An argument for proportinate pay

It's funny, but sometimes when you start to gather information together for a topic, you come across someone who's already said it all perfectly!  Lemme splain...

After the nonsense in the comments section of this thread on MMFA, I thought it might be time to put in my two cents on wages.  And... it really wasn't on topic, as the thread was about Tom DeLay saying how "people are unemployed because they want to be."  That's the same bullshit that the Republicans always trot out whenever they want to eliminate whatever paper-thin safety nets we still have left.  Of course, saying something like that in this economy sure demonstrates either a complete brainlessness or utter heartlessness on the part of the former Senate Majority Leader.  Of course I never accused him of having either a heart or a brain, but if the Democrats had any nerve they'd be playing that clip up and down the yellow-brick road until November.

ANYWAY... as it often happens, things got a bit OT in the comments section, and a few people started blaming Unions - another right wing gem; as if those same rich CEO cocksuckers that laid everybody off in the first place would have been happy to pay their labor a living wage voluntarily.  I mean, that has exactly ZERO historical precedent of happening, with the lone exception of Henry Ford who paid his people more so they wouldn't unionize. (See - even in that case workers made more because of the Union!  The Union even helped out non-members!)  Well, whatever, I didn't want this to turn into a UNION post, and I'm the wrong guy to defend the Unions anyway, except for the most absurd RW attacks, but this strawman from Highliter got me thinking about wages:

Most of the manufacturing jobs are UNSKILLED labor and don't deserve middle class wages. Someone who puts tab A into slot B does not deserve the same wage as skilled professionals.

Now... the biggest problem with this statement is that NO ONE was suggesting that "unskilled labor" should get the same wages as skilled professionals.  But... a living wage would be nice!  And this is what pisses me off... See, I'm an Engineer, with an MBA.  I make a decent living.  And guess what? I'm struggling!  Now, my wife staying home with the kids doesn't help in that department, but that was our choice, and that's fine - I'm not griping about that.   But I can tell you that I most definitely feel I'm underpaid!  And it's not just me: I defy you to find ANY engineer in ANY industry, who's at least a few years out of school, who doesn't feel this way!  Now I had to go to school for four years, and get a degree (something that Highliter thought was what you needed to be a CEO:

Because a CEO had to go to 4 years of school and get a degree.

(Yeah... it's a little more complicated than that, Highliter.)  But as it is, I'm only making slightly more than some of those "unskilled laborers" make, at least after overtime and bonuses. Now... WHO'S FAULT IS THAT?

Well: My own of course.  But let's say I'm feeling envious and want to blame someone.  According to Highlighter's logic, the way that I should feel better about my own situation would be to pay those "unskilled laborers" less.  But that doesn't really help me does it?  Not when there are CEO's pulling down Millions, even last year, even as their companies tumbled and had to bailed out by the gov't / taxpayers!  How exactly did they "earn" this money?  How much "skill" does it take to bankrupt a BANK?!  A lot, I suppose, but it doesn't seem the kind of skill that should command a high salary!

So what I really wanted to show here was a little perspective.  And lo and behold THIS is the first article I came across.  It's from 2002, but it lays out the problem PERFECTLY.  Because MY answer to the wage gap that I feel would be to pay the "unskilled labor" pretty much what they're getting now, maybe a little more, and give myself and my fellow engineers good 30-50% raise.  And where would that money come from? Simple: OVERPAID EXECUTIVES.

Consider this (from that article):

Back in 1980, CEOs made 45 times the pay of average workers. [In 2002], they made 241 times as much.

And it's worse now.  Consider this...Let's say you've got an engineer making $70,000 per year.  I make a little more than that, but that's not a terribly low estimate for engineers.  Now, if that engineer's company pays their CEO $7,000,000 per year, he makes 100 times as much.  To see how absurd that is, consider this: Someone's career might last about 40 years.  (From mid 20's to mid 60's, let's say.)  Now, this CEO makes two and a half times as much as that Engineer will make in his entire career, EVERY YEAR.  And it's not like Engineers qualify as "unskilled labor!"  What's more, $7-Mil isn't even that high! Again, from the article:

Median CEO pay at the 100 large companies in Fortune's survey rose 14 percent last year to $13.2 million.

THIRTEEN.POINT.TWO.MILLION.  That's the MEDIAN.  So at the fifty largest companies, CEO's made just under FIVE TIMES (4.7 time, based on 40 years) what that engineer will make in his entire career... EVERY SINGLE YEAR!

And remember: Median income for individual workers in this country isn't $70K.  It's more like $48K per year, according the latest data I could easily find.  And remember: that's MEDIAN INCOME.  So half of America  makes less than that!

Consider THIS piece on CEO pay in the Insurance Industry.  CEO's getting paid upwards of $25 Million Dollars just to deny us health care?  Puh-lease.  (Back to that engineer: we're up to about NINE TIMES what the engineer makes in his entire career going to these assholes EVERY YEAR.)

Anyway, I think you get the picture.  If I can live on $70,000 a year (and I make a little more, but whatever) If I can live on that, as a degreed engineer with a Master's Degree surely anyone should be able to drink a nice hot, steaming cup of STFU, making say... $2.8 Million a year, or: what that engineer will make in his career, but making that every year. Boo-frickin'-who-for-you if you can't live quite well and quite happily on $2.8 Mil per year.  That's $23,000 per MONTH! $7776 per DAY!  When was the last time YOU spent seven grand in a single day and didn't drive home a new (used) car?!  Imagine doing that EVERY DAY!  (That would be like Brewster's Millions!)

So here's an idea that I've been kicking for while now.  Let's get rid of the minimum wage.  Seriously.  Let's scrap it.  It's ends up not so much a floor for these people as a GOAL, so let's get rid of it.  And let's replace it with a law which says that the highest paid person in any company, in terms of TOTAL compensation, can be paid no more than 50 times (or 60, 70... PICK A NUMBER) what the LOWEST paid employee gets in terms of his total compensation.  (Broken down based of a 2200 hour work year, for example, since part-time employees could screw that formula up.)  But whatever, say, the guy who sweeps the floor makes in terms of an hourly wage, the CEO's total compensation package cannot exceed 50 times that, once broken down by 2200 hours per year.

Think about that: There's no salary cap.  You can absolutely pay your CEO $20 Million a year if you want... provided that there's enough left to pay even the lowliest employee $400K!  And everyone in between would also have to be paid proportionately.  A manager could, say, make no more than tow or three time what his lowest paid direct report gets, for example.  Skilled labor would have to be guaranteed double what unskilled labor makes, etc...

If the CEO wants a raise? Everyone has to get at least the same percentage increase.  Not enough to go around? Well... I guess that CEO didn't do such a good job, did he?  How about bonuses or profit sharing?  Same thing: Distribute proportionate to Salary.  If the CEO wants a Million Dollar bonus?  There has to be enough to give even your floor-shiner and toilet bowl cleaner a smooth 20-Grand.  Also, lest he be tempted to go a fire a bunch of people, just to raise the salary floor, NO BONUSES should be paid out to ANYONE if (a) the company reports a net-loss to the IRS or (b) lays of more than, say... 1% of it's total workforce.

And the beauty of this is that the most successful companies will attract the best people, at least at first, but small, entrepreneurial up-and-comers, will also benefit, since jobs might be little tighter at some of those big firms.  And the best opportunities will still be at growing companies anyway.  CEO pay at those big firms will be pretty hard to increase, while one at a small firm has lots of potential for growth, provided they share the wealth along the way!

Now... you can pick any number you want.  Maybe 50 IS too low.  I'm sure Classicliberal will argue for something lower while Highliter will argue for something higher, for example.  I don't really care what the number is, although I don't think anyone would argue that it should be 500.  That the factor between 50 Grand and 25 Mil, which should work out for some of those insurance companies.  No reason it should be anywhere near that much.  But whatever. Once we settle on a number, who thinks this would work?  Who's buying?  Who's with me?

Because I'd vote for this in a New York minute.

Rankings of the Presidents

I was over at wikipedia looking at the Historical Rankings of the Presidents.  I love these kinds of things.  And I deciced to play around a bit with the lists, and do one of my super-shallow, completely non-academic meta studies with it.  So I took each list, from the 1948 Schlesinger poll to the 2009 CSPAN poll and assigned each ranking a value, namely: (the rank)/(number of names on the list).  That way the top rank would be a aound 0.05 or less, the worst rank will be 1.0 and and average rank will be around 0.5.  I did this for each list, and then averaged the values for each president, then ranked them accordingly.  Here's how they shook out:

President; Political party, Rating 
Lincoln, Abraham; Republican, 0.03
Roosevelt, Frankin D; Democratic, 0.05
Washington, George; Federalist, 0.07
Jefferson, Thomas; Democratic, 0.12
Roosevelt, Theodore; Republican, 0.12
Wilson, Woodrow; Democratic, 0.17
Truman, Harry S; Democratic, 0.18
Jackson, Andrew; Democratic, 0.23
Eisenhower, Dwight D; Republican, 0.27
Polk, James K; Democratic, 0.29
Kennedy, John F; Democratic, 0.3
Adams, John; Federalist, 0.32
Johnson, Lyndon B; Democratic, 0.33
Madison, James; Democratic, 0.34
Reagan, Ronald W; Republican, 0.36
Monroe, James; Democratic, 0.37
Cleveland, S Grover; Democratic, 0.39
McKinley, William; Republican, 0.43
Adams, John Q; National-Republican, 0.45
Clinton, William J; Democratic, 0.48
Taft, William H; Republican, 0.52
Bush, George H W; Republican, 0.53
Van Buren, Martin; Democratic, 0.57
Hayes, Rutherford B; Republican, 0.58
Bush, George W; Republican, 0.62
Ford, Gerald R; Republican, 0.64
Carter, James E; Democratic, 0.65
Arthur, Chester A; Republican, 0.67
Hoover, Herbert; Republican, 0.69
Harrison, Benjamin; Republican, 0.71
Garfield, James A; Republican, 0.72
Nixon, Richard M; Republican, 0.73
Coolidge, J Calvin; Republican, 0.73
Taylor, Zachary; Whig, 0.77
Tyler, John; Whig, 0.83
Harrison, William Henry; Whig, 0.84
Fillmore, Millard; Whig, 0.85
Grant, Ulysses S; Republican, 0.85
Johnson, Andrew; Democratic, 0.9
Pierce, Franklin; Democratic, 0.91
Buchanan, James; Democratic, 0.96
Harding, Warren G; Republican, 0.97

Now... a couple of things strike me about this list...

First of all: Democrats generally rank higher than Republicans.  Taking both the Jeffersonian, Jacksonian and Modern Democrats together, their average score is 0.43.  Taking the Federalists, National-Republicans, Whigs and Modern Republicans together, their average score is 0.58.  Not to mention, there are six democraqts in the top 10 and 7 Republicans (and Whigs) in the bottom 10.

Second of all, and this is the real kicker: All of the BEST Republicans were progressives (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower) and and all of the WORST Democrats (Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson) were Conservatives.  That, to me, says far more that just how the parties rank out.

I will say this too... this list ended up pretty close to the way I'd rank them.  Sure, George W. Bush would be a lot lower, while Nixon and George H. might be a little higher, but all in all, I wouldn't say there were any rankings that really suprsised me, or errors that I found particularly egregious.

Filibuster reform

Although I’m initially pleased by the idea of Senator Bennet (D-CO) introducing Filibuster Reform, I also share some of Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) concern. There’s no doubt that the Republicans have abused the process, to bring the government to a stand still, screwing over the country in an infantile attempt to make sure the Government looks as incompetent as possible on the Democrats watch, and then trying to blame it all on the Democrats. How the voting public doesn’t recognize this as anything other than TRAITOUROIUS SABOLTAGE is beyond me.


It reminds a little of watching Jurassic Park and hearing Ian Malcolm talk about “Chaos” and “Entropy” and then ride into the sunset at the end with a smug sense of satisfaction, thinking he was right. Except that Jurassic Park wasn’t brought down by “Chaos,” or because “Life found a way.” It was SABOTAGED by a fat guy with a bad credit rating. In the Senate, the part of Newman Dennis Nedry, is being played legislatively by the Republicans, most recently by Senator Bunning (R-KY). So yeah, I’d say that some changes are needed.

My concern comes with the following examples, one from the Republicans, and one from the Democrats, in mind:

1) The “nuclear option.” If you don’t listen to Fox, you may remember that this was what Trent Lott (R-MS) called the Republican proposal at the time to do away with the filibuster for Judicial Nomination and Political Appointees, back when the Minority Democrats were trying to stop some of the more Jack-Booted Right Wingers that Bush was pushing from acquiring lifetime appointments to the bench. Basically, it would have eliminated the “Hold” procedure and force an up-or-down vote. Now I didn’t like this at the time, and I still don’t, but consider how weak the Republicans would be right now if the could put holds on every Obama appointee? They have shot themselves right in the foot! Whatever you propose, you’ve got to accept that one day the tables would be turned.

2) In 2004, when John Kerry may have vacated his Senate Seat, had he won the election and become President, the Massachusetts legislature TOOK AWAY the power of then Governor Mitt Romney (R) to appoint Senate replacements, instead insisting on holding a special election. But then, come 2009 and the death of Senator Kennedy, that same legislature, fearing a Republican victory, tried to give that power BACK to Governor Duval Patrick (D). This failed, in part because people recognized the bullshit game they were playing, and Scott Brown (R-MA) won the special.

Situations like these are why I hold, as one of my stated and most sacred principles, the following maxim:

Never assume a power you won’t grant your opponent. Never place a limitation on your opponent that you wouldn’t have placed upon yourself.

Apart from just being principled as well as both the right and decent way to behave, long term it is simply in your best interests to do so! Despite what the Republicans think, the “Golden Rule” is not, “He, who has the gold, makes the rules.”

So while I applaud Senator Bennet ’s efforts, I would caution him, and all Senators who want to meddle in these things, to consider that above maxim, and remember that the balance of power will shift, and the rules may one day end up stymieing their own ability to stop some truly egregious excesses in the future. After all: if the Republicans had won on the “Nuclear Option” Obama’s administration would be in much better shape right now, and if Massachusetts had just taken their chances with Romney’s potential Senate appointment in 2004, we’d have 60 votes in the Senate today.

Be VERY, VERY careful what you wish for.

Open call to all you religious moderates out there: 'Splane dis to me...

I had planned to do something on the budget, but I came across a couple of items in Skepdic that I just HAD to deal with.

Please take a moment to read THIS and THIS.  Now, lest you think these are anomolies, let me assure you that there are TONS of examples of this kind of gut-wrenching outrage throughout Skepdic's "What's the harm? Archive"

Now I've made no secret here about my disdain for organized religion.  And I already know what your very first answer to me will be; and this will be the same wether you are perfectly moderate and reasonable or standing in middle of a field with your underpants on your head, waiting for the mothership:  But we're not LIKE them!  They're CRAZY!

OK... Here's the thing... It occurs to me that there is basically a 1:1 (perhaps greater) correlation between how religious you are and how crazy you are.  Very Religious = Very crazy. (See above) Not an extremist = Not very crazy.  And of course, crazy people never KNOW their crazy,  but if you ever consider someone MORE RELIGIOUS than you are, do you ever notice how they usually also seem a little bit crazy, at least compared to you, from your own POV?

So here's my question...

Knowing that the degree of one religiosity is directly proportional to their insanity, why should anyone want to have this force in their life at all?

Please tell me why this is any different from saying, "Oh, I only use a little Cocaine.  Just to make me feel a little better.  I'm not going to be like those crazy Coke-heads, screwing up their whole life."

Tell me how that statement is any different!

Tell me why any good that comes from religion, can't come independently of the insane baggage they ask you to carry!  And yes, some churches ask you to carry very little, but why should I carry ANY AT ALL?! 

I have never noticed a positive correlation between how religious one is and how good a person they are.  Biggoted, hateful, judgemental and downright batshit crazy? Yeah, all those things seem to increase with one's religious zeal.  But charity?  A non-judmental, unconditional love of your fellow man?  Nope.  NEVER seen that. Even though Christ seemed to embody it, his loudest followers seem to be allergic to it. 

And don't think I'm just bashing Christianity here!  Islam has all the social and philosophical problems of Christianity, and then some.  And they have just as many more crazies as you'd expect, given their greater overall zeal!  How about Hinduism?  I'll say this for them: They don't take converts.  You have to be BORN a Hindu.  (I guess the whole reincarnation thing gets messed up otherwise.)  So I respect that they don't go around prostelytising and trying to force everyone else to covert to their way.  That takes a lot of the disfunction out of it.  OTOTH, the amount of absolutely absurd stuff you'd have to belileve in order to REALLY believe is as many times greater than it is Christianity and Islam as their number of Gods is!

(And BTW... if you pick and choose what parts of any religion you will accept and which parts you'll ignore: WHY BOTHER?  You're not following that faith, you're just MAKING IT UP AS YOU GO ALONG!  And you can do THAT without the damned Church! In fact, from the POV of most churches, YOU ALREADY ARE!)

So in closing, I'll say it again: I truly don't judge anyone for believing whatever they want, as long as it's kept out of the science room, out of our laws and out of my face.  And I'm putting this out there in all seriousness.  This is NOT a rhetorical question! I would really like for some moderate, liberal defender of religion to try and convince me of it's inherent goodness. Because the way I see it, if the Amount of Crazy you are is "X" times the amount of Religious you are, why would I want "X" to be anything but ZERO?

Jim Bunning Relents!

I just read that Jim Bunning has relented his obstructionism for the moment.

I guess there's not much of a future in routing against America after all, is there?

The man finally stands up and almost takes down his whole party in doing so.  And they gave him the beat down.  I love it.

Jim Bunning

First off, I would like to say a few GOOD things about Hall of Fame Right-Handed Pitcher, Jim Bunning.  He won 20 Games for Detroit in 1957, and 19 in 1962.  He won 19 games in a season three years in a row for the Philadelphia Phillies, from 1964 to 1966.  In 1964 he pitched one of the only 17 perfect games in Major League history.  He struck out of 200 batters in a season six times, leading the league three times.  When he retired he was second on the All-Time strikeout list behind only Walter Johnson.  He was an All-Star Seven times - that's a ton, for a Pitcher.  For his efforts, the Phillies retired his #14 and in 1996 he was deservingly inducted into Baseball's Hall of Fame.

Now I'd like to say a few things about Jim Bunning the Right-Leaning Senator from Kentucky.  In 2006, Time Magazine listed him as one of the five worst in the Senate.  Among other things, this honor was bestowed because, in their words, he was a Senator who basically did nothing and accomplished nothing.  So it's worth noting that now, with nothing but retirement pending and nothing to lose (or gain) politically he has done his best single handedly decide that the ENTIRE SENATE will become a body that, like his, does and accomplishes NOTHING.

One has to wonder if he felt is was in the best interests of the 10.7% of the workforce in Kentucky right now that is out of work, and has been for so long that their unemployment benefits have run out, despite not being able to find new jobs in this slowly improving economy, to stand up as a one-man road block to a bill that was sure to pass (seeing as most of his colleagues ARE up for re-election) that would have extended thier benefits, possibly long enough until work became more plentiful.  I guess those thousands of Kentucky families must be feeling tremendous relief, despite their mounting debt and impending poverty, that Senator Bunning has decided that fixing the Federal Budget Deficit is more important than helping them stay in their homes, put food on the table and maintain a dignified standard of living, despite the economic down turn that Senator Bunning's party played no small part in creating.  I'm sure they're glad that the Senator had the best intersts of their great-grandkids in mind, even though their children are hungry today.  (Of course, I'm only talking about the National Debt here, not Global Warming!) And I'm sure that they are in no way bitter about this last parting shot, this one time that their Senator FINALLY stood up to represent them... by pissing in their well.

Of course... one has to wonder... Where the heck were all these deficit hawks during the Bush years?  How many times did the good Senator Bunning stand up and speak out as President Bush added $4.3 Trillion Dollars to our National Debt?  How many of Bush tax breaks did he oppose?  How much of Bush's spending did he oppose?  How much did he stand up to the expansion of the Government that the Department of Homeland Security represented?  How often did he protest the spending that the War in Iraq forced us to incur?  Um.... that would be: NONE and NEVER.  Not ONCE.  So I do find it curious that the deficit is suddenly this man's legacy-breaking issue, seeing as how (1) There's a Democrat in the White House, (2) He in a Democratically controlled Senate and (3) He's retiring, and has nothing to lose in the way of a future political career.

Now don't get me wrong: I too am concerned about the deficit.  But when you listen to these idiots on the Right, do you ever notice how they always follow up their concern about the Deficit by saying, "And that's why we're proposing these TAX CUTS?"  *ARGH!*  TAX CUTS DO NOT LOWER THE DEFICIT, MORANS!  Cutting taxes can only, CAN ONLY, CAN ONLY, CAN ONLY INCREASE the deficit!  Oh, they'll help the economy.  No doubts there.  But they'll do so by reducing the amount of money the Gov't collects in taxes.  THAT MAKES THE DEFICIT WORSE!  Now... I will say this: The right always talks a good game when it come to CUTTING SPENDING.  But do you notice how, whenever their in power, they never seem to actually cut any spending?!  There's a reason for this, and it goes beyond just disagreement over WHAT spending to cut.  It's a lot more sinister than that.

You see... there are two things the government can do to help the economy.  CUT TAXES and RAISE SPENDING.  And while most economist agree that you get more bang for your buck increasing spending, the fact is that BOTH will help the economy.  But: Both will also increase the budget deficit.  Conversely, there are two things the government can do to reduce the budget deficit: RAISE TAXES and CUT SPENDING.  Either (or both) of these will reduce the deficit, but either or both will harm the economy.  And economist also generally agree that cutting spending will be MORE HAERMFUL to the economy that RAISING TAXES will.  There are reasons for this, both in practice and in theory.  I'm not going to into them right now, but if you don't believe me, just ask yourself: WHY then, do the Republicans NEVER, not since 1980, cut spending or balance the budget?  The answer is simple: They know it would wreck the economy.

Now... we all know they don't want to raise taxes.  And I can't say I blame them.  Although this does less harm to the economy, the political effect is so much greater because we can all see, once a year and in every paycheck exactly what we pay in taxes.  We're reminded of it on a regular basis, and we have an exact number to value it at.  It's a little harder to determine what percentage of our pay derives from gov't spending.  (But it's approximately, for most people, it's just about what you pay in taxes, minus the % of the budget that pays for the National Debt; which you'd have to pay, even if the gov't spent NOTHING.)  But that number has a lot less impact on most people, at least everyone (con and lib alike) who doesn't receive a check directly from the government.  So raising taxes in out.  For them, I mean. Fine.  So that leaves cutting spending.

Now... I've already pointed out that Republicans never have any intention of reducing spending in any meaningful way when they're in power.  My Feb 1 posts pretty much proved THAT.  And I've already explained why: If they do, they'll get blamed for the resulting economic fallout.  So what do they do? Simple: They force the spending cuts to happen when the DEMOCRATS are in office, that way the Democrats can get blamed for the fallout, while Republicans can take credit for being "fiscally conservative."  Here something to remind all those "fiscal conservatives" you meet out there: ANY actions that reduce the deficit will harm the economy.  And pretty much any gov't action that's good for the economy will increase the deficit.  That's why you only ever see a deficit hawk in the minority party, or one that's retiring when his term is up.  This is a political and economic fact of life that both Liberals and Conservatives alike need to come to grips with.

So... Why then, given that rising deficits seem to help the economy, at least in the short term, should we be concerned? Well... every year you run a deficint, more of your budget NEXT year will be spent financing the every-increasing National Debt.  So unless you raise taxes or cut spending somewhere, you will not have as much money to spend on the things that HELP THE ECONOMY.  Put simply, a day of reckoning must come and the longer you put it off, the worse it will be.  And despite Bill Clinton's best efforts, the Republicans have managed to put it off for THIRTY YEARS now.  Think about that: There are people getting married and having children who have lived their entire lives and have only seen a balanced federal budget twice, both times under a Democrat, and yet they remain convinced that the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility! *barf*

The real key is WHEN you do these things.  The time to do them is DEFINITELY NOT when the economy is still shaky.  Just ask Herbet Hoover!  Amazingly, Bill Clinton manages to pull off both: He raised taxes AND cut spending and didn't kill the economy doing it!  Of course, Al Gore's pet-project-come-to-fruition had something to do with that, but the economy was booming in a way that would not be slowed by increased taxes or reduced spending.  Now... we may get there again.  Bush had a few chances, not the least of which was when he first came into office.  But you don't reduce the deficit, or even help the economy really, by giving all of the money away to people who don't spend any of it!  (That would be "tax breaks for the rich" for any Con's who don't know what I'm refering to.)  So he blew it.  BIG TIME.  And President Obama will have is chance as well.  But that time is definitely not now. 

You see, the last thing the Republican's want is to see any economic recovery under the Democrats before November.  THAT'S what this is about.  Bunning's vote is not about the deficit.  It's about rooting against America while they Dem's are in office.  It's about making sure things don't get any better and then blaming the Dem's for not fixing anything!  And this far form the first time they've done this, and it's amazing that America keeps falling for it.  (Gotta love that Liberal media, keeping the Right-wing honest!) *barf*

So my best hopes go out to the families of my home state of Michigan and of the rest of the country.  Hang in there.  Things are getting better.  Just hold on a little longer and good things will come your way, despite Jim Bunning's best efforts to insure otherwise.  As for the people of Kentucky? You elected this bastard EIGHT TIMES, so: SCREW YOU.  You're getting what you deserve.  It's just too bad the rest of the country has to suffer while you lot learn the hard way what the Republicans really think about working class families.  To you, all I can say is that I hope next time you'll consider NOT voting against your own economic interests.  If you elect another Republican after THIS insult?  Then you really are a bunch of illiterate, brain-dead red-necks down there.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS... Just a bit more on Bunning: I found this on wikipedia:

On December 18, 2008, the Lexington Herald Leader reported that Sen. Bunning's non-profit foundation, the Jim Bunning Foundation, has given less than 25 percent of its proceeds to charity. The charity has taken in $504,000 since 1996, according to Senate and tax records; during that period, Senator Bunning was paid $180,000 in salary by the foundation while working a reported one hour per week. Bunning Foundation board members include his wife Mary, and Cincinnati tire dealer Bob Sumerel. In 2008, records indicate that Bunning attended 10 baseball shows around the country and signed autographs, generating $61,631 in income for the charity.[37] "The whole thing is very troubling," said Melanie Slone, Executive Director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Yeah... I'd sure as hell say this is a bit "troubling." His "charity" takes in $504,000, of which he helped them get $61,631, or about 12%, himself.  For that they PAY HIM $180,000, or about 36%, while paying out just 25% ($126,000) to actual charitable causes.  That's either a really obvious crime, or the worst run charity in the entire world!  Way to give back to the community you scum-sucking son of a bitch!

And, once again, to everyone out there who's benefits have now run dry?  Please remember who's responsible for this: the Republican Party and the people of Kentucky.

Newsflash: Liberals are smarter, more evolved.

CNN reports on a study verifying what we already knew: Liberals and Atheists have higher IQ's.  What's more the data in the study is explained though evolution.  The conservatives are sure to hate this, huh?  Especially coming on the heels of multiple papers showing how conservatism is like a form of mental illness!

Now let's recap.  According to Conservatives:

ACADEMIA, meaning people that study and learn things, has a liberal bias.

The part of the MEDIA that practices anything even resembling actual JOURNALISM, has a liberal bias.

And SCIENCE (climatology, evolution, stem cell research, etc...) has a liberal bias.

That says, pretty clearly, that RESEARCH, STUDYING, LEARNING, and KNOWLEDGE CREATION all have a liberal bias.  So it really shouldn't come as any surprise that higher intelligence would be liked to Liberalism and Atheism, since, according to CONSERVATIVES, all the things that support intelligence and come from intelligence ALL have a LIBERAL BIAS! 

You wouldn't think they should be so proud of that, but as "Mister Conservative," Glenn Beck himself said: We don't WANT to evolve! 

Well, good on you then Glenn, because: you haven't.

Actually, I still think then-Senator Obama said it best, during a 2008 campaign speech: "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant!"  As eloquent and articulate as President Obama can be, I still believe that statement to be the most relevant, prescient, observant, telling and accurate of his political career.

And lest you think this phenomenon is anything new, consider this exchange between Adlai Stevenson and an admirer of his during the 1952 campaign:

     "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!"

     "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

The Right has learned this lesson all too well and, in the decades following 1980, have devolved from a party of Libertarianism, Progressivism and Center-Right Populism to one of hate, bigotry, fear, paranoia, greed, superstition and madness.  Obama realized the pride they take in their ignorance but thus far he does not seem to have any ideas how to confront the problem.  Nor do I.  When it comes to separating the dumb from the Right, I have no idea where to even begin.  And don't get me wrong: I only want their votes, not their voice.  The Right got their vote by giving these fools actual representation.  That was the ultimate example of putting party and personal interests above those of the country.  Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. But there sure are a LOT of them, aren't there?  And we can't fix anything if we don't WIN ELECTIONS.  So what to do?

For once? I'm stumped.  Good luck, America.

Friday Fun (a day early): Does the Right have no shame, or just no self-awareness?

Note: This is a day early, but I couldn’t wait. It’s a bit high-brow, so the conservatives probably won't ‘get it,’ but if any of you liberals miss any of the jokes I recommend Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think, because I had a lot of fun with this, and if you like it, it might become a semi-regular item.

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

Lately, the more I listen to people like Limbaugh and Beck these days, the more I come to realize that the Right is not only lacking any good ideas or real leadership, but they seem to lack any sense of shame as well. Well... It may not be SHAME they lack, so much as SELF-AWARENESS. It seems every time one of the idiots criticize the Democrats, to me it sound like they're describing themselves.

To speak a little further on the matter, I gathered together a panel of ex-Presidents to see what they might have to say about Obama’s first year or so in office, assuming they had about the same level of self awareness as our present-day conservatives do.

Like Smallpox, George. Like Smallpox.  Just go away, will you?  At least Franklin Pierce had the decency to drink himself to death after his failed Presidency.  What have you done?

Bob Marshall - Have you heard this guy?

I wasn't planning on postign twice today, but I had to deal with THIS.

Apparenlty Bob Mashall (-R, what else?), a Virginia State legislator from Manassass, thinks that disabled children are God's punnishment for abortions.  His exact words:

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.  In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest."

I see.
 
So, putting aside that my wife, who happens to be the only woman I've been with in my entire life, has never had an abortion, your explanation for my two autistic sons is... arbortion.
 
God is punnishing me.  What a laugh.  Considering the love I have for them, I'd say that your God would have to do a lot better than that if he's trying to drive the point home.  (But go figure... What do expect from a diety who's spoken almost exclusively through madmen over the centuries?)  What's more, if your God in fact did intend to punnish me by putting this incredible burden on my children then I say that your God is not a just God.  And your God is, in fact, beneath me.
 
Finially, it occures to me that our elected officials sevre us.  They are elected to represent us.  If I lived in Virginia, apparently this pious fraud feels that my family, and my children are not part of his constituency.  You know... makred and curesed by God and all.
 
Senator?
 
FUCK YOU.
 
Take you Old Testament, magical-thinking, superstitious, medieval nonsense and SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS.
 
No God that exsists in the minds of people today (since that's pretty much the only place God exsists anyway) exacts his vengence upon the mother and father by giving them handicapped children.  I thought the last bastion of that kind of cruel, insulting nonsense was currently breathing it's last gasp in fucking INDIA.  Maybe that kind of thinking is acceptable on a remote pacific island, as yet undiscovered by man, or deep in the Amazon amoungst illiterate tribesmen, but this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the year is 2010.
 
And you, sir, are not fit to serve, in any capacity, in the governing of any part of this great nation.
 
I would hope your next child or grandchild gets cancer, but alas I am a far more just MAN that your GOD is, apparenlty.  As for you?  There is no penalty is too great, no misfortune too severe that may befall you that would earn you my sympathy.  My children are not a curse. And I will never forgive you for calling them such.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's an online petition calling for his resignation.  I've signed it, and I encourage everyone to.

WHAT sixty votes?

I’d like to thank the newly minted Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown for supporting the Democratic Senate’s Jobs Bill, breaking ranks along with two of the usual suspects, Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and also Missouri’s Kit Bond and Ohio’s George Voinovich, two guys who, since they’re retiring, have nothing to lose and I guess figured that they may as well help actually govern the country a little instead of following the Party strategy of making sure that absolutely nothing good happens, public interest be damned. So to those five: Thank You. To our spineless leader, Harry Reid? Gee, you got four more votes than you actually needed. You think maybe you didn’t have to gut the bill to quite the extent that you did?

There is one thing I want to point out however, in DEFENSE of Reid. A lot has been made of the whole 60-votes thing. And I said awhile back that I didn’t think Brown’s election really changed anything. I’ll stand by that, and here’s why: The Democrats NEVER HAD 60 votes! And by that I don’t mean that the Blue Dogs weren’t on board, or they didn’t have enough party unity, or anything like that. I mean that at no point were there ever actually 60 Democrats in the Senate! Check it out…

Here’s the timeline: In January, 2009, the numbers in the Senate were officially 59 Democrats to 41 Republicans. That's how the 2008 election worked out, if you remember. And don’t forget: The Minnesota Governor refused to seat Al Franken. So really, they started out 58-41, with one open seat, by the official party count. Now… on April 28, 2009, Arlen Specter switched parties. This brought the tally to 59-40 in favor of the Democrats, but Franken still wasn’t seated, so no 60 votes. Finally, on July 7, 2009 Franken was seated. And the tally was 60-40… for 49 days, until Senator Kennedy died on August 25. So… they had “60 Votes” for all of seven weeks, and that’s before you take into account that the ailing Senator Kennedy hadn’t been present for a vote in the Senate since summer of 2008 – a full year before his death. By any practical measure, the numbers in the Senate were never better than 59-40, even with Franken seated and after Specter defected. At no point did the Democrats ever NOT need at least one Republican vote to reach cloture. And now, with Brown’s election? Well, the numbers are 59-41, and they need… ding-ding-ding!: ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE, just as they always have, to achieve cloture.

And they just got FIVE. So I still like our chances, moving forward.

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

And BTW, I sincerely hope that President Obama does to the obstructing Republicans what President Bush did to US so many times, and just makes recess appointments for every single remaining unmanned post that the Republicans continue to block nominees for. The Right are doing their best to make sure that the Democrats never have a chance to accomplish anything. Well, they had their chance, and it’s high time that Obama leads the Democrats and they show the country what GOOD Government is really capable of.

Two big political shifts, both having to do with Race

“I am the last President of the United States.” ~James Buchanan, after the secession of South Carolina. (He was wrong, but he’d be the last Democrat for 28 years to win an election!.)

