tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41871489398926963702024-02-07T17:24:54.476-08:00Nothing is SacredRyan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-36714542698073892992012-12-13T21:18:00.002-08:002012-12-13T21:18:37.523-08:00Cliff Diving<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.wheels-near-u.co.uk/gallery2/d/2290-3/thelma-louise-mustang.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img bea="true" border="0" src="http://www.wheels-near-u.co.uk/gallery2/d/2290-3/thelma-louise-mustang.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
The phrase "hurtling towards the fiscal cliff" implies a rapidly approaching fiduciary cataclysm. It conjures images of Daddy Warbucks and <a href="http://www.doheth.co.uk/files/RichUncleSkeleton.jpg">Rich Uncle Skeleton</a> driving the <a href="http://personalfinancejourney.com/img/monopoly_car.jpg">Monopoly car</a> into the Grand Canyon hand in hand a la Thelma and Louise. Some of you may think this imagery is a little over-the-top; if you do, you clearly haven't been reading <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/talks-to-avert-fiscal-cliff-show-no-progress/2012/12/12/26af6f76-4471-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html">the Washington Post</a>, which has been treating every mention of even the possibility of not reaching a deal as a Southern belle would treat a case of the vapours. There are a number of Very Serious People (mostly K Street lobbyists and Beltway pundits) who breathlessly warn of economic Armageddon should America plunge off the terrifying precipice of Current Tax Rates and into the abyss that is Austerity. Countless stories have been devoted to this seeming greatest of economic perils; in fact, <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/101650318">the looming disaster has inspired more stories than nearly every other subject combined.</a> Surely this is the greatest of financial challenges the United States has ever faced, and surely all of this is in no way, shape, or form meaningless hype, right?<br />
<br />
Sorry. Wrong on both counts.<br />
<br />
To explain why, it's necessary to take a little detour to explain what composes the "fiscal cliff" and how each of its elements contributes to legitimate economic danger...eventually. In 2001 and 2003, Congress, at the behest of the Bush Administration, passed a pair of tax cuts that slashed rates across the board while (surprise) <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3811">drastically cutting the effective rate</a> paid by the wealthiest Americans. These cuts were set to expire in 2010 to avoid <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byrd_Rule">the Byrd rule</a>, which would have prevented their initial passage by reconciliation. However, as part of the first of what were to be a series of hostage negotiations over the last three years, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Relief,_Unemployment_Insurance_Reauthorization,_and_Job_Creation_Act_of_2010">the cuts were extended in exchange for funding further unemployment benefits</a> (which had never been politicized during economic downturn before), with the caveat being that the cuts would then expire for good at the end of 2012. As some of you may have noticed, it's now the end of 2012. I should point out that the increase in taxes isn't some mammoth new cashgrab; <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_110005.html">it's a simple return to the rates at the end of the Clinton presidency</a>. This WILL hit everyone for a good-sized chunk of their income (the White House estimates <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/taxes/tax-cuts">the average family of four will take a hit of about $2200</a>), but notably it hits the wealthy substantially harder (the aforementioned links note increases in the top rate, plus increased rates on capital gains and dividends). Since this would restore some, albeit not much, needed progressivity to the income tax system, it's not an inherently bad thing for the whole set of cuts to expire. However, the President noted several times during the campaign - and it's concrete fact - that the middle class has been getting wrecked for the last decade plus (I'd say 35 years, give or take) and can't afford that kind of tax hike. Thus, he proposed, and the Senate passed, a bill that maintains the lower rates for the lower tax brackets and permanently eliminates the "marriage penalty" provision while allowing all the other cuts that primarily affect those who make more than $250,000 to expire. That would maintain the lower rates for 98% of families, and 97% of small businesses, provided you don't define small business <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/ryan-romney-small-business-malarkey-taxes">like Mitt Romney does</a>. Naturally, the bill hasn't come up for a vote in the House, because it would pass. <a href="http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/11/30/no-wonder-boehner-wont-bring-up-senate-tax-cut-bill-it-would-pass/">No, really.</a><br />
<br />
The other side of the "cliff" comes from automatic spending cuts signed into law last year. Some of you may recall the hideous "debt ceiling" debacle from the summer of 2011, where Republican bomb-throwers and Tea Party (ugh) sociopaths in the House refused to raise the debt ceiling (an artificial cap on the amount the country can borrow at one time) without enormous cuts across the board to domestic programs. The negotiations were long and mostly pointless. Ultimately, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011">Budget Control Act</a> was passed in the summer of 2011. It produced the needed raise in the debt ceiling but came at the cost of a $1.2 trillion sequester (forced budget cuts) over ten years, with the sequester split evenly between defense and non-defense programs. This wasn't enough to prevent a downgrade of the nation's credit rating, though Standard and Poor's greatest downgrade was to <a href="http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/06/sp-downgrades-itself/">its own credibility</a>. To try and head off the sequester, a supercommittee was created with extraordinary powers to bring legislation to the floors of each house of Congress without any of the delays or blockades typical to such procedures. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/21/politics/super-committee/index.html">To the surprise of absolutely no one, it failed to produce anything.</a> As such, the major aspects of the sequester - namely substantial cuts to defense spending and across-the-board discretionary spending - are set to take effect at the start of 2013, at the same time the aforementioned tax cuts are scheduled to expire.<br />
<br />
"But wait! If those both happen at the same time, then no one's spending on anything and the economy will stall out! That actually is bad! You lied to me <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPgCHsoU2wU">OH MY GOD THE PTA HAS DISBANDED</a> AAAAAHHHHHHH" Settle down. While it is true that the effects of both will be deleterious to the nation's economic health (which is why I've replaced the term "fiscal cliff" with "austerity bomb"), consider that most people don't pay all their taxes at one time. If we split that average $2200 annual hike over 26 biweekly pay periods, that comes out to $84.62 per paycheck. If it takes two months to get the Republicans to sign on, that's $335 in extra withholding; should the bill make cuts retroactive to January 1st, that money will all come back to the taxpayer in their refund. Likewise, most people don't buy all their groceries for the year on January 1st. Consider just the defense cuts (rumored to be approximately $600 billion over 10 years). If it takes two months to get a deal, that comes out to $10 billion cut in those two months. By comparison, the military budget for last year was roughly <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_breakdown_for_2012">$1.4 trillion</a>. Simple math points out that the total cut would equal 0.7% of the total military budget. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102074.html">That's roughly the cost of funding TWO WEEKS of the war in Iraq.</a> <a href="http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/"> It's also roughly the lowest credible estimate for total government oil subsidies.</a> So as you can see, if the austerity bomb does go off, the country WILL go back into recession...but not unless NONE of the sequester's cuts OR the automatic tax hikes are eliminated for several (read: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/opinion/krugman-lets-not-make-a-deal.html?ref=paulkrugman">at least three</a>) months. <em>(Editor's note: I'd like to point out that that last link, which matches my feelings on the subject AND backs up my statements, comes from a Nobel Prize-winning economist. So before anyone goes accusing me of not knowing my econ, I found someone who clearly does to back me up.)</em> The simplest solution to the whole thing? Pass the previously-discussed middle class tax stalls (they're not really cuts) and find places where there's obvious waste and unnecessary spending throughout the system (my suggestions: scrapping the F-35 program and allowing Medicare to haggle for prescription drug prices). However, those aren't going to happen because 1, Republicans are pledged to Grover (<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/be/Grover.JPG/220px-Grover.JPG">not that Grover</a>) not to allow taxes to go up on anyone ever, and 2, Republicans are beholded to defense contractors to help them rake in as much money as they can as quickly as they can. Hence the current negotiations between the White House and John "I swear it's not pronounced Boner" Boehner, in which the President has finally stood firm for something and the Speaker has cried about it. <a href="http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/191280/tearsofboehner.jpg">Repeatedly</a>. President Obama understands that if he doesn't make a deal before the end of the year, the top tax rates will go up (positive) and he can propose the lower rates on the poor and middle class as the Obama tax cuts and dare the Republicans to vote against lowering taxes. On top of that, he also realizes that when people arre confronted with programs that could be cut, <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/10/176975/voters-want-soft-fiscal-cliff.html">there are some that they <u>really</u> don't want to see cut</a>. He also understands that, coming off an election where he (despite reporting to the contrary) whomped his opponent, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/12/john-boehner-getting-bad-reviews-on-fiscal-cliff-talks/">he's got the backing of a sizable portion of the country</a>.<br />
<br />
So, if going off the cliff (or more accurately, down the bunny slope) won't turn the USA into Greece overnight AND won't have the devastating economic consequences of the UK's austerity plan unless nothing's done for a quarter-plus of the year, why is every major media outlet so terrified of it? Why is every Sunday morning pundit roundtable treating January 1st, 2013 like the mainstream public is treating December 21st, 2012? Why are so-called responsible journalists turning into raving derelicts wearing "The End Is Nigh" sandwich boards and yelling "Bring out your dead!" to the gullible masses? Two words: corporate ownership. See, the austerity bomb actually IS a big deal to the wealthy who own most of the mass media these days. Those higher tax rates cut into their take home pay, particularly the capital gains hikes (no more dodging the top bracket by taking their pay in stock options). The sequester will also take a major chunk out of corporate profits, <a href="http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/defense-contractors-fear-fiscal-cliff-spending-cuts-will-strike-bone-18743">particularly in the defense sector</a>. The fear of job losses is consequential only because corporate America responds to every potential blow to profit margins by laying off workers. And we haven't even begun to discuss Wall Street, where anything that might bring down dividends is akin to Srebrenica. That's why there are so many demands for a deal, preferably one that damages Social Security or Medicare in the process. That's why the media is pushing the "the cliff is TOTAL DISASTER" meme harder than WCW pushed Goldberg. That's why the average American is now willing to agree with any deficit-reduction commission's plan, <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/republicans-not-handling-election-results-well.html">even ones that don't exist</a>.<br />
<br />
In the words of Paul Harvey, now you know the rest of the story. Carry it with you wherever pockets of ignorance exist, and there are plenty. People only fear what they don't understand, and while understanding is getting better, it's not nearly good enough. The sheer number of people who still believe in death panels is proof of that.<br />
<br />
Until next time, remember that knowing is half the battle.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-6277213311672218842012-09-04T01:57:00.001-07:002012-09-04T01:57:50.586-07:00Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/19/article-2076219-0F39F5A100000578-142_634x476.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/19/article-2076219-0F39F5A100000578-142_634x476.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i>(Editor's Note: Apologies to Al Franken for stealing the title of his book. For those who haven't read it, it's an exceptional piece of work and I highly recommend it. The Kindle version is a mere $11.99 on Amazon, or if you prefer actual paper, you can get it at any major bookstore for significantly less.) </i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i>"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - </i>George Orwell</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><br /></i></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I wanted to wait until after the clown show that was the Republican National Convention to convey my distaste with the Teapublican presidential ticket. Fortunately for me, the Convention provided a treasure trove of ludicrousness for mocking purposes. From Ann Romney's "Tonight I want to talk to you about love" speech <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/chris-christie-ann-romney-convention-speeches-love_b82283">getting immediately trampled</a> by Chris Christie's "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">I believe we have become paralyzed by our desire to be loved" to Christie's speech in which <a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/315741/chris-christie-defends-romney-less-rnc-speech-let-ann-talk-about-mitt/">he didn't mention the nominee by name until over sixteen minutes had passed</a> (which led me to crack the next day that Christie's ego is so large, it almost fits into a pair of his pants), the first night (well, technically the second...thank you, merciful hurricane) was a less-than-auspicious start for <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/etch-a-sketch-romney-aide-suggests-campaign-reset-after-primary/">Governor Etch-a-Sketch</a>. Day 2 didn't go much better, as a surprise rule change designed to eliminate grassroots influence <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/28/ron-paul-supporters-put-dent-in-unity-at-gop-convention/">drew the ire of the Ron Paul psychopaths</a>, followed by Condoleeza "I ignored 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' memos and all I got is this lousy Secretary of State job" Rice and New Mexico Governor Suzana Martinez getting trotted out as part of the "See, some of our best friends are women/black/Hispanic"!" plan. The night concluded with Paul Ryan's unconscionably awful speech, which was so bad that <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/">even Fox News couldn't ignore the sheer number of lies</a>. I'll have more on that in a bit.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Finally, the coup de grace came on Thursday. No, I'm not talking about <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/mitt-romney-convention-video_n_1845234.html">the video on Mitt Romney's life</a> that didn't air on major network coverage. No, I'm not talking about Marco Rubio positioning himself as the lead man for the 2016 race with the only speech that didn't embarrass its speaker. No, I'm not even talking about Romney's acceptance speech, which was typically light on facts and heavy on lies, platitudes, and rhetoric (more on this in a bit as well). I'm speaking of the single strangest moment in a convention I can remember: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiHNVYRTKP8">Clint Eastwood's rambling, incoherent, bizarre "conversation" with an empty chair occupied by an invisible President Obama.