations: I'm just talking about restoring effective corporate tax rates to the reasonable values they had under Eisenhower and Reagan. Is it right for companies like GE to turn their backs on America and avoid taxes by shipping all their profits off to the Caymans?

Holy Hell!

As soon as I read about Rob Bell's new book, I knew what would happen right away.

"Satan is having a field day," Ruth Ward commented on Love Wins.

In other words, a giant shit storm would be unleashed. Because if there's one thing I know about old school evangelicals these days, they need to have the threat of burning in hell for eternity. Otherwise, it's meth amphetamine fueled gay sex morning, noon, and night.

Bell is one of a new wave of ministers who have seen the writing on the wall. The "All Fags will burn in Hell" meme isn't playing so well with the younger crowd and they are losing followers to other denominations at alarming rates. His ideas in the book are actually quite sound when you think about it. You can't have a loving God and an angry god at the same time. It makes no sense. Even the Bible itself says that God will remember our sins no more (Heb 8:8) and that the sacrifice of Christ propelled us into a period of grace. Why many Christians refuse to accept this is very frustrating. Honestly, I don't think they like themselves very much.

But what absolutely slayed me about the Bell flap was this article containing an all too familiar talking point/tactic.

It seems that where Bell’s arguments begin to break down, he simply walks away instead of pursuing consistency and logic. This book could not stand the rigors of cross-examination. It has little cohesion, little internal strength.

Now where have I heard those lines before?

Setting aside the fact that this discussion is about faith, not logic, did all you guys go to some sort of seminar or something? I can just see the notes in the course syllabus...

When liberals, progressives or RINOS have a new idea, all of which threaten our way of life, attack first on reason and logic. Continue with a merciless attack on their courage. Make their argument look flawed and their person cowardly so we can maintain our support base of frightened and angry people whose ignorance we so desperately need to cling to power.

Maybe I should go undercover and sign up for the next class. When does Spring Session start?

Nary a Peep

So, let me see if I have this straight. Schaeffer Cox, Lonnie and Karen Vernon (along with others) conspired to kill an IRS employee as well as a US District judge and Peter King isn't investigating? It seems to me this is terrorism, right? Given that the Vernons are part of the "Sovereign Citizens" Group I would think hat there should be some sort of committee set up to investigate some of these very clear threats. Oh, and I guess they wanted to kill some state troopers as well. And the family members of the IRS agent, the judge and the troopers.

I'm surprised, readers. We had a lot of links pointing to plots that evil Muslims were about to carry out yet nary a peep on this one. Hmm...

Polarization and Condescension

I find very little with which to disagree in Syl Jones' latest piece in the Strib. He really hit the nail squarely on the head with this one. I've been a fan of his opinion pieces for awhile but this one should be put in the hall of fame.

Major Garrett, former national correspondent for Fox News and once with CNN, has now added an additional wrinkle. Garret told MSNBC viewers that Fox thrives on polarization: "Fox actually wants to keep that polarization. ... That is an embedded part of the marketing that surrounds what happens in the news division at Fox. It's been incredibly successful."

The fact that Fox both creates and exploits polarization says a lot about today's world and those who spin it. Across America, many seem to enjoy the trauma of loose cannons firing in every direction. The folks at Fox recognized this long ago and now, when it suits them to do so, they wrap themselves in the American flag,

It's not just Fox, though. It's all of the right wing information sources especially the blogsphere. Like all bullies, they are lost without an adversary to pick on. It's how they define themselves in the world.

Of course, we know all this. So, Jones takes it a step further by bringing in the Juan Williams incident from last fall and making a most excellent point.

Williams and other black journalists have long understood that a liberal is someone who thinks he or she knows your history better than you do. A conservative doesn't know your history and doesn't care to know it.

Both sides of the political spectrum have a galling habit of trying to exploit people of color to justify their rather narrow interests.

Indeed. As many of you can probably imagine, I've experienced the liberal side of this quite a bit in the various schools I have either worked in or my children have attended. The yearly battle regarding Huck Finn is one example of this. It's white liberals, not blacks, who want to ban the book because that word makes sick.

Too bad.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is one of the greatest American novels ever written. Being a big fan of Loewen, I have to say that the controversy surrounding this book smacks of that avoidance of laying blame that he talks about frequently. The same white liberals that want to ban Huck Finn also fall all over themselves like idiots during Black History Month. Every year, I receive astonished looks and (very fake) loud gasps when I suggest that we do away with Black History Month and integrate its content into the course of the entire year. I do it anyway and the new social studies standards for our state will as well but something tells me BHM will be around for quite some time. It actually is worse, as Jones aptly points out...

Conservative and liberal media outlets are too busy slinging mud to pause and listen to what we know so well. Privileged interests are depriving people of the right to know the truth, to earn a living wage and to make truly informed decisions about the world in which they live.

We can see that neither side is right and that both sides are wrong.

Yep.

The Answer...Again....For the Nine Zillionth Time

How do corporations exert force on us again? Watch the last minute of this video for (yet another) answer.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bears & Balls - Misery Edition
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive