Class Warfare, Math, Macroeconomics and Fairness

OK, so  by now I'm sure we're all aware of President Obama's judgement that the [curiously named] "Buffett Rule" is NOT class warfare... It's MATH.

Bravo, Barry. It's about time you started calling out the Right on their bullshit.

I would like to give him (and everyone) one piece of advice though, when discussion taxation: Avoid the discussion of "fairness."  I know, I know! And I've made fairness-based arguments in the past, linking multiples of the median income in this country to various levels on Mazlow's hierarchy of needs, for example. And these arguments are very effective at convincing people who already agree with you that you're right. They are not very persuasive with anyone who's not already on board.  And I'm not conceding the fairness point - I do happen to be of the opinion that the rich in this country do not, in fact, pay their FAIR share of the tax burden.  BUT... that's my opinion.

And there's the rub:  One cannot objectively quantify "fairness." Whether or not something is "fair" relies entirely on the parties involve FEELING that it is fair.  If someone FEELS or is OF THE OPINION that they're being cheated?  Well guess what? That's one person who BELIEVES that "it" is not fair!

Fairness is an entirely subjective phenomenon.

Now... I will happily raise my hat and tip my glass to fellow working-class warrior, Elizabeth Warren.  SHE got it right.  And Conchobhar included some of the best parts of her speech a few posts back.  It's truly great stuff but, alas, I fear the "Social Contract" may yet be a little bit too high-brow for the Average American these days.  I heard a very well educated man trying to explain it the trainer in the Gym the other night - a black man, who definitely makes only a working-class wage, and yet was attacking the idea of taxing the rich! - and I could see that the argument was not the least bit persuasive.  In fact, it came sounding like the kind of namby-pamby Liberal whining that the Right has so effectively charactarized ALL of the higher moral aspects of civilization as over the past 30 years or so.

And besides, I think there's a much better way to put it, and it comes right from the comments section of this very blog...

In response to Tax/Deficit post back in July, Steeve put it absolutely perfectly:

Raise taxes on everyone until they feel the tiniest pinprick of pain.



So you raise taxes 0.001% on most people and they feel immediate pain. Raise taxes 60% on the rich and they feel no pain at all. That's not my problem. Hell, it isn't anyone's problem.

And there you go. 

The reason we tax the rich? Because we can do so without impacting their daily spending decisions.  And thus it cause no further economic pain, despite the Right's constant bed-wetting about it.

THIS is why you will inevitably end up taxing the rich.  Because doing anything else, including significantly reducing spending, is economic suicide.  The Right might want that, and Fox News might want that, but the American People do not.

So... STEEVE in 2012?

Lessons from Solyndra

Right Wing screech-monkeys who haven't idea-one to offer with regards to the deficit, the economy, the environment or any other social problem (other than rich people in America not having enough money) find it easy instead to take advantage of those times when those who try inevitable stumble.  And the most recent flavor of the week of this tactic comes to us compliments of the crack management team at Solyndra.  Again, I'm a week behind on this, and many of you have probably already moved on, but for those who don't know, here's the short version: The Federal Government loaned Half a Billion Dollars to Solyndra, a solar panel maker. Two weeks ago (?) they filed for bankruptcy and that Half-Bil is now "up in smoke." 

Cue the screech-monkeys:

• It's Obama's fault
• It shows [the Obama team] doesn't have any business sense
• We need investigations of this rampant cronyism
• This is why Gov't shouldn't get involved in business
• This proves green-energy is a bust

Well... in the words of the REAL Niceguy Eddie Cabot, "OK, First things fucking last!"

Does the failure of Solyndra demonstrate the shortcomings of Green Energy?

Well... let me put it a different way...

Did the failures of Stanley Motors or Studebaker prove that the whole "horseless carriage" craze was just a passing fad?

Did the failure of Pets.com (and many, MANY other .com's) prove that this whole "Internets" thing Al Gore kept harping on about was just a flash in the pan?

Well... If you're reading this now, and/or happened to DRIVE ANYWHERE this week, you know that these statements are patently absurd.  But there IS still an important lesson to learn here!  In Climate discussions, there's always one of these same screech-monkeys claiming that we "can't even predict the weather TOMORROW, so how do we know what the CLIMATE will be DECADES from now?!"  (And yes, despite its grammatical structure, that's a CLAIM, not a QUESTION.  It's only a question if you're looking for an ANSWER. And screech-monkey's questions are ALWAYS rhetorical.)  And I liken tomorrows weather to the climate (or the local weather to the global climate) as a single company's performance to that of the entire economy.  That's very apt here.

As was the case with Automobiles or the Internet, there is little doubt that the TECHNOLOGY is going to be around for awhile, and that at some point will be a booming industry.  That's relative easy to foresee.  What's difficult? Is predicting WHICH COMPANIES will succeed in bringing that industry about.  Consider Cars: Just after the turn of the last century, there were over 100 Companies making automobiles in this country alone.  Today there are THREE. (And although I do recommend checking out the fine work being done by Tesla and Fisker, they aren't even a grain of sand on the mountain of the Big-3 yet. So, we'll stick with three.)  So... back in ~1910, if you wanted to invest in the Auto Industry, despite being pretty sure that the INDUSTRY would thrive, you would have a damned hard time picking which COMPANY would.  Same goes for the Internet: There was never any doubt that it would change the world and be HUGE.  But who bought Yahoo! instead of Google?  Who bought Pets.com?  Who bought into any one of a thousand other .com's that rose and fell in the late 1990's and early 2000's?

What's my point? Well... I'm sort of conceding the next couple of points up the list, actually:

1) The gov't shouldn't get this involved in business, because 2) It smacks of cronyism and (as I've laid out) it's nearly impossible to consistently pick which COMPANY will succeed, even if you know that the INDUSTRY is growing - Warren Buffet not withstanding, but 3) he's not Obama's economic advisor!  (That's three of their points conceded, in a post where I disagree with them! Dang!)

But hey: I'm a pretty green guy.  I'm no eco-warrior, but I do believe that Global Warming is a legitimate threat and that we need to seriously get away from what I call the "burning shit" model of generating energy.  So what do I suggest we do, if not directly support fledgling green-power businesses?

Well... there are a few things, and some of the philosophy borrows from Free-Market Libertarianism.  And the rest runs precisely counter to it!  Here's what might have been done instead:

1) Instead of making a Half-Billion dollar LOAN, why not put up a contract - FOR BID - for half a billion dollars worth of Solar Panels?  Then let companies compete to see who can come up with the scratch to support it and deliver.  Worst case? (They fail?) You don't pay a dime.  Best case? You've got economic stimulus, new technology, competition, etc... (All those things the Right says they want) and at the same time, you're helping the environment: Use the panels at all federal buildings, military bases, state buildings, etc...  And spur growth that way.

That's the Libertarian way, and I believe this is one instance in which their way is the better one.  Here's another way:

2) Raise CAFE Standards, sign and ratify Kyoto II (or whatever the latest climate treaty is), pass Cap and Trade... or better: just penalize those companies that don't meet the new, stricter emissions and Carbon standards.  Then? Go right back to the Libertarian way and let industry sort out for themselves how to make it all happen!

Why do I think this would work?  I'll go back to my example of Cars and the Internet...

In the late 1960's, Ralph Nader started a national campaign to improve automotive safety.  One of the things that came out of that was something known as FMVSS 209, aka: WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING. (I'm an automotive seat belt engineer. So... Thanks for my job, Mister Nader, but you can still GFY for giving us George W. Bush.  And the thing is, while you can't pass FMVSS 209 Testing without a seat belt (after all the regulation is FOR seat belts) it doesn't tell you HOW to make one. (Or WHO can make one.) Likewise, we have NCAP testing - this is where those 4-Star and 5-Star safety ratings come from.  Now... you can't get a good Star-Rating without airbags.  But the regulation does NOT tell you WHAT airbags you need, where to put them, or how to design them. And what we DO, as engineers, is to come up with better designs. We compete amongst our various companies to deliver BETTER safety restraints, and to do it CHEAPER and FASTER than the next guy.  And today we have fewer automotive fatalites annually that we did in the 1950's.  Not fewer per capita, mind you, or per mile driven, that's fewer OVERALL, despite having something like 10 times as many people on the road, each driving many times as many miles on average as they did way back when. 

This approach? (Set a target and let industry figure out to meet it?) WORKS.

Now consider the Internet.  When you consider the version that the legislation sponsored by former Vice President Gore helped bring about, it's fairly utopian: No one "owns" it, users generate their own content, all voices are equal, and anyone can use it as they see fit and as the technology they develop themself allows.  And that's what been the key to it's success: At no point in time did the Government, or a company step in to decide exactly HOW things would run, or WHAT it could (and could not) be used for.  No one pick and chose, and it wasn't managed. 

And the way this applies to Solar Energy?

Well... Who's to say that Solyndra's designs were the best, or that they're the company that will succeed?  Why pick and choose?  Set the target and let the ENGINEERS do their work.  Some companies will fail, but the TECHNOLOGY and the INDUSTRY isn't going away.  In the meantime, there's no reason to start placing bets on individual firms with tax-payer money.

As for it all being Obama's fault?

Well, shoot... EVERYTHING is Obama's fault, isn't it?

;)

Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

I work for a Japanese company.  In America (Detroit area) but it's a Japanese firm.  And one of the things I've learned about the Japanese from working there is that is you ask them ANYTHING or ask them FOR ANYTHING, the will ALWAYS ask you, "Why?"

Now, in the West, "Why?" is a very confrontational question.  Every time I hear "Why?" my minds follows it up with "...the hell do need [or need to know] that?!" I don't know if everyone feels that strongly about it, but I think you'll agree that if you ask me a simple, strait forward question and I answer why "Why?" it kind of puts you on the defensive, no? (Truth be told, in my experience, it really pisses most people off!)

Well... Anyway, they don't do it to be difficult pricks. (Although there's no shortage of people that seem to think that they do! LOL)  They do it because they genuinely want to give you the best possible, most complete answer / information the first time so you will not be misled, and they will not waste your time. (And possibly so you won't come back and bother them again! LOL) And really, although it takes some getting used to when you hear it every. fucking. time, it's really not a bad philosophy. Really? When you think about it, it's almost always the PERFECT question to ask!

Now I mention that, because as part of my work (as an engineer) we often have to solve problems.  And one of the Japanese methods (which I'm sure has been adopted  in the west in some places or companies as well) of problem solving is called the FIVE WHY'S.  It is believed that to get to the real root cause of any problem, you have to ask "Why?" at least FIVE TIMES.

Now... Take, for example: The Mortgage Meltdown of 2008.  (Although extremely racist, this exercise is a lot more fun if you read the following questions with a Japanese accent.) (And, yes, I know that I'm going to hell for that.)

WHY did the economy tank?

   (1) A lot of people were losing money on mortgage backed securities and the real estate bubble.

WHY were so many affected? (Or Why a was there bubble?)

   (2) A lot of bad and risky loans were being written by the banks.

WHY were the banks writing these loans?

   (3) They were making money from them. They were a huge source of revenue.

WHY were they making money off of them? (That's more of a HOW question, but it still works.)

   (4) The were combining them with other loans into securities and were able to break up and sell the resulting product at a higher rate than it was truly worth.

WHY were they able to sell them as more than they were worth?

   (5) Because the Bond Ratings Agencies were giving them AAA / Investment grade ratings even though they were hard too value, and no one knew what was really IN them.

Now...

Did you notice how I was able to go five layers deep without any real politics or opinion or partisan judgement coming into play? Of course, I can't go any farther without interjecting my own political "bias" (notice the "quotes" - I know that's just the bias of reality!) interfering with the analysis.  But there you go: Five "why's" got us down to a pretty good route cause, with statements that (1) Even the most blatant partisan could not really argue the veracity of (though some of the dumber ones will try) and (2) has no judgement, no liberal-this or progressive-that necessary to reach this route cause.  The mortgage meltdown happened because the ratings agencies inflated the grades of and overvalued these inherently risky assets. (If you're buying something and you don't know what it's worth or even what it really is? THAT'S RISKY. PERIOD!)

So I found it interesting, and I had to kick myself for not thinking of this myself the other day in my downgrade post, to read MMFA's take on the U.S. downgrade:

Attention Media: S&P Lacks Credibility

And it hit me like a thunderbolt!  Of course! These are the same clowns who basically, single handedly tanked the U.S. economy, into a deep recession that, while it ended, at leats officially, we are still reeling from the effects of, and are now heading into another one... THANKS TO THE VERY SAME PEOPLE!  They ruined Bush (not that he needed much help) and now they're ruining Obama (again, not that he needs much help!)

And yet the reaction by the Conservative media is all over the map!

CNN's Erickson Giddy About Downgrade Of U.S. Credit Rating

(what a rooting for failure scumbag!)

After Cheering Default, Bolling Laments Potential Effects Of Downgrade

Make up your fucking mind, you "Party of Personal Responsibility" HYPOCRITE!

Limbaugh Accuses Obama Of Orchestrating Decline Of America

Ok... I have to stop here, because this is just bat-shit fucking psychotic on multiple levels.  First of all... "Yeah... because nothing gets a President re-elected like a really shitty economy, huh Rush?" And second of all, in the plane of prime material reality, on the planet EARTH, there is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that this was orchestrated by ANYONE other than CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS simply because they knew their Corporate Media would the the "right" story / Right's story and people would blame Obama. Not that they'd really needed the propaganda machine here anyway: Blaming the President for a shitty economy is practically the American Past time!

Nostradumbass Uses Downgrade To Claim Vindication Of His Conspiracy Theories

Well, whoopdie-do for your crystal ball, Glenn!  The Republicans have been trying to prevent recovery and orchestrate a full blown collapse since Obama took office!  The only risk you were taking in that bet was whether or not they would succeed!  (And we've know they would for some time, because Obama has all the spine of an invertebrate!)  Of course... given you infinite wisdom into these matters... why are you consistently wrong on who RESPONSIBLE for it? Who's REALLY destroying this country, Glenn?!  And what REALLY caused it Glenn?  What POLICIES? (I'll give you a hint: The start with "Aw" and rhyme with "Posterity.")

Yeesh. 

Yeah, it was a good "Media Matters Day" for me.  On my lunch break, of course. ;)

I also finished Chapter 11 (ironically, LOL) of Utopia today over lunch as well.  That puts me two Chapters ahead of what's posted so far, I just need to figure out how far to space out posting them. In any case, it's days like today that are my inspiration for writing it. Listening to these liars is one thing - makes me throw up in my mouth a little - but knowing how many glassy-eyed, brain-dead zombies there out there LISTENING to these frauds, and BELIEVING them...  It just drives me fucking crazy.  And Edward serves as an indulgence of those feeligns.  Days like today make writing that - especially knowing what's to come - really, really fun.

Evil, yes. (And if you don't see it yet, you will.)

But F-U-N!

Justice served, at long last!

I'm over in Germany right now, and just got off the plane when I heard the news that OSAMA BIN LADEN HAS BEEN KILLED.  Congratulations to President Obama and to the U.S. Armed Forces for this momentous occasion and tremendous success.  There's still a long way to go (there alwasy is when you declare war on common nouns) but a day like today is what we're fighting for, and I am glad to hear that, for today, we are victorious, even as the fight goes on.