"We have just lost the South for a generation." ~Lyndon Johnson, after signing the Civil Rights act. (Who would have thought he was actually being optimistic?!)


Historians sometimes break our political history down into 5 or 6 major chapters. The ‘first party system’ usually ends with the collapse of the Federalist Party. The ‘second party system’ ends with the collapse of the National-Republicans, and the change of the Democratic - Republican Party to the Democratic Party. The third system usually ends with the collapse of the Whigs. The fourth system is marked by the civil war, and the rise of the Republicans to National Prominence and a period of decline for the Democrats. After that it gets a little blurry. The ‘fifth party system’ usually starts with FDR and the New Deal and the Democrats return to prominence, and if so, the 6th party system started with the passing of Civil Rights, and the geographic shifts that ensued. Some may say that we are entering a 7th party system, I don’t really know, and only history will tell.

Personally I don’t care much about the collapse of the Federalists, National-Republicans or Whigs. I just see those events as one Conservative Party after another being torn apart by some of its members wanting to adapt and become more progressive while the rest insist on party purity and steadfastly cling to the old ways, alienating the progressives and dividing the moderates. Three times now this has led to the dissolution of the conservative party, followed by the eventual abandonment (or redefinition) of “the old ways.” This is inevitable because the world keeps moving on, with our without the Conservative’s consent. And we may finally be seeing History repeat itself yet again, as the Tea-Baggers tear the Republican party asunder like a pack of rabid, starving cannibals. But whatever. I don’t see the cyclic demise of each successive party of luddites to be anything particularly profound. The way I see it, there have been only two real game-changers in American Presidential politics, and the both largely involve RACE: The Civil War and Civil Rights. Here’s my ‘Cliff’s Notes’ version of American Presidential History that explains why.

The Federalists (F) started out well enough. George Washington twice ran unopposed and was probably the most popular President in American History. He warned against the formation of actual parties, but perhaps was being too optimistic regarding human nature. His Vice-President, John Adams (F), then carried the flag, but Adams, as great a founding father as he was, was no Washington when it came to the Presidency. He lost his bid for re-election and the Democratic-Republicans (henceforth referred to as just ‘Democrats’ or (D)) came into Prominence. Thomas Jefferson (D) won two terms, James Madison (D) won two terms and James Monroe (D) won two terms. (In the modern vernacular, the Score is now D-6, F-3.) In Monroe’s bid for reelection, he ran unopposed, as the Federalist party had by now utterly collapsed.

From their ashes came the National-Republicans, led by John Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams(NR). Now… technically he LOST the 3-way race for the next Presidency. Andrew Jackson (D) not only had more popular votes, but more ELECTORAL votes as well! But as he didn’t have a majority, so he was not declared the winner. Henry Clay then basically GAVE all of his votes to Adams (NR) in what has become known as the “corrupt bargain” and Adams won. It wouldn’t last however. As a President, Quincy Adams (NR) was not well liked, and he’d be the only National Republican to hold office. Jackson (D) went on to win twice, and his VP, Martin Van Buren (D) also won. Dem’s now lead 9 to 4.

Unfortunately, Van Buren’s Presidency was awful. And from the ashes of the now defunct National-Republican party came the Whigs. William Henry Harrison (W) beat Van Buren (D) but died three weeks after taking office. His term was served out by John Tyler (W). But Tyler was so bad, the Whigs wouldn’t let him run again. So James Polk (D) won a term, then retired and dies himself a month after his term ended. With no one ready to replace him, the Democrats lost to Zachary Taylor (W) who ALSO died in office (what’s with these sickly Whig Presidents?) and had his term finished out by Millard Fillmore. HE was so awful the Whig’s didn’t let HIM run again (What’s with these unpopular Whig VICE Presidents?) but lacking a suitable candidate, they went on to lose twice more, once to Franklin Pierce (D) and then to James Buchanan (D) and fell apart as a party.

At this point the Dem’s lead in election victories by a score of 12 to 6. Not only have there been two Democratic victories for every loss, but they’ve outlasted three separate opposition parties! Unfortunately Pierce (D) and Buchanan (D) were SO BAD that it was under their watchful eyes that the country begin to tear itself apart, and the groundwork was laid for the Civil War. Now… the reason this was such a game-changer was that the Democrats were more prominent in the South, while the newly formed Republicans, lead by Abraham Lincoln (R), and having grown from the ashes of the Federalists, National-Republicans and now Whigs, were more prominent in the North… who, of course, won the war. This was a game changer for our national politics BIG TIME. For the next half century or so the Republicans were all but untouchable: Lincoln (R) won two terms, Ulysses Grant (R) won two term, then Rutherford Hayes (R) followed by James Garfield (R), who was assassinated and had Arthur (R) finish his term. Grover Cleveland (D) managed to finally win a term for the Democrats, then lost to Benjamin Harrison (R), but then won a send term. MicKinley (R) then won two terms followed by Teddy Roosevelt (R) who finished MicKinley’s second term after he was assassinated, and won re-election in his own right. He was followed by his protégé and Vice President, William Taft (R). THAT was the political fallout after the Civil War: After leading 12 to 6 before the war, the Democrats trail 11 to 2 after it!

Woodrow Wilson (D) finally managed to win two consecutive terms, and was the first Democrat since Andrew Jackson to do so! But as I pointed out a couple of posts back, his first election was a bit of a fluke. He was then followed by Warren Harding (R), Calvin Coolidge (R) and Herbert Hoover (R). So for the ~90 years following the Civil War, the Republicans won the Presidency FOURTEEN TIMES to the Democrats’ four.

The great depression, however, broke the Republican’s winning streak: Four victories for Franklin Roosevelt (D), followed by one for Truman (D), two for Dwight Eisenhower (R), then one each for John Kennedy (D) and Lyndon Johnson (D). That’s an 8 to 2 run for the Democrats, but I actually don’t see the Great Depression or even the Second World War as a real game-changer. Some bad luck and one lousy president (Hoover) followed by the successes of Roosevelt and Truman did put the Democrats back on the map, but the main reason I don’t consider this much of a game changer in that from 1876 to 1964, the Republicans still dominated the in the North and the Democrats still Dominate in the south. The regional trends remained largely intact and do not start to shift in earnest until the 1960’s. The shifts actually start in 1960, and were fully visible by 1968, so I’m going to use 1964 as the dividing line. Because since 1964, the regional shift have been pronounced.

First, the Northeast and Southwest have practically flip-flopped. From 1860 to 1960, the Northeast (defined here as: Connecticut, Delaware, The District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont) voted Republican 69% of the time. Take out FDR’s four national landslides and that number grows to 77%. Take out the 1912 election, and the split Republican ballot, and it grows to 79% of the time. From 1964 through to today, these same states have voted Republican only 33% of the time. Take out Reagan’s ’84 landslide and Nixon’s ’72 landslide ad that number drops to just 23%. And, to be fair, if you than also then take out Johnson’s ’64 landslide, the number goes back up to 25%. So in elections that were actually competitively contested, the region went from going 79% Republican to 75% Democratic.

The Southeast saw the opposite trend. From 1860 to 1960, the Southeast (defined here as: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North , Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia) went to the (or “a”) Democratic Candidate 81% on the time. Even removing FDR’s four landslides, in which he won EVERY STATE in the region, FOUR YEARS IN A ROW, the Democrat STILL wins 77% of the time. Take out Wilson in ’12 and the States still go Democratic 76% of the time. From 1964 until today however, these states have gone to Democrats only 24% of the time. And other than Obama, who pulled out Flordia, North Carolina and Virginia, the ONLY Democrats to win any of these States in this period were Southerner themselves: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton! Take out Johnson’s ’64 National Landslide and that number drops to 21%. Take out Reagan’84 and Nixon ’72, (both of whom won every state) and you’re back up to 25%. So a Region that had gone Democratic 69% of the time in competitive elections drops to just 25%. Or from 76% for the Democrats, to 75% against. (I can’t say “Republican” due to Independent Wallace getting some states in ’68, but they still went against the Democrats all the same, and clearly over civil rights when you’ve got George Wallace winning.) It really striking when you look at a state like Alabama: From 1876 to 1960 the only time a Democrat didn’t with was in 1948, when it went to “Dixiecrat” Strom Thurmond. Since 1964 the only Democrat to win was Carter in ’76. Johnson lost it in ’64, despite winning a National Landslide, and despite the Democrats’ near 100 year dominance of the state, and other than ’76 (and ’68 when it was carried by George Wallace) it’s gone Republican every year.

The Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio &Wisconsin) had been a Republican mainstay, going Democratic just 27% of the time from 1860 to 1960, and just 15% if you take out FDR and Wilson’12. Since 1964, it’s been the definitive battleground region, split exactly 50/50. (Although is 54% Democratic if you take out Reagan’84, Nixon’72 and Johnson’64) About the only two states in the region that have had any dominance by either party are Minnesota, which only went Republican with Nixon in ’72, and was the only STATE not carried by Reagan in ’84; and Indiana, which until Obama last year had not been won by a Democrat since Johnson in ’64.