</a> It completely flabbergasted Brian Williams (not easy to do). It preemptively took all the air out of Rubio's sails. <a href="http://twitter.com/InvisibleObama">It spawned a fantastic Twitter feed for Invisible Obama.</a> It resulted in an internet flashmeme within hours (Google "eastwooding" for details/pictures). Last, but certainly not least, it turned one of the last surviving film icons, universally known for his gravitas, into a complete laughingstock. There is no way to describe this in the fact-based community but as a complete disaster for the Romney camp; the day after the candidate's speech is designed to be the candidate's biggest win, and instead of discussing Mitt's winning oratory skills (sarcasm) the GOP is stuck trying to explain why they didn't bother vetting an 82-year-old man who asked for a chair to use as a prop. Priceless.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">However, I've digressed from my point, which is the rampant lying associated with the Romney campaign. To be fair, this isn't a new phenomenon for them: the majority of their campaign has been based on lies, largely because they're a little lacking in ideas. However, the brazenness of it at the Convention really caught my eye. We've never seen a campaign willing to openly ignore facts on literally every issue with no fear of being called on it. Those who do point out that, hey, that's not even remotely true, get tagged with the "liberal media/partisan" label and get lambasted with "both sides do it" tomfoolery. News flash: both sides DON'T do it. There's no level of comparison between Al Gore's "I was involved with the creation of the internet" and the entire right's "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Socialist" meme. One is <a href="http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp">a little oversold, but ultimately based in truth</a>, while the other is completely made up. It's pathetic, and I've had enough of it. So, I'm going to spend the next few paragraphs calling out the lies in Congressman Ryan and Romney Hood's respective speeches, replete with evidence to back up my opposition. All quotes are taken directly from transcripts of their speeches, which can be found <a href="http://www.newsday.com/elections/transcript-of-rep-paul-ryan-s-rnc-acceptance-speech-1.3937544">here</a> and <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80504.html">here</a>.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></div>
1. <i>"I'm the newcomer to the campaign, so let me share a first impression. I have never seen opponents so silent about their record, and so desperate to keep their power. They've run out of ideas. Their moment came and went. Fear and division are all they've got left."</i><br />
<br />
FALSE. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/29/remarks-president-campaign-event-charlottesville-va">At a campaign event just two days ago</a>, President Obama included a substantial list of his accomplishments AND told the crowd when they started booing Romney "Don't boo - vote." This is typical of his campaign speeches, as anyone can see if they go through the litany of campaign speeches listed at the White House. He even makes the point (not in this one, but in others) that he thinks Romney is a good man with a fundamentally different view of where to take the country and that people who believe in that vision should vote for Romney. Last I checked the President wasn't the one <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/22/1122970/-Texas-Judge-Raise-Taxes-For-Militia-To-Overthrow-Obama">funding a militia to oust himself</a>. Last I checked the President wasn't <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/romney-accused-of-racism-following-naacp-speech.html">blowing the dog whistle on welfare</a>. Seems that Mr. Ryan has things backwards.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
2. <i>"President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory. A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: "I believe that if our government is there to support you. this plant will be here for another hundred years." That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that's how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.</i><br />
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
Not exactly false, but a gross misrepresentation of facts. Ryan has mentioned this before in other stump speeches and stated his intention more clearly than he did here. The Janesville plant did close down. Obama did say exactly what Ryan claims. You'll also notice that "that plant didn't last another year." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janesville_GM_Assembly_Plant">This is an important detail.</a> Obama made his statement when he was at a campaign event in Wisconsin in February of 2008. In October of 2008 GM announced they would be idling the plant and laying off the majority of the workers. Those of you with functional cerebrums might note that this is a month before Obama was even elected. All but 57 workers were eliminated in December of 2008 when all but a single Izuzu line shut down; again, for those who understand calendars, that's a full month before the President-elect took office. While it's true that the last line didn't go down until June 2009, and while it's ostensibly true that the Administration could have demanded that GM fully reopen the plant, under the terms of the bailout/bridge loan they allowed GM to make all decisions regarding the closure of facilities. So the notion that Obama is responsible for the closure of the plant is disingenuous at best.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
3. <i>"It went to companies like <a href="http://www.newsday.com/topics//Solyndra">Solyndra</a>, with their gold-plated connections, subsidized jobs, and make-believe markets. The stimulus was a <a href="http://www.newsday.com/topics//Case_Western_Reserve_University">case</a> of political patronage, corporate welfare, and cronyism at their worst. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. Ignoring the political patronage and corporate welfare claims (since, you know, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra">the company was originally considered by the Bush Administration</a>), let's look at the notion that Solyndra never had a chance to succeed. At one point, Solyndra's technology was unique, giving it a technical advantage over its competition. However, because it was unique technology, it was more expensive to produce; thus, the return on investment wasn't as high as with companies like GE who worked with less efficient, but cheaper, alternatives. In addition, soon after receiving their loan, Solyndra got blindsided by a massive Chinese subsidy on solar panels. While this hurt everyone in the American solar industry, it hit them the hardest because their margin for error was so thin. The notion that the jobs and market were/are make-believe shows little appreciation for reality. I could also bring up the fact that the company's executives are now under investigation for misrepresenting the company's finances in order to secure the loan, or I could bring up the fact that Mitt Romney, as governor, helped subsidize Konarka (which also went bankrupt), or I could bring up the fact that the Solyndra collapse was directly stated to be one of the reasons for sizable new tariffs on Chinese solar panels passed earlier this year. That just seems like piling on, though. <a href="http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-solyndra-fantasy/">Besides, this gentleman does it better than I can.</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
4.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #061826; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> </span><i>"What did the taxpayers get out of the Obama stimulus? More debt. That money wasn't just spent and wasted— it was borrowed, spent, and wasted."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/">I'll just leave this here.</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
5. <i>"You see, even with all the hidden taxes to pay for the health care takeover, even with new taxes on nearly a million small businesses, the planners in Washington still didn't have enough money. They needed more. They needed hundreds of billions more. So, they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama. An obligation we have to our parents and grandparents is being sacrificed, all to pay for a new entitlement we didn't even ask for. The greatest threat to Medicare is Obamacare, and we're going to stop it."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. Hoo boy. Where to start? Well, we could start by noting that the $716 billion not going to Medicare doesn't affect benefits AT ALL. It's all money saved by reducing payments to providers, insurance companies, and hospitals. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, tighter regulation and stricter pricing rules have allowed the government to more effectively negotiate prices. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/08/16/702341/romney-v-ryan-medicare/">That's not money stolen from the plan, it's money THEY DON'T HAVE TO SPEND ANYMORE.</a> Bit of a difference. In fact, it's about eight years' worth of a difference, as that's how long the change has improved the solvency lifetime of Medicare. If anything, it's the perfect example of why the Bush prescription drug plan was such an <a href="http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/04/04/bushs_drug_plan_wasteful_inefficient.php">unmitigated disaster</a>. What's worse, though, is that Ryan factors those exact same savings into his "<a href="http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10778-romneys-shifty-economic-plan-the-first-challenge-is-believing-it">so-bad-people-don't-believe-it's-real</a>" budget and uses the money for...well, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/01/paul-ryan-medicare_n_1640990.html">it's not quite clear</a>. The only thing worse than a boldface lie is an hypocritical boldface lie, and Congressman Ryan deals in those like a fishmonger with ever so much tuna to unload.<br />
<br />
6. <i>"We had help from Medicare, and it was there, just like it's there for my mom today. Medicare is a promise, and we will honor it. A Romney-Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare, for my mom's generation, for my generation, and for my kids and yours."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. Anyone who's had to deal with the exorbitant and seemingly endless cost increases in the health care field understands exactly how crippling the Ryan (and by association, the Romney) plan for Medicare would be, but for those who've been on Mars for the past decade, I'll walk you through it: in place of the current system (with an exception for everyone born in 1958 or earlier, so the GOP doesn't screw itself out of the elderly vote) Medicare would be replaced with a voucher system. Each recipient would receive a government stipend to be put toward purchasing private health insurance. As you may guess, your average private insurance company likely isn't going to take the limited amount of government money as compensation for one of their coverage plans, particularly given the age and accumulated medical history of the potential buyer. Thus, the average senior would be stuck dropping a substantial chunk of their already-limited income on covering the gap. When you factor in the reopening of the prescription drug donut hole (as a result of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act) and the lack of power to negotiate lower rates (because there's no longer a government branch to hold the insurance companies accountable), what was once a guarantee of health care in waning years now becomes a roll of the dice. Worse yet, Ryan's plan indexes the size of the voucher to the overall rate of inflation, NOT the rate of health care inflation. <a href="http://lifeinc.today.com/_news/2012/05/21/11792712-health-care-costs-rose-faster-than-inflation-despite-weak-economy?lite">Health care inflation has outstripped general inflation for quite some time now.</a> So over time, the voucher pays for less and less, <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3453">until finally the patient is left to handle the majority of the costs themselves.</a> By the time the first person would be eligible for the new plan, in 2022, they'd be looking at an increase of over SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS in their out-of-pocket expenses. Oh, and before anyone gets the wise idea to say "That's the old plan, he changed it since then, your numbers are bad and you should feel bad," I should point out that only the original plan was scored by the CBO; the new one has never been submitted for scoring because Ryan has intentionally left a number of the details sketchy. Does any of that say "protect and strengthen" to you? It seems to say to me that if I want to afford my funeral I'm better off killing myself at 60 than I would be living into that dystopia.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
7. <i>"He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. This one's particularly egregious, because not only did the President take the recommendations of the <strike>relatively terrible</strike> Simpson-Bowles commission into account (much to his discredit), but he sent some of them to Congress when attempting to negotiate the Budget Control Act (also, much to his discredit). Where it <u>really</u> sticks in my craw is that Paul Ryan was a member of the House Budget Committee and voted on the commission's recommendations; at least 14 yeas would have adopted the commission's report as Congress's official position and started the ball rolling on turning it into a <strike>very, very bad</strike> law. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/politics/fact-check-ryan-debt-commission/index.html">Ryan voted no, complaining that it didn't do enough to restructure Medicare.</a> I'm sure that comes as a shock to you all. The report vote <strike>thankfully</strike> failed at 11-7. You don't get to complain about the roads not being plowed when you slash the tires on the snowplows, Mr. Ryan.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
8. <i>"Republicans stepped up with good-faith reforms and solutions equal to the problems. How did the president respond? By doing nothing— nothing except to dodge and demagogue the issue."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. I don't think I need to explain this one.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
9. <i>"In a clean break from the Obama years, and frankly from the years before this president, we will keep federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, or less. That is enough. The choice is whether to put hard limits on economic growth, or hard limits on the size of government, and we choose to limit government."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
This isn't false, as it's a pledge and not a statement of historical record. I just wanted to put it here to point out how incredibly stupid this is. Capping federal spending at a percentage of GDP is just insane, no matter how you try to slice it. As an example, <a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp">the current U.S. GDP is roughly $14.5 trillion</a>. Using Ryan's math, that would set the federal budget for next year at $2.9 trillion. While that would result in a budget deficit of a mere $300 billion, by comparison, the current budget outlay for 2012 is <a href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/02/2012-us-budget-3-7-trillion/">roughly $3.7 trillion</a>. So, while the deficit wouldn't be growing by as much, there'd be at least $800 billion dollars worth of cuts to be made, and Ryan's made it clear that revenue increases and cuts to military spending are off the table. That means that <u>every other federal program would have to be gutted</u>, just to hit an arbitrary benchmark. Good call, Congressman.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
