Meant to post this ealier...

Someone posted this infographic on MMFA lasty week, and I had meant to post it here and forgot about it until now. It comes from [IMHO HoF'er] Newscorpse and it serves as a pretty handy reference should you find yourself in a debate with any C-Students about taxes or economics. Please feel free to download it and pass it on.

Gold Star Awards, October, 2011

It never fails.

I get some great comments, find some related articles and plan to do a whole mess of writing over the weekend and… life happens instead. So we had a fun and busy weekend with the kids, and I did NOT get to the Abortion / Contraception post as I had planned to. And now here I am on the last day of the month with a different post in mind, and several comments that need replying to, and instead of doing anything INTERESTING, I’ve got to put up my Gold Star’s for the month of October. (It’s a pet peeve, but I HATE posting these on the first of the following month!)

So, here we go. The year is 1968, and there was one BWAA inductee and two from the Veterans committee:


The Ducky Medwick Gold Star #40: Progressive Punch

Presumably so named because “Left Hook” was taken! ;)

Progressive Punch is a non-Partisan, yet strongly Progressive, web site that tracks the votes of members of congress on issues of concern to progressives. It rates and ranks MoC’s and is a great resource, if a bit overwhelming at times (and depressing at others!) Good information though. No reason that both parties whouldn’t be held accountable for their votes and actions!

The Goose Goslin Wooden Star: The Economnic Collapse

Believe it or not, this collection of Right Wing Propaganda was actually up for GOLD Star at one point. Now, it’s a throwaway. I did write-up on one of their articles a while back. They’re a great example of the most insidious kind of Right Wing writing: it SOUNDS principled and well-reasoned at first, but once you dig a little bit deeper, you find out how dishonest they’re being. I mention it here because the first couple of articles I came across DID do a fairly good job of blaming Republicans for the bad economy. So they did pique my interest… But once you see all of the “buy gold” and “food insurance” ads in the banners, you realize what their true agenda really is. (See... the Republicans weren't being Conservative enough, apparently!) Overall?  I'd descibe it as pessimistic alarmism to the point of being almost Right-Wing parody.  (Scary part?  They're so convinced they're right! Some pretty creepy sycophants in the comments section. I think I know where MMFA gets their trolls form now!) They have a comments section – mostly RW Nut-Jobs and the occasional Liberal talking sense. Personally, I’d like to see how long it would take me to get banned from there! LOL


The Kiki Cuyler Silver Star #38: Count Your Sheep

A long-running and thoroughly adorable web comic about a single-mom and her precocious little girl who share the same imaginary friend: “Ship,” a “counting sheep.” (If you count him, (“one,”) you IMMEDIATELY fall asleep.) The strips are most cute stuff – often enough to give you a sugar-high – and are reminiscent of “Calvin and Hobbes,” only with a female Calvin and a struggling, single mom (who sees and interacts with Ship) instead of Calvin’s nameless, and relatively comfortable, middle class parents (who only ever saw Hobbes as a stuffed toy.) It does on occasion, however, delve into social politics – lightly enough to remain inoffensive, yet enough to give it some topical relevance – and has stretches where it becomes darker, even depressing at times, bordering on tear-inducing. (Laurie was widowed while pregnant with Katie, and the strips where she talks about how much she loved Marty and misses him can be absolutely heart-wrenching.) (You’ve been warned!) Anyway… it’s completely wonderful and I highly recommend it. There’s no single, on-going storyline but, since I’m kind of aspie that way, I still recommend reading it from the beginning! XP

And Happy Halloween, everyone!!!

A little research goes a LOOONG way...

This goes for both Progressives and Regressives alike, the difference being that we're actually willing to DO a little research from time to time, rather than just blindly posting and linking to every email that hits our in-box. And, yes, I am aware that I have made some mistakes here as well. Again, the difference is that when someone points them out to me, I'm far more likely to say "Huh, yeah, good point!" or "Thanks for the tip" than I am to go off on on a tirade, asking why people are "defending the enemy" or some such thing.  IOW: It's is important to me to get it RIGHT. First and foremost, I want my arguments to be based in fact more than I care about whether or not they're Liberal.  So, seriously: If someone sees something here that's bullshit, by all means: CALL ME OUT ON IT!  (You don't usually get that offer from most Right Wing Bloggers!)

So... What's this all about? Well... a couple weeks back I came across a blog called The Economic Collapse. And by what I can only describe as blind luck the first two articles I came across blamed [the economic mess du jour] largely on Republicans and the Democrats that went along with them.  So I though 'whoa-hey! Another liberal blog!'  And I was all set to put it up for a Gold Star.  Yeah... Um... Good thing I dug a little deeper. LOL. The first tell-tale sign was all the ads for Silver, Gold and Platinum Coins and 'Emergency Food' across the top.  That's... a little bit too Glenn Beck-ish for me.  So I read further, and... Yeah... This one's a hall of SHAMER, big time. 

Hoo-boy... 

Article after article of intellectual dishonesty, writ large.  And don't get me wrong... Some of these? DO manage to make some good points!  But these are lost in a sea of blaming Liberals ("Socialists," actually) and distorting the claims just enough to take them beyond the realm of 'interesting examples' and right into the territory of the truly absurd.  And there is one such post that I want to use to show you just how low-down and intellectually dishonest they are.  This is from "Suffocated By Red Tape - 12 Ridiculous Regulations That Are Almost Too Bizarre To Believe."  I'd like to take this on, point by point, to show how they operate and display exactly what the author is NOT telling you.  Because... if you're making a "good point" there should be no reason to be intellectually dishonest about it!  If you're RIGHT, you shouldn't have to LIE.  Also, I'm going to *star* some of these. The ones that get *starred* I'll have a little more to say about at the end.  And remember: These are all (supposedly) the fault of LIBERALS, those damned Socialists!

#1 The state of Louisiana says that monks must be fully licensed as funeral directors and actually convert their monasteries into licensed funeral homes before they will be allowed to sell their handmade wooden caskets.

(*) This is a prime example of a BARRIER TO ENTRY.  I'll explain what that is at the bottom.  Is it bullshit? Usually, yes. Is it LIBERAL? Oh, hell no! But, more on that farther down.

#2 The city of Philadelphia now requires all bloggers to purchase a $300 business privilege license. The city even went after one poor woman who had earned only $11 from her blog over the past two years.

(*) This also falls under the 'barrier to entry' category, but there's some intellectually dishonesty thrown in for good measure.  See... take a good look at the story he linked to.  First of all, it's $50 per year or $300 for life. Second of all, it's not a tax on BLOGGERS, it's a licensing fee for BUSINESSES.  Is it excessive, when applied to bloggers?  Well... sure USUALLY.  But how much money do Arianna Huffington or Matt Drudge make from their blogs?  If you're GOOD AT IT, then it might not be so excessive.  And? If you don't want to pay? Just don't sell ads. No big deal there - especially if those ads only net you $11 a year! In Google's AdSense's terms, it would take you just over NINE YEARS to get paid AT ALL at that rate! So why even bother? (Disclosure: I should make my first hundred, and finally get paid, after 2 years of blogging, in about a month or so.)  Just take the ads down and your "Free Speech" is completely untouchable. (Remember: It's "free" speech, not "paid" speech!)  And, OK, fine... Do I think it's a dumb law? Or one that needs to be altered or amended? YES. Yes, I do. But if you're going to argue that - and I think it SHOULD be argued - WHY do you have to be dishonest about it?  The law is absurd enough on its own!  If you have to distort the reality even more to make your point, MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE A POINT!

#3 In the state of Massachusetts, all children in daycare centers are mandated by state law to brush their teeth after lunch. In fact, the state even provides the fluoride toothpaste for the children.

Nanny-state bullshit? Perhaps.  (Although after recently going through crown-extension surgery, and getting three different holes drilled in the same tooth by a guy who I thought was being pretty chincy with the Novocaine?  Man: BRUSH YOUR TEETH, KIDS! Because that SUX!)  Here's the thing... If the STATE provides the toothpaste? And the kids (presumably) own toothbrushes?  HOW, exactly, is this "suffocating" the day-care businesses?  Seems to me that this is actually a GOOD program, that works JUST FINE, and it's the John Stossel Conservatives who are whining over nothing. And considering that Medicaid covers dental, it would seem this is a good cost-savings measure as well. But.. you know... never let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

#4 If you attempt to give a tour of our nation's capital without a license, you could be put in prison for 90 days.

All I can say is, one: (*). And two: The sentence is absurd, but the motivation behind ALL of the (*)'s entries is hardly a LIBERAL one.  (I'll get to that at the end.)

#5 A reader named Gene recently shared his regulatory horror story with us....

I'm not going to dignify "Gene's story" with a response, other than to say that "anecdotal evidence sure is convincing, isn't it?"  I can't verify ANY of these claims, nor do I know ANYTHING about "Gene" or his "Business." If there's any legitimacy to this, maybe they should have found an example from a verifiable source, no? Just sayin'. 

Also? (*)

#6 Federal agents recently raided an Amish farm at 5 A.M. in the morning because they were selling "unauthorized" raw milk.

Damn! I'm never even UP by 5 O'Clock in the morning! Although... I suppose that's what makes it a such a good time to have a raid!  OK, putting aside that the link provided is to the "World Nut Daily," I was able find this story elsewhere, so we can assume it's legit.  First of all: You can sell Raw Milk, if you slap a warning label on it. DID they? I don't know. It doesn't say. They say they don't sell to the public, but it's unclear if that's true or not.  (And the fed's had to find out SOME HOW, right?)  And while I'm all for letting people make their own choices - bad as those choices may be - I'm going to take on these "natural food" whack-jobs (many of whom are Liberal, yes, I know) right now and recommend that they look up a guy name Louis Pasteur, and learn a little bit more about what the world was like before he came along.  Raw milk, unregulated, is dangerous. Period. And arguing otherwise is the closest thing Liberals have to dogma. (Actually, I'll come right out and say it: Vegan, Organic, Gluten-Free, All-Natural, etc...? Is nothing more than Un-Scientific Liberal dogma. And it's every bit as full-of-shit as Conservative Dogma is.) But whatever. Maybe their milk wasn't germ infested. OK, fine. But what about everyone else's? Folks, these regulations are in place for a GOOD REASON: Public Health.  Do I have a problem with some aspects of the corporate dairy industry? You betcha: The use of Hormones, for example. But PASTEURIZATION is not one of my qualms. (And the "raw eggs" example is just stupid, because pretty much everyone COOKS their eggs before they eat them.) In any case, this is a perfect example of a regulation that a LIBERAL GROUP (crunchy vegan's, whole-food hippies) would be perfectly happy to strike down!  (But which this liberal would disagree with them on.) And that shows two things: (1) "Liberals" are an intellectually and philosophically diverse bunch, unlike the single-minded Conservatives. And (2) You can therefore hardly blame Liberals, in general, for this regulation no matter how you feel about it!  There's COMMON GROUND here between Libertarians and certain (somewhat extreme) Liberal Sub-Groups! (Although this is one time I'm thanking God that they haven't bothered to find it!)

Also? (*)

#7 In Lake Elmo, Minnesota farmers can be fined $1,000 and put in jail for 90 days for selling pumpkins or Christmas trees that are grown outside city limits.

(*). Just... (*). 

(That's a *star*, BTW, not an asshole! The asshole is they guy who wrote this drivel!)

#8 A U.S. District Court judge slapped a 5oo dollar fine on Massachusetts fisherman Robert J. Eldridge for untangling a giant whale from his nets and setting it free. So what was his crime? Well, according to the court, Eldridge was supposed to call state authorities and wait for them do it.

This the one that REALLY pissed me off.  $500 fine, just for being a good guy, huh? No good deed goes unpunished, huh?  Well, buried deep down in this more honest story about what happened is a little detail that the Right-wing blogger left out: Far from freeing the netted whale properly, he found that he was unable to do this and merely cut his lines, letting the whale swim away still tangled in the nets!  Hmmm... It seems to me that if the guy couldn't do the job PROPERLY, maybe, just maybe, he should have, oh... I don't know... called state authorities and waited for them do it!  Also not mentioned? The fact that the fine was reduced from $100,000 (holy crap!) down to $500. So, again, far from this being a case of the State Bureaucracy running amok, it is actually an example of the use of discretion to make sure the laws don't get applied inappropriately. Can we have a debate about the necessity of these laws? Sure we can.  Can we have a debate about the appropriateness of the penalties? Absolutely. But WHY can't we at least have an intellectually honest one?!

#9 In the state of Texas, it doesn't matter how much formal interior design education you have - only individuals with government licenses may refer to themselves as "interior designers" or use the term "interior design" to describe their work.

Another classic case of (*).

#10 Deeply hidden in the 2,409-page health reform bill passed by Congress was a new regulation that will require U.S. businesses to file millions more 1099s each year. In fact, it is estimated that the average small business will now have to file 200 additional 1099s every single year. Talk about a nightmare of red tape! But don't try to avoid this rule - it is being reported that the IRS has hired approximately 2,000 new auditors to audit as many of these 1099s as possible.

Part of me would love to say, "See? The stimulus worked! Thousands of new jobs!"  But, I'm afraid that some asshat from another other blog might come by and read what I have to say, and I'd hate for them to use that [throw-away joke] as an example of "how Liberal's think." (But watch someone do it anyway!) And another part of me would be perfectly have to concede this one single point and agree that it's bullshit.  And yet another part of me wants to say "boo-frickin-hoo..." A little bit of paperwork, "oh my farquing guard!" 

But we're right back to classic intellectual dishonestly, writ large.  A few points, from that very same story they linked, that were left out? (1) This this really all started in provisions under the 2008 GEORGE BUSH budget. (That damned liberal!)  and (2) There's a floor that leaves out the smaller retailers.  As usual, this is another classic case of them exaggerating the effects of something that BUSH did, and then blaming it on "liberals."  And fine... maybe Obama contributed to it further. Fine. But again: Why can't we just be honest and tell the whole story if we're going to debate it?! WHY DO THEY HAVE TO LIE?!

#11 The city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin makes it incredibly difficult to go out of business. In order to close down a business. Milwaukee requires you to purchase an expensive license, you must submit a huge pile of paperwork to the city regarding the inventory you wish to sell off, and you must pay a fee based on the length of your "going out of business sale" plus a two dollar charge for every $1,000 worth of inventory that you are attempting to sell off.

Finally a point I might concede.  This one does seem a bit stupid.  Unfortunately I wasn't able to find much else on it, so I guess I'll just have to leave it at that. I am left wondering, however, how this can possible be enforced.  My lease is up, I close my doors, I walk away.  If that's really a crime? The yeah, I'll give them this one.  But hitting 1 for 11 (.091) won't keep you a roster spot in any league that I'm aware of! (And tongue-in-cheek I might quip that this might keep some business from going under!) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

#12 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is projecting that the food service industry will have to spend an additional 14 million hours every single year just to comply with new federal regulations that mandate that all vending machine operators and chain restaurants must label all products that they sell with a calorie count in a location visible to the consumer.

First, the joking: LOOK! The Stimulus is working!  All that overtime!  (And in all seriousness? This WOULD have that effect. And that's not necessarily a bad thing!)

Second, all kidding aside? Why do these people have a problem with their customer's being able to make an informed decision?!  I mean... back in the disease-infested milk example, they though people could make informed decision on their own.  So fine: I can choose to eat crap out of a vending machine.  Or... maybe I won't...  If I know how many empty calories are in that shit!  This isn't about the overtime, or the regulations. This is about business doing less volume if people start making MORE INFORMED CHOICES. That is why this is a problem for the Right. 

Sorry folks, between the overtime and cost avoidance by getting the obesity problem under control, I'm filing this under the "DAMNED GOOD IDEA" category.

And thirdly: Every single year? I seriously doubt that.  The calorie count of the Snickers Bar has been a universal constant since 1947. (Yeah, I just made that up.)  I don't think they'll ever offer that much variety.

He goes on to say that "no matter what changes are made a lot of companies will still not want to set up shop in the United States until something is done about all of these ridiculous regulations."  Umm... My company does business in Europe, Japan, the Gulf Coast Countries (GCC) and China. And I can assure you that ALL of them have just as many regulations as we do and then some.  (Socialist Europe? Communist China?) India's 10 times as bad as we!  The only places with LESS regulations?  Africa and South & Central America.  IOW: 3rd world shit-holes where the people largely get screwed over by the utter LACK of regulations! And yeah, I'm generalizing, and there are lots of very nice places in those regions as well.  But the overall standard of living is MUCH LOWER than it is in the U.S., Europe, Japan and even China and India.  And - as I work in the field of automotive safety - I can tell you, as a matter of absolute, verifiable fact - that the cars sold in those markets are a LOT LESS safe that they are in the U.S. or Canada.  They sell shit in Mexico that would fail FMVSS regulations big time. I know of cars there that are guaranteed to severely injure or kill you in the case of a crash.That's something else these John Stossel types will never tell you!

OK... so what's the deal with all the (*)'s?

Well... Licensing and fees and professional requirements and regulations are something that B-Schools call, "Barriers to entry."  (MBA, University of Michigan, 2006, with Honors - if you're wondering.)

Now... are these Liberal? Well... the Right wants to tell you they are because most of them are revenue streams for Cities and States.  Plus, supposedly, no Liberal ever saw a piece of Red Tape (or a tax) that they didn't like.  And I suppose... from a certain point of view... in some instances, there might be some validity to that. (You know, in the binary world of the Right Wing Conservative.)

But ask yourself this: Why does a Liberal care about how many interior decorators there are in Texas? Why does a Liberal care about how many tour guides operate in Washington D.C.? Why does a Liberal care about how many sources there are for hand-made caskets?

Really? WE DON'T. 

Liberals don't have a shit to give about where the Pumpkins and Christmas Trees in Lake Elmo, Minnesota come from.

Seriously.

These are nothing more than BARRIERS TO ENTRY.  These are things that BIG BUSINESS sets up to deter potential new competitors from entering the market!  $300 (or whatever the licensing fee is) is nothing to an established firm.  But if it prevents a new firm from starting up? THAT could be worth big money in terms of decreased completion.  (Less advertising needed, higher prices can be charged, etc...)

But... But... Isn't that PROTECTIONISM? And isn't protectionism a LIBERAL thing?

Yes, I suppose it could be called protectionism.  But if you call it that, then you've already disproven that protectionism is something that's engaged in only by Liberals!  And keeping smaller competitors out of a given market is night-and-day next to to trying to keep jobs from going to China. NAFTA? Not Liberal. (Global) Free Trade? Not Liberal!  These are anti-protectionism measures that screw over American Workers and they were written by Republicans, backed by Big Business!  Clinton may have signed them into law, but who ever accused Bill Clinton of being a Liberal?! (Other than the same idiots who call Obama one?!)

And remember the Right's own narrative: Liberals hate Big Corporations, right? We hate Big Business!

Then... Why is it our fault when Big Business pushes for licensing fees and regulations that keep smaller competitors out of the market?

Answer? IT ISN'T!

And if these fools would get their heads out of their asses for just two seconds and turn of Fox news, they might realize that there are plenty of Liberals who would be more than happy to GET RID of a lot of these regulations!  (Save for those that protect consumers, but that still leaves a TON of common ground!)  See.. By blaming LIBERALS, more and more Conservatives get elected.  And (remember our narrative) those are the pro-Big Business types. And contrary to what this Right-Wing blogger is telling you, these "absurd regulations" are mostly things that deter competition for Big Business.

Now is that bullshit? Yes, it certainly IS.

But is it LIBERAL? Um... NO FUCKING WAY!!!

We want to STOP big business's influence on the Government!

No one wants to disentangle Corporatism and Corporate Interests from Government more than LIBERALS do!  And you don't hear the big companies complaining about these things! It's always the LITTLE GUY!  Well, you know how we always say that 98% of America is voting against their economic interests? Well, this is a perfect example of that! Big Business backs Republicans. Republicans talk a good game, but do NOTHING to eliminate the regulations, and the Little Guy gets screwed because he's so convinced that LIBERALS are behind all this!  SINCE WHEN DID LIBERALS START RULING THE WORLD?! (Especially the parts of it called "LOUISIANA" and "TEXAS!") Blaming Liberals is just propaganda by those same Big Businesses trying to prevent the very people they're screwing over from ever electing the right people to fix the mess!  As long as the little guy keeps thinking the Democrats are against him, he'll keep voting for the Party who's REALLY against him!

Some of the regulations actually make sense, and were merely misrepresented, as I pointed out.  But the rest of them are barriers to entry, nothing more.  They're things that mostly benefit Big Business. Again: To a huge company the cost is minuscule.  But keeping out smaller, nimbler, cheaper competitors? THAT'S key to their very survival! Yet they try to blame these anti-competitions measures on the OPPOSITION of the very Party that Big Business generally backs! And to the extent that Democrats do this too? Shoot... That's just Democrats acting like Republicans! And we hate them just as much!

And don't let some Right Wing Liar (or Fool) try to tell you otherwise!

Conservatives: Here and There

Yesterday on NPR, I learned that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was going to try to release the jailed American hiker Sarah Shourd to some kind of grand fanfare, and try and turn it into bit positive propaganda for himself, hopefully earning him some credit with the West. Fat chance, but…Unfortunately for him, the far more conservatives Clerics, unhappy with the “progressive” Ahmadinejad (WTF?!) and the reforms he’s proposed, undermined his efforts and sent Shourd back in the dead of night, to as little fanfare as possible.

Now… calling Ahmadinejad “progressive” is purely the opinion of the Neolithic Clerics that rule that country, NOT my own. But the fact that the Clerics in Iran are actually that much farther to the Right of (or that much more conservative than) Ahmadinejad got me thinking…

In the past (frequently on MMFA) I’ve made the statement that all of the best Republicans(Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower)  were Progressives and all the worst Democrats (Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson) were Conservatives. I’d like to expand on that logic and point out that the Iranians who most resemble Americans are Progressives, and the Americans who most resemble Iranians are Conservatives. Funny how that works, no?

Take away the two groups’ religious and national Brand Names, and tell me how the Conservatives in this country don’t want to make us MORE LIKE Iran, in terms of PUBLIC POLICY. Now, we’re not there yet and it could be argued that it’s an exaggeration to say that the American Right wants to take us quite that far. I’m not so sure about that myself, but the question still stands: If Iran is so terrible, why are the Conservatives trying so hard to make us MORE LIKE THEM?

BTW… One of my ex-Bosses is Iranian. He was an asshole, but it was interesting to hear his opinion that even though he’s pretty Conservative, in the American sense of the word, (neither of which were the reason I thought he was an asshole, BTW!) that the biggest failure of the Bush administration, the REAL REASON that the Iraq War was such a bad idea and our foreign policy under Bush was so disastrous, was that it killed the Progressive movement in IRAN, and gave the Hard-Liners (that's what we call "Conservatives" when they live in other countries) all the ammo they needed to whip up Anti-American sentiment (which had been declining during the Clinton years), crush the Progressives (who were gaining prominence), stifle (and repeal) reforms and bring Iran back to squarely being our arch-enemy in the region. And neither Conservatives in America and Conservatives in Iran have any intention of ever changing that dynamic, becuase they both benefit from it politically.  And both Conservatives in America and Conservatives in Iran totally SUCK because they think that way.

So just remember:

1) The best Republicans were all Progressives and the worst Democrats were all Conservatives.


2) The Iranians who most resemble Americans are Progressives, and the Americans who most resemble Iranians are Conservatives.

Political Schools of thought...

*sigh*

I got an email the other day from a conservative (who else) that made me (1) roll my eyes and (2) got me thinking about our modern political discourse.

WAKE UP   (ed.note: No good ever comes form an email that starts out this way!)

John Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock
(MADE IN JAPAN )
for 6 am. While his coffeepot
(MADE IN CHINA)
was perking, he shaved with his electric razor
(MADE IN HONG KONG)
He put on a dress shirt
(MADE IN SRI LANKA),
designer jeans
(MADE IN SINGAPORE)
and tennis shoes
(MADE IN KOREA)
After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet
(MADE IN INDIA)
he sat down with his calculator
(MADE IN MEXICO)
to see how much he could spend today. After setting his watch
(MADE IN TAIWAN )
to the radio
(MADE IN INDIA )
he got in his car
(MADE IN GERMANY )
filled it with GAS
(from Saudi Arabia )
and continued his search for a good paying AMERICAN JOB.

At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his Computer
(made in MALAYSIA ),
John decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals
(MADE IN BRAZIL),
poured himself a glass of wine
(MADE IN FRANCE)
and turned on his TV
(MADE IN INDONESIA),
and then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in AMERICA

AND NOW HE'S HOPING HE CAN GET HELP FROM A PRESIDENT
(MADE IN KENYA.)

You gotta keep this one circulating!

Yeah… you DO have to keep this one circulating. Just take off the lame joke about Obama being “made in Kenya,” and add something instead reminding people which Political Party (the Republicans) and which political philosophy (Conservatives) it was that made “protectionism” to come to be perceived as such a bad thing. I’m not saying it’s a always a GOOD thing - merely that, as this email unintentionally points out - it’s not entirely BAD and the free trade policies advocated for by the Right are have hardly been entirely GOOD. The fact is that this could have been a LIBERLAL’S email, were it not for the stupid Kenyan joke tagged on at the end. Cut it off at “wondered why he can't find a good paying job in AMERICA,” and you've got a pretty great anti-Republican, anti-Conservative, anti-Free Trade email on your hands to send to all your friends in the TRADE UNIONS.

....If you subscribe to that kind of thing.

Personally I don’t think humorous emails are the best forum to discuss serious political issues, but I’m just a liberal so what do I know? Well… ONE thing I've come to realize is that a lot of the people who send these out have NO IDEA what ideology is really behind them, and that just as many of the exact same emails said “Bush,” just a few years ago and “Clinton” before that. (And if you ever receive one that says “George Carlin,” both the late Mister Carlin and myself can assure you that there is rarely more than about 10% or so of ACTUAL Carlin material in them!) So it’s mostly just revealing your ignorance for all to see (a more technologically advance form of Bumper-Sticker Politics) by just blaming whoever’s in office (Beagle Politics.)

I'll call it IN-BOX POLITICS.  Which combines the following two schools:

BUMPER STICKER POLITICS: Forget the 30-second sound bite.  What we've REALLY got to do is boil every issue simultaneously down to a message that (1) Fits on a 4" x 12" sticker, that (2) Can be easily read from 30 feet away, while (3) Driving though traffic at 55 mph.  Because, you know, that's a really effective way to have a political conversation!

And I don't use the word "conversation" lightly - because it's hardly a monologue!  Consider the "Darwin Fish" in answer to the "Jesus Fish." And then they came out with the "Truth" fish.  And then we came out with the Darwin Fish EATING the Truth Fish.  (And now they've done it the other way.)

Or, more simply: (1) My kid's an honor student. (2) My kid beat up your honor student.  And now... (3) My honor student sued your bully!

 - - AND - -

BEAGLE POLITICS: I won't claim this as my own, nor try to explain it as well as The Grey Path does, but this is basically blaming WHOMEVER IS IN OFFICE for all the world's problems.  These are the people who blamed Bush'41 for the '92 recession that got Clinton elected, and who blame Obama for the current economic mess... which started under Bush'43... who ALSO wasn't really responsible for it... (bet you didn't expect me to say THAT!)... because the biggest single cause was the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act, which happened under Clinton... who also is not to blame, because it was legislation written by Republicans and based on the failed Libertarian Philosophy that the Right is still pushing to this day!

See how stupid this is?  See how stupid ALL of this is?!

Now, really... the two serious schools of thought we hear the most about are Neo-Conservatism and Neo-Liberalism or Progressivism.  Now... I'm going to be honest here... I don't have the slightest idea what the difference between "Progressivism" and "Liberalism" is, or the difference between "Neo-Liberalism" and "Classic Liberalism" or "Neo-" and "Classic Conservatism," for that matter.  I don't know... AND I DON'T CARE! (So don't bother trying to spell it out for me.)
 
Since I don't let an ideology do my thinking for me, I don't really care what positions fall under which label.  I really, just DON'T CARE.  I'm not trying to Liberal here, I'm just trying to be RIGHT.  (As in "correct," not "wing.")  And the way I see our modern discourse going, there are really only two groups that matter:
 
One is very strictly and narrowly defined, and I've written about them here, here, here and here.  And to be in this crowd, you must accept EVERY bit of Dogma, even the ones that contradict other ones; you must swallow every lie, accepting every bit of obviously questionable evidence, and utterly reject ANY evidence or argument to the contrary of ANY point.  What's more you must accuse your opponents of committing all of the sins that you do, and you must HATE them, because they are "out to destroy this country."  You must believe in your own perfection and the perfection of your positions and that you have a mandate from God that justifies this belief.  At worst, the weakest in this camp merely keep quiet, fail to criticise the big-talkers, and silently tell themselves that it will all, somehow be OK, since at least the OTHER GUY'S not winning.
 
Then there are the people who simply can't abide this kind of insanity.  And almost regardless of what positions they actually hold, the people in the first camp call them "Liberals" and demonize them.
 
So, from my POV, there are really only two school's of thought: Radical, Right-Wing Reactionary Authoritarianism...
 
...and those who reject it.
 
They have robbed the words "conservative" and "liberal" of any real meaning.  Not that I care... I don't really buy into labels...
 
...which apparently makes me a Liberal.

In defense of Progressive Taxation Rates

I’ll need to do a write on what I’d change about taxes in general at some point. I think I’d probably surprise both lib’s and con’s with what I’d do if the world recognized my infinite wisdom and granted me absolute power. But after THIS BIT on MMFA yesterday and today, I feel that a brief write about the progressive taxation system and some basic accounting principals might be in order. And yet I still want to get back to health care! I had this awesome graph that I made! I really want to use it! Oh well. This is good food for thought as well and important stuff, so I’ll hit this first. And I may need to break it up into two posts; we’ll see how it goes.

So… first things last, let’s have a little refresher on how progressive taxation actually works. Let’s use the 2010 Brackets for “Single” as an example.

These are the brackets:
10.0% up to $8,375 in income,
15.0% from $8,375 to $34,000,
25.0% from $34,000 to $82,400,
28.0% from $82,400 to $171,850,
33.0% from $171,850 to $373,650 and
35.0% above $373,650

So… what does that mean? Does someone making $375,000 really pay $131,250 (35%) in taxes? No. If they did then that extra $1,350 in income would end up costing them $7,645.50 in extra taxes! That hardly seems fair. And although that’s what the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world would have you believe happens, it’s utter BULLSHIT. It’s a lie. Here’s how it actually works:

This person would pay 10% on their first $8,375, just like that part-time high-school student earning that much does. ($873) They will them pay 15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000 (15% x [34,000-8,375] = 3,843.75) the same as every school teacher does. They would then pay 25% of every dollar after $34K up to $82,400 (25% x [82,400 – 34,000] = $12,100) just like every engineer does. After that they pay 28.0% on every dollar from $82,400 to $171,850 (25% x [171,850 – 82,400] = $25,046) just like every Mid-level Manager does. Then it’s 33.0% of every dollar from $171,850 to $373,650 (33% x 373,650 – 171,850 = $66,594) just like every other company Vice-President does. And they’d only pay that top rate (35%) on just that last $1,350. That last bit of income ($1,350) only costs them another $445.50 in taxes. You might think that’s a lot, but the point remains: They still took home more. There is no disincentive to work harder, assuming that you’re working hard so you can take home more money.

Bottom line? The guy making $373,600 paid 66,908.75 in taxes (an effective rate of about 17.9%) and took home $306, 691.25. The guy who put in that one extra weekend, and kissed slightly more ass, who got $375,000? He paid $67,354.25 in taxes: an effective rate of (wait for it…) about 17.9%. And he took home $307,645.75. Was that extra $954.50 worth it? Only he can answer that. But you can’t call it a disincentive, due to the higher rate of taxation. That’s just plain wrong. It’s incorrect. It’s demonstrably false. So if you hear someone talking like this, their either lying or ignorant.

Or… to put the way I usually do: Conservatives only come in two flavors: Evil and Stupid. One’s lying and the other’s buying.

So, now that we all understand how it WORKS, let me explain why this is a GOOD way to structure an income tax, and how I might do it differently. As to why it makes sense: It comes down to a hierarchy of needs.

Let’s say you make median income. In this country that’s just under $50,000/year for individuals. We’ll round up to 50K to keep the math easy, and let’s just talk about individuals for now, again just to keep things simple. (Note: The actual numbers aren’t really important. We can all quibble over where to draw the various lines and what % tax to levee on them. That’s a good area for debate. But regardless of what you conclude the principle still holds.) So take someone who makes $50,000 per year. What are the spending their money on?

Food, Rent & Utilities, Clothing, and Transportation.

After they’ve dressed for and driven to work, paid the bills and eaten, there’s basically nothing left. And this is why, if I had my druthers, I’d make the first $50K tax-free, for EVERYONE. Because everyone needs every penny of their first $50K just to survive.  (I live on about 50K per year myself, AFTER TAXES, and not including what I put away for retirement, so I can assure you: if you reduce that at all, you will not only impact my lifestyle, but my spending decisions substantially.  Do that to EVERYONE and you WILL destroy the economy.

Now let’s double it. If you’re making $100,000 per year, after you’ve covered the necessities, your next $50K is paying to improve your standard of living. We’re not into luxury yet, to be sure, but we’re probably talking about owning your home rather than renting, maybe a new car instead of a used one, the occasional night-out with your significant other, maybe some travel and, of course, saving for retirement and/or your kids’ education. (Disclosure: I'm somewhere between $50K and $100K right now, so I know this bracket pretty well! LOL) Now, all these things are still important, and I don’t begrudge anyone a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle. HOWEVER… it’s pretty clear that you don’t need your second $50,000 as much as you needed your first. (Anyone can live on $50K/year, but no one can live on $0!) So this is an income block that I’d start taxing. Let’s say at… 30%. That might sound HUGE, but actually, but it actually ends up a net reduction for anyone making $100,000 or less. If you make $100,000, right now you’d owe $21,709. But under my proposal, you’d only owe $15,000.  At every level below that the savings is greater.

Let’s say you make $200,000. What is that second $100,000 paying for? An annual vacation? A four-bedroom house as opposed to a two or three bedroom? A NICE new car? A weekly night out with your significant other? Yes, yes, yes, yes, and more. Not to mention significant savings for retirement, your kid’s college funds, and even some long term asset and wealth building for your estate. Probably some significant charitable contributions as well. Now… we’re not into “rich bastards” territory by any stretch just yet, but we’re clearly beyond the middle-class lifestyle. We’re starting to get into luxury here, and that’s why I’d tax the last $100,000 at 35%. This is the top tier bracket now, and while it currently only applies to income over $373,000 currently, this proposal overall STILL results in a small net-savings for someone making $200,000. They’d owe $51,117 now and $50,000 under what I'm describing. Now, ABOVE that is where I’d start the actual increases.

And remember: At present, 35% is as high as we go. But I think we can justify go higher form here on out.

How about $400,000? What’s that last $200,000 paying for? In some case, just higher-end versions of was bought by the person in the next bracket down. But most of this is just being used (saved/invested) to generate more income. We’re way beyond necessity and well into wealth-building and luxury at this point. STILL not into “rich bastards” territory though! So, I’d tax that last $200,000 at 40%. We’re not revenue neutral anymore for this group but even at $400,000 their tax bill only goes from $117,644 to $130,000. That’s an increase in their effective tax rate of only 3%: from 29.4% to 32.5%. I’m sure they can weather this without it impacting their lifestyle. Remember: Most of this money is not even being spent. So it doesn’t even really support their lifestyle.

What about $800,000? Are people even SPEDNING that last $400,000? I can’t see on what. Mansions instead of houses? Limos instead of Cars? Screw these rich bastards. (LOL). 45% on these guys’ last $400,000. Even going this high, their effective tax rate is still only seeing a 6.5% increase, from 32.2% currently to 38.7% under mine. They’ll survive.

And from $800K to $1.6M? 50%. $1.6M to $3.2M? 55%, and so on… increasing the marginal rate by 5% for every doubling of the income bracket. You could max out at 50% for $3.2M on up rather than just $3.2M to $6.4M, but I don’t see why you have to. The people making this kind of money directly benefit from everyone else’s ability to spend (at their businesses) not the least of which includes the federal government. So if that’s what it takes to get rid of the National Debt? To tax Alex Rodriguez's last $13M at 75%? I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Everyone says that baseball players and CEO's make too much anyway.

In any case, everyone – liberals, conservative and everyone in between - can fight out where to place the brackets and what %’s to apply. That’s where the REAL debate should be. And I just threw out some numbers. To be honest I have NO IDEA if this would be revenue neutral, or a net increase or decrease overall. So whatever: fight it out.

BUT: The point remains that the more money you make, the less of it goes to actually support your standard of living. Thus the less you’ll miss it, and the less it will impact your spending decisions and thus the economy. Take 1% away from someone making $50K and they’ll reduce they’re spending by 1%. They’ll have to. And half of America doing that will hurt the economy even worse than that 1%, if you understand how the multiplier works. And worse yet, once the layoffs start, when companies don’t meet their revenue targets. OTOH, take 6% away from someone making $800,000? You’ll get a LOT more money per person, and they’ll never miss it. They weren’t going to spend it anyway! And it won’t affect their lives, or their children’s or their grandchildren’s one iota. And if you say otherwise, either they’re really being stupid with their money or they just have no appreciation of what they really have. (Think about this: the $490,000 they have left after taxes, assuming they don’t take a SINGLE deduction, which is ABSURD, still leaves them $40,833 per month - about what that median income earner currently makes in a YEAR, after taxes! It leaves them $9,423 per week, or $1,342 per DAY. You’d have a hard time spending THAT every day, even on a vacation in Paris. So, yeah: they can cope.

Two things to remember:

1) NO ONE wants to pay more in taxes.  This is meant as a fact-based, reality-based, principled argument not for taxing certain PEOPLE differently, but for taxing certain PORTIONS OF YOUR INCOME differently based on acknowledge that you need you first $50K more than you need you second, as so on...

2) ALL of the numbers I've quoted about assume that NO DEDUCTIONS are taken for Dependants, Mortgage Interests, Education and Medical Expenses, Retirement Savings, etc...  In reality NOBODY pays everything they would otherwise OWE and if they due they're either morons, or need to have someone else do their Tax Returns for them.  (Or buy TurboTax, like I do! LOL)   Nobody is in a situation in which they'll pay exactly what the owe according only to the brackets.  They'll pay less.  Every time.

Maybe I’ll put off health care another day or two to do a bit on CORPORATE taxation (to address “Abba the Cowpoke”) and maybe then talk about how else I’d change the tax code, if I had the absolute power to do so. This was fun. Thanks for reading.

Orwellian Language Part One: Conservative

This is the first of three piece I want to do on our English language. As appalling as I feel the Republican's and the Right's political and social agenda is, and how much I feel it would butcher all things holy and American, it pales in comparison to what the Right in this country has done to our LANGUAGE in order to sell their tripe to the American people. Channelling one of my three heroes, George Carlin, for a moment, it appals me how they have taken various words and absolutely stripped them of any and all meaning, in a effort to apply positive sounding words to themselves and negative sounding words to their opponents. It the worst kind of euphemistic abuse of our language. So, here we go:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part One: Conservative

The first word that the right in this country absolutely had to hijack was “conservative.” They did this because the word seems to suggest a certain amount of moderation, and a reasoned, rational approach – as opposed to “radical” which they sought to apply to all things liberal, and “reactionary” which is a far more accurate way to describe them.

First of all, let’s take a look at the word “conservative” as we understand it today. It has, along with "liberal" been unfortunately loaded with a lot of unnecessary political baggage meant to described the positions that one with that label is supposed to hold: anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-labor, anti-regulation, low-taxes, hawkish on defense… The modern conservative movement is an awkward mix of libertarians and religious funny-mentalists at home (two group with very much mutually exclusive social agendas, BTW) and a hypocritical mix of libertarians, who say that the gov’t should stay the hell out of the lives of Americans, and Hawks, who think our gov’t needs to control, as much possible, the lives of every non-American abroad. (And God forbid we ever listen to any other country, even our allies, and even when it’s in our own interest to do so! We’re AMERICA dammit! And we know best!) OK, this is admittedly a caricature, but I submit that it’s a fairly accurate one: The beliefs that I present in a mocking fashion are nonetheless sacred to most in this group!

But it wasn’t always this way.

The was a time when BOTH parties has conservative and liberal wings. At one point, prominent Republicans such as Teddy Roosevelt belongs to the “progressive” wing of the party. (And “progressive,” of course, is a word that modern liberals have attempted to re-brand themselves under!) It was the conservative Democrats who regularly delivered almost every state south of the Mason-Dixon line, from Texas to Florida to the Democrats every year from the Civil War to the Civil Rights era. (Since 1964, however, that trend has obviously changed, as conservative Democrats became Republicans!) Likewise, it was the Liberal (meaning libertarian) Republicans who consistently delivered the Northern Cities and States to the Republicans. (And again, since 1964 the East Coast, from Maryland on up, has trended consistently Democratic, as the same liberal Republicans became Democrats (though admittedly other demographic factors and changes were in play as well.) But this trend has been going on since 1964 for the Republicans and the Right to monopolize the word “conservative.” In the late 1960’s, this may have made sense, linguistically. Beyond that, the term has had to be perverted from it’s philosophical meaning to continue to fit their political agenda.