My only regret, being in Germany, is that I will miss the Right Wing Media attemtps to somehow credit this to the Republicans, or to Bush.  Maybe this is just proof that the Bush Tax worked or something absurd like that. Hey: I'll give them one thing... There was ONE Bush policy that allowed OBAMA to capture/kill Bin Laden...

The IRAQ WAR.

Yep.

Becuase if it weren't for the Iraq War, BUSH would have caught this assmuncher about SIX YEARS AGO! 

Now, in all seriousness, too many have died, on ALL sides for me to be makoing light of this.  And no one should ever celebrate the death of another human being, even a bloodthrity, psychopathic piece of shit like Osama Bin Laden.  I can only hope that the numbers that will inevitably follow in his path, only to find their own meaningless deaths waiting for them, are over-estimated.

But getting back to my previous tone... (sorry, can't help it!)

Hey, REPUBLICANS?  SUCK IT, FUCKERS! WE GOT HIM! WE GOT HIM! 

And by year's end Obama will have acieved Reagan's elusive victory as well when Kaddafi falls from power in Libya.  Two great successes where the Right failed.  I can't WAIT!

So if you're a hawk? (Deficit, as I've explained before, or otherwise?) VOTE DEMOCRAT.

THIS is what effective mid-east policy looks like.  One country after another overthrowing thier regimes - Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and now SYRIA (!) - and Osama Bin Laden dead and buried.

THAT'S what happens when you don't go decalring unecessary wars.

(And I'll stop acting like a mirror image of the Right now.) (Still... USA! USA! USA!)

NICEGUY EDDIE FOR PRESIDENT! (or... if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!)

My friends, I have heard your call, and I agree that it is high time we stopped the insanity going on in Washington, changed the direction this country is heading in, and brought big Government back under the control of the people! That is why, right now, I, Niceguy Eddie Cabot, am announcing my candidacy for the President of the United States, and am asking for your vote to support my nomination as the Tea Party Candidate.


Right up front, we need to send a message to these liberals, who want to stifle the debate, that we are not racists! We strongly believe in the principles of freedom and self-determination, which is why we believe that Kenya should be governed by Kenyans and America should be governed by white people!

I have heard you loud and clear regarding Obamacare and this radical idea of the Public Option. So let me assure you that, as your President, I will oppose any legislation that would result in you paying less for health care.

I have heard your call to end all this stimulus and to start creating jobs! So as your president I will issue an executive order to implement a hiring freeze in the Public Sector, a spending freeze and an permanent end to all stimulus spending. What’s more, to get people back to work, we will implement a freeze on all unemployment benefits and welfare. I am positive that the resulting drop in consumer demand will be so extreme that it will finally put the private sector into a prime position where they can start hiring again and putting people back to work.

I have heard your voices on Taxes, and you desire to reduce the federal deficit. So as your President, I will oppose any and all legislation that raises your taxes, ever. Unfortunately this means that I have to oppose the Bush tax cuts, since they would have raised taxes next year, but fear not! For we will not only let those making over $250,000 keep their Bush tax cuts, and to make up the difference, we will ONLY raise taxes on Social Security and welfare recipients. After all, it is only fair that the ones benefiting from these programs should be the ones to pay for them!

And while the liberals may call it “racist,” we absolutely must strengthen our borders in order to keep out those damned filthy Mexicans! So I am proposing that we triple the height of the wall along our border. And since I know you are opposed to stimulus spending, we’re going to make it out of cement. That way we can hire Mexicans to build it. They’re cheaper after all, and hey: Since they’re the ones benefiting from the wall, it’s only fair that they should be the ones to build the damned thing!

And finally, my friends, let’s get down to what this is really all about: Getting the government OFF YOUR BACKS and back to its Constitutionally limited authority!

