What Do You Want Him To Do...Pull Your Car Around For You?

A few days ago, President Obama called on Congress for a much bolder plan to reduce the deficit. He asked for double the amount of reduction ($4 trillion dollars) that is currently being discussed. This was in line with the Bowles-Simpson plan from last December. The GOP response?

Nope.

They only want $2 trillion in reduction.

I'm trying very hard to find the logic in what they are doing but I can't. In all honesty, I feel for John Boehner He's a good guy but he simply doesn't have the votes because his party has been hijacked by true believers. Like the socialists who believe in their utopia, the Tea Partiers have their own unicorn fart land and they are not budging from attempting to realize their warped dream. The word "compromise" isn't in their fucking vocabulary. Part of me thinks they would love it if the government defaulted on its loans so then it could be destroyed and everything could then be privatized. They may yet get to realize their dream.

Rick Ungar breaks this down quite nicely over at Forbes.

What Boehner likely understands – better than those who he is supposed to be leading – is that the GOP is permitting the fundamental change, long at the heart of the conservative cause, to vanish into thin air and that it is happening in the name of protecting corporate subsidies that are the very antitheses of a free market economy – another of the inviolate tenets of conservative policy.

I've been saying that for the last couple of weeks. At least Ungar has an explanation to my confusion.

I don’t know about you, but I can only think of one other explanation – fealty to the wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals who keep your Republican leadership rolling in the campaign cash so they can remain in their powerful jobs.

I fear we are witnessing one of the most perverse and dangerous games our leaders have ever embarked upon. I’m stunned by the sheer audacity of these elected officials so ready to play chicken with the financial lives of so many simply to benefit a very few.

And yet people keep supporting them. As Maher said the other day, I get the 1 percent that support the GOP. What I don't get is the other 99 percent. No doubt, this is one the greatest achievements in propaganda in the history of the world. A very small (and wealthy) group of people have convinced a very large group of people that anyone who makes up the the entire left half of the political spectrum (as well as the 25 percent to the right of center because, let's face it, they're RINO pussies) are actively working to destroy our country when in reality the complete opposite is true.

The GOP has a chance here at very serious entitlement reform but they are letting in slip through their fingers. Even Krugman admits that Obama is out GOPing the GOP. So far the markets are acting like the debt ceiling will be raised and there will be a deal. I guess I'm not so sure.

Uncertainty Unhinged

Oh, I'm sorry, did I say rich? I meant "job creators." Yes. That's actually a prevailing theory on the right...that Obama's rhetoric towards Wall Street has been so hostile that is has created an uncertainty in the business community because he called them fatcats once and they're still suffering from some sort of jobs creating disorder...like he burst into the bathroom while they were trying to pee and now they can't go at all.

When did the business community become so sensitive that we have treat them like some rare and exotic animal? Don't startle them or they'll fly away! We need to sooth them so they can nest here and lay their magic eggs full of jobs.

And that's the end of all this uncertainty bullshit. Thanks again, Bill!

Submissive?

Listen to this quote from Marcus Bachmann, husband of GOP presidential hopeful, Michele Bachmann.



I'll leave the jokes about how Marcus Bachmann is so clearly gay to the stand up comics.

Of course, my first reaction to this was to question whether or not this was a voice inside my head:) After I realized (like so many other voices) that it was, in fact, real, I thought about something that Ms. Bachmann said a while back. In a speech to congregants of the the Living Word Christian Center in 2006, she stated that she pursued her degree in tax law only because her husband had told her to. “The Lord says: Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands,” she said.

So, does that mean that if she is elected she will start homosexual re-education camps for the barbarians?

More importantly, if she is submissive to her husband, won't that mean that he is the actual president? And an unelected one at that!

Bachmann's Oath

To become a candidate for president in the Republican Party, you are expected to take half a dozen oaths to assuage the doubts of fanatical special interest groups. These range from Grover Norquist's extortionary pledge to not raise taxes, to the anti-abortion pledge Rick Santorum is exercised over, to Michele Bachmann's recent marriage pledge.

Bachmann is taking heat for taking the pledge because it implies that blacks were better off as slaves:

“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.”

This ignores the fact that slaves were often forbidden to marry, were told who to breed with, and were often used as sex toys by their masters. Slave families were split up and children sold like calves. The pledge is full of other nonsense that has no bearing on anything, such as married couples having better sex and "robust ... childbearing is beneficial to ... security." Yes, we can screw ourselves silly to foil the terrorists!

All these pledges serve only to prevent our legislators from properly carrying out their official duties by a form of blackmail.