10. <i>"None of us have to settle for the best this administration offers— a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us. Listen to the way we're spoken to already, as if everyone is stuck in some class or station in life, victims of circumstances beyond our control, with government there to help us cope with our fate. It's the exact opposite of everything I learned growing up in Wisconsin, or at college in Ohio."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. This one's actually pretty funny. Paul Ryan's father died when he was 16, which qualified him for Social Security survivors benefits. He saved that money and put it towards the aforementioned college tuition at Miami of Ohio. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan">After college, outside of a few odd jobs here and there, he did most of his work as a policy wonk and speechwriter for Jack Kemp and Sam Brownback</a> (both execrable, for the record). In 1998, he won his seat in the House, where he's been ever since. The "rugged individualist," the scion of the Randians, the head witch doctor of neoconservative voodoo economics, owes nearly everything in his life to the federal government: his education, his experiences, his friendships, and his jobs, both past and present. In other words, Paul Ryan, you didn't build that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
11. <i>"Four years ago, I know that many Americans felt a fresh excitement about the possibilities of a new president. That president was not the choice of our party but Americans always come together after elections."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. The first from <a href="http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2009/5/21/128874038222759378.jpg">Guy Smiley</a>'s speech, and it's a whopper. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc">This should be explanation enough.</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
12. <i>"The President has disappointed America because he hasn’t led America in the right direction. He took office without the basic qualification that most Americans have and one that was essential to his task. He had almost no experience working in a business."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. While it's arguably true that the President has relatively little experience working in a business, it's unequivocally false to claim that business experience is necessary for being President. George Washington was a career soldier. Ditto Dwight Eisenhower. Lincoln had business experience, but it was all failures. Same with Ulysses S. Grant. Our two most recent presidents known for being businessmen came from the same family and did a similar job of driving the country off a cliff. Other businessman presidents include Warren Harding (most scandal-ridden presidency ever), Calvin Coolidge (created the environment that led to the Great Depression, closest thing we've had to a Tea Party president), and Herbert Hoover (made the Great Depression worse). One could argue that it's actually more beneficial for a president NOT to have been a businessman.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
13. <i>"These are American success stories. And yet the centerpiece of the President’s entire re-election campaign is attacking success. Is it any wonder that someone who attacks success has led the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression?"</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. <i>"It’s heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal. But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work? That’s inexcusable. It is wrong. It flies in the face of everything that we stand for. Now, fortunately, that’s not a future that we have to accept, because there’s another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country -- a view that’s truer to our history, a vision that’s been embraced in the past by people of both parties for more than 200 years. It’s not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America. <b>It’s not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all of society’s problems.</b> It is a view that says in America we are greater together -- when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share."</i> - President Obama, December 6, 2011</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
14. <i>"This president can ask us to be patient. This president can tell us it was someone else’s fault. This president can tell us that the next four years he’ll get it right. But this president cannot tell us that YOU are better off today than when he took office."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. First, I'd argue that the <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/in-looking-back-four-years-voters-have-short-memories/">roughly 2.5 million</a> people represented by job growth over the last four years would disagree. However, that's not my biggest issue. My biggest issue is that this is a bogus, misleading, fiendish question to ask. What's worse is that it's being parroted in the corporate media right now because they refuse to do their own legwork for anything anymore (more to come). <a href="http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/qare-americans-better-off-today-than-they-were-four-years-agoq-the-questron-that-exposes-incompetent-reporters">I read an analogy</a> that I thought perfectly explained my objection: let's say that your house catches fire. The fire department arrives and succeeds in putting it out, though not before the combination of smoke, flame, and water has done a number on the interior. Your response to this is not going to be to complain to the fire department that your house isn't better off than it was before the fire; you're simply going to be happy that you still have a house at all. I hope you all get where I'm going with that, even though I doubt the American public at large would be capable of following along. Another thought about this from one of my readers: <i>"It didn't take FDR 4 years to end the Depression. It took him 4 TERMS. Global recessions aren't an easy fix and what FDR helped not only in the short term, but for generations to come."</i> It would be my hope that Americans are smart enough to understand this, but I know better. My point is that the question that needs to be asked isn't "Are you better off now that you were four years ago?" but "Are you going to be better off with me in charge than with Obama?" If that can't be answered in the affirmative, then that's an insurmountable hill to climb.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
15. <i>"His policies have not helped create jobs, they have depressed them. And this I can tell you about where President Obama would take America: His plan to raise taxes on small business won't add jobs, it will eliminate them; His assault on coal and gas and oil will send energy and manufacturing jobs to China; His trillion dollar cuts to our military will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and also put our security at greater risk; His $716 billion cut to Medicare to finance Obamacare will both hurt today's seniors, and depress innovation – and jobs – in medicine. And his trillion-dollar deficits will slow our economy, restrain employment, and cause wages to stall."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE x 5. <a href="http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/small_business_report_final.pdf">One, the President has cut taxes on small businesses at least 18 times.</a> Two, <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/06/11/u-s-daily-oil-production-at-highest-level-since-1998/">oil production</a> and <a href="http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&graph=production+consumption&product=coal">coal extraction</a> are at or near their highest levels ever. Three, those military cuts are part of the sequester attached to the Budget Control Act and are only in place because Republicans refused any revenue increases in trying to reduce the deficit (should be noted that <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/08/23/735761/paul-ryan-holds-event-criticizing-the-military-spending-sequester-he-voted-for/">VP pick Paul Ryan voted in favor of this</a>). Also, we spend more on defense than nearly every other country combined; I think we can get by with only as much as, say, the top 9 countries combined. Four, I've already debunked. And five, those deficits are in large part due to the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Bush tax cuts, the latter of which Romney Hood intends to continue, strengthened, in perpetuity. I rest my case.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
16. <i>"And let me make this very clear – unlike President Obama, I will not raise taxes on the middle class."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. The President hasn't touched middle class tax rates. In fact, the payroll tax holiday lowered the effective tax rate for the middle class. T<a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf">he same cannot be said of Mr. Romney's tax plan.</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
17. "<i>I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour. President Obama began with an apology tour."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. Where did this "apology tour" idea come from? If it HAS happened, could someone kindly point me to some video?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
18. <i>"President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus, even as he has relaxed sanctions on Castro's Cuba."</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
FALSE. If anything, the Obama Administration has been <a href="http://www.voanews.com/content/us-confirms-palestinian-statehood-veto-threat-129484283/144964.html">too good to Israel</a> and <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/16/us-americas-summit-idUSBRE83D0E220120416">too hard-line on Cuba</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There's more, but this is getting really long and I wanted to get to the bigger issue at hand: how they're getting away with this. For decades, the press was willing, even gleeful, to fulfill its civic duty and cut through the hogwash to the facts. Woodward and Bernstein achieved immortality by blowing the lid off the biggest Presidential scandal since Teapot Dome. Walter Cronkite called out the Johnson Administration's "everything is fine, nothing to see here" whitewashing of Vietnam. Now? While there are still <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Ganim">a few legitimate journalists</a> out there, doing respectable, decent, necessary work, <a href="http://www.upworthy.com/conan-obrien-somehow-made-100-news-anchors-say-the-exact-same-thing?c=cp2">the majority are all too willing to parrot</a> whatever their network's head honchos decide is important. In this particular race, the falsity has become omnipresent, primarily from the Republican side. The answer to the question of why one side can lie through its teeth and escape scot-free while the other can't utter the slightest exaggeration lies in my previous column (yes, I'm aware it was six months ago...it's the only other one on the page, so it should be easy to go back and look). Citizens United opened the floodgates for an orgy of campaign and campaign-related spending on advertising, and the networks are all too happy to oblige. Consider that the networks are expected to bring in <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/guess-whos-profiting-most-from-super-pacs-20120806">more than SIX TIMES</a> as much from this presidential cycle as they did from 2008 (which was, itself, the previous high-water mark). They don't get that money by being hard on the candidate, and remember that conservative super PACs outmoney their left-wing counterparts by an obscene margin. That's why you have Tom "Both Sides Do It" Brokaw out there on Morning Joe, lending his gravitas to the perpetuation of a stereotype. That's why Wolf Blitzer pretends that people like Bernie Sanders are crazy and that Obama is being an angry black man when he so much as suggests Romney's not being 100% honest. That's why the major newsmedia continues to perpetuate this as a <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/02/1127093/-Obama-vs-Romney-is-not-a-dead-heat">horserace</a> when demographics, the Electoral College counts, and even logic suggest otherwise. The old saying is that money is the root of all evil; in that case, the corporate media is a factory farm, and the super PACs are Monsanto.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Until next time, keep some salt with you. You never know when you'll need to take something with a grain of it.</div>
Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-30490317442907512782012-02-12T22:18:00.000-08:002012-02-12T23:16:45.595-08:00PAC-Man Fever<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://ct.politicomments.com/ol/pc/sw/i46/5/9/17/f_aa4dbabed9.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 620px; height: 376px;" src="http://ct.politicomments.com/ol/pc/sw/i46/5/9/17/f_aa4dbabed9.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />I’d like to start by presenting, out of context, a quote relevant to my topic:<br /> <br /><span style="font-style:italic;">“We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”</span><br /> <br />Sounds pretty ridiculous, right? If, say, I received $20 million from Microsoft and then spent my next column raving about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/education/22gates.html?pagewanted=all">Bill Gates’s attempts to buy the education system</a>, some of you, I would assume, would think my honest opinion had been co-opted by the opinion my new corporate overlord wanted me to have. When people like Mitch McConnell talk about hydraulic fracturing for natural gas and <a href="http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/T_Boone_Pickens.php">their campaign contributions include representatives for T. Boone Pickens</a>, it’s only natural to believe there’s corruption involved, right?<br /> <br />How about this one?<br /> <br /><span style="font-style:italic;">“The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.”</span><br /> <br />Just as ridiculous, right? If the people believe their voice has less influence than that of some outside influence, they inevitably lose faith in leadership. That goes for all kinds of hierarchies, from third-world banana republics to the New York Knicks (replace corporate campaign donors with Isiah Thomas and you’ll see where I’m going with this). There isn’t a single situation where preferential treatment of a specific voice doesn’t result in, at a minimum, disillusionment with the process, and at a maximum, outright revolt (entire Middle East, please pick up the white courtesy phone).<br /> <br />So what kind of kook would say these kinds of things? John “I used to be with it, but then they changed what IT was” McCain? Sorry, he adamantly opposes both of those thoughts. Glenn “Lord High Suzerain of the Post-Apocalyptic Nightmarescape” Beck? Sorry, too busy looking for a job to engage in this level of psychosis. The grand boogeyman of American politics, Richard Nixon? Sorry, didn’t really worry about campaign financing, plus, you know, he’s been dead <a href="http://theinfosphere.org/Richard_Nixon's_head">(awaiting a jar and a robot body)</a> for eight years. No, the speaker of these two patently absurd falsehoods is a far more dangerous, far more important person, and his statements represent a bullet in the spine of American democracy.<br /> <br />The speaker was Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the majority opinion of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-4 vote strictly along party lines (there aren’t supposed to be party lines in the Supreme Court, but that hasn’t really been true since the ‘80s, in yet another example of how Ronald Reagan ruined America), the Court overruled 102 years of precedent, issued both of the preceding statements as findings of fact (there also aren’t supposed to be findings of fact by the Supreme Court, but when you’re overturning a century of precedent on nothing, you don’t worry about little things like convention), and declared the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law unconstitutional. What does that mean? According to the Court, or more accurately, according to the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas Judicial Branch of the Republican Party, corporations have the same free speech rights as any natural human being in terms of influencing elections. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo">Previous decisions by the Court</a> had declared that money counts exactly the same as speech (notice that they didn’t strike down that particular precedent), so therefore, corporations have the right to spend as much money as they want in order to influence elections. There were still, ostensibly, limits in place; corporations couldn’t give directly to a campaign, and there were caps on the amount that could be given to political action committees (PACs for short; that abbreviation will come up a lot more later on). In addition, advertising from PACs could not specifically advocate or attack any candidate; they had to be based on general issues. Naturally, that wasn’t good enough for our corporate overlords, so in SpeechNow.org vs. Federal Election Committee, the Court struck down the caps on donations to PACs and allowed that money to be used for promotion or denigration of candidates. Now any corporation could open the treasury and dump a chunk of its profits into any PAC related to any political issue, without limit, in the hopes of crushing opposition. I trust you’re beginning to see the reason I’ve been calling this the third-worst Supreme Court decision in history (it’s pretty hard to top Dred Scott vs. Sandford and Plessy vs. Ferguson for sheer awfulness).<br /> <br />To be fair to the Supreme Court, they did call for improved disclosure laws to ensure that, at the very least, the colossal flow of corporate cash could be tracked to the source. Some might say that if they were serious about ensuring disclosure they could have mandated it in their decision, but when you’re overturning a century of rulings where do you find the time? Naturally, Congress attempted to prove itself worthy of the cause, and the DISCLOSE Act was promoted as a way to limit the damage and keep the spotlight on corporations and special interest groups. Naturally, Congress failed to get anything done because the Republicans in the Senate filibustered the bill and the Democrats lacked by a single vote the ability to invoke cloture. This Republican filibuster included, by the way, <a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/98285/senate-leaders-exchange-barbs-over-disclose-act">Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who said – word for word – the following: “I don't like it when a large source of money is out there funding ads and is unaccountable. To the extent we can, I tend to favor disclosure.”</a> It’s pretty easy to hold views when you never have to vote on the bills related to them, isn’t it, Senator?<br /> <br />With the last potential hurdle overturned, corporate money began to pour into PACs faster than frat boys into a midnight release for the latest Call of Duty. This led to the formation of super PACs, since apparently more money warrants a positive adjective (there’s really no difference between a PAC and a super PAC besides the amount of money). There are still normal PACs as well, but these days they exist for a more nefarious purpose: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Keeping_donor_lists_hidden_from_voters">muddling the paper trail for those trying to track money back to its source.</a> Corporations that want to bankroll candidates can set up shell corporations and give money to them. The shell corporations then donate the money to a PAC, which then donates that money to another PAC, which then gives the money to the super PAC for which it was originally intended. While super PACs are still required to publish records of where they get their money, those records only show the last PAC in the chain. On top of that, those records are published sparingly (most are required to publish approximately every three months) if at all (several have received permission from the Federal Election Committee, which appears to have just given up trying to do anything productive, to postpone releasing records). Good luck trying to trace money back from Restore Our Future (Mitt Romney’s super PAC) back to Exxon.<br /> <br />The ultimate effect of this chicanery is that money now has a greater effect than ever before on the electoral process. Consider the following: After the New Hampshire primary, Newt Gingrich appeared to be on his way out of the campaign. He’d floundered badly in Iowa, finishing fourth behind Santorum, Romney, and Paul. He’d outright tanked in New Hampshire, placing fifth (getting passed by soon-to-quit-and-start-writing-a-book Jon Huntsman). His campaign was nearly broke, as few people want to be seen donating to a loser, and with most of the outside world recognizing Newt as a self-immolating charlatan with little chance of staying stable until the convention, the odds of picking up any major corporate support seemed slim at best. <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/who-is-sheldon-adelson-the-gingrich-super-pacs-billionaire-backer/252003/">That’s where Sheldon Adelson comes in.</a> Adelson is a casino billionaire from Las Vegas. He's a hard core hawk on Israel (outside of Joe Lieberman, he might be America's biggest supporter of Netanyahu). He hates unions. And he, like the majority of the Republican base, can’t stand the thought of <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4237162">Mitt “Guy Smiley” Romney</a> as the nominee. With this in mind, and for some reason seeing Newt as the most likely to beat out Mitt for the nomination (from what I've read, he seems to really like Newt, for reasons unclear to me, or to anyone else, for that matter), he gave Newt’s super PAC five million dollars. That’s right. One man. One donation. Five million dollars. Suddenly flush with cash, Newt dumped as much cash into ads in South Carolina as his open marriage would allow, and it paid off in a semi-stunning double-digit win over Romney and renewed life. The next week, Mr. Adelson’s wife wrote Newt’s super PAC another five million dollar check. Out of nowhere, Newt Gingrich was back in the race despite having performed more than poorly enough to warrant elimination. Granted, Newt’s back to also-ran status following a lackluster performance in the last debate and a flat-out curbstomping in the Colorado/Nevada/Minnesota trifecta, but we’re talking about weeks, if not months, of additional advertising, debate appearances, and discussions on mainstream media that he never would have seen if not for one man and five million dollars. Think about how different this race is if Gingrich doesn’t get that check: without the money to compete, Newt’s forced to drop out after South Carolina (which he probably doesn’t win without the massive advertising blitz). Rick Perry was still in the race at the time; does he stay in with Newt out of the way (remember, Perry had a substantially larger bankroll than anyone but Romney)? Does the base/Tea Party (ugh) crystallize behind Santorum earlier, giving him a bigger share of the vote in South Carolina and Florida and making him the de facto Not Romney candidate? Does Romney, now lacking a major opponent in South Carolina, take the state and essentially sew up the nomination? It’s all impossible to say for sure. All I know is that Newt was dead in the water, and then after one man wrote one check, he wasn’t anymore, not because of any policy choice or superior political tactic, but because he had the money to advertise.<br /> <br />How bad is it getting? <a href="http://www.allgov.com/Where_is_the_Money_Going/ViewNews/Pro_Romney_Super_PAC_Spent_More_in_Florida_than_McCains_Entire_2008_Primary_Ad_Budget_120201">Mitt Romney’s super PAC spent over $15 million on advertising in Florida alone.</a> <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/17/pro-romney-group-leads-2012-super-pac-spending-blitz/">Super PACs had already spent $30 million on the campaign as of the last week of JANUARY.</a> <a href="http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/karl-rove-american-crossroads-haley-barbour-fundraising">Karl Rove is talking about raising – and spending - $240 MILLION on this year’s elections.</a> Last week, President Obama (a major critic of the Citizens United decision when it happened) gave the OK to the Democratic super PAC, not because he’s changed his mind on the topic (spoiler alert: still very much against it), but because it’s a pragmatic necessity to compete (while the DNCC’s funding outstrips the RNC’s by a fair amount, there’s just no comparison in super PAC money). No one seems to like what’s happened, even those who are benefitting from the support of corporate moguls. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have both complained about the use of super PAC money to attack each of them. Rick Santorum’s been vocally against super PACs; no surprise, as Restore Our Future went after him like the Religious Right goes after anyone who badmouths Tim Tebow. Most of Congress hates them because they’ve become completely beholden to corporate interests (if they weren’t already); any vote threatens to unleash an avalanche of super PAC money, so every congressman runs scared from any issue that might bother those holding their leashes. House members in particular complain about having to spend the majority of their terms in office fundraising for their reelection campaign; anyone out there want to bet that phenomenon’s gotten BETTER since Citizens United? On top of all of that, there’s the possibility of it getting WORSE; the Republican Party recently filed an amicus brief stating that it believes the Tillman Act of 1907 (which bars direct campaign contributions to candidates by corporations) is unconstitutional. That’s right, the Republicans don’t just want to repeal the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank, they want to repeal the whole freakin’ 20th century! Some of you might have noticed that the 20th century was the one where America became a global power once all the crap from the Gilded Age got wiped out, but your “facts” have no business getting in the way of business.<br /> <br />Fortunately, there are a few people in Congress who see the endgame and have stepped up to fight the power (admittedly, the thought of either of these gentlemen listening to Public Enemy amuses me). <a href="http://truedemocracyparty.net/2011/12/saving-american-democracy-amendmen/">Senator Bernie Sanders (a mainstay in my columns, as you may have noticed) and Congressman Ted Deutch have introduced in their respective houses of Congress the Saving American Democracy Amendment.</a> This would directly amend the Constitution to say that corporations are not people and thereby not entitled to the protections of natural persons enumerated in the Constitution, that said corporations will be prohibited from contributing towards the election of public officials, and that Congress and the states have the right to regulate campaign contributions. It’s not public financing of elections (as basically every other developed country does it), but it’s a start and at the very least it would stop the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas Judicial Branch of the Republican Party dead in their tracks. Will it pass anytime soon? Hell, no. Amendments require a two-thirds majority of BOTH houses to pass (good luck getting two-thirds to agree on anything in the House besides pay raises and naming post offices after Ronald Reagan), PLUS ratification by three-quarters of the states within seven years of passage by Congress (not a fait accompli; the Equal Rights Amendment died because they couldn’t get ratification within the allotted time period). I’m less concerned about ratification, as there’s enough of a populist movement between the Occupy folks, the Tea Party (ugh), and mainstream America that it should get through with ease, particularly if the elderly get behind it. I can’t see any situation, however, where it even gets out of Washington. There are too many special interests that are too entrenched and that own too many politicians for this to ever get a fair up-or-down vote, much less two-thirds support in both houses. That’s where you come in, loyal readers. As Wisconsin and the backlash against SOPA and PIPA have shown, if enough of us fight loudly enough, We the People can still get things accomplished (or not accomplished, as the case may be). Get the word out that this amendment is vitally important to the future of this country. Tell your friends, coworkers, random people in the grocery store, whoever, that we cannot and we must not let democracy get replaced completely by plutocracy.<br /> <br />Until next time, I’ve got two “findings of fact” of my own.<br /> <br />Corporations are not people.<br /> <br />Money is not speech.<br /><br />P.S. <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/unequal-protection-corporate-control-politics/1312226251">There's an excellent piece at truth-out.org on this same topic.</a> It's a chapter from Thom Hartmann's latest book, and it gets much more in-depth than I do (the luxuries of having time to write a book that requires that kind of research). Highly recommended to anyone who wants more information.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-45216588800252506982011-11-16T22:50:00.000-08:002011-11-16T22:54:59.850-08:00Interlude: ResponseImagine my surprise when I got home tonight and found this in my inbox.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Dear Friend:<br /><br />Thank you for writing. President Obama has heard from many Americans concerning the ongoing debate about our national debt and his budget for Fiscal Year 2012, and we want to make sure you are aware of some relevant information about these important issues.<br /> <br />The President is committed to working in a bipartisan way to solve the fiscal challenges before us while continuing to grow the economy and create jobs. The debt-ceiling compromise removes the cloud of uncertainty over the economy, and takes important steps toward reducing our deficit. This is just the first step, and the President supports a balanced approach to creating a larger plan for the long-term health of our economy. <br />Watch President Obama's statement on the debt compromise, learn more about the sources of our national debt, and hear from senior White House staff on a host of issues and topics: <br />www.WhiteHouse.gov/issues/economy/debt-debate <br />Learn more about the joint committee of Congress that is responsible for developing a bipartisan plan for reducing our deficit: www.WhiteHouse.gov/blog/2011/08/04/all-about-so-called-super-committee<br />Learn more about the American Jobs Act: www.WhiteHouse.gov/jobsact<br />Thank you, again, for writing. President Obama is grateful to hear from thousands of Americans each day, and we appreciate your taking the time to contact the White House.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />The White House</span><br /><br />That's right. They read my e-mail. It took several months, but I finally got a form letter out of it. Plus, you know, the President finally decided to take on the Republicans and fight for something important, which was the thing I wanted in the first place. Given that I both got what I wanted AND actually got a response from the White House, how can I possibly complain?<br /><br />Kudos, Whichever Member Of The Office Of Presidential Correspondence Sent Me This. You made my night.<br /><br />Until next time, readers, keep spreading the word and fighting the good fight.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-11144086094235565312011-10-18T14:20:00.000-07:002011-10-18T15:23:53.907-07:00Examining the American Jobs Act: As Good As Half-Measures Get<span style="font-style:italic;">Editor's Note: This was written before both the Senate's blocked cloture vote on the bill and the signing of the FTAs with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama. So...yeah.