To that end, let me assure you that under my administration we will never allow gays to marry, or to serve openly in the military. We will continue on the path of outlawing all abortions. We will never legalize Marijuana or teach science to our children that is contradictory to the bible and thus our Christian values and we will monitor the internet and the media for any messages that are going around that are contrary to these goals! After all: We can’t get the government off your back, if people keep on going around questioning us!

So let us not disagree with one another! That’s not how you have a strong democracy! Let us stand together and unify this country, so that we can be a stronger, more prosperous and more free Christian nation. So I’m asking for your support and your nomination. Most importantly, I’m asking for your vote, and for you to vote early and often: The very integrity of our democracy is at stake!

Thank you!

We're Fascists Now.

Or at least we stand to elect a whole lot of extremely un-American "leaders" come November.  And to answer some of ClassicLiberal's retort from the Losing Heart post: I don't care that they haven't cast their votes yet.  And I don't really care that some of the more *ahem* colorful ones, like that [sorry, can't say it] Christine O'Donnell, don't stand a snowball's chance in Phlegethos of winning.  I can't abide the very existence of these people, and the fact that, while they have been largely propped up by the media, they have been met with anything but utter contepmt by the public at large.  See... there was a fundamental misunderstanding that came through in that "Losing Heart" post.  No one's fault but my own, but I'd like to clear something up.  When I cast my Vote for Obama?  I was voting for what I perceived as a common-sense moderate.  Everything the guy said just made sense to me.  Not because it was liberal, but because it was right. (That's "right" now, not "Right!")  And yes, granted I find myself increasingly scratching my head more and more lately: appealing the overturning of DADT?  In the words of Gorobei Katayama, "Are you kidding me?" But, even now, I have now doubt that my disappointment in Obama is less that that felt by many Liberals.

Because my faith wasn't really in "Obama."  It wasn't really about Obama. 

And it wasn't entirely about the Democrats either.  Yeah, OK, 59-60 seats and yet all they could do was quibble amongst themselves and make huge concessions to the right.  They're about as useless as that option in PowerPoint to print your presentation without scaling the slides to fit the paper.  (Which for some reason is the default setting!  What's that all about?  Given it's utter uselessness, that had to be the work of a future Blue Dog!) 

What I was really put my hope in, what I really started to to believe in, as I watched them finally dump the Republicans, finally see the light on Bush, finally seriously support both a female candidate and a black one... what my faith was truly mistakenly misplaced in? 

Was the American People.

That's what Losing Heart was really all about.  The fact that for a... well, not even for a brief shining moment... for two whole years (!) I watched as larger and larger portions of America finally came to realize that which had been so painfully obvious to all of us: That Bush was stupid, Cheney was evil and the Republicans really, really suck.

And what really frustrates me to no end is that the things these people (the Tea Baggers) complain about? (Deficits, the Economy, Civil Liberties?)  Are the things that, if anything? The Republicans were far worse on than the Democrats are or ever were, and yet they've positioned themselves, to the Right of them! For two whole years I watched as my country grew wise by the day.  And for the last two it's been like watching them sink into the thralls of dementia.

Now... I've mentioned Erin Lindsey before: in Losing Heart, in fact.  She writes a really fantastic webcomic called Venus Envy, or least she DID... she stuck a knife in the back of main character back in March and, so far, hasn't continued with the story.  Which... kinds of sucks, actually. LOL.  But one of the features of her comic that I really like are the times that the she uses her craft to make a personal statement on some critical political point.  One of these that I've been hanging on to, bookmarked, now for a couple weeks, was this one, from 2006:

Now... at this point I'd be insulted if I still had to actually say that I agree, wholeheartedly with the sentiment being expressed, and that didso at the time.  Shoot, it really all started with the Patriot Act, years before. So by 2006, it wasn't like I needed any convincing!  That being said... Nazi's?  I'll admit that even at the time, as a firm believer in Godwin's Law, I'd probably agree with the sentiment, but say that if you want to be taken seriously, you really have to avoid those Nazi comparisons.  I mean... even Glenn Beck knows that! [/sarcasm]

But I've always been a bit  more Chaotic than Lawful, and there are rather a lot of [non-felony] laws that I'm happy to bend so...