The only pledge members of Congress should make is the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution that they take when they assume their office. Any other oaths are a conflict of interest that places their true loyalties in question.

Murdoch's Empire Crumbling?

The phone hacking scandal in England took an abrupt turn when Rupert Murdoch's son announced that the News of the World is being shut down. The British tabloid has been accused of hacking the voice mail accounts of numerous people, from royals (reporter Clive Goodman and PI Glenn Mulcaire were jailed for this crime), to kidnapped children, to victims of the Underground bombing of 2005, to family members of soldiers who died in Afghanistan. There are also allegations that police were bribed in the affair and that the paper interfered with a murder investigation involving employees of the paper, a matter which the police chose not to prosecute because of their fear of the paper's power.

What's surprising is that Murdoch decided to shutter the entire paper, rather than sack the individuals who actually committed the crimes. This seems to be a move to offer a sacrificial goat in order to get what he really wants: the British pay television company British Sky Broadcasting. He's trying to buy the broadcaster, but is meeting opposition from those who think Murdoch has too much power in the media.

These crimes have been swirling around for years now. Earlier this year Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron's press secretary, former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, resigned from that position earlier this year because of questions raised again this past January (he resigned from the paper in 2007). According to The Guardian, Coulson will be arrested tomorrow.

What does this British scandal have to do with the price of coffee in America? It shows a blatant disregard of the law and ethics in the management of News of the World, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox Broadcasting, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, etc. These practices have been going on for 10 years, and it's inconceivable that Murdoch knew nothing.

Politicians in Britain walked in fear of News of the World, and even Conservative PMs are rejoicing in its demise. In Fox News Murdoch has successfully created a media outlet in which truth is subservient to political machinations; those who watch Fox are the least well-informed news consumers. With The Wall Street Journal, Murdoch is able to shape and perhaps control the financial markets. With News of the World he has demonstrated he knows no shame, has no ethics and has outright contempt for the law.

Which brings us to the age-old question that must be asked of all men at the top of corrupt enterprises: what did Murdoch know about this scandal, and when did he stop knowing it?

Brooks Hits A Grand Slam

Well, David Brooks has done it again. His latest column works as a nice book end with the Cohen piece from two days ago.

That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

No shit. But why?

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name.

Well, the name of their theory should be called the "You're Wrong and Stupid" theory as that is largely the only concept in which they are capable of working. That and rich corporations are Jesus.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.

Yep. Every climate change scientist is an apocalyptic nut. Any person who is smart and a liberal is a condescending and arrogant elitist trying to force his opinion on the poor, sweet and innocent conservative whose ignorance is purely imagined by the fascist progressive. Please ignore the profoundly ignorant things conservatives say as they are really the fault of Katie Couric.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms.

Either with us or agin' us! Liberals/Progressives=all bad and Hitler.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency.

Well, their ideology dictates that fucking people over is enlightened self interest.

The good news is that Americans (based on several polls) want taxes raised, want to end subsidies (which distort the market just as much as taxes), and will undoubtedly now blame the right for any problems that result from a possible government shut down.

In other words, a very massive turn out at the polls next November. So please, do continue...:)

The Wisdom of Youth (Part The Second)

I informed Michael, my tennis student today, that most of you don't believe that he exists. His response?

"Well, isn't that just trying to prove you wrong...just like I said?"

We can learn much from the youth today.

Cult or Gang? You decide!

Not long ago I urged Markadelphia to swear off accusing conservatives of belonging to a cult. I said the cult meme wasn't really very accurate, the Republican weren't all that monolothic and dogmatic, they actually were more tribal or clannish, and so on. Imagine my chagrin when Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote an opinion piece reiterating Mark's thesis.

I still don't go along with the cult idea. The Republican Party likes to think of themselves as a band of revolutionary firebrands or guardians of an ancient and noble trust. But they're more like a criminal gang that sees its influence slowly leaking away as new people move into the neighborhood.

They've still got a mean streak a mile wide, and aren't afraid to bust a lot of heads to get what they want. They don't mind smashing up the store fronts of our economy to keep the protection money flowing to the oil company capos. And they're perfectly willing to kidnap the opposition's debt ceiling and hold it hostage, even if it'll bring the whole neighborhood down around their ears when the mob from Beijing comes to collect their cut.

A Fourth of July Voice Inside My Head

I find it highly amusing the deep need that some have for me to comment again on Kevin Baker's site. A couple of them email me every new post that he puts up. Odd, considering each one essentially torpedoes the "voices in my head" bit.