If you strip the word of it’s political implications, one possible definition of philosophical or social conservatism might be “the desire to maintain the status quot" or "to minimize the deviation from the status quot.” Liberal, to contrast the two, would be one who seeks something very different form the status quot, one who seeks to change the way things are. Taken this way, the term really means “moderate” and, since BOTH parties have rather a few changes they’d like to make, most of both the Democrats and Republicans could then be accurately described as “liberals” – they would just be spilt into left-wing and right-wing liberals, while the "conservatives" would the be the centrists in both parties, and would agree on many positions with each other, as well as differ from the rest of their party on many issues as well. Over the years, in order to advance their agenda, each party has made efforts to reign in (or kick out) most of these “conservative” members. Ironically however, if centrism and party in-fighting is any indication, it would seem that the Republicans have been more effective at doing this: They are the party of Right Wings “liberals” and between the defection of Arlen Specter to the out come of the NY-23 congressional election in 2009, they are showing diminished patience for these “conservatives.” The Democrats, on the other hand, between the Blue Dogs and the Republican defectors have shown far more of a big-tent mentality and thus far more "conservative" cred.

Now, brace yourself, because it will surprise many of you to hear me say this… There is rather a bit of rational wisdom in this type of philosophical conservatism! Here are two ways to view it, coming from diametrically opposed points of view, that both support this conclusion:

1) From a religious or intelligent design standpoint, one can argue that things are they way they are because this is how God intended them to be. And who are we to claim that we know better than God? So… proceed with caution! (IOW: conservatively.)
2) From a Darwinian standpoint, at any given time, things have arrived at their current state through the ongoing struggle and survival of the fittest. The current species, economic and business models and system of governance and politics all came about through years of struggle and competition in which only the best would win at every given stage and thus, if not perfect, the current status quot would be at least optimized, based on initial conditions and everyone’s competing ideas thus far. So, again, proceed with caution, or IOW: act conservatively.

In both instances, if one wants to act “liberally” (whether from the Right or Left) they’d better have a darned good reason for doing so, and be able to clearly identify WHY the current state of affairs resembles neither a divine vision, nor a Darwinian optimization. The modern liberal, when arguing economic matters, might point out that the current state of affairs in most industries in NOT the result of the free market, nor of competition, but rather the result of HUGE corporations, now inefficient, bur flush with cash from prior but no longer sustainable successes, managing to stifle competition, and the complicity of the federal government in letting huge companies merge, creating fewer companies with more individual power – hardly the vision of free market competition! So their agenda, with includes increased gov’t regulation of industry and more power to labor groups, could be described as liberal (changing the status quot) and yet, still be justified from the “conservative” perspective since most industry giants now use their resources to act more to protect their own survival (to protect themselves from having to compete) than for any optimization of the society overall. The modern conservative (what I’m would call a “right-wing liberal”) justifies their agenda by trying to recapture “divine vision” that existed at some point but, for whatever reason, have been pushed aside.

Perhaps the most clear example of how the language has shifted might be shown in the Right’s (and Left’s) positions on Abortion. The status quot is that Abortion is legal, with some restrictions, mostly involving minors. It does not receive direct federal funding and is covered by many, but not all, insurance plans. THAT’S the status quot. Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life describes which way someone would like to see the laws changed and “conservative” versus “liberal” would describe how MUCH they’d like to see the laws changed. Someone who WANTS to see all restrictions listed, and use federal money to subsidize abortions would be described as a “pro-choice liberal.” Someone who wants to see some restrictions enacted, but still wants to protect core abortion rights (as I’ve described in my position piece on Abortion) would then be described as a “pro-life conservative.” (Who’d a thunk I’d ever be described thus?) The Right's actual (or so-called) pro-life agenda of eventually banning ALL abortions, could then only be described as “pro-life liberal.” You see: There is nothing inherent to either of the word “conservative” or “liberal” that describes how you should feel about ABORTION. They refer only to the way things are, and whether you want no, or only minor changes, or large, sweeping changes. Only PRIOR to the Roe v. Wade decision would “liberal” necessarily suggest a pro-choice stance, since that would have been a significant change from the status quot. POST Roe, the only "conservative" positions would be those that keep the law as it is, but try to apply the relatively easy to agree upon “middle ground” as, for example, I proposed doing (See? There IS some Wisdom in conservatism! LOL) -OR- to make relatively minor relaxations of the current restrictions, and make a few, narrow exception to the Hyde act. (That would be a Pro-Choice Conservative position, which practically IS the status quot.)

But there are two ways thing can change: They can change… and they can change back! And here is where we have two divisions within the “liberal” philosophy. You’ve got the “Progressives” who are forward looking, and try to fix the errors of history that remain with us through unlucky chance, and “Reactionaries” who look to the past with a sense of envy, a sort of longing for an idealized world that they perceived was lost. (A world, BTW, that one can argue never really existed, or is being idealized, but we’ll save deconstructing the good ol' days for another post!) One can see easily where the religious fervor current gripping the Right would fit it nicely with this world view – paradise lost but looking to be regained and all that. Given that, it is clear that we have plenty of both “Liberal / Progressives” as well as “Left Wing Conservatives” in the Democratic Party, while the Republicans are comprised of “Liberal / Reactionaries” and an ever shrinking number of “Right-Wing Conservatives.”

Now... I do realize that the word “conservative” is no longer used this way, but the purpose here is to demonstrate how the Right is distorting our language to their own ends. I realized that, when I was growing up, and I thought of myself as “conservative,” I was taking the classic definition; that of being a moderate. And to this day I remain a moderate. A decidedly LEFT-WING moderate, but a moderate none the less. (Anyone who doubts this can look at my list of 10 most hated liberals!) My viewpoint of “conservatism,” relative to the status quot, might be best demonstrated in my health care plan: Rather than reinvent the entire system, I seek to use the parts that WORK from within the current system (insurance companies managing cost, market forces, risk pooling) and only seek to change the parts that don’t (non-mandatory participation, refusal of coverage, preexisting condition, lack of choice, etc…) In my professional life, I don’t reinvent the wheel if I don’t absolutely have to – better to find an off the shelf solution that’s already been tested, than to incur all the development costs of creating a new one!

And THAT to me is conservatism. It has nothing to do with Right vs. Left, Religion vs. Secularism, or Republican vs. Democrat. It has to do with the preservation of the status quot vs. either Progressive influence or Reactionary influence. (And for the record I was almost ALWAYS side with the Progressives over the Reactionaries – thus my strongly Democratic voting record of late!)

Our messed up priorities...

No Friday Fun Vid's today. Just a little blurb on our misplaced priorities as a society, that I was thinking about today with some co-workers...

Did you know: The minimum salary for a Major League Baseball player is $390,000?

Did you know: The median income for a Surgeon is around $150,000 to $300,000 depending on years of experience and specialty?

Now... I'm not suggesting here that baseball payers are overpaid. They're not. (Really! They really aren't!) (I'm serious!) Ticket prices are not high because of their salaries. If you think that, then you don't know the slightest bit about microeconomics. In fact, it's completely the other way around: Their salaries are high because tickets prices (and the prices for merchandise, TV contracts, etc...) are high. And THOSE are high for ONE REASON ONLY: We (as a people) keep showing that we are willing to pay those prices and more.

Now granted, most of us cannot do what these baseball players can do. No matter how long I train, I can't hit a home-run out of a major-league field, or throw a 100 mph fastball. I CAN however HIT a ball (at ~85mph) well into the outfield and throw a pretty good curve and an occasional knuckleball, when I get it right. On the other hand... I pretty much completely suck at surgery. I'm afraid that if I've got your life in one hand and a scalpel in the other? You. Are. Going. To. Die. So... which one's really harder to do? And what's more intrinsically valuable to society? (Oh yeah... and I should mention... If you're making $390,000 playing baseball? Chances are, YOU can't hit too many balls out of the park or throw 100 mph either!)

So think got me thinking about other things... because my mind tends to wander when I'm bored... and it was a quiet day at the office...

I THINK it was Jimmy Carter, speaking about the war drugs, who said something along the lines of this...: That the LEGAL penalty for the possession and use of illegal drugs should not be more excessive than the real harm that can be done to you by those drugs. IOW - the most dangerous things about any vice that the gov't wants to protect us from should NOT be the legal consequences of engaging in it.

So, from that POV...

The maximum punishment for smoking weed should be something equivalent to the forced consumption of Twinkies. But at the moment the worst thing by far about weed are the legal penalties attached to it: To protect me from the horrors of marijuana the government will do more damage toi my life than weed ever could!

Later I saw a story about teen sexting. (Texting naked pictures of themselves.) And these KIDS are being charged with DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY! Now... I'm not advocating teen sexting, any more than I'm advocating smoking weed (and I'm not!) but it seems to me that far more damage is being done here by the LAW than by the activity they're trying to protect THESE VERY SAME KIDS from!!! I mean: WHO IS THE VICTIM OF THIS CRIME?!