You know we're fascists when a serious Candidate, from a major party, has his hired goons handcuff a reporter to a chair and still have people take him seriously!  One black guy with a "night stick "stands outside a polling place, saying nothing to no one and these people want to make a Federal Case out of it, even after the Bush DoJ decided not to.  (But... he was Black, so of course it's Obama's fault now.)  (Not that they're racists or anything.)  But a reporter, heck even a private citizen for that matter, gets unlawfully imprisoned by the hired goons of a major party candidate and people still support him?!  Applaud him even?!

And how about Fox's strong stance in support of Net Neutrality, huh?  Now, you might think that I'd be A-OK with anything that means fewer people will be visiting Fox-owned websites.  But if I can defend Fred Phelps at a military funeral, standing up for people's right to see Fox in this case is a no-brainer.  Because this shows exactly what kind of power a company can have when we don't have strong Net Neutrality regulations and draconian penalties for companies breaking them.  Apparently Fox thinks keeping some portion of the population for seeing some section of the Internet, due to a spiteful business dispute with their ISP is somehow appropriate.  It's not.  It's downright chilling.

Why does that make us fascists?  Because I still hear people arguing that this is somehow just Fox exercising their free speech, while Net Neutrality is somehow some form of censorship!  But hey, why not just censor huge swaths of the Internet? 

It sure would make life easier for Sharron Angle, a woman I've already crucified, the parchment nailed above her head reading "IMHO," who apparently believes that the media should only ask questions that the candidates want to answer.  Um... that's not how it works, babe. You see... It's the media's job to ask the questions we want answered and it's your job to answer them. And if you can't do that without either sounding like a blithering idiot, or alienating half of the country, guess what?

You don't get the job!

And yet people still support her, despite the fact that she's running a close second behind Joe Miller in the "who's the worst supporter of the free press" contest.  Maybe they'd think that *Glenn Beck had a point when he called the *NEA, "adovcating though art" which is "propaganda" and that "you should look up the name, *Goebbels."  But the thing is?  Sharon Angle basically wants to be Goebells!  She's not Goebbels. Goebbels wasn't as stupid as she is.  But she seems to think that the only purpose the press serves is to carry the message she wants it to!  So... she wants to be Goebbels!

I'm completely convinced that very few of these people have ever even read the Constitution, least of all, my favorite head case, Christine O'Donnell, who apparently thinks it's profound that the word "separation" doesn't appear in the First Amendment.

Firstly, I'd like to repeat what I said in my Religion Tab, because, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, I hold this truth to be self-evident:

The Constitution of the United States, the cornerstone in the foundation of the most prosperous and powerful civilisation the world has ever known, says it best:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Can you be any more clear that that? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." IOW: We are not a "Christian Nation," you Right-Wing, un-American, Funny-Mentalist Morons! And... when taken together with, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it is painfully obvious, beyond any shadow of doubt or debate, that this intends for there to be a clear, iron-clad separation of Church and State. Period. No sane person can read that statement and draw any other possible interpretation form it. (But when was the last time you met a sane Funny-Mentalist?)

Well... not Christine O'Donnell anyway.  But I knew right away she'd fly to the top of my list anyway, once I'd read that she's strongly against Abortion, Contraception and Masturbation.  Now, putting aside that she apparently has no problem with over population, I've said it before: No reasonable person can possibly be opposed to more than two of those things!

Secondly, I wonder if this stupid, stupid girl has any clue about some other words that don't appear anywhere in the entire Constitution?  Words like...

Christian,
Jesus,
God,
Creator, [that was the Declaration of Independence, in case you forgot!]
Theocracy,
Heaven,
Hell,
or
Soul.