Take this latest one, for example.

First of all, huh? I've never heard of this. I love the 4th of July and celebrate just like everyone else. And what a fine example of adolescent behavior we have here as well. So much for claiming to be "adults."

No, stupid fucking liberals, I fucking will not shrink from embracing the beauty and freedom encased in our Celebration of Independence.

Wow. Nice 8 year old boy with a temper tantrum drawing at the end as well, "voice" in my head.

Happy 4th everyone!

The July Invasion

It's summer and it's hot: the perfect time to go to an air-conditioned movie theater and chill out for a couple of hours. Later this month Cowboys and Aliens, with Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig, will hit the theaters. From the trailer it looks like a typical alien invasion flick, with plenty of explosions, along the lines of Independence Day, or TV shows like Falling Skies and V.

Last year Stephen Hawking raised some eyebrows when he said that humans should avoid drawing attention to ourselves, because interaction with aliens would turn out poorly for us. Others, like skeptic Michael Shermer, pooh-poohed the idea that aliens are dangerous. Shermer says evil aliens are a "myth" and we have nothing to worry about.

So, how likely is it that there are planets like Earth, and that there are intelligent aliens living there, that those aliens can travel between stars, and that aliens will come here?

These days astronomers are finding Earth-sized planets at an amazing clip. Since its launch in 2009 the Kepler telescope has identified almost a hundred earth-sized planets, hundreds of super Earths (rocky planets bigger than earth), and many hundreds of gas giants like Neptune and Jupiter.

Kepler orbits the sun in the same orbit as Earth, trailing millions of miles behind us. The telescope is pointed at a small patch of sky in the area of the constellations Cygnus, Lyra and Draco. Kepler detects planets when they "transit" their stars. That is, when the planet comes between its parent star and Kepler. A planet transiting its star reduces the star's observed brightness ever so slightly. The amount of light blocked roughly indicates the size of the planet. Results are often verified by examining the tiny wobble that the planets cause in the star's position, to give an estimate of the planet's mass. (Stars actually orbit their planets too, but the amount of motion is relatively small.)

For Kepler to detect the planet, it has to be in a very particular orbit around its star: it must be orbiting its star in the same plane in the direction of us and Kepler. The odds of that happening are, uh, astronomically small. Which means that if we're detecting hundreds of planets by their transits around the hundred thousand or so stars we're observing, there are probably many, many thousands more that we can't see because their orbits are in a different plane.

So now we know there are almost certainly billions of planets out there, and that planets similar in size to Earth are probably very common. What we don't know is how many of them have atmospheres like ours, and how many have life, and how many have intelligent life. Astronomers like Frank Drake have tried to calculate this, with his famous Drake Equation. The honest truth, though, is that we have no way of knowing what values to assign to the terms of that equation.

So, is Hawking justified in fearing that aliens would be dangerous? His basic thesis:

“If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”

Shermer represents the other view:

I am skeptical. Although we can only represent the subject of an N of 1 trial, and our species does have an unenviable track record of first contact between civilizations, the data trends for the past half millennium are encouraging: colonialism is dead, slavery is dying, the percentage of populations that perish in wars has decreased, crime and violence are down, civil liberties are up, and, as we are witnessing in Egypt and other Arab countries, the desire for representative democracies is spreading, along with education, science and technology. These trends have made our civilization more inclusive and less exploitative. If we extrapolate that 500-year trend out for 5,000 or 500,000 years, we get a sense of what an ETI might be like.

Shermer is being naive. Even if we posit that galactic civilizations advance socially and morally, not every group or individual will be so enlightened. We have plenty of examples today of dictators who murder their own people, oil companies that turn countries like Nigeria into a swamp of toxic oil residues, and criminals who traffic in sex slaves -- even in our own country.

Any galactic civilization capable of interstellar travel would have the technological wherewithal to give small gangs of thugs or even one individual the capacity to drive our entire civilization into the stone age. Given a base on the moon, we could do this ourselves. With lunar mass drivers (electromagnetic catapults) we could bombard terrestrial cities with rocks that would strike with the force of an atomic bomb (as described in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress).

And even if an alien civilization is truly benign, the discovery of its existence could have a very destructive effect on the fragile psyche of humanity. If we detected an alien spacecraft heading our direction, reactionary elements on Earth could very well bring about Armageddon before the aliens even got here.

So Hawking is right that we shouldn't be intentionally sending radio signals into the void. It's very unlikely that anyone will pick them up, but we certainly shouldn't be trying to draw any attention to ourselves. At least, as long as we have no means to protect ourselves from a space-faring civilization. Why take an unnecessary risk?