</span><br /><br />In a somewhat shocking turn of events, I’ve actually received a request for a column regarding the American Jobs Act. Since I’ve never received a request to discuss a topic from anyone ever, I’m inclined to go along with it. So, once again, my column on our disastrous trade policy will have to wait for another day. I’m sure you’re all quite upset. In the meantime, though, I’ve decided to do something I rarely do, and even then it usually involves debunking the insipid talking points spouted by local yokels, Faux News “journalists,” or both. I’m going to go through the American Jobs Act, word for word as listed on their comprehensive fact sheet, and discuss the actual potential impact of every move, as well as the likelihood of each aspect surviving to the end without being bargained away or watered down. There’s going to be a report card and everything; I’ll be like Greg Easterbrook minus the pretentiousness and vendettas (well, at least the vendettas). You might want to sock this one away for when you’ve got a lot of down time; this might end up being my longest column yet. You can check out the comprehensive fact sheet, which I’m using for this Dr. Jack Ramsey-style breakdown, at <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-and-overview">http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-and-overview</a><br /> <br />Let’s start with the opening two paragraphs:<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">“The American people understand that the economic crisis and the deep recession weren’t created overnight and won’t be solved overnight. The economic security of the middle class has been under attack for decades. That’s why President Obama believes we need to do more than just recover from this economic crisis – we need to rebuild the economy the American way, based on balance, fairness, and the same set of rules for everyone from Wall Street to Main Street. <br />We can work together to create the jobs of the future by helping small business entrepreneurs, by investing in education, and by making things the world buys. The President understands that to restore an American economy that’s built to last we cannot afford to outsource American jobs and encourage reckless financial deals that put middle class security at risk.”</span><br /><br />So far, so good. Most of this is stuff that I and many others have been saying for quite some time now (don’t believe me? Feel free to use the sidebar to check out the archive). Not quite enough blame here, but still, a good, forceful start. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: A</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">“To create jobs, the President unveiled the American Jobs Act – nearly all of which is made up of ideas that have been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and that Congress should pass right away to get the economy moving now. The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple: put more people back to work and put more money in the pockets of working Americans. And it would do so without adding a dime to the deficit.”</span><br /><br />Oh, boy. I was hoping that my good vibes would last past the third paragraph. Whenever I see the phrase “supported by both Democrats and Republicans,” my first thought is always “supported by the corporate establishment.” Also, the focus on the size of the deficit in the last sentence is alarming; it tells me that the President continues to allow the Republican think tanks to control the debate and also leaves me wary that this could be yet another half-measure where two whole measures are needed. Seems like squandering initial goodwill is becoming the hallmark of this Administration (see: <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hiX9qENBBhSjfjQDqS5YHnuNXqRQ?docId=CNG.fe11c1b55d60e484a37a458dccdd1b34.401">US Plans To Veto Palestinian Application For Statehood At U.N.</a>). The second sentence is solid, and the tone is a nice “my way or the highway” that’s nice to see even if it’s not likely to pervade the rest of the work, but I’m too leery of the rest to rate this any higher than average. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: C</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">“The American Jobs Act has five key components:<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Tax Cuts to Help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow<br />Putting Workers Back on the Job While Rebuilding and Modernizing America<br />Pathways Back to Work for Americans Looking for Jobs<br />More Money in the Pockets of Every American Worker and Family<br />Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan</span>“</span><br /><br />We’ll tackle each one in order, but initial impressions? 1 looks like bad news, 5 looks like really bad news, and 2-4 look pretty good.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">1. Tax Cuts to Help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow.<br />The President’s plan includes new tax cuts to businesses that provide immediate incentives for firms to hire and invest. These tax cuts would be available to <span style="font-weight:bold;">all businesses</span>, regardless of size, but are designed to target their impact towards the smallest businesses:<br />A payroll tax cut to businesses, with a focus on small employers ($65 billion in combination with the payroll tax holiday for new wages).The President’s plan will extend the payroll tax cut to firms by cutting in half their payroll tax on the first $5 million in payroll. Next year, instead of paying 6.2 percent on their payroll expenses, firms would pay only 3.1 percent. The President’s plan would provide tax cuts for all firms, with focused relief on the 98 percent with less than $5 million in payroll.</span><br /><br />If it weren’t for the word they themselves emphasized, this wouldn’t be a terrible idea. The whole issue with this comes from the choice of numbers: <a href="http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html">the 98% of companies that have payrolls under $5 million are mostly a long way under $5 million</a>; while cutting the payroll tax in half for them will help some, it’s not going to be a majorly substantive amount of money. Consider a small local coffee shop that only carries 10 workers, not including the owners, who help out on a regular basis. We’ll assume 4 full-time employees at roughly $27,000 a year (probably a generous estimate) and 6 part-time employees at roughly half that (probably a very generous estimate). Total payroll is $189,000 per year. The amount that company saves in a year with this program? $5,859. Not bad, but not nearly enough be truly meaningful to a business walking the thin line between success and failure. By comparison, the 2% of companies at $5 million or more are, by definition, all above $5 million and will thus get the full benefit. The savings at $5 million is a cool $155,000; now THAT’S the kind of money that could really help a small business grow and develop. Had this been targeted only to companies with less than, say $3 million in payroll, this would have the effect the Administration is looking for with the notable benefit of costing substantially less. The majority of money for this program will end up going, yet again, to the corporate interests that don’t need it. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: D+</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">A complete payroll tax holiday for new jobs or wage increases. In addition to the 3.1% payroll tax cut for all firms, the President’s plan provides a direct incentive to encourage firms to hire additional employees or raise wages for their current employees. The plan would completely refund payroll taxes paid on added workers or wage increases for current workers above the level of last year’s payroll. To focus the benefit of this tax cut on small businesses, payroll tax relief would be capped at applying to $50 million in new wages. This tax holiday would be augmented by targeted tax cuts for hiring the long-term unemployed as well as veterans who have been out of work six months or more.</span><br /><br />Now THIS is a good idea. Wiping out the payroll tax for new hires or wage increases will put meaningful money into everyone’s pocket at a roughly equal rate. For comparison’s sake, let’s look at our coffee shop again. Business has been good, so they decide to add two more part-time employees and give everyone across the board a slight bump in pay to $28,000 and $14,000, respectively. That’s an increase in payroll of $35,000. The normal tax rate on that additional payroll would be $2,170; now, it’s $0. Coupling this with the previous tax cut now takes the total savings to $8,029, more than half a part-time employee’s salary. It’s still not a ton of money, but now it has the notable advantage of coming with a tangible benefit. Our fantasy corporation saves a good chunk of money here, too (adding $2 million in payroll would result in a tax cut of $124,000). While that again benefits the corporation more, it also means another $2 million going toward higher wages, new employees, or both; it means that the “job creators” actually start acting like it. What’s most important is that this is a legitimate incentive to bring on employees at a time where they can be at a lower cost to the company. If there’s one thing corporations and small businesses can agree on, it’s cheaper labor. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: B</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Extend 100 percent business expensing through 2012 ($5 billion).The President is proposing an extension of the 100 percent expensing provision that he signed into law in December 2010, which rewards firms for making investments by allowing them to deduct the full value of those investments from their tax obligations through 2012. Extending 100 percent expensing for an additional year would put an additional $85 billion in the hands of businesses in 2012. Most of this relief would be recouped by the Treasury as businesses regain their strength. </span><br /><br />Liked this idea when they instituted it, still like it now. The ability to write off all major investments in infrastructure is a huge help to small businesses. I would have added a “buy American” provision (the investment can only be written off if the asset was made in the U.S.A.), but beggars can’t be choosers. GRADE: B+<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital and grow. The President’s plan includes administrative, regulatory and legislative measures to help small firms start and expand. This includes:<br />Changing the Way the Government Does Business with Small Firms: The Administration will soon announce a plan to accelerate government payments to small contractors to help put money in their hands faster. The President is also directing his CIO and CTO to stand-up, within 90 days, BusinessUSA, a one-stop online platform that businesses could use to access the full range of government programs and services businesses they need to compete globally. These changes were called for by the President’s Jobs Council, the President’s Export Council and small businesses across the country. Finally, the Administration supports a delay of the Bush Administration-era rule requiring government entities withhold and send to the IRS 3% of payments made to contractors.</span><br /><br />I don’t have a clue what any of this will accomplish, so I’ll withhold judgment. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: INC</span><br /><br />Reducing Regulatory Burdens on Small Business Capital Formation: As part of the President’s Startup America initiative, the Administration will pursue efforts to reduce the regulatory burdens on small business capital formation in ways that are consistent with investor protection. This includes working with the SEC to explore ways to address the costs that small and new firms face in complying with Sarbanes-Oxley disclosure and auditing requirements. The administration also supports establishing a “crowdfunding” exemption from SEC registration requirements for firms raising less than $1 million (with individual investments limited to $10,000 or 10% of investors’ annual income) and raising the cap on “mini-offerings” (Regulation A) from $5 million to $50 million. This will make it easier for entrepreneurs to raise capital and create jobs.<br /><br />Yikes. Can anyone tell me the last time deregulation helped anything? Anyone? Still waiting…yeah, that’s right, it hasn’t helped. Ever. Every time regulations get relaxed or eliminated, there’s a boom for a short time, followed by massive corruption, a huge scandal, and colossal expense to the taxpayers. Between<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five"> the savings and loan scandals of the ‘80s</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal">the energy firm deregulation of the late ‘90s and early ‘00s</a>, and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html?pagewanted=all">the housing/derivative/Wall Street deregulation of the late ‘00s</a> that CAUSED THE VERY PROBLEM WE’RE TRYING TO FIX WITH THIS BILL, there hasn’t been an example in the last 30+ years of reduced regulation resulting in anything but fraud and corporate malfeasance. I know this is smaller in scale, but it’s still asking for trouble. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: F</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Helping Small Businesses Compete for Infrastructure Projects: Small businesses are also a vital part of our efforts to invest in and re-build our nation’s infrastructure. In order to ensure that small firms have the tools they need to compete for and win bids on infrastructure projects, we are calling to temporarily increase the limit on SBA-guaranteed surety bonds from $2 million to $5 million.<br /></span><br />Look, if you want to help small businesses get the venture capital together that they need, why not just make this program larger in scale and ignore the deregulation idea all together? GRADE: B<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Passing Patent Reform: Small businesses are critical to developing innovative products and services. Reforming our outdated patent system will allow them to get their ideas to market faster and will help accelerate their potential to transform and grow our economy and create the jobs of the future.</span><br /><br />The patent system in this country has heavily favored corporations since the days when <a href="http://www.cracked.com/article_16072_5-famous-inventors-who-stole-their-big-idea.html">Thomas Edison was blatantly stealing and patenting other peoples’ inventions</a> every ten minutes. I have my doubts that this will do anything other than increase the stranglehold corporate interests have over the patent system. Still, if it does make it easier for small businesses to innovate and keep the rights to their innovations longer, this could ostensibly help. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: C</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">2. Putting Workers Back on the Job While Rebuilding and Modernizing America.<br />Note: This section is really, really long on the fact sheet. I’ve taken the liberty of excising a few things to save space.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">A Helping Hand for Veterans: The President believes we have an obligation to make sure our veterans are able to navigate this difficult labor market and succeed in the civilian workforce, and that is why he is proposing a plan to lower veteran unemployment and ensure that service members leave the military career-ready:<br />A new Returning Heroes Tax Credit of up to $5,600 for veterans who have been unemployed six months or longer, and a Wounded Warriors Tax Credit of up to $9,600 that will increase the existing tax credit for firms that hire veterans with service-connected disabilities who have been unemployed six months or longer.<br />Forming a Department of Defense-led task force to maximize the career-readiness of all service members, and enhancing job search services through the Department of Labor for recently transitioning veterans.<br /></span><br />Despite my personal issues with the name of the first tax credit (sorry, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse">Lynndie England Fan Club members</a>), I’m pretty heavily in favor of this plan. I know, I know, I’ve put way too much support into tax cuts and their effects will be minimal at best. I’m not going to come out against any plan that will help take care of veterans, whose disproportionate hardship has been overlooked for too long. Veterans with legitimate qualifications to perform any number of jobs in civilian life can’t get those jobs because of arbitrary requirements (the Administration likes to reference a decorated Army medic and first-responder who couldn’t get hired as an EMT after being discharged because they didn’t have a college degree). Anything that can solve that while also helping to insure that people coming off the front lines are ready and capable of being civilian workers (for some of them, the military is the only career they’ve ever known, and the transition is not unlike what it’s like for professional athletes who suffer career-ending injuries without anything to fall back on) is OK in my book. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: A-</span><br /><br />Preventing Teacher Layoffs and Keeping Police Officers and Firefighters on the Job ($35 billion):The President’s plan will invest $35 billion to prevent up to 280,000 teacher layoffs and keep police officers and firefighters on the job.<br /><br />This one depends entirely on how the money gets used. $5 billion is set aside for first-responders and emergency personnel, which leaves $30 billion for teachers and police officers. There need to be extremely strict guidelines on how this money gets used, or states (read: red states) will find ways to roll it into related-but-not-the-same projects (vouchers for private schools, helicopters that ostensibly belong to the police department but can be used to take the governor to his kid’s soccer game, etc). On top of that, whenever money is given in this way to states, there’s always a chance that someone trying to score political points (<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4807323-503544.html?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=PoliticalHotsheet_4807323">Bobby Jindal, please pick up the white courtesy phone</a>) will just send the money back or refuse to use it. Teacher shortages have become an epidemic and overcrowding is just as out of control in schools as it is in prisons (<a href="http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-7927-teachers-union-sues-cps-over-increased-class-size.html">Chicago’s average class size this year is now over 30</a>). This has to be fixed properly, right now, or America will continue to fall behind intellectual powerhouses like <a href="http://www.geographic.org/country_ranks/educational_score_performance_country_ranks_2009_oecd.html">Turkey and Belgium</a>. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: INC</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Modernizing At Least 35,000 Public Schools – From Science Labs and Internet-Ready Classrooms to Renovated Facilities($30 billion): The President’s plan calls for substantial investments in our school infrastructure, modernizing and upgrading America’s public schools to meet 21st century needs. The cost of maintaining more than 100,000 public schools is substantial for already overstretched districts. The accumulated backlog of deferred maintenance and repair amounts to at least $270 billion. Schools spend over $6 billion annually on their energy bills, more than they spend on computers and textbooks combined. For children in the nation’s poorest districts, these deferred projects too often mean overcrowded schools with crumbling ceilings and a lack of the basic wiring infrastructure needed for computers, projectors, and other technology. The President’s plan will invest $30 billion in enhancing the condition ofour nation’s public schools – with $25 billion going to K-12 schools, including a priority for rural schools and dedicated funding for Bureau of Indian Education funded schools, and $5 billion to community colleges (including tribal colleges). The range of critical repairs and needed construction projects would put hundreds of thousands of Americans – construction workers, engineers, maintenance staff, boiler repairman, and electrical workers – back to work.</span><br /><br />Notable details: 40% of the money will go to the 100 largest high-need school districts (which hasn’t worked out very well for plans like this in the past); the remaining 60% will be given to the states to allocate as they see fit (uh oh); investments can also target ways to make schools better community centers, including additions to potential adult education and job training centers (not really related). As the above paragraph itself mentions, the backlog is over $270 billion. This is less than 1/9th of that. Summed up in six words: good idea, but not nearly enough. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: B</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Immediate Investments in Infrastructure ($50 billion): In order to jumpstart critical infrastructure projects and create hundreds of thousands of jobs, the President’s plan includes $50 billion in immediate investments for highway, highway safety, transit, passenger rail, and aviation activities – with one fifth of the funding advancing a transformation of how we finance transportation infrastructure and what we finance.</span><br /><br />Details: $27 billion to improving the highway system (big thumbs up); $9 billion to improve mass transit and an additional $2 billion to modernize passenger rail (both long, long overdue); $2 billion to modernize and upgrade airports (also overdue); $50 million for improving employment and job training opportunities for women and minorities (not really related, but still probably necessary); $10 billion for innovations in infrastructure, including $4 billion toward development of high-speed rail corridors and $5 billion for the TIGER and TIFIA programs (hell yeah!). Cannot stress enough how important this section is. If it were up to me, this would be at least double the size it is here, probably by virtue of eliminating the whole payroll tax cut. This really isn’t enough for this area, either, but I assume the President aimed low because the Republicans fought him tooth and nail on it for the stimulus package (then bitched about how there wasn’t enough money for infrastructure spending to maintain their hypocrisy levels at the required “ludicrous” state). However, because this won’t just save jobs but create many, many more (it should be noted that the 7% of stimulus money that went to infrastructure spending created over 40% of the jobs), it’s still greatly important. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: A+</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">National Infrastructure Bank ($10 billion).To direct Federal resources for infrastructure to projects that demonstrate the most merit and may be difficult to fund under the current patchwork of Federal programs, the President is also calling for the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB), based on the model that Senators Kerry and Hutchison have championed with bi-partisan supportin the Senate. It also builds on legislation by Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg, the work of long-time infrastructure bank champions like Rep. Rosa DeLauro and input from the President’s Jobs Council.</span><br /> <br />There are details on the fact sheet, but quite frankly, they aren’t entirely clear, and what they do explain leads me to believe that it’ll end up being an even more corporate-defined version of the Federal Reserve (the NIB right now looks like what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War">Andrew “Crazy Old Slave Owning Indian Murderer” Jackson thought the Bank of the United States was</a> when he destroyed it and most of the country’s economy). I’m withholding judgment for now. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: INC</span><br /> <br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Project Rebuild: Putting People Back to Work Rehabilitating Homes, Businesses and Communities($15 billion):The bursting of the housing bubble and the Great Recession that followed has left communities across the country with large numbers of foreclosed homes and businesses, which is weighing down property values, increasing blight and crime, and standing in the way of economic recovery. In these same communities there are also large numbers of people looking for work, especially in the construction industry, where more than 1.9 million jobs have been lost since the beginning of the recession in December 2007. The President is proposing Project Rebuild to help address both of these problems by connecting Americans looking for work in distressed communities with the work needed to repair and repurpose residential and commercial properties. Building on successful models piloted through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), Project Rebuild will invest $15 billion in proven strategies that leverage private capital and expertise to rehabilitate hundreds of thousands of properties in communities across the country.</span><br /> <br />The basic idea is to put construction workers back to work rebuilding and repurposing foreclosed homes and failed businesses to attract either new companies, new homeowners, or property developers who want to cut down on overhead. It’s an interesting idea and a clever solution to the problem. I’m not sure how well it will work, but it’s certainly worth a shot. This idea screams “will be killed by the Republicans at first chance,” though. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: B+</span><br /> <br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Expanding Nationwide Wireless Internet Services For the Public and the First Responders, in a Fiscally Responsible Way: The plan follows the model in the bipartisan legislation from Senators Rockefeller and Hutchison in including an investment to develop and deploy a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety. The plan includes reallocating the D Block for public safety (costing $3 billion) and $7 billion to support the deployment of this network and technological development to tailor the network to meet public safety requirements. This is part of a broader deficit-reducing wireless initiative that would free up public and private spectrum to enable the private sector to deploy high-speed wireless services to at least 98 percent of Americans, even those living in remote rural and farming communities. In addition, freeing up spectrum from the private sector through voluntary incentive auctions that were included in both the Rockefeller-Hutchison bill and the House-passed Budget would raise money to pay for these investments in public safety and also reduce the deficit.</span><br /><br />Meh. I’m pretty sure the recent decisions regarding net neutrality mean that this paragraph reads “We’re going to increase the availability of high-speed broadband access so companies can gouge you even more than they already do.” <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: C</span><br /> <br />3. Pathways Back to Work for Americans Looking for Jobs<br />The President’s plan would help out-of-work Americans and their families by extending unemployment insurance to prevent 6 million Americans looking for work from losing their benefits, while at the same time reforming the system to help support programs that build real skills, connect to real jobs, and help the long-term unemployed. The President’s plan is targeted to address long-term unemployment in an aggressive, multi-pronged way, drawing from ideas about what is working from around the country and from both parties.<br /><br />Here we go. Let’s see where this leads, because if the President is serious about reforming unemployment coverage and addressing long-term unemployment, this could be the biggest economic stabilizer of all.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Reform Our Unemployment Insurance System to Provide Greater Flexibility, While Ensuring 6 Million People Do Not Lose Benefits ($49 billion): Drawing on the best ideas of both parties and the most innovative States, the President’s plan will equip the unemployment insurance (UI) system to better address our current long-term unemployment challenge. In these times, the federal emergency unemployment system must offer not just a weekly check, but also an aggressive strategy to connect the unemployed to work – through reforms ranging from rigorous assessment and job-search assistance to flexible work-based uses of federal UI to smart strategies to prevent layoffs in the first plac</span>e.<br /><br />Details: drastically increased support for finding work for the long-term unemployed, ranging from job search assistance to referrals to training programs (good stuff); work sharing (i.e. using unemployment funds to cover lost hours, allowing companies to keep staff while still reducing payroll costs, a really excellent idea that has worked in multiple countries); “Bridge to Work” programs (programs by which the unemployed take very low-paying jobs to obtain skills and training and unemployment insurance helps cover the shortfall in their wages; not exceptional because they’re opening the door to the elimination of minimum wage, and anytime Eric Cantor is in support of an idea I have to wonder what the catch is); wage insurance (using unemployment funds to make up the difference when unemployed workers have to take much lower wages just to have a job; this idea is unbelievably important for communities where outsourcing and corporate greed have wiped out most of the good-paying manufacturing jobs); and new business incentives (allowing unemployed entrepreneurs who start their own businesses to continue to collect unemployment benefits for a time). Plenty of good ideas here. In particular, I’m a big fan of wage insurance; the majority of people who’ve gotten new jobs in the last three years have had to take far lower wages than they had at their previous position (in some cases less than half of their previous salary), which makes it even harder for those people to save for retirement. Work sharing is also a stellar idea; instead of a company with 800 workers laying off 400 of them, that company instead keeps them all, but cuts their hours in half. With work sharing, the employees not only keep their jobs, but keep most of their pay as well. The whole section screams “this will lower unemployment AND grow the economy,” but because unemployment benefits are socialism, none of this will ever pass. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: A</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Tax credits for businesses that hire the long-term unemployed ($8 billion):The President’s plan includes a special bonus credit of up to $4,000 for firms that hire the long-term unemployed.</span><br /><br />A meaningless waste of money. This is the Adam Dunn of the bill. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: F</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Investing in Low-Income Youth and Adults ($5 billion):The President’s plan for jobs and growth offers a particularly aggressive strategy to expand employment opportunities for communities that have been particularly hard hit by the recession, and that may take longer to get back on their feet due to greater income losses and smaller savings than higher-income workers. In August 2011, African Americans had an unemployment rate of 16.7 percent and Hispanics had an unemployment rate of 11.3 percent. The numbers were even worse for youth: 45 percent of youth between the ages of 16 to 24 were employed last month, including only 33.8 percent of African American youth. In fact, only 21 out of every 100 teens in low-income families had a job this past summer. Building on highly successful Recovery Act programs that provided job opportunities for low-income adults and youths, the President’s Pathways Back to Work Fund will make it easier for workers to remain connected to the workforce and gain new skills for long-term employment.</span><br /><br />This is an absolutely crucial aspect targeting one of the most underserved groups hit hardest by the recession. <a href="http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/new-graduates-facing-unemployment-may-never-reach-income-potential/">The unemployment rate amongst the recently-graduated is astronomical.</a> Most high school students are having major difficulty finding part-time work, and summer work in many communities has completely dried up, swallowed by older workers willing to take anything just to have a paycheck. Part of the problem is that many young people aren’t learning the skills necessary to fill the positions that ARE available. If this helps address the problem, then a number of birds (high unemployment, low tax revenue, issues with alleged juvenile delinquency, etc.) could be killed with one stone. Thumbs up. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: A-</span><br /> <br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Ending Discrimination Against the Unemployed: Recent reports have highlighted companies that are increasingly expressing preferences for applicants who already have a job. Specifically, some companies are posting job listings that include language such as “unemployed candidates will not be considered” or “must be currently employed” or “must be employed within the last 6 months.” The exclusion of unemployed applicants is a troubling and arbitrary screen that is bad for the economy, bad for the unemployed, and ultimately bad for firms trying to find the best candidates. This is particularly true at a time when so many Americans have found themselves out of work through no fault of their own. New Jersey has passed legislation to address this practice, and members of Congress have also introduced legislation. The President’s plan calls for legislation that would make it unlawful to refuse to hire applicants solely because they are unemployed or to include in a job posting a provision that unemployed persons will not be considered. </span><br /> <br />Story time! When I left my job at Walgreens after three months (long story, not going to explain here), I went full-bore after jobs that would allow me to use my degree and the considerable skills related to it. Mind you, you’re not reading the words of a slacker; I graduated in the top 1% of my class in one of the most challenging undergraduate fields in the country with a double minor and relevant work experience in the industry. It took NINE MONTHS for me to find a job, any job, that would take me, and that job ended up being in food microbiology, an area where my abilities were completely useless. Even they were leery of hiring me because I had been out of work so long (no joke, they told me this). It took another eight months of working for that company before I finally landed my current job in biopharmaceuticals. If you include the two months after graduation before I ended up at Walgreens, that’s nearly TWO YEARS AFTER GRADUATION before I ended up in my chosen field. And this is coming from someone who was well qualified for a position right out of college! What kind of chance do people looking for work in fields completely unrelated to their original specialty have? How can we expect to end the problem of unemployment when companies refuse to hire the unemployed? How many people who are well qualified for work get turned away because of circumstances beyond their control? This needs to stop NOW. I consider this law as important as the one in the health insurance reform bill eliminating discrimination due to pre-existing conditions. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: A+</span><br /> <br /><span style="font-style:italic;">4. More Money in the Pockets of Every Worker and Family<br />The President’s plan would put more money in the pockets of working and middle-class Americans by providing tax relief to 160 million workers – extending the payroll tax cut passed last December:<br />Cutting Payroll Taxes in Half for 160 Million Workers Next Year($175 billion):The President’s plan will expand on the tax cut enacted in December by cutting employees payroll taxes in half next year. Rather than having 6.2 percent of their wages deducted in Social Security taxes, workers will pay only 3.1 percent next year. This extension will provide a payroll tax cut worth $175 billion to American workers in 2012.</span><br /><br />Oooh boy. You know that tax cut you got for this year, the one you barely noticed because it’s barely covering the cost of inflation? You get to keep that for next year, and all it costs is $175 billion that could go to something productive like further infrastructure spending or trade assistance for when the awful free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama go through. Yeah, because it’s worked so well thus far. This is the most likely aspect of the whole thing to pass; it’s also one of the five least likely to have any noticeable effect on the economy. It’s still money in the average person’s pocket, so I can’t complain too much, but come on, you can do better than this. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: D</span><br /> <br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Helping More Americans Refinance Mortgages at Today’s Historically Low Interest Rates: The President has instructed his economic team to work with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, their regulator the FHFA, major lenders and industry leaders to remove the barriers that exist in the current refinancing program (HARP) to help more borrowers benefit from today’s historically low interest rates. This has the potential to not only help these borrowers, but their communities and the American taxpayer, by keeping borrowers in their homes and reducing risk to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.</span><br /><br />Won’t work. Fannie and Freddie have no incentive to help anyone pay lower interest rates because they’re on the ropes as is. Major lenders and industry leaders have no incentive to help homeowners and other borrowers refinance because it could reduce their profits to “sizable” from their current “astronomical.” Half the stuff in the last economic regulation bill hasn’t been enforced; what makes the administration think any of this will be? <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: D-</span><br /> <br /><span style="font-style:italic;">5. Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan.<br />To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.</span><br /><br />And…that’s it. Really. There’s no explanation of what “fully paid for” entails. Since this was released the President has discussed raising taxes on the wealthy so that millionaires aren’t paying a lower effective tax rate than the average American (the so-called “Buffet Rule”), as well as eliminating loopholes in the tax code, ending oil subsidies, and changing capital gains rules. All well and good, but none of these got passed when it was plausible that they could be. There’s no chance that any of these, even if they somehow avoid the filibuster (a word which now brings to mind a different f-word) in the Senate, will get through Boehner The Blotto and The Norquists in the House. I’ll put any judgment on this on the waiting list, but I’m not holding my breath. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: INC</span><br /> <br />One last category: <span style="font-weight:bold;">Intangibles:</span> Since he gave the speech, the President has taken exactly the right tone with it. No more “I look forward to working with Republicans to find something we can all agree on.” No more “We have to work together so everyone’s views are represented.” Now it’s “Pass this. Now.” The wishy-washy, compromise-heavy, Great Conciliator Obama appears to be gone for the time being, replaced by the forceful, take-no-prisoners leader we thought we were getting in November 2008. THIS is the President <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maersk_Alabama_hijacking">who saved the crew of the Maersk-Alabama by wiping out a whole ship’s worth of pirates</a>. THIS is the President who made what might be <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20058792-503543.html">the ballsiest call since Truman fired MacArthur</a>. Finally, he sounds like he’s ready to kick ass and take names. As someone’s who’s been critical of his willingness to bargain away pretty much everything in negotiations, all I can say is that it’s about damn time. <span style="font-weight:bold;">GRADE: A+</span><br /> <br />So, using a scale from 11 for an A+ to a -1 for an F, with INC being worth 4 (same as a C, since I’m assuming neither the best nor the worst), and taking an average over every category (24 in all), the overall score for the plan is a 5.7, which I’ll be generous and round up to a 6. That’s a B-, which is probably a little harsh, but those idiotic tax cuts and deregulation initiatives really hurt the score, much like they’ll hurt the economy. All told, though, the plan is mostly solid, with enough measures for actually tackling the root causes of long-term unemployment that we might finally see some progress. Also, any bill that includes major infrastructure spending will always get my approval. If I ignore my numbers I’d probably on first glance give this a B+: good, but not great.<br /> <br />With all that said, I don’t think there’s a chance that any of this ever sees the light of day. The Republican Party, and in particular their Tea Party splinter cell, have no vested interest in seeing anything get better for anyone. They’ve outright admitted their primary goal is winning the next election. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40007802/ns/politics-decision_2010/t/gop-leaders-top-goal-make-obama--term-president/">The Senate Minority Leader actually said that the main legislative goal of the Party until after the 2012 election is to do everything possible to prevent Obama from getting re-elected.</a> There’s no benefit for them in helping the country recover (you know, beyond the whole “America being successful and not a third-world banana republic” thing); in fact, they believe anything that would keep people out of soup kitchens might help the scary black man stay in charge. I’m disgusted by their lack of common decency. I’m appalled by their indifference to the suffering of 98% of America. I’m bewildered by their willing whoring of themselves to the Kochs, Goldman Sachs, and Grover Norquist. Most of all, I’m speechless as to how, despite the self-serving transparency of it all, the American people are more than happy to keep putting these people in office.<br /> <br />Remember that when this doesn’t get through Congress, America. You sold the soul of this country for Reagan’s bag of magic beans. You forsook the lives of your sons and daughters to line the coffers of Halliburton, Blackwater, Goldman Sachs, Chase, and Exxon. Even after you saw the damage being wrought by this hideous farce, you kept right on going, feeding the madness because the illusion of wealth allowed you to acquiesce to becoming a slave to the oligarchy.<br /> <br />In the end, you brought this on yourselves.<br /> <br />Until next time, do what you can to help this pass. I can’t imagine your “elected representatives” will give a damn what you have to say, but if enough people care, they’ll have to do something. They can’t ignore all of us forever.<br /> <br />Right?Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-74376641832307195942011-07-31T22:28:00.000-07:002011-07-31T22:50:38.698-07:00Last-Ditch Effort<span style="font-style:italic;">Note: This was written before the abysmal deal to avert default was struck. Consider the following a moment of brief respite before cynicism swallowed me whole.</span><br /><br />I apologize to you, my readers, for this not being the next part of my six-part series on rebuilding America. Work has been hectic, and trying to find time to research both trade policy AND graduate schools has not been the easiest of tasks. Still, I’m making progress and that should be up sometime later this month. In the meantime, I thought I should let you in on a little secret.<br /> <br />For the last couple months I’ve watched with apathy, then disgust, then indignation, then overwhelming rage, as the Republicans have used their control of the House to take the country hostage and attempt to force-feed the middle class a sizable portion of serfdom. I’ve watched as petty criminals have politicized the mechanism by which the country stays fiscally solvent. I’ve watched as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie">an ignorant rider of coattails</a> charged the public for going to his child’s after-school activities while simultaneously gutting the education system that gives that child those opportunities. I’ve watched as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan">an unscrupulous cheesehead</a> unveiled his plan for eliminating the national debt, a plan that ADDS $8 trillion to the debt and gives millionaires and billionaires a trillion dollars in tax cuts while eviscerating Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I’ve watched as politicians steer the political discourse further and further right even as poll after poll show t<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-shows-americans-oppose-entitlement-cuts-to-deal-with-debt-problem/2011/04/19/AFoiAH9D_story.html">he American public, as a whole, want their elected turkeys to use their left wings more often</a>. I’ve watched these last two weeks as the House continues to ignore logic, reason, and common sense while making the threat of a second Great Depression more and more of a reality by the day. I’ve grown tired of watching. So today, I did something that under normal circumstances I would never do.<br /> <br />I sent an e-mail to the President of the United States.<br /> <br />Now, let me start by saying that I like Mr. Obama. I think he’s above all else a good man, a man who means what he says when he talks about living up to our ideals. I think he’s a shrewder politician than most people realize, and I think he’s one of the smartest men to ever hold the office (particularly in comparison to his predecessor). I wonder, though, if he isn’t too good a man for the office. You see, Jimmy Carter was a good man as well, with just as much of an intellectual bent (despite Billy seeming to imply otherwise). However, he had very little fighting spirit, and when coupled with his awful choice in advisors, he tended to get steamrolled in most negotiations. Sound familiar? Obama has a good heart, but he also has a seeming obsession with being a conciliator, a person who tries to unite under all circumstances. The fact that he’s surrounded himself with people who seem to directly oppose most intelligent policies, particularly economically (Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, Ken Salazar, Rahm Emanuel…it’s a longer list than you think) doesn’t help matters. That said, I still believe that he has our (and by our, I mean the average American middle class worker) best interests at heart; he just doesn’t know how to fight for them. His pathological need to broker compromise has led to so many give-backs and cave-ins that I once joked “If this Administration was a dog, the only trick it’d know would be ‘roll over.’” I think there’s a part of him that wants to fight (off-the-record quotes seem to indicate he’s been more than willing to drop the hammer on Boehner and co.), but because of the political pressures on him (unprecedented Republican opposition to everything, coupled with an unrelenting barrage from all corporate media and continuous fire-breathing from seemingly all liberals) he’s felt the need to move to the center-right in the hopes of grabbing undecided independent (read: stupid) voters. It hasn’t worked, and it’s not going to work, because as I’ve said before, the American public is the dumbest and laziest electorate on Earth. Unless he’s willing to fight for his principles NOW, his base will erode, he won’t capture those moron independents who’ll jump at the next trendy story (“Hey, that Bachmann sure is interesting” is the sentence haunting my nightmares right now), some impossibly-disastrous right-wing lunatic will win in 2012, and the current economic sinkhole will turn into a bottomless pit. That can’t happen.<br /> <br />So, in an attempt to try an spur the President to action, I sent him an e-mail challenging him to do just that: fight for us now, while there’s still time to salvage things. It’s kind of pathetic that this is even necessary given the whole <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/osama-bin-laden-is-killed.html?pagewanted=all">“in two years he managed what G-Dub and Clin-Ton couldn’t manage in 16,”</a> but that’s America for you. Much like your average WWE mark, if it didn’t happen within the last three weeks, it never happened at all. Therefore, I felt I needed to remind him of what needs to be done. The text of my e-mail follows; it wasn’t as long as I would have liked because the White House places a strict 2500 character limit on all messages (which I’m sure most of you wish applied to all of my writing). I just hope it was enough.