So going back to the previous thought... I'm thinking that the worst penalty possible for sexting should be maybe having to walk naked through the town square or something like that. Because that's the extent of the damage done here: Some people will see you naked. BIG. DEAL. (I'm of course talking only about people who sent out pics of themselves, and not pics that were taken in violation of someone's privacy. I hope that much is obvious. I'm a privacy advocate, and THAT kind of violation has a victim.)

Then I thought... Hmmmm... Using the very same principle, that the punishment should be less harmful that the vice, I realized that anything up to and including the death penalty would be an appropriate punishment for failing to wear your seat belt.

But just try to get 1% of the passionate outrage that people have over marijuana or naked teenagers applied to seat belt usage! And compare the penalties! No one ever DIED because they sent out a naked pic of themselves, or saw one of someone else and when you come right down to it, nobody really dies from marijuana either. (Far less than from perfectly legal cigarettes, anyway!) And yet hundreds of people die every day from not wearing their seat belts!

What kind of society are we that wastes so much time and energy, and causes so much damage to the lives of the very people we're trying to protect, protecting them from weed and porn... But could truly care less about one of the most dangerous activities you can engage in?

I guess the same kind of that pays the worst baseball player in the league more that the best surgeon in the business.

My Position on Abortion

OK, First things last... What's with all the Right-Wing advertising on this site?! First I had to look at Ann Coulter's ugly mug, now it's Campus Reform and their "End Left Wing Bias in the Classroom!" (Yeah, I mean GOD FORBID we do any THINKING about things like FACTS in the CLASSROOM! If that happens, 98% of the Republican voter base might come their senses and stopping voting that way! The horror!) Anyway, I couldn't care less, actually. Let 'em advertise here. It just means that THEY are paying ME to make fun of THEM. Kinda cool how that works, huh? LOL. So please feel free to visit any of my numerous right-wing sponsors. Make sure to tell 'em "Niceguy Eddie" sent you! LOL. HAHAHA!


OK... ABORTION.


Up front, let me say that this is nothing more than a statement of my position. There's no arguments here, no attempt to convince anyone, and no logical philosophical proofs - like what I had in the ESCR thread. This is just my OPINION. Yes, it happens to be what I think is he most reasonable position; the "way [to borrow a phrase from Rush Limbaugh] things ought to be," if you will. And, JUST LIKE Rush in, "The Way Things Ought to Be," I'm not going to make much of an effort to explain WHY they "ought to be" that way. I'm just going to put it out there, and then hear y'all have to say.


One thing I'd like to clear up first... PRO-LIFE vs. PRO-CHOICE. This is, as every liberal already knows, a completely bullshit way to define one's position. I've never met ANYONE who I could reasonably describe as ANTI-LIFE or PRO-DEATH or even PRO-ABORTION. This isn't a moral debate - everyone I've ever met concedes the point that it's immoral; that's it's arguably the worst possible choice. The debate is not about it's morality, but rather about how to define it's LEGALITY. IOW: Does I feel the need to take away SOMEONE ELSE'S right to make a choice, just because I FEEL a certain way about it? Is it any of my business? No, not at all. (Not that that ever stopped social conservatives from sticking their nose into other people's business!) So there's really only ONE WAY to define the camps: PRO-CHOICE and ANTI-CHOICE. "Pro-life" is a bullshit label and the fact that it has caught on is yet one more piece of evidence against the existence of the "liberal media." (If you want more, you can read THIS, or just check out MMFA.) And, as anyone who has read my Doctrine of Choice post (or know about my 5th principle,) should be able to infer: While I strongly believe that abortion is, in fact, immoral, I am PRO-CHOICE.


Here's how I would set it up. (And yes, I realize that there are both conservatives and liberals who will disagree with a lot of this. That's fine.)


1) Partial-Birth Abortion is banned. Period. If one of you is an MD and can give me a clear example of when this would be NECESSARY to save a mother's life - that's NECESSARY now, not PREFERABLE - then I'll reconsider. What's more, I would ban all third trimester abortions anyway or, if you prefer, since trimesters are kind of arbitrary, all abortions after the earliest point of viability unless the mother's LIFE (that's LIFE, not HEALTH) is in danger, and this threat to her life cannot be averted via a Cesarean Section delivery. (And don't bring up the ectopic pregnancy example here, because if you let one of those go to this far, the mother will already be dead! Those have to be dealt with RIGHT AWAY! So they don't apply at this point!)


2) In the Second Trimester, (or from the beginning of it until the point of viability if you want to go that way, I'm flexible there) abortion will be permitted if there is a threat to the HEALTH of the mother. We can quibble about how broad or narrow to make this, of course, but the guiding principle in the second trimester is that there must be a diagnosable, documented threat to the mother's HEALTH. And if this were made into law, I would have those specific conditions listed out. The debate can then shift to what belongs on the list and what doesn't. Obviously anything that can KILL YOU goes on it, but things like depression, for example, which are more sympathetic than fatal, or like high-blood pressure, which is usually addressed with bed-rest can be debated. (And I know how lousy bed-rest is - my wife dealt with it for about the last five months or so. It sucks. In and of itself though, it is not a justification for abortion, IMHO. Not unless it can't be controlled that way.)


3) In the first trimester, there will be no restrictions placed on abortion at all. Abortion by choice, therefore, MUST be a decision that is made NOW. It's a tough decision, I realize, but the clock ticks very fast, and if you're considering an abortion, it's time to get your shit together and make a choice. The area gets grey VERY FAST, and no one can look at a 10-week ultra sound and tell me that's not a BABY:


So I'd let you have the choice, but you don't have all the time in the world to make it. Just a few weeks really, since most people are already several weeks along by the time they find out. What's more: No exceptions for rape or incest are needed, since these can be dealt with in the first trimester, without need for such justifications.

Just as an aside: Why do we say, "rape or incest" anyway? If the "incest" was not consensual, isn't just a more specific form of rape? If it was consensual, then why would a "pro-lifer" allow an exception for it? Is an embryo OK to destroy provided that it's conception was sufficiently icky? And, if one wants to be truly principled about this, why should any pro-life position allow for these exceptions? If you believe that an embryo is a child, and abortion murder, then tell me: What did the child do to deserve to be killed? This is why I'm basically pro-choice. Because there is no principled, logically consistent pro-life position that any moderate person can stomach, or that voters (outside of South Dakota) would approve of. "Rape or Incest" exception are a pro-lifers cop-out to appeal to moderate people. But make no mistake: These are PRO-CHOICE exceptions. So, as I said before, it's not about PROTECTING LIFE, it's about LIMITING CHOICE. So "Pro-Life" is, again, a bullshit label. "Anti-Choice" is the only moniker we should use.

Acorn Nuttiness...

"I ain't afraid of Acorn... I've got squirrels!"

~Niceguy Eddie

And, OK... not the most original post title, I'll admit it.

Ever since then Senator Obama won the nomination, we've been hearing a lot about ACORN. And, for the most part, what we've heard is nonsense from the Right trying to convince us that Acorn is a dangerous, subversive, criminal, fraudulent, traitorous, communist/socialist/fascist/etc... organization who's primary goal is to destroy America.

So... What's the deal?

OK. First off, it is important to understand that the Right has hated Acorn for YEARS. Why? Well, among other ways that they try to help the poor (and the Right HATES it when people help the poor) they REGISTER them to VOTE. And the Right, HATES is when poor people vote. That's about it. It's a ridiculous accusation, though rather fitting with all the conservative "up-is-downism" that we've seen recently, to say that they even have an Anti-Republican agenda, let alone an anti-American one! Registering people to vote - PERIOD - should ALWAYS be considered a good thing. That they happen to focus on registering the urban poor... well they might vote overwhelmingly Democratic, but does that make Acorn anti-republican? More likely it makes the Republicans Anti-City, Anti-Poor and Anti-Minority (after all, poor whites tend to vote Republican, though I'll never understand why.) (OK I know why, but the reasons are STUPID, and I'll probably explain why in my next post - so stay tuned, you're gonna LOVE it!)

So, basically... few things will get you to the top of the Republican's shit-list faster than HELPING POOR PEOPLE.

The next question: If they hate them so much (and if they were such a threat to God, America and Apple Pie) why I have I never heard of them before now?