But it seems doubtful that any alien civilization would bother coming to Earth. If they have the capacity to travel between stars, there's nothing here that they couldn't get in their own solar system, or a closer one, with less effort. It would be far easier for them to terraform other planets and moons in their own solar system, or build their own habitats in space from raw materials in their asteroid belts or the moons of gas giants. No matter how you slice it, they'll never be able to send enough colonists to other solar systems to relieve their own population pressures; in the end they'll have to learn how to live within the means of their own solar system or perish. The only ones that would come here would be small groups of explorers, exploiters, or people with an ax to grind.

But still and all, Earth is the only planet we've got. We should be very careful with it.

What Would Ronald Reagan Do?

Well, it's pretty easy to find out.

Ghost of Gipper looms over GOP

More importantly, what does his top economic guy say now?

Americans Support Higher Taxes. Really.

Get the message yet?

The Wisdom Of Youth

Before our match yesterday, one of my tennis kiddos (Michael) arrived early for our match. Since it was extremely hot, I told him to hold off on warming up and sit in the shade for a while. We started chatting a bit about Wimbledon and at a lull in the conversation he asked me if I was into politics. The inner me chuckled.

As I do with every student, I asked him what he thought. Nearly all students are more interested in talking than listening. The first words out of his mouth?

"I want you to know that I'm a Democrat. It seems that all the Republicans are about these days are trying to prove people wrong."

Out of the mouths of babes...

Models of Efficiency

A central dogma of conservative ideology is that private corporations and capitalist moguls are the best at what they do. They deserve gargantuan paychecks because they make it rain money for everyone else.

Let's see how that how that plays out for two sports franchises: the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Green Bay Packers.

The Dodgers recently filed for bankruptcy. How did one of the sports' most vaunted teams fall so low? Two words: Frank McCourt.

McCourt bought the team from NewsCorp (Fox) in 2004 for $430 million. McCourt made his wife, Jamie, CEO. The couple separated in 2009, during the playoff season. After the Dodgers were eliminated she was fired as CEO and filed for divorce.

Forbes valued the Dodgers at almost $800 million in 2010, an increase in value obtained largely by jacking up ticket and concession prices year after year. But now McCourt has bankrupted the team in order to pay off his divorce settlement. Another scandal involved the charitable Dodgers Dream Foundation, which was run by Howard Sunkin, one of McCourt's cronies who helped with his divorce. Sunkin's salary was $400K, a quarter of the foundation's entire budget.

McCourt, a prototypical high-flying capitalist Master of the Universe, has driven the Dodgers into the ground. He used the team's TV deal as a private piggy bank to pay $150 million for his wife's divorce settlement. He let his personal problems bankrupt a national icon.

On the other hand, we have the Green Bay Packers. Named the "best sports franchise" by ESPN The Magazine, the Packers have fans all around the country.

The Packers are a non-profit public corporation. Over 100,000 people hold the 4.7 million shares of Packer stock. The president is the only paid executive. The other members of the oversight committee provide their services gratis. In short, the Packers are the closest thing you can get to a government-run pro football team.

Green Bay is not a big town, but it manages to field a team that can win national championships. Cities with 10 times the population are told they're too small a market for professional sports franchises.

The Packers should be the model for all major-league sports franchises. Most every other team in the country has threatened to pick up and go to another city if the city or state doesn't pony up a billion dollars for a stadium. A stadium where there'll only be 13 four-hour home games a year. Given the average life-span of a stadium these days is only 20-30 years, this is not a good deal.

The Vikings are begging for a stadium in Minneapolis. Vikings owner Zygi Wilf claims they need one because the Metrodome is old and doesn't have the right facilities for luxury boxes. I might be inclined to build a stadium for the Vikings if they were organized like the Packers, and were certain to stay in town forever. But why should we pay a billion dollars for a stadium where millionaire CEOs can watch millionaire players toss a ball around for a billionaire owner? To add insult to injury, those luxury boxes are paid for by corporations, which will claim them as expenses and deduct them from their taxes. So I get to pay for the stadium and for the CEOs to watch it in sybaritic comfort.

Worse, if Wilf pulls a McCourt and bankrupts the Vikings, the team could be taken over by the league and sent to another higher-bidding city, leaving us with a billion-dollar white elephant.

