Michele Bachmann Defects to Switzerland

After years of yapping about President Obama's birth certificate, Michele Bachmann has taken the ultimate step in hypocrisy: she has claimed Swiss citizenship.

Her husband's parents were born in Switzerland, but Marcus Bachmann applied in February for dual citizenship. The papers were finalized in March and Bachmann has since been beholden to a foreign power.

In her inimitable style, Bachmann blamed the decision on her kids:

“Congresswoman Bachmann’s husband is of Swiss descent, so she has been eligible for dual-citizenship since they got married in 1978. However, recently some of their children wanted to exercise their eligibility for dual-citizenship so they went through the process as a family,” said Bachmann spokesperson Becky Rogness.

I wonder if Bachmann checked this whole thing out before doing it. Switzerland is in Europe, and is therefore suspiciously "European." They have a health care system that provides better outcomes than its American counterpart while costing much less. It's not strictly socialized medicine because it's based on mandatory health insurance. But maybe that's why her kids want to go live there.

I really have a hard time fathoming this. How can a sitting member of Congress accept foreign citizenship? If Obama did something like this, there would be calls for his immediate impeachment.

This represents, at a minimum, a huge conflict of interest for a member of Congress. How can I trust that anything Bachmann says or does is motivated by her devotion to the United States, if she has a Swiss exit strategy?

Now comes the real test of political purity. How many Republicans will accuse her of treason?

Thank You, Tea Party!!

With the defeat of Richard Lugar last night in Indiana, the Democratic Party should send flowers to the Tea Party movement in Indiana. The Democratic Challenger, Joe Donnelly, has no chance whatsoever against Richard Lugar. But with the ideologically pure (and that IS what matters, right?) Richard Murdock now the nominee, Donnelly has a chance to take seat away from the GOP. Even if he doesn't, the senatorial election in Indiana is going to get the vote out and that means good things for the president in a state that leans Romney but isn't a sure bet as the president won it in 2008.

Andy, over at Electoral Vote, has a nice take on all of this.

In the long term, the defeat of such a respected conservative senator (who the Democrats didn't even bother to oppose in 2006), is going to send a signal to all Senate Republicans that any deviations from tea party orthodoxy and any attempts to work with the Democrats to actually govern, will result in a (possibly career-ending) primary challenge.

But wait! Surely, this must be a "voice in this head."

“Hoosier Republicans want to see Republicans inside the U.S. Senate take a more conservative track. Tonight, friends, it’s time.” Murdock said in his victory speech. 

“The message to the establishment is, ‘You’re our servants. We’re the masters. Do what you’re supposed to do, adhere to the Constitution or we’ll fire you,’” said Greg Fettig, founder of Hoosiers for Conservative Senate. 

Do Not Disobey Our Will...sorry...Vill!!!

Remember, they don't care if they lose elections...as long as they are pure...

Restore the Constitution?

Never underestimate the truly ugly side of American populism.

Sadly, Not Really A Farce

All Of Area Man's Hard Work Finally Pays Off For Employer

 "There were definitely some nights I'd lie awake in bed and wonder, 'Is Sam absolutely killing himself day in and day out for nothing?'" Pardahee told reporters while driving to his weekend home in a recently purchased 2012 BMW luxury sedan. "But Sam just put his head down and never looked back, and this year his blood, sweat, and tears have proven profitable to the tune of a 15 percent larger bonus for myself."

Despite Reality, They Can't Let Go

I had lunch with an old friend and colleague last week who teaches 7th grade Social Studies at the junior high that my daughter will be attending next year. As we were talking shop, she told me that she was at the point in the year when she begins her unit on the Communist Revolution in China. Like many teachers around the state, she uses the film To Live in support of this unit to illustrate what happened in China during that time.

The film tells the story the Chinese Civil War, The Great Leap Forward, and The Cultural Revolution as seen through the eyes of one family. It's a gut wrenching piece that several students always have difficulty with due to its stark and very accurate portrayal of the horrors of communism. If you haven't seen the film, I highly recommend it. I've used it many times myself in class.

In fact, the film is so critical of Communism, that it has been banned in China. My colleague's entire unit takes this same critical approach as well. Twelve and thirteen year old kids in her class (and around the state as it is a Minnesota standard) see with their own eyes exactly what happens under totalitarian regimes.

As she told me of some of the reactions (some students have to cover their eyes or leave the room during some parts of the film), I began to think about the complaints from the right (in particular right wing blog pundits like Kevin Baker), that communism is soft pedaled in schools. Or that the teachers themselves are communists and indoctrinating our children into becoming little maoists. Given the fact that my colleague and many like her have taught this same unit for the last 15 years or more, I simply don't get from where this paranoia arises. It's just not true.

It would be one thing if Kevin and his followers were outliers but they aren't. Pastor Ed at my gym thinks the same thing. Former Navy Secretary and now Romney national security adviser John Lehman said recently,"We are seeing the Soviets pushing into the Arctic with no response from us." 

The Soviets? Really?

It seems that no amount of truth or facts can persuade them. They needs to have themselves a commie threat otherwise they simply can't identify themselves or their place in the world. Such a deep level of willful ignorance frustrates me on so many levels that it's pathetic.

What exists inside of these people that they simply can't let go despite reality?

Whither Student Loan Debt

The ever venerable and eternally handsome last in line emailed me this article recently regarding student loan debt.  The piece gets right to its point very quickly.

Ms. Romine's $900-a-month loan payments eat up 60% of the paycheck she earns as a bank teller in Beaufort, S.C., the best job she could get after graduating in 2008. Her fiancé Dean Hawkins, 31, spends 40% of his paycheck on student loans. They each work more than 60 hours a week. He teaches as well as coaches high-school baseball and football teams, studies in a full-time master's degree program, and moonlights weekends as a server at a restaurant. Ms. Romine, now 26, also works a second job, as a waitress. She is making all her loan payments on time. They can't buy a house, visit their families in Ohio as often as they would like or spend money on dates. Plans to marry or have children are on hold, says Ms. Romine. "I'm just looking for some way to manage my finances."

A stark outlook, indeed.

Most of you know that I respond well to personal stories like this. Ms. Romine is no doubt a primary source on this issue. But I think the point last was trying to make in sending me this (and he can certainly correct me in comments) is that young people should put off college until they have worked for a couple of years to earn money to pay for it rather than go into massive amounts of debt. I disagree and here's why.

Setting aside the concern that I have that taking a gap year might lead to dismissing a college education, time is very much of the essence here. We are in a very critical point as to how we fit as a country in the emerging and ever shifting global marketplace. You can damn well believe that BRICS aren't skimping on education for their young people. In fact, they are sending them all here so when they come back home, they are ready to improve their country's competitiveness in the world. This is why each one of those countries is likely to be quite powerful as we shift into a new, multipolar world.

Obviously, people entering college need to be smarter about the loans they take out. More importantly, schools need to charge less money. 1 trillion dollars in debt smells like one giant racket akin to most health care markets. Of course, this makes me wonder how the right would react if the federal government capped tuition on colleges. Would they blow a bowel and say that it distorts the market? Or would they cheer that the Commies who run the schools finally would be less powerful? Graduating seniors should also consider community colleges and technical schools as lower cost options to a preliminary education before moving on to get a bachelor's degree.

But not having a college degree or delaying the pursuit of one is not a fucking option. If you can't get on board with the United States needing to stay competitive with BRICS, then take a look at the unemployment numbers for non college graduates compared to an individual with a bachelor's degree.

7.9 percent compared to 4.0 percent. 

Essentially, if you have a bachelor's degree, you have just as much of a chance of getting a job as you would in a normal economic environment. Without one, it's going to be tougher.

So, I sympathize with Ms Romine but how much of her debt is her fault? After all, aren't people supposed to take responsibility for their choices?

Between A Rock And A Rock

Mitt Romney is in a tough spot. In order to get the base excited about turning out to vote for him, he has to be super angry, paranoid, and hateful in his criticism of Barack Obama. After all, that's what they want to hear. Buuuttttttt......