The Mountain States (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah & Wyoming) had always been Republican strongholds, and have largely remained that way or, if anything, have gotten more so: They went 39% Democratic from 1860 to 1960, and just 17% if you take out FDR and Wilson’12. Since 1964, they gone Democratic just 18% of the time, 9% when you ignore Reagan’84, Nixon’72 and Johnson ’64.

The Pacific states underwent a shift, but it was later, and it really excludes Alaska, which votes more like a Mountain state: Republican every year, except for Johnson in ’64. But looking at just California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington, they’ve gone to the Democrats 100% since 1992. Prior to that, they went Democrat just 28% of the time from 1964 to 1988, and going back to 1860, these states went Democratic just 30% of the time, 17% if your exclude FDR and Wilson’12. The one thing the may have had keeping them Republican after 1964, despite being more liberal that their Mountain neighbors, may have been the four candidacies by former California Governors Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. It’s also reasonable to assume that they were farther removed from the civil rights issues, and thus in and of itself this was not a factor in their ideological drift.

So there you go: Racial issues flipped the COUNTRY from being predominantly Democratic to predominantly Republican, following the Civil War and shifted or reversed key regional voting patterns following the passing of Civil Right legislation.


To further illustrate the point, the following charts show the political leangings of each region, as I've deifned them.  The % reported on the chart is the % of States in the region that went to the (or 'a') Democratic candidate in the time period defined.  Red for Republican, Blue for Democrat.

Here's what the country looks like, pre-civil war:

Although counted in the Northest, New York and Pensylvania were really battleground states.

Here's the dramatic shift following the Civil War, and through the Civil Rights era:

From 1860 to 1960 the Republican's dominated every region except the Southeast.  Following the Civil Right Era however, it looks like this:

Northeast and Southest flip, Pacific moves to the left, and the Midwest essentially determines the winner.  (Minnesota and Indiana are the only states in the region that consistenlty support one party or the other.)

And if you are completely insane found this interesting, here is a far more detailed animation (not mine!) that shows the margin of victory, by party, by district, from 1856 through 2004.  It's pretty wild to watch the shifting party allegences in the 1960's.  Also, some of the landslides I've excluded will jump right out at you.  Others will look more evenly distributed, but I'm going by Electoral Votes, winner take all, in my analysis.  And there were some ELECTORAL landslides that we a lot closer in the POPULAR vote. 

Anyway, I hope you didn't fall asleep found this interesting.

SILVER STAR AWARDS, February, 2010

Normally these posts are call "Gold Star" Awards, but this month we're on the Hall of Fame election of 1945.  Last month was '42, but I'm skipping the years in which no one was inducted.  And in '45, only the Veterans Committee voted anyone in.  So this month there aren't any Gold Star's going out.  Only Silvers... and 1 Tin! LOL.  So without further ado...

The Roger Bresnahan Silver Star #4: The Dictatorship.com

The site hasn't been updated in awhile, but it's still well worth checking out.  Going waaay beyond just Hilter, Stalin and Mao, they are a concise source of "everything you ever wanted to know about the men who helped make the 20th century the bloodiest on record."  It's gets a Silver because it's far more satirical than political, but still it serves two noble purposes: It reminds us of history, so that maybe we won't be doomed to repeat it; and it shows, definitively, just how absurd all these "fascist," "socialist," "dictator," "nazi" accusations are that the Right Wing Talking assHeads keep leveling at President Obama.

The Dan Brouthers Silver Star #5: Seanbaby's Super Friends Page

Another old favorite of mine that been inactive for several years.  If you're over the age of 35, chances are you spent at least some of your Saturday Mornings growing up watching the Superfriends.  (And if you're like me, you might have been wearing your Batman or Superman Underoos while you did!)  Looking back though, my sense of nostalgia is dimmed somewhat by just how utterly, mindnumbly stupid the show really was!  (And that's coming from a HUGE fan of the classic / Silver Age DC Comics!)  Anyway, Seanbaby does a marvelously hilarious job, writing up profiles on each charecter.  Take a look.  By the time I was done with the site I'd been laughing so hard, I'd felt as if I'd been dong situps the whole time.  (Note: Not entirely safe for the office, if you know what I mean!)

The Fred Clarke Silver Star #6: Item Not as Described

...Where "free" is a four-letter word! LOL.  I'm a  bit disappointed about this.  He decided to quit on it just as he was hitting his stride.  Oh well.  This blog highlights various Craiglist ads where people try to pawn off their most disgusting and/or useless garbage, the only good point of which is usually that it's "free."  I mean, yeah, you'll have to rent a truck and buy some power tools to even MOVE most of this junk, and it's not like any of it is anything anybody would actually want anyway,  but hey: It's FREE!  So give it a read.  It's great stuff.  I laughed so hard at some of the items, I was in pain afterwards!

The Jimmy Collins Silver Star #7: I-am-bored.com

Sites for when your bored!  What could be better than that?  Dozens of new sites added every day.  Videos, Games, Articles, Wierd Stuff, Funny Stuff... GREAT STUFF!  I particularly enjoy the Games section.  The Games themselves are usually pretty lame, but even the worst of them are a fun way to kill some time while you're hold, and about 1 in 10 are pretty addictive.  Anyway, if you're ever bored, it's a great place to visit!

The Ed Delahanty Silver Star #8: Baseball-Reference.com

As I might have mentioned, and as you may have gathered by the somewhat unique format of these monthly "Hall-of-Fame" posts, I have a passion for Baseball that borders on mental illness.  I can quote archaic statistics and baseball history, answering trivia questions with an almost Rain Man-like uncanniness.  And THIS SITE is where I have spent the majority of my wasted time over the past 10-12 years or so.  And every year it seems liek they add a new dimension to the depth of information they possess.  It's incredible.  Useless to non-baseball fans, of course, but even a passive fan will appreciate the level of info available here.  (And the real stat-heads, like me, should be thoroughly satisfied.)

The Hugh Duffy Silver Star #9: Menage a 3

MA3 might just be my favorite webcomic right now.  It's sort of a cross between Three's Company and a Harem Anime.  Although entirely comedic, I should warn you that it's also pretty sexually explicit. But, if you can get past the first issue the rest is more tame.  Sexualized, yes, with a big time-focus on, shall we say... heteroflexible humor, but the focus is far more often on humor through insinuation and misunderstandings than any actual sex.  It also touches on Comic Books, Cosplay, Doujin, Punk, Harem-Anime and other popular sub-cultures.  Overall, it's a riot.  Popcorn?

The Hughie Jennings Silver Star #10: YU&ME: Dream

Another Webcomic, and another one with homosecual themes.  (I don't think this is the start of a trend, howver! LOL)  Beyond having a Lesbian main charecter, YU&ME: Dream shares very little with the previuous entry.  YU&ME is a touching, moving, funny and suspensful tale of girl who spends as much time pursuing true love in dreams as she does in "reality." (But then... what really IS reality?)  It's a fantastic read and sureal journey with varying artistic styles throughout.  (And Rosalarian really is an amazing artist.)  Like all webcomics, I recommend starting it from the beginning.

The King Kelly Silver Star #11: Anime News Network

If I have a passion that comes anywhere close to my interest in Baseball, it would Anime.  (It was actually a toss-up all those months ago whether this blog would be about Anime, Baseball or Liberal Politics.  So, yeah... I'm pretty into it.  In any, I've found ANN to be, by far, the most extensive, definitive source of information about Anime anywhere on the 'net.  I expecially like the 1-through-10 ratings that registered users (I'm "Niceguy," although I haven't been active in ages) can enter in for the ones they've seen. The site tabulated these rating and inlcudes a series of top-10 and top-50 lists for the bests and worsts.  The amount of info on each individula title is a little shallow, but the number of titles tracked in their databse is staggering.  And their forum is pretty active, if your looking for more info.

The Jim O'Rourke Tin Star: Conservapedia

Ah... Good 'ol Coservapedia.  I've bashed them myself a bit over the past few months, and there's no shortage of sites criticiszing, mocking, and outright parodying them from both the left and the right.  It's the encyclopedia specificlly for people who don't want to actually learn aything, but who need a legitimate looking resource to back up their preconcieved notions, magical thinking, prejudices and warped world view.  Put simply, it's brain-candy for conservatives, and even the most ardent right-wingers consume in extreme moderation.  Seriously? It's not taken seriously by anyone other than Andrew Shitfly and his delusional band of facsists editors.  It's SO BAD that I proudly award it this blog's first non-precious metal Star, named in honor of Jim O'Rourke, arguably the greatest home-run hitter of the 1800's... which is about as far as the Shlafly world view has progresssed.