I'm sure the Packers have their problems. But private corporations like Frank McCourt's Dodgers by their very nature are rampant with nepotism, cronyism, corruption and backroom deals. The slavish devotion conservatives pay to guys like Frank McCourt, Donald Trump, Donald Keating, Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay and the like makes no sense if you're interested in efficient, well-run corporations that do well for their shareholders.

Conservatives insist that government is inherently inefficient, wasteful, filled with cronyism and corruption. But as we've seen over and over again, private corporations are just as prone to these ills.

The difference is that with government we choose who's running the show. We have the right to see what's going on. And when we watch the process we see how messy and noisy and annoying it is. Because everyone gets their say, and government officials have to listen. Or we fire them in the next election.

Corporations don't work that way. They can hide all their dirty laundry beneath a veil of secrecy, so we don't see all the ugliness. The CEO dictates his decisions and fires any dissenters. The board of directors -- the only constraining force on the CEO -- is composed of other corporate CEOs who are only too happy to rubber-stamp the CEO's decisions, knowing that he will in turn rubber-stamp their decisions because he serves on their boards.

Only occasionally, as with Frank McCourt, is the veil of secrecy ripped away, when their greed and stupidity outpace their capacity to cover it all up.

So, which is more efficient? Frank McCourt's personal Dodgers fiefdom? Or the Green Bay Packers' non-profit public corporation?

About Time

Most of the time, I get nauseated when the left bitches about President Obama. They really have no fucking clue what kind of country we live in today. For the most part, this is especially true when they whine about the president not being tough enough.

But today, I have to say, I was very happy to see the president call the right on their bullshit during his press conference today. The position the right has taken on taxes is so ludicrous that it's embarrassing given reality. Thankfully, most Americans are not with them.

Politifact has an iPhone app, b to the w, which is pretty mega and only $1.99.

And check out this poll.

26 percent blame President Bush, 25 percent blame Wall Street, 11 percent blame Congress and just 8 percent blame President Obama. In all honesty, this poll is just about the right distribution for blame. The other 30 percent could probably be a variety of other sources including the American people themselves.

All of this tells me that the doom and gloom about the president and the Democrats losing in 2012 is terribly short sighted. Most Americans aren't buying the narrative that the GOP and other parts of the right are peddling. It doesn't add up. They simply don't have any solutions for our problems and it's very clear that their past efforts have completely failed.

All they really have left is the media which they fake scorn every chance they get. Without them, I doubt anyone would pay attention to what anyone says on the right. They'd have their own little world where they could blow bowels about fake problems and the rest of us can get on with actually making this country a better place.

Uncertainty

There's been a lot to talk lately about how President Obama's economic policies are causing uncertainty. This is the reason conservatives are pointing to when defining our sluggish economy. Stirring up phantom fear is nothing new for them so it's not surprising to me whatsoever. And I still can't figure out how less regulation is going to help our economy to take off after less regulation nearly destroyed it. The facts are there. Some people don't want to listen.

But if you want to talk about the unknown, here is an article for you that I save from late last year. It also explains how less regulation was (and still is) a large part of our problem.

The banks in this group, which is affiliated with a new derivatives clearinghouse, have fought to block other banks from entering the market, and they are also trying to thwart efforts to make full information on prices and fees freely available.

Really? I wonder why?

Banks’ influence over this market, and over clearinghouses like the one this select group advises, has costly implications for businesses large and small, like Dan Singer’s home heating-oil company in Westchester County, north of New York City.

This fall, many of Mr. Singer’s customers purchased fixed-rate plans to lock in winter heating oil at around $3 a gallon. While that price was above the prevailing $2.80 a gallon then, the contracts will protect homeowners if bitterly cold weather pushes the price higher.

But Mr. Singer wonders if his company, Robison Oil, should be getting a better deal. He uses derivatives like swaps and options to create his fixed plans. But he has no idea how much lower his prices — and his customers’ prices — could be, he says, because banks don’t disclose fees associated with the derivatives.

“At the end of the day, I don’t know if I got a fair price, or what they’re charging me,” Mr. Singer said.

But wait...I thought that the free market took care of every one.

The marketplace as it functions now “adds up to higher costs to all Americans,” said Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates most derivatives. More oversight of the banks in this market is needed, he said.

Wait...huh? More regulation? That can't be possible!!! I'm afraid I don't understand.

I thought that in the free market we had a choice about all this stuff and this article not only says that we don't but members of these private banks set the rules and make the choices for us.

Well, at least I can rest comfortably knowing that Dodd Frank is in place and the GOP, ever the supporters of the middle class working man, will make sure that fairness rules the day.