Doing that would turn off independents who he very desperately needs in order to beat the president. In fact, he has several prominent Republicans saying he needs to go positive and I think there is some truth to that. I think this election is going to be about who paints the most positive vision of the direction this country needs to take. So far, it's the president and he has the accomplishments to back it up. There is no doubt to the rational thinker that we are headed in the right direction.

So, Mitt's stuck between a rock and a rock. What should he do?

While you are mulling over you answer, check out this video below...

Really?

The first 30 seconds pretty much says it all...wow...

How Dare You Politicize bin Laden!

The Rove, Perfectly Defined

The tactic being used today is familiar to those who have followed the activities of Karl Rove: Go directly after the other side’s strengths. Do not accept the truth or the obvious. Instead, make claims that cloud the issue. Some will believe you. Others will be confused. Your opponent’s strong point will be neutralized. 

For example, in 2004, rather than just accepting the fact that Sen. John Kerry was a war hero, get people to say that he is not. Make such claims even if your own side is notoriously weak on the issue, even if your candidate worked hard not to go to Vietnam and spent months absent from his unit. 

 ---Richard Clarke, Senior White House counterterrorism adviser in the Clinton and Bush administrations.

This is the tactic they use time and again. Count on seeing it a lot in this election and, sadly, in the comments section of this site.

Where's That Fail Again?

Dow Jones average hits highest mark since '07

The fastest growth in U.S. manufacturing in 10 months gave stocks a lift Tuesday and pushed the Dow Jones industrial average to its highest close in more than four years. Manufacturing expanded last month at the strongest pace since June, according to the Institute for Supply Management. Orders, hiring and production all rose. A measure of manufacturing employment also reached a nine-month high, a hopeful sign ahead of Friday's monthly jobs report. 

I'm still having trouble still seeing how the president is destroying the economy and wanting America to fail. Can anyone help me out?

Promised and Delivered

As I write this, we have just learned that the president will shortly address the nation after he has made a surprise trip to Afghanistan and signed a long term agreement with Hamad Karzai, president of Afghanistan, regarding US involvement in that country.

He took the time to address the troops  and thanked them for their service to our country, leaving little doubt that on the issues of national security and foreign policy, his record has been stellar.

As promised, he turned our attention away from Iraq and towards an area of the world that has been a hotbed of international terrorism. On his watch, Al Qaeda has largely been decimated. Their ability to carry out significant, 9-11 style attacks, has largely eroded thanks to the president's efforts in this region of the world. bin Laden and Al-Awlaki aside, the increased drone attacks have taken out scores of Al Qaeda senior leadership. In short, we are indeed safer at home.

But his foreign policy cred doesn't end there. He signed a nuclear arms treaty with Russia, enacted tougher sanctions against Iran, shown no hesitation in dealing with Somali pirates, and sent 2,000 marines to Australia to counter rising Chinese influence in the region.

More importantly, he has improved the United States standing in the world which, in today's increasingly changing and competitive global market, goes quite a long way. One of the main reasons I voted for and support the president was because of his promised and delivered foreign policy.

As I predicted, he has not disappointed. Well done sir!

Fucking. Brilliant.

What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

With this amazing volley, Stephen King, one of my favorite authors of all time, has entered into the Election of 2012 with an absolute corker of a piece in The Daily Beast. 

Here’s another crock of fresh bullshit delivered by the right wing of the Republican Party (which has become, so far as I can see, the only wing of the Republican Party): the richer rich people get, the more jobs they create. Really? I have a total payroll of about 60 people, most of them working for the two radio stations I own in Bangor, Maine. If I hit the movie jackpot—as I have, from time to time—and own a piece of a film that grosses $200 million, what am I going to do with it? Buy another radio station? I don’t think so, since I’m losing my shirt on the ones I own already. But suppose I did, and hired on an additional dozen folks. Good for them. Whoopee-ding for the rest of the economy.

That makes him a small business owner, right? Hee Hee...

Oh, and about that whole envy thing...

The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don’t ask me why; I don’t get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can’t seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber … which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins.

This would be why they think that folks like me and other Democrats are secretly envious of rich people...BECAUSE THEY ARE. And that's the only sort of perception they seemingly understand.

In a perfect little verbal nutshell, he sums up exactly how I feel.

What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.

Good Lord, I think I actually have an erection from reading.