Thanks again for humoring me.  I do hope you check some of these out and let me know what you think.  Since onle the last one is overtly political, I'm really curious to know what y'all think.

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

For reference, previous inductees include:
Ty Cobb's GOLD STAR #1: Media Matters for America
Babe Ruth's GOLD STAR #2: The Skeptic's Dictionary
Honus Wagner's GOLD STAR #3: Snopes
Walter Johnson GOLD STAR #4: Armchair Subversive
Christy Mathewson GOLD STAR #5: Humanism by Joe
Cy Young's GOLD STAR #6: The American Prospect
Nap Lajoie's GOLD STAR #7: The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity
Tris Speaker's GOLD STAR #8: Rational Wiki
Pete Alexander's GOLD STAR #9: Republican Offenders
George Sisler's GOLD STAR #10: Newshounds
Willie Keeler's GOLD STAR #11: Newscorpse
Eddie Collins' GOLD STAR #12: Wikipedia
Lou Gehrig's GOLD STAR #13: FactCheck.org
Rogers Hornsly's GOLD STAR #14: Election-Projection
- and -
Hoss Radbourne's SILVER STAR #1: FAILBlog
Cap Anson's SILVER STAR #2: Some Grey Bloke
Buck Ewing's SILVER STAR #3: Sore Thumbs

National Journal agrees with me! LOL

"Tea. Earl Grey. Hot."
                ~Jean-Luc Picard

LOL.  It seems that the National Journal Online agrees with me.  I came accross this article this morning, after having written what I did the other day regarding the self-defeating nature of the Tea Party movement.  Give it a read.  They talk about ten races where the Tea Party "could make a difference." Ten.  And do know what they DON'T describe, even once?  ANY races involving a strong but potentially vulnerable DEMOCRAT that could be unseated by a pationate and fresh face. 

What I DO see, in every example, is a Primary Challenge to the incumbant Republican; or a Primary Challenge to the Republican Party's nominated or endorsed front-runner in the case of open seats; or a potential Third Part Candidate in a Race against a vulnerable Democrat that would otherwise be an easy victory for Republicans, save for the potentially split vote of the Right.  In NONE of those cases did the Journal offer a single example where a Tea Party Candidate or a Tea-Bag Republican will actually HELP their cause.

I love it. 

One lump, or two?

The Danger of Ideologues -or - “How stupid is the tea party?”

Politics is the art of compromise. And the building of a successful political party depends on building coalitions, some of which may not always “play nice” together. Hence the expression, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” One example of this, and to their credit, would be the Republicans (since 1980) managing to keep the Libertarians and Evangelical Christian Fundamentalists, two groups with largely mutually exclusive agendas, under the same tent. Of course they did this by appealing to the greed of the libertarians and the stupidity of the Funny-Mentalists: We’ll use gay rights and abortion to get the bible-humpers to vote for us, against their own economic interests, and then you [the rich Libertarians] can keep all the money!

Another example came from a conservative friend of mine. She was a school-teacher, and thus required to join the union. She was horrified to see that some of her union dues were being contributed to various gay and lesbian advocacy groups. She couldn’t understand what the benefit of that would be to her job or the union. So I explained to her: Democrats support unions and the LBGT community supports Democrats. Hence the ‘strange’ alliance. But neither example is at all surprising, since to win the majority vote of over 300 MILLION people, you need more than just one wedge issue or one coalition. The Funny-Mentalists ALONE couldn’t win a pie-eating contect and neither could the Rich Bastards Libertarians. But TOGETHER they’ve managed to become the dominant force fucking up American Politics and subverting the U.S. Constitution for the past 30 years!

And this is why the Tea Party is so stupid: They can only hurt their own cause. They can only help the party that’s LEAST like them, ideologically. And I’ll go out on a limb right now and predict that the more prominent the tea party becomes, the better the Democrats will do in the Mid-Terms and the 2012 election. That’s not to say that they won’t lose any seats. They will. It’s inevitable. But I’ll guarantee you there will several seats (and possibly the Presidency) that the Republicans could have won, but will lose due to the actions of the uber-Right, the RINO-Hunters and the Tea-Baggers.

The most recent example of this was the recent NY-23 race for the House. Democrat Bill Owens won with 73,137 votes. Republican (the incumbent party since the 1850’s) Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the race, but still got 8,582 votes – as a lame duck candidate! “Conservative” Party candidate Doug Hoffman got 69,553. Now… combine the votes for the “Republicans” and the “Conservatives” and you’ve got 78,535 – not only a victory, but a larger margin of victory than Owns had over Hoffman. Now… maybe Scozzafava wouldn’t have gotten EVERY ONE of Hoffman’s votes, but he only would have needed 64,592, about 93% of them, to win. And I don’t think you’d really see much more than 7% of the “Conservative” (meaning ‘clearly to the Right of the Republicans’) vote going to the Democratic candidate!

Another example that hits closer to home with Liberals would be Florida in the 2000 Presidential Election. Ralph Nader (someone generally perceived as more Liberal than Vice President Al Gore) got 97,488 votes in a State that George W. Bush (officially) won by only 537 votes! If Gore gets just 50.3% of the Nader Vote in Florida alone, he wins the state and he’s our 43rd President, Supreme Court be damned.* And considering how few Nader votes would have likely gone to Bush, it’s pretty clear that Gore would have won Florida decisively. And Nader’s political cause was hardly served better by eight years of a George W. Bush presidency!*

But I want to show you one more historic example, just in case you’re still not convinced: The 1912 Presidential Election.

In 1912 the Republican Party was in turmoil, much the way it is now. Although they had a conservative incumbent President in William Howard Taft, the progressive wing, led by former President Theodore Roosevelt was feeling increasingly disenfranchised and broke off, forming the Bull-Moose Party. (Possibly the only Party name stupider than “Tea,” except for maybe the “Know-Nothing” Party - ironically yet another Whig/Republican offshoot! LOL.) As history played out, here’s what the electoral map looked like in 1912:

Democrat Woodrow Wilson won in LANDSLIDE, 435 to 88 to 8.

BUT… Here’s what might have happened, if the Republicans hadn’t imploded that year. Let’s assume they managed to agree on a Taft/Roosevelt or Roosevelt/Taft ticket, and then combine those votes, state by state. Then, just to be fair, and to try and compensate for the fact that not EVERY Roosevelt voter would have been a Taft/Roosevelt voter, we’ll go ahead and give all of Socialist candidate, Eugene Debs’ votes to Woodrow Wilson. Here’s what the map would look like under that scenario:

Woodrow Wilson now LOSES 285 to 246. A close and hard fought campaign, to be sure, but one the Republican clearly had a good shot at winning by any interpretation. But by splitting the vote in so many states, they ended up losing in a landslide. The only state that would have flipped to Wilson was California, which was much less of a factor back then than it is now. Wilson and Roosevelt ran neck and neck, hence the split electoral vote. But Eugene Debs cleaned President Taft’s clock there. So the 174 vote margin (wow!) that Roosevelt won by, becomes a 75,113 vote margin of victory for Wilson, assuming he’s given all of the Debs vote. But that’s the only gain for Wilson. Twenty other states would have move into the Republican’s column, however, and they’d have won.

And, just in case I’ve got you wondering, George H. Bush would have won reelection in 1992 by getting just over 66% of the Perot vote, nationally. In fact, he doesn’t even need that much: Between 52% and 66% of the Perot Vote would have been enough to flip Colorado (59%), Connecticut (65%), Georgia (52%), Iowa (66%), Kentucky (62%), Maine (64%), Montana (55%), Nevada (55%), New Hampshire (53%), New Jersey (58%), Ohio (54%) and Wisconsin (60%) and give George H. Bush a second term, by a margin of 274 to 264 Electoral Votes over Democratic Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Perot no doubt took some votes away from Clinton as well, but given the numbers involved above, saying that Perot screwed things up for Bush is definitely fair.

Also, to answer your next question, Bob Dole would have needed about 98% of the Perot vote, nationally, to defeat Clinton in 1996; and that’s much more of a stretch. So, I wouldn’t say Perot was a factor in ’96 the way he was in ‘92. But who knows? Maybe Two-Term Vice President Dan Quayle would have been atop the ticket in ’96, if Perot hadn’t botched it up for him four years earlier!

And also, just in case you’re almost as mentally ill as I am wondering: George W. Bush wins reelection against Democrat John Kerry in 2004, even if you award EVERY opposition party’s - thats Nader’s and everyone else’s - votes to Kerry. And some of those votes were for parties to the RIGHT of Bush. So Kerry has absolutely no one to blame but himself.