Mr. Gensler wants to lessen banks’ control over these new institutions. But Republican lawmakers, many of whom received large campaign contributions from bankers who want to influence how the derivatives rules are written, say they plan to push back against much of the coming reform.

Or not.

The simple fact that no one knows how far and deep the derivatives market goes is an uncertainty that should be scaring more people. But since there's a lot of money involved and everyone's rich, there's no way it could be their fault if anything goes wrong again.

No fucking way.

Too Fucking Good!

This just popped up in comments down below in my post regarding Clarence Thomas. I decided to bring it out front because it's just that good!

Even without the other shenanigans in his home town, the Citizen's United decision and Ginny's organization allow Thomas to collect an unlimited amount of cash from corporations under the guise of his wife's salary and "foundation" income. If it looks like a payoff, and smells like a payoff, it is a payoff.

The guy doesn't say anything during oral arguments, doesn't ask any questions, doesn't have an ear for language, and his clerks seem to write all his opinions for him.

He says he doesn't like the adversarial back and forth of the courtroom, but that's exactly what trials and courts are about. He seems to be deathly afraid of putting his foot is his mouth and seeming like he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He simply doesn't belong there.

The only reason he's there is that foolish Democratic Senators let the Republicans guilt them into putting an unqualified and incompetent judge on the Supreme Court.

Mega!

Time to Go Buh Bye

I think it's time for Clarence Thomas to either recuse himself from some cases or step down as a Supreme Court justice. He's not fooling anyone anymore. A recent article in the New York Times illustrates this further.

His involvement with Harlan Crow should be more than enough but what's really insulting to the nation's intelligence is Virginia Thomas-wife of the justice. Ms. Thomas is an unabashed Tea Party activist who regularly raises money for their causes. She founded a group called Liberty Central and on their web site she is described as "a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Laura Ingraham and other talk radio hosts. She is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully."

But hey, Ginny ain't on the SC, her husband is...so there is no way that he's biased, right?

How Would You Choose?

There's a pretty easy way to tell the difference between me and the current incarnation of the conservative movement in this country. If my only two choices were John Huntsman and Dennis Kucinch, I'd vote for the former. This is assuming I must choose. Now, given a choice between Barack Obama and Michele Bachmann, who do you suppose the right would vote for if they had to choose?

If you had to choose, who would YOU pick?

Not only does the answer speak volumes about who is more open minded but it also torpedoes the "both sides" argument.

Unions and Corporations: Not So Different

Mark included a comment from Jim in his recent post that got me thinking

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

The attitude Jim ascribes to teachers depicts perfectly the libertarian attitude of business.

(First order of business: you cannot argue that unions are somehow more corrupt than corporations. Enron, Wall Street and the crash of 2008, and hundreds of other examples indicate no sector of human activity is immune to corruption.)

Business is rife with cronyism (CEOs now all sit on each other compensation committees, which is why CEO salaries have skyrocketed faster than their workers' salaries in the last 30 years). Business leaders hire their sons, brothers, wives, pals and cronies all the time. Somehow that's all okay because, well, it's business.

The libertarian ideal is "enlightened self-interest." Self-interest is the lynch-pin of libertarian ideology. Nobody does anything for altruistic reasons in the money-grubbing world of the Rands Ayn and Paul. Why should union worker be any different?

Terrible businesses constantly battle regulations, which is how we protect society from corporations that have unsafe working conditions, release toxins and industrial waste into the environment that affect the health of us and our children, create unsafe products that hurt those that use them, and so on.

And businesses are totally unconcerned with broader societal outcomes resulting from their output: Pepsi and McDonalds create products that actively harm the health of the American people by making us fat, dumb and diabetic. Oil companies and car companies conspire to produce and fuel machines that pollute the air in our cities, killing people with emphysema, heart attacks and asthma. Cigarette companies make products that they know without doubt cause lung cancer. Power companies burn coal containing mercury that gets into our lakes and river, that we know causes irreparable damage to unborn children.

Yet these corporations are held up as noble captains of industry while unions are reviled as scum. Why is it right for corporations to be totally driven by self-interest and profit, and totally wrong for unionized teachers to have those same motivations?

When you come right down to it, unions are basically corporations run by the workers themselves, rather than some wealthy elite. Union workers are selling their labor for maximum profit, exactly the same way that oil companies sell gas.

Why all the hate for unions if they are, at their core, exactly the same as corporations except that they are investing their blood, sweat and tears instead of their capital? Why shouldn't they get as much as they can? That's just business, after all.