The next time someone says to you, "Well, if rich people want to pay more in taxes, they should just write a check to the Treasury" show them this brilliant piece by a man much eloquent than I!

Look Out!

Just re-discovered this chestnut from last year that I lost in my "Ideas" file.

You bought into the myth that unions are the cause of America’s demise. You didn’t bother to learn America became a world power when union membership was at its peak. You didn’t bother to learn America became the envy of the world while 1 of every 3 Americans was a union member.

Right. But remember, unions are the biggest threat to our country what with all those teachers, police officers, firefighters and city clerks that make millions a year. Look out!

To make matters worse, you’re again being played for a chump. The same puppets who did nothing while your standard of living decreased are now using the oldest gimmick in the book — jealousy — to continue their assault on American workers. Rather than protect Americans’ jobs, they deflect your attention through jealousy.

“Cut the pay of government workers,” they cry. “Increase their health premiums. Decrease their pensions. Break their unions. After all, you’ve suffered so they should suffer too.” And in your misery, you buy their argument while more jobs head oversees. Pretty stupid, eh?

That's why it cracks me up when I hear all this talk about envy. As usual, it's accurate but it's more of a self description.

Misery does indeed love company.

The Antithetical Man

Your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love. 

 ---from a letter that group of Jesuit scholars and other Georgetown University faculty members wrote to Paul Ryan last week.

And just like that, any sort of capital the right had built up with Catholic leaders after the contraceptive flap evaporated.

Thankfully, there are many other folks out there that see Paul Ryan's budget exactly for what it is.

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I write to urge you to resist for moral and human reasons unacceptable cuts to hunger and nutrition programs. The committee has been instructed to reduce agricultural programs by an additional $33.2 billion. In allocating these reductions, the committee should protect essential programs that serve poor and hungry people over subsidies that assist large and relatively well-off agricultural enterprises. Cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment. These cuts are unjustified and wrong.

Huh. They must see the same thing I do when I see Ryan's budget: cutting food stamps to the poor. Ah well, I guess they are liars too. I guess Paul Ryan is a liar now as well.

Ryan argued that government welfare "dissolves the common good of society and it dishonors the dignity of the human person." He would restore human dignity by removing antipoverty programs.

What's terribly ironic about all of this is that Ryan himself said recently that he used "his Catholic faith" as inspiration for his budget. Really?

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.

2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first. 

3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

I'd say that's a Trifecta of Failure, according the leaders of his faith. Of course, this is what I was talking about when I wondered how Ayn Rand and the teachings of Jesus can somehow be magically fit together. The truth is they can't.

Unless you live inside the bubble.

In which case, subsidies and tax cuts for the wealthy are just fine.

Health Care Fallout

Conventional wisdom says that if you voted against the health care law then you are safe, right?

Wrong.

Representatives Jason Altmire and Tim Holden both lost in primaries to opponents who joined together with activist groups to pummel the veteran lawmakers over the opposition to the new health care law and climate change legislation — positions they had used to their advantage in the past to show their independence from President Obama and the Democratic Party.

Ooops.

Further...

While Republicans have seized on the health care law as a political weapon to employ against the president and Congressional Democrats, many Democratic voters and party activists see it as a major achievement and are poised to punish Democrats who fought it. The results on Tuesday also suggest health care could be a major rallying cry if the Supreme Court overturns all or part of the law this summer.

Obviously, I'd like to see the Supreme Court uphold the law. But perhaps I'm wrong in thinking this. What if they do overturn it? That could galvanize a mildly listless base out to vote. Moreover, I still maintain if it is overturned, then you will see a revival of "Medicare For All" that may actually happen.

Oh, and if you are keeping score (and I know some of you are:)), if the Supreme Court does overturn the law AND there is increased voter turnout and/or renewed life for a single payer, government option, that would be an example of losing the argument and still achieving the goal.

Backwards

Here's another piece to go along with my latest post on immigration.

According to the Pew Research Center, the net migration between the U.S. and Mexico over the last five years was essentially zero, and the downward trend suggests that flow of both legal and illegal immigrants may have actually reversed back toward Mexico.

Again, they aren't coming, folks.