They're not there, Chrissie!  Not one of them is, in a document of over eight thousand words!

Now I know she won't win.  I know that. Delaware is a strong, Blue state.  But... she won her primary. So someone was apparently taking that nut-bag seriously!

Erin, I know what you were saying, and I'm totally down with the message.  But we weren't Nazi's in 2006.  On the other hand, come November, we'll be electing several bonafide, jack-boot Fascists to the Congress. Not all of them, granted.  But some of them.   And the State-Run Media (as Rush Limbaugh refers to the Non-Limbaugh-based media, but which I more accurately will soon be calling Fox News) is primed and ready to carry their message.  The first amendment is dead.  And Fascism is coming because so many Americans would rather embrace it than comes to terms with the fact that we have a Black President, who's cleaning up the mess they made the last time they were in power.

Sieg Feil, America.

--------------------------------------
***BTW, the Glenn Beck / NEA / Goebbels reference is in that same video I linked to, just after Erin's Lindsy's awesome polemic.  And, yes, that is my YouTube Channel.  At one point I had a personal video there as well; my response to a Tea Party Video.  But... IDK...  Once I'd made it and posted it, my heart just wasn't really in it anymore.  The anticipation of doing it felt better than the result did, so I took it down. If anyone's interested in hearing it anyway, let me know and maybe I'll put it back up.

Gold Star Awards, September, 2010

Yeah, yeah, I know, they're a day late.  No one reads these entries anyway, so sue me. LOL

We're up to 1953 - and that means two golds, and two... (*ahem*) lesser metals.


The Dizzy Dean Gold Star #24: Republicans for Obama

I just like these guys!  If the Republican Party, were more like these dudes? I'd still be a Republican. Oh, I'd still be a centrist / maverick / soclially liberal / libertarian type, but these guys support Obama for pretty much the same reason I DO: He's a moderate, and he's got good ideas.

If there is a single element of the Republican Party left that doesn't put Party interests WAAAY ahead of those of the country, these guys represent it.


The Al Simmons Gold Star #25: Open Secrets

If there is a single force in politics MORE destrucutive than Religion... Wait... No, sorry, strike that: Religion will ALWAYS be number one. 

But what will consistantly rank a very distant second is CORPORATE INTERESTS.  And I absolutley hold to this principle regardless of Party.  (After all, all of the worst parts of every Obama policy have corporate fingerprints all over them!)  So I'd have no problem requiring public disclsoure from politicians recieveing money from ANY such group.  (Even those whiny little bitches over at the NRA!)  Since we'll basically NEVER have that, I salute these guys who are doing the next best thing and EXPOSING who's getting what.  It sad that this is needed in an open, Democratic society, but as long as it is I hope these guys keep up the good work!


The Chief Bender Iron Star: BigGovernment

September 2010 markes the one-year anniversary of a website "presented by" the worst journalist who ever lived, not named "James O'Keefe:" Andrew Brietbart's BigGovernment.  Few greater repositories of Rigth-Wing spin and out-Right misinformation have ever been spawned.  Mister Breitbart? You have accomplished a truly ignoble achievement in your work. Congratulations. If there is a God in heaven and justice on this earth, you will die a very poor, very hungry, very lonely and despised man.

BTW... This "honor" is meant to represent ALL of the "Big" sites.  I'm not wasting anymore keystrokes in the future on a waste of donor organs like Andrew Brietbart.


The Bobby Wallace Iron Oxide Star: The Blaze

What better way to honor the birthday of one of the web's most vomit inducing sites than to simulataneously honor the site it inspired: Glen Beck's, the Blaze.

Um...

Do I really need to say anything else here? I mean... It's fucking Glenn Beck for fucksake!  Glenn Beck, following the inspiration of Andrew Breitbart!  Do you really expect me to top that?!

"Can you lead me though this minefield?" said Ray Charles to Stevie Wonder.


I hope everyone has a great weekend!