I just don't get American workers. So many are deathly opposed to unions, yet unions are really no different from corporations, except that they work to make the workers wealthier instead of the owners. Most American hourly workers suffer under a third-world serfdom, rather than the egalitarian European model.

Are Americans just afraid to buck the companies for fear of retribution? Is all the brave anti-union rhetoric really just them buckling under to corporate overlords who rule by some divine right of kings? People seem to think that hourly workers don't deserve to make a decent living.

It just doesn't make sense. Unions are made up of the workers. They can ultimately control the union, since the union is them. In most corporations the vast majority of hourly workers have no say. Workers don't have a vote in how the company runs at all. The only control they have is to quit. And in this economy, that's no control at all.

Only when hourly workers are united in unions do they have enough power to control their own fates, when they have enough power to make the corporations deal with their concerns. (This is of course different for certain kinds of high-demand, high-skill salaried workers like managers, marketers, and engineers, who often rise through the ranks to eventually run corporations.)

Why are so many Americans satisfied with being wage slaves? Where's their gumption? Where's their enlightened self interest?

The Conversation (Part The Third)

Wrapping up my conversation with Jim.

Mark: I took a day or so to think about this thread and re-read the comments as you asked and basically I'm more confused than ever. On the one hand you say that it's OK to disagree with you yet on the other hand you seem very offended if I do so. On the one hand you say " I'm tired of being the target for your bashing of some generic conservative stereotype you've created in your mind" and then bring up Sowell and say "It's helped me understand why liberals think the way they do." That seems contradictory. Thomas Sowell is a monumentally biased source when it comes to examining things of this nature. It would be the same thing if I used Howard Zinn as an example and said it would help you to understand how conservatives think.

I've thought about what you said regarding my arrogance and I think the problem is neither liberal or conservative. It may just be who each of us are as people. I thought of a way to best illustrate a key difference between us.

Ann has shared stories of how much of a handy man you are around the house and in general. I don't have much experience nor expertise in doing things like this and if we were to ever build something together I would not in the least bit be offended if you said things like "Think bigger...you're not using your spatial intelligence....look at it from this angle...." Or even "you're spouting (the carpentry version of) dogma." You have a greater knowledge and expertise in this area so I think it's fine for you to say them. I, however, have a greater knowledge set and experience in the area of education. So, when I said the things I did I was hoping you would think similarly as I would if we were building something.

I was wrong about this because you were offended and I apologize. I also wrongly assumed that because of our discussion (last October when I was in town) about Juan Williams being fired from NPR that you were weary of people that were offended all the time at everything and that people should just be free to say what's on their mind. Again, my mistake and I apologize for assuming things that I shouldn't have assumed.

Obviously, I still want to be your FB friend and I enjoy your other posts just as much if not more so than the political ones. I still laugh when I see an iPad and think about your women's hygiene joke post. Some of helped me a great deal spiritually and I thank you kindly for them. So, I guess until a I get some clarity and out of respect for your wishes, I will not comment on your political threads so we can hopefully avoid any misunderstandings and hurt feelings.

Jim: Mark, thanks for your engagement on this and your desire to not create conflict.

I think this misunderstanding does go to who we are as people -- we see things differently, and come to different conclusions. We have different ideas about human nature, the size and role of government, unions, corporations, individuals, and families; how free or controlled the economy should be; how to balance individual initiative and responsibility with compassion and justice.

Your analogy about carpentry is both helpful and unhelpful. We can't really debate whether an angle is 90 degrees, or whether a certain spacing of joists will carry a given weight load. But we can debate how to best design a deck, what it should look like, what you want it to accomplish, how much it should cost, or even how to build it once you have the plans.

But you pretty consistently argue as though there is only one right answer -- yours -- on education, the economy, unions, welfare programs, corporations, tax policy, and on and on. And anyone who disagrees with you can only disagree because they're not as educated, informed, or open-minded. What you communicate is that anyone who is intelligent and thoughtful will have to come to the same conclusions you do. You treat every subject as though your opinions and perspectives are obvious, factual, and indisputable -- like whether an angle is 90 degrees. But intelligent, thoughtful, and open-minded people can (and do) disagree widely about education, taxation, government power, social policy, and any number of things.

You need to be able to accept that my disagreement with you cannot simply be chalked up to ignorance, blindness, naivete, or ideological rigidity. I could just as reasonably say the same things about your disagreeing with me. But all that does is reinforce self-perceptions of wisdom and goodness, and let us think that people disagree with me only for bad reasons. That's what I mean when I talk about arrogance. It's arrogant to say "I'm the expert on education; I have the right insights and answers, and anyone who is intelligent will agree with me."