It's related to the fact that you never heard the words "community organizer" on TV before. And thus there was no rational way to tie the organization to a candidate, even by the conservative's lax standards of rationality. But then Senator Obama made much about the fact the he once worked as a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER! Ah! So now, we have a connection! (Becuase that's sort of what they do!) And all we have to do is CONNECT THE TWO, and we can get the benefit of smearing Senator Obama, when we smear Acorn! Kill two birds with one stone!

So from then on you heard how Obama and Acorn were like Bacon and Eggs. They probably spent more hours on television driving this message home than Obama ever spent working for Acorn. But whatever, the two must be linked! (Or else.... this won't work! So LINK THEM!)

Now that they're LINKED, it's time to smear! What to use, what to use, what to use... I KNOW! VOTER FRAUD! We'll accuse them of trying to steal the election! Just like those damned liberals have been accusing US of doing for the past eight years! (I mean... putting aside that, you know... we actually DID and all!) So they did some digging and found that, OMG!, there were some irregularities amongst the tens of thousands of registrations they submitted! NOW WE GOT 'EM!

Well... not quite. In the minds of the brainless zombies who have no reason to vote republican but do anyway, and the rich folks who pretty much don't care about the truth if the lie will help them get a tax break, perhaps... But back in th ereal world, "voter fraud" requires... oh, um... what's the word I'm looking for... um... oh, yeah:

VOTES!

Now, was it ever demonstrated that so much as a single fraudulent vote was cast in this last election as the result of an irregular registration by Acorn? No. It hasn't. In fact ACTUAL voter fraud in this country is extremely rare. If you took every proven fraudulent vote ever cast in the history of presidential elections in this country and gave them all to McCain in the state tat he lost by the narrowest margin, it would not be nearly enough to flip even that one state. (And let's not forget: He lost by about 10 states!)

What some Acorn employees WERE accused of was the crime of Voter REGISTRATION Fraud. The thing is... real crimes should have a victim. Did this one? YES. Who was the victim? ACORN ITSELF! Don't believe me? Don't buy that? Consider this scenario:

Let's say the "New Life Baptist Church" has raised some money and wants to have a voter registration drive. They know their community leans heavily Republican and each Registration means a likely vote. And since they support the Republican agenda, they want to create as many votes as they can. So they get all the necessities lined up: They recruit people to go door, they ordered all the forms, they put the word out... Time and money are spent. They even paid the volunteers $100 each for their work if they turned in, say, at least 100 registrations. The thing is.... they've got this... one guy. He's kind of lazy, and a bit of a drunk. He turns his 100 forms in, and takes his $100 (and probably goes to buy booze.) But when the Church reviews the forms, they find that almost all of them are bogus: I.P.Freely, Coca Roach, G.I.Lovemoney, etc... Now, the law requires them to turn in ALL forms (that foiled their plan to just throw away all of the ones registered as 'Democrat') but being good citizens they put this one guy's forms aside and notified the registration board that they were suspect.

At this point, I think it's clear that the town drunk has basically stolen from the church, right? He took his hundy, and at the end of the day, not a single vote will be generated. So the church's money was wasted, and their candidate harmed - or at least... he'll come up 100 votes shorter than he would have if their money was spent on someone who actually did their job! Now... is anyone reading this and thinking that the CHURCH is the bad guy here? No?

Well...

Switch "New Life Baptist Church" with "Acorn" and switch "Republican" and "Democrat" around and you'll have the EXACT thing that happened to Acorn. And YES, it was in fact ACORN that alerted the authorities to the bogus forms in the first place - even a recent FOX piece admits this. (Thought they do so in the very last paragraph, almost as an afterthought. I mean, why let the facts get in the way of good right-wing propaganda, right?)

Fast forward to this past week. Video's coming out about Acorn employees helping pimps and hookers get homes! OMG! I'm not going to let THIS PASS, am I?

Well, I got this real moron thing I do, it's called thinking? So let's think for a moment.

Again, what crime was committed, exactly? Someone was going to help a Pimp get a house. Wow. That's it? So if I want to sell my house, and the higehst offer was from a pimp, I can't take it? Don't pimps and hookers need housing too? OK, obviously I'm joking a but here, but seriously: we're talking about four or five (and I don't care if it's FIFTY, and I'll get to why in a sec) employees who helped these clowns (BTW, paid Right-Wing undercover sting operatives, mind you) with some paperwork, even though they said they were a Pimp and a Hooker. (I guess it's not much of a stretch for a couple of conservatives to pose as Pimps and Whores!) It looks bad, sure, and makes good play on Fox. But there's really no substance here.

Do the acton of these individuals mean that ACORN is a CRIMINAL organization? WTF? Hell NO! These people were FIRED. FIRED because the organization DOES NOT WANT their employees helping pimps and hookers! DUH! If they came out and defended them? FINE, I'd be right with you saying, "WTF?" But those people are GONE. Out on there asses. And the one girl who, after saying on taped that she murder her husband (and no, she didn't!) said, "[She] was just playing along, because [she] knew these two bozo's were bogus?" Well, if that's true, she should consider suing from wrongful termination. She probably won't win, but either way, if anything Acorn overreacted. Otherwise they did what ANY organization would do if a few of it's employees were accessories to crimes. THEY. FIRED. THEM.

Now, what these two clowns with their dad's video camera did was NOT journalism, any more than it was law enforcement, or time-travel for that matter. If they had wanted to practice journalism, this kind of investigation may have taken a year or more. They would have had to go to nearly ALL of the Acorn offices. They would have had to divulge how many places turned them away. They would have to have interviews with Acorn officials, show them the tapes, get an official explanation... They would have had to gather WAAAY more evidence to show that this was a sytsemic problem, something that Acorn was doing as a matter of policy, and not just the incompetence of four or five (or fifty) employees. That kind of investigation takes detetive work, and research, and hours and hours of interviews, and finally some solid write-up presenting ALL the evidence. These idiots just don't have the chops for it. They're ameteurs, and they should have been laughed of the set for such shoddy work. But hey, this was Fox, who never lets a proper investigation get in the way of good right-wing propaganda.

Now, ACORN has over 1200 offices, and THOUSANDS of employees and volunteers. So the actions of four or five, or even FIFTY, at different offices does not mean that we simply disband the whole organization. At least... If you're a conservative, you REALLY don't what to start applying that logic with any consistency. (But then when have conservatives ever had consistent logic?)

Why not? Well... THIS, for a start.

Give it a GOOD, LONG READ. It'll take some time, it's quite a list.

I guess if you've got an organization with so many swindlers, thieves, criminals, and deviants in it, it's just got. to. go. Right? Hey, I'm all for it, just say the word. I've got no use for any of these scumbags anyway.

And my favorite part? Just to answer the inevitable question from some con who doesn't bother reading down very far for himself...

Why not a list of Democrat Offenders?

(from the site:)

I promise, if you’re a Republican, you don’t want a list of Democratic Offenders. Without it you are able to protest a valid point. I agree, without a comparable list, there’s no comprehensive way to judge. I prefer the list to speak for itself. These are prominent Republicans. I did not make a list of every republican criminal. These are the leaders of the Republican party.

During my research the Justice Department provided a great resource for all federal offenders and I could easily observe that prominent Republicans produce 3 to 5 times more federal indictments than Dems. It may be higher. But that’s not the embarrassing part for conservatives. So far, I have only found a few prominent democrats that are pedophiles. It’s a huge discrepancy. If I had enough time to research specific clergymen and examine their political affiliations, the numbers of republican pedophiles would skyrocket. If you haven’t looked into clergy and sexual abuse, do a few dozen google searches and take the time to open your eyes to the problem. It’s not just the Catholic church.

Even a short poll of prominent sexual deviants shows a strikingly large number of Republicans of all religious denomination breaking the law. If you doubt me, please, by all means, do the research yourself. It’s not difficult. I did all of my work with Google and caffeine.

So conservatives, look... it's very simple. Two principles really, that I think you'll find helpful in your day to day lives...

1) Treat others the way that you wish to be treated, or treat yourself. If you don't think that the Church did anything wrong in the above scenario, stop saying that Acorn did.

2) If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. (Or walk around naked.) Bottom live? You're like people living in thatched huts, made out of shit, complaining about a few cookie-crumbs on the kitchen counter in the modest suburban home of a few Democratic supporters.

Oh yeah... and one more thing:

About the sadly bi-partisan vote last week to cut of all of Acorns funding and federal projects? Every democrat who voted for that was a traitorous, cowardly, unprincipled COWARD. They were every bit the SCUMBAGS that every Republican was who voted for it. Only thing is, I expected better of the Democrats.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have though...

The problem of this country can be summed up in eleven words:

The Republicans have no brains
and
the Democrats have no balls.