About the only time a prominent third-party candidate hasn’t screwed things up for the front runner was 1968. In ’68, former Vice President Richard Nixon soundly defeated incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey, despite a strong showing in the South by Segregationist American Independent candidate George Wallace. And remember: For that to happen, not only did the incumbent (Lyndon Johnson) have to decide on his own not to seek reelection, something that had happened only one other time in U.S. history (James Knox Polk was the only other) but the leading candidate within his party ended up getting assassinated just weeks before the Convention! And I’m pretty sure that’s NEVER happened before or since! So that’s two events, one unprecedented and one that had happened only one before in just under 200 years, that had to happen in order to bring about that electoral situation. And that, combined with the national, ideological shifts that started happening in ’68 (which I’ll probable write about next) makes it pretty much impossible to legitimately debate any “what if’s” about the 1968 election.

In any case (in every case) I think the point is clear: The Teabagger Party, the RINO Hunters and all other manner of loud, angry, dangerous and scary right-wingers can only take votes away from the REPUBLICAN candidate. The Democrats will get whatever votes they would have anyway (*assuming Ralph Nader’s learned his fucking lesson!) and what’s left will either go the Republican or get split 2 or more ways. So REST EASY, Liberals! The Tea-Baggers can only attract those who were going to vote against us anyway! And just remember, should things not work out quite the way the Right plans over the next two years: You heard it here first! LOL

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

* Just a personal Note: As much as I hate George W. Bush, I truly hate Ralph Nader MORE for delivering the Presidency to him! I hate Ralph Nader so much I can taste in my balls! If I ever meet George Bush on the street, I’ll still probably shake his hand and maybe even ask for an autograph. (After all, as much as I criticize Ronald Reagan, I still have, and cherish, the letter I received from him back when I was seven, in response to the ‘get well’ card I made for him and sent to him after he got shot by John Hinckley.) But if I ever meet Ralph Nader on the street, I’m probably  going to punch him in the face as hard as I can, and as often as any bystanders present will let me! And that’s coming from a guy who’s worked in the field of automotive safety for the past thirteen years! It’s unbelievable how many things got so fucked up just because that uncompromising asshole [Nader] flunked Political Science 101.

Who does better with the economy?

The economy is something the right likes to harp about all the time but, just like everything else, really has no credibility on. I guess the thinking goes that since all the successful CEO’s are Republican (not true, but whatever), and they all know how to run COMPANIES (like, you know… Enron, General Motors and Citibank?) then the Republicans MUST be better at “running the economy.” Couple problems with that… First off all, the vast majority of Republican politicians, like most politicians in general, are LAWYERS, not businessmen. Second, a company is to the economy what today’s weather is to the climate – the two are related, but a thorough understanding of one or the other requires a completely different skill set. (Go figure that they aren’t on the right side of the global warming debate either!)

Now… it should be clear why these "successful" CEO’s "all" vote Republican: Republican generally don’t put as many regulations on industries and prefer the lesse-faire approach. That this approach has ALWAYS ended in disaster is apparently lost on them, but the CEO’s seem to think they’ll make more money under Republicans.

But will the economy do better?  (Will we keep our jobs? Will our investments grow?)

Let's take a look at how the economy has performed under Democrats and Republicans using two of the most common economic indicators: The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Standard and Poores 500 Index. Here’s how the experiment will work. We’ll hypotyhetically put $1000.00 on the market when one party takes the White House, sell it when they’re voted out, and put it all back in when the regain power. We’ll then calculate what you’d have today if you’d done this over the years. The two strategies will be called “Betting on the Dem’s” and “Betting on the Pub’s.”

I was able to find DIJA data going back to 1900. We’ll do the Pub’s first. The idea is that you’ll BUY udner McKinnley, SELL with Wilson, BUY with Harding, SELL with Roosevelt, BUY with Eisenhower, SELL with Kennedy, etc… through to the present day, when you would SELL when Obama took office. And I’m going to show 6 different scenarios, depending on which President you want to start with. Also, it should be noted that I’m using the Jan-1 closing data, rather than the day they actually took office. This is because that’s the only data I have. If I can find some more precise data, date-wise, I’ll re-calculate it. Here is the data I’m using:

Date:_____DJIA: _____Incoming (Incumbant) Presdient:
2/12/2010_10,099____(Obama-D)
1/1/2009__8,000_____Obama-D
1/1/2001__10,887____Bush-R
1/1/1993__3,310_____Clinton-D
1/1/1981__947_______Reagan-R
1/1/1977__954_______Carter-D
1/1/1969__945_______Nixon-R
1/1/1961__648_______Kennedy-D
1/1/1953__290_______Eisenhower-R
1/1/1933__51________Roosevelt-D
1/1/1921__72________Harding-R
1/1/1913__88________Wilson-D
1/1/1900__68________(McKinley-R)

Using this data, and calculating the number of shares and values you’d have at each stage, if you used the “Bet on the Pub’s” strategy, starting with McKinley, your $1000 would be worth $5311. today. If you started under Harding, your $1000 would be worth $4104 today. If you started under Eisenhower, your $1000 would be worth $5794 today. If you started under Nixon, your $1000 would be worth $2593 today. If you started under Regan, your $1000 would be worth $2568 today. And for the poor saps who thought they’d bet on George W. Bush, their $1000 would be now worth only $735. Now… these returns account ONLY for the growth under Republicans. If you figure out the number of year involved (starting date through 1/1/2009) and calculate the annual rate of return [ (Final value / Initial Value) ^ (1 / number of years) -1 ] you get the following, based on which President you start with:

McKinnley: 1.5%
Harding: 1.6%
Eisenhower: 3.2%
Nixon: 2.4%
Reagan: 3.4 %
Bush: -3.8%

Here’s how “Betting on the Dem’s” performed: Starting with Wilson, your $1000 would be worth $28,089 today. Starting with Roosevelt, your $1000 would be worth $34,341 today. Starting with Kennedy, your $1000 would be worth $6038 today. Starting with Carter, your $1000 would be worth $4140 today. Starting with Clinton, your $1000 would be worth $4171 today, and starting with Obama, your $1000 would be worth $1268 today.

Figuring the yields the same way, (only going through to the TODAY, rather than ending on 1/1/09) you get this for the Dem’s:

Wilson: 3.5%
Roosevelt: 4.7%
Kennedy: 3.7%
Carter: 4.4%
Clinton: 8.7%
Obama: 23.7%

That’s right – the WORST CASE scenario under the “Betting on the Dem’s,” (Wilson, 3.5%) still gives a better return than the BEST CASE scenario under “Betting on the Pub’s,” (Reagan, 3.4%) So according to the DJIA, the economy not only does better under Democrats, it does much, MUCH better!

But who knows… MAYBE the DJIA has a liberal bias or something. So how about the S&P 500? Now, the S&P only goes back to the 1950’s. So we’ll start with Eisenhower. Here’s the raw market-close data:

Date:_____S&P:___Incoming (Incumbant) President:
2/12/2010_1078___(Obama-D)
1/1/2008__826____Obama-D
1/1/2001__1366___Bush-R
1/1/1993__439____Clinton-D
1/1/1981__130____Reagan-R
1/1/1977__102____Cater-D
1/1/1969__103____Nixon-R
1/1/1961__62_____Kennedy-D
1/1/1953__26_____Eisenhower-R

And here we go again. If you started with Eisenhower, your $1000 would be worth $4822 today. If you’d started with Nixon, your $1000 would be worth $2022 today. IF you’d started with Reagan, your $1000 would be worth $2042 today. And the poor sap who bet on George W. Bush would only have $605 left of his initial $1000 investment. Using the same formula, here are the returns, starting with:

Eisenhower: 2.8%
Nixon: 1.8%
Reagan: 2.6%
Bush: -6.1%

Back to the Dems… If you’d started with Kennedy, your $1000 would be worth $8598 today. If you’d started with Carter, your $1000 would be worth $5176 today. If you’d started with Clinton, your $1000 would be worth $4061 today, And betting only on Obama, your $1000 would be worth $1305 today. So, again, using the same formula, here are the returns, starting with:

Kennedy: 4.5%
Carter: 5.1%
Clinton: 8.5%
Obama: 27.0%

AGAIN, the worst case scenario under the “Dem’s” strategy (Kennedy, 4.5%) is STILL better than the best case scenario under the “Pub’s” strategy (Eisenhower 2.8%).

Now... Obama's market is obviously still in play, and so the final Democratic returns can vary.  But as it stands right now… if you want to be better off financially, you’d better do what you can to help the Democrats WIN!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW… there are some flaws with this whole exercise. I’m not going to point them out yet, since I’m not particularly motivated to go help the Right bolster their case here. (Plus I'm just curious to see what any of them come up with.) However, I have been challenged with several pretty clever arguments given to me by Conservatives, pointing some of these out in an attempt to undermine this, and the conclusion still stands. Maybe some conservative who knows what’s what will eventually shoot something my way that will stump me. But I’m not holding my breath!

Also, I’d be happy to explain how I calculated any of the above returns, if anyone does their own number-crunching and comes up with a different number. I’ve tried several different methodologies and they all give the same final answer: Dem’s rock, Pub’s are the suck. This is just the one that I felt was most defensible.