I would bet that I know the Bible better than you and most people. Yet I'm not offended that people disagree with me about it or interpret it differently than I do. Different people see things differently - it's simply a fact of life. What's offensive is when someone tells me that I have no good reason to disagree with their interpretation; that my understanding of Scripture is only based on ignorance, foolishness, or blind partisanship. That's what you consistently do in discussions on any number of issues. There's no room for honest disagreement based on different ways of looking at things.

Which leads me to the Sowell thing. It's frustrating that you have decided without even five minutes of research that because Sowell is a conservative he is incapable of presenting opposing views fairly. You admit you haven't read the book, so you clearly can't know what you're talking about. But once again, you've declared yourself an expert on this, so you don't even need to look at the reviews or a book synopsis. Sowell is simply beneath you. If you could step outside your partisan corner, you'd discover that the book I recommended is a well-regarded, scholarly analysis of the roots of modern political conflict in which Sowell examines source writings from some of the greatest economic and moral philosophers from all over the spectrum. Maybe you've read Sowell's opinions pieces and feel he's too partisan? You do realize it's possible to disagree with someone and still present their ideas fairly? I haven't read much of Sowell's op-ed work, but I am willing to accept that people can write in a differently based on the setting and format.

For someone who claims to be an expert on education and aspires to be an educator, the uninformed dismissal of a work you've prejudged to be unworthy of your consideration is discouraging and a little inexplicable. I regularly read people I know I'm going to disagree with. Isn't that supposed to be part of having an open mind -- of learning?

And the great irony of it is that Sowell does a great job of highlighting those different values, goals and outcomes people work towards in society -- rooted in different ways of looking at life. Sowell is not trying to say one is better than the other. They're just different. But understanding those different ways of looking at society, family, government, community, the economy, education, justice, etc. keeps us from becoming locked into thinking that "my way is best and everyone who is smart and good will agree with me." I suggested the book not to get you to agree with me or to make you read a liberal-bashing screed (why would you think I would, anyway?), but to help you understand why conservatives disagree with you, and why it doesn't mean they're stupid, uninformed, naive, foolish, or close-minded.

In any case, I appreciate your response and your apology, and I'd like to think that we can still be friends -- if there really is a basis of mutual respect to build on.

So, what did I take away from all of this? The first two things are entirely non political.

Whenever I am in a situation where my knowledge is lacking, I defer to the person who knows more about the subject. Jim does indeed know more about handy man work and would have no problem if he called me out on speaking with a misinformed tongue. But that's who I am not who he is. This means that I was really lacking empathy.

And regardless of where you are politically, some people don't like it when someone knows more than they do. I've had the same type of discussions with people on the left. If they quickly realize that I know more about a subject and I point out the deficiencies in their argument, they react as Jim did. I have no problem saying, "I can't speak to that subject because my knowledge is lacking." Others like Jim can get insecure about someone with a greater knowledge base and then become offended quickly. Clearly with Jim, I hit a nerve...one that he is insecure about. Again, this demonstrates a lack of empathy on my part and I should've realized to massively alter the way I communicate if I want to get my point across.

Odd, of course, because I thought he was tired of everyone being offended by everything. But I still take the blame for that because it's never a good idea to assume especially with subject matter like this.

The very frustrating part of all of this is by blowing a bowel the way he did about my conservative propaganda comment he is absolved from responsibility of saying something short sighted. In the deleted comment, one of the things I said centered around the fact that when you talk about unions, cronyism, and bloated bureaucracy, that's GOP dogma 101. There's no other way to describe it. Sorry, folks, but he has to take ownership of those words and by characterizing me the way he did (as some of you do all the time) it takes advantage of my natural tendencies as a liberal. I'll sit back and think about...wondering..."Hmm, maybe I am that way." If I then admit it, that absolves him of making an asinine statement like that and the problem was really me all along.

Essentially, if I call you on your BS, then you can just say that I am arguing with the voices in my head. It's quite a clever avoidance and denial tactic but it doesn't change the fact that they are your words. With Jim, notice how the conversation quickly became about me personally and the lack of honesty in his statement was long forgotten. This is the game playing that I have grown quite tired of as it wastes time and doesn't solve the problem which, in this case, is very important.

So, it's a fine line that I have to walk. I will try to be empathetic and likely consider alternative ways of communication with those who are like Jim. At the same time, however, I'm not going to ignore blatant propaganda out of fear of being personally attacked. The last time this sort of thing was ignored or treated lightly we ended up...well...where we are now.