<br /> <br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Mr. President,<br /> <br />I recall the early days of your campaign as having enormous promise. Hope and change...I believed in those ideals. I believed that you could be a transformative president, one who could turn the country back from the abyss that Reagan's brainless supply-side economics put us on a path towards and lead us toward the shining potential Jack Kennedy saw. Yet over the last two years I've watched as you've led us further down that doomed path. I understand that you're facing unprecedented political opposition, and I sympathize. That said, I can't help but be disappointed in the sheer number of times you've caved to pressure from the opposing side in spite of public support for your ideas. Allowing the stimulus bill to be watered down to half of what it should have been, caving on opposition to a public option for Republican votes you had no chance of getting, renewing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy despite overwhelming public opposition, continuing Bush-era restraints on civil liberties (and in some cases, reinforcing them), your current willingness to barter Social Security and Medicare rather than demand increased revenue from the wealthy...I could keep going, but there is a character limit. Suffice to say, there are plenty of areas where you could have fought and chose not to.<br /> <br />I know full well that you can't win every fight, but quite frankly, Mr. President, I expected you to at least try ONCE. You CANNOT keep letting the Republicans take the country hostage like this, or those of us without the money to have a voice in Congress are going to get economically slaughtered. It's already started, and I have no belief that things will get better any time soon. Hope died with the public option. Change died when the Bush tax cuts stayed in place. I'm holding on to a sliver of faith that the future still holds some promise, but knowing that the majority of Americans are politically ignorant and will reward the Republicans for this unconscionable shell game, that sliver erodes ever more by the day.<br /> <br />I'm short on space, so I'll end by saying this: it's not too late. Please, sir, do something to show my generation that you haven't abandoned us to the whims of corporate power. We need you to be great. We need you to do for us what FDR did for our grandparents. We need you, sir, to fight.<br /> <br />Thank you for your time.<br /></span> <br /><br />That’s it. I requested a reply, but knowing politicians like I do, I’ll be lucky to even get a form letter. Whatever response I get, I’ll post here for the rest of you to see. I’m not expecting much; hell, I know that I’ll be lucky if it even gets to his desk. Still, if there’s even a 0.0001% chance that this spurs him to finally become the transformative president of our generation as I’d hoped he’d be, it was worth it. Keep your fingers crossed. I know I am.<br /> <br />Next time: on America’s trade policy and how outsourcing (both the NBC show and the actual practice) are destroying the American way of life. Seriously. I promise.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-48118608222418502612011-04-02T21:51:00.000-07:002011-04-02T22:45:46.972-07:00R.O.A: Rebuilding of America, Part 1<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/political-pictures-bush-recession.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 450px; height: 386px;" src="http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/political-pictures-bush-recession.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Those of you that have been following the progress of our emergence (or lack thereof) from the Bush Great Recession may have noticed that, for all intents and purposes, our economy remains stagnant. Well, stagnant for anyone who isn’t making the majority of their income through capital gains. Unemployment remains disturbingly high, and while many of the “leading economic experts” at the Fed will claim that unemployment is a lagging indicator and that as long as inflation remains under control there isn’t a major problem, the sizable lines at food pantries and in unemployment offices tend to disprove that theory. <a href="http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20110330%2F093294ab-4880-48b0-b8af-fd9a934b33b0">A recent study</a> indicates that this is going to be the trend for the foreseeable future, as companies are making colossal profits without needing to add jobs. On top of this, Republicans in Congress, believing (or so I suppose; they might just be protecting their corporate overlords) that the Bush Great Recession is over, are pushing for <a href="http://www.activistpost.com/2011/02/us-speaker-vows-massive-budget-cuts.html">massive cuts in the budget</a> to bring the deficit down. The facts that the cuts they have proposed represent a mere drop in the bucket compared to the monstrous deficit and almost exclusively target programs and spending that help the people hurt most by the economic downturn AND most experts believe such drastic cuts would push the Bush Great Recession to untold lows are all irrelevant. What matters most is looking tough on “the profligate waste of Washington” while protecting corporate interests. Between the unfounded belief that the economy is already healthy again and the Republicans being seemingly hellbent on driving the economy off a cliff, things aren’t looking good for the American economy. It cannot be sustained as it is now without it becoming more battered than your average Lifetime Movie of the Week protagonist.<br /> <br />I’m certain that by this point, my readers, you’re saying to yourselves “So if the economy’s so bad, then what should be done to fix it? Where are your ideas, Mr. Big Shot?” My first response, my readers, is “I’m getting there. Hold up a second.” It’s taken several months, but I’ve assembled a six-part plan for a complete overhaul of the American economy. This is the first of what I intend to be a six-part series (because trying to put all of this into one post would likely result in reader petrification). So, without further explication, let’s get started with the first, and arguably the most important, part:<br /> <br />1. Completely revamp the income tax system<br /> <br />I say “income” because I think at this point everyone knows that our system for corporate taxes is broken beyond repair and will likely never be fixed. If you didn’t already know that, I’d hope that seeing Exxon-Mobil, the most profitable company in history, <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/oil_subsidies.html">receive A REFUND of over $100 million</a> would be enough to convince you of that fact. So, since the corporate system stands roughly the same chance of being fixed as Colonel Qaddafi winning the Nobel Peace Prize, it is imperative that the income tax system be totally overhauled. This is usually around the time that the gnashing of teeth, stamping of feet, and shouting of poorly written slogans referencing an event the average American doesn’t fully comprehend begins. Any time the mention of changes to the tax system comes about, people freak out because they think they already pay too much in taxes. They’re wrong, for two reasons: 1, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP">the average American pays fewer taxes than any other major mostly developed nation except Chile and Mexico</a> (and America’s still in much better shape than either of those countries), and 2, <a href="http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/05/11/US-tax-burden-at-lowest-point-in-years/UPI-74091273594893/">marginal tax rates are at their lowest level since the Truman Administration</a>. Furthermore, my tax plan would (much like the President’s plan, prior to the disgusting “compromise” in the lame duck session) result in either no change or a substantial DECREASE in taxes for most Americans, so unless a person is capable of swimming Scrooge McDuck-style through his or her wealth, this plan would be to that person’s benefit.<br /> <br />Here’s my idea, complete with comparisons to the current tax schedule (which you can see for yourself at <a href="http://www.irs.gov">irs.gov</a>). For simplicity’s sake, I’ve determined everything based on an individual filing as Single:<br /> <br />From $0 to $8,375: 10% (Currently: 10%)<br />From $8,375 to $50,000: 15% (Currently: 15% to $34,000, 25% above)<br />From $50,000 to $150,000: 20% (Currently: 25% to $82,400, 28% above)<br />From $150,000 to $250,000: 25% (Currently: 28% to $171,850, 33% above)<br />From $250,000 to $500,000: 35% (Currently: 33% to $373,650, 35% above)<br />From $500,000 to $1,000,000: 40% (Currently: 35%)<br />From $1,000,000 to $3,000,000: 50% (Currently: 35%)<br />From $3,000,000 to $5,000,000: 60% (Currently: 35%)<br />From $5,000,000 to $10,000,000: 70% (Currently: 35%)<br />From $10,000,000 up: 75% (Currently: 35%)<br /> <br />As you can see, for the vast majority of people, there won’t be any real changes. Just in case you can’t see that, here’s a quick example. Your intrepid neighborhood blog writer earned roughly $32,500 last year in taxable income. Based on the current system, I owed the feds $4,456.25 (worry not for me, my readers; payroll deductions resulted in a refund this year). Based on my system, I would owe $4,456.25. That’s right: no change at all. I can live with that.<br /> <br />Let’s look at the young ingénue doctor just getting her feet wet after finishing her residency. We’ll make a conservative estimate of her earnings at about $120,000. Based on the current system, she’d have to pay $27,309.25 in taxes. My system? $21,081.25. That’s nearly $6,000 that can either go directly into the economy or towards getting out from under the avalanche of debt the average professional student must contend with following graduation. Doesn’t seem too shabby if you want to talk putting money back into people’s pockets, but I’ve presented my system as a means of both repairing the economy for the average American AND eradicating the deficit to generate the funds needed to propel the other changes I’ve got in store for parts 2 through 6 of this plan. At some point I’m going to need to generate a good deal more money, and cutting taxes, despite what Republicans have been saying for the last 30 years, does the exact opposite. Well, that’s where the major changes come into play.<br /> <br />For my final example, let’s have a look at the “busy” hedge fund manager who makes a killing in the market to the tune of $150,000,000 in annual salary (for the sake of this argument, let’s assume that he counts this as normal income and not capital gains…don’t worry, I’m getting to that soon). Under the current system, that fellow pays the federal government $52,477,643.75 in taxes. Seems like a decent amount, right? It’s nothing compared to what that fellow would pay under my system. Under my new tax brackets, this fellow would be looking at a bill of $111,039,581.30. That’s right; this fellow’s tax bill would more than double under my system. Our poor hedge fund manager would somehow have to survive on a meager thirty-nine million dollars a year. How will he manage? At these rates, just 100 people making exactly $150 million would generate nearly six billion dollars in one year in additional tax revenue. That’s just people making exactly that amount; given that <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/tax-rates-for-americas-to_n_466480.html">in 2007 the top 400 earners in this country made an average of $345 million each</a> and income disparity has only gotten worse since then, we could be talking upwards of $55 billion in one year in additional revenue from just 400 people. <br /> <br />“But wait! If the tax rate on millionaires is going to be so high, what’s the incentive in being a millionaire?” First off, let me remind all of you that, in our hedge fund manager example, $39 million is still an awful lot of money. It’s nearly three seasons under the contract LeBron James signed for <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/17853/lebron-james-decision-the-transcript">taking his talents to South Beach</a>. So clearly, our hedge fund manager is not going to be applying for food stamps any time soon. Secondly, part of the point of this plan is to deincentivize taking huge amounts of compensation and hoarding it. Once that money comes off a company’s books and goes into the employee’s hands, it’s gone for good and does nothing to further aid in the growth of the company. As long as that money stays in the company, however, it can go toward furthering the company’s goals, be they expansion to new markets, development of new products, investment in infrastructure, etc. Consider the following: A company’s CEO is currently taking home $250 million in compensation when this new tax system comes into effect. Knowing that most of that money will be lost to the government, will the members of the executive board of that company continue to be inclined to pay the CEO that much? Or will they instead try to funnel a larger portion of that money back into the company in the hopes of further growing profit margins? If that CEO’s pay drops just 40%, that puts him at the same level as our hedge fund manager with a final take-home number of $39 million, more than enough to <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094291/">buy another Bentley and continue lording his conspicuous consumption over his neighbors</a>. By dropping his pay 40%, though, the company now has another $100 million to pour into other areas of the business. Maybe the company looks at replacing some of their equipment that’s begun to show its age (buying new equipment = work for the makers of said equipment = jobs = economic growth). Maybe the company looks into expanding production in the hopes of gaining a larger share of the Chinese market (higher production levels = more workers = jobs = economic growth). Before you jump to the conclusion that this proposal is comically idealistic, consider that this is how the business world used to work. The only reason things stopped working this way is because <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan/">a washed-up movie star</a> decided he wanted his corporate buddies to be richer than astronauts. It CAN be done this way, in many countries (I’m looking at you, Scandinavia) it IS done this way, and if we want to stop our slide into the gutter, it NEEDS to be done this way.<br /> <br />The second major target in my overhaul of our tax system is the estate tax. Currently, thanks to the “compromise” brokered between the President and the Slashonomists, the rate for any money passed on to heirs is 35%, following an exception of $5 million. That last part is the part Republicans don’t want the average American to know about. Under the current system, if a person’s net worth at the time of their death does not exceed $5 million, that person’s family pays no estate tax. As you might expect, most people aren’t worth $5 million dollars at the time of their death; in fact, less than half of 1% of estates currently qualify for having to pay any tax at all. If one listens to most Republicans, however, one would assume that everyone pays an exorbitant amount of “death tax” (as they are often want to call it). Multiple Republican senators have proposed eliminating the estate tax altogether, which would be beyond catastrophic for the Treasury. Consider <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/business/09estate.html">the case of Dan Duncan</a>, the richest man in Houston, who picked an exceedingly lucky year to die. When Mr. Duncan, with an estate worth roughly $9 billion, passed away, he did so during the one-year estate tax holiday introduced in the original Bush tax cuts. Because he died that year, his family paid no estate tax. Let me repeat that just so it sinks in a little more: Mr. Duncan’s heirs, who had done nothing to earn a cent of their inheritance, collected $9 billion tax-free. Had even the rudimentary current estate tax been in play, the feds would have collected $3,148,250,000. Had the 2001 estate tax been in play (55% with an exception to $675,000), the amount would have been $4,949,628,750. This family, clearly already worth an amount incomprehensible to the average American, received a tax cut of OVER THREE BILLION DOLLARS because an old man died at the right time. For perspective, the major sticking point in the NFL lockout is due to <a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/mikeozanian/2011/02/11/nfl-owners-want-players-to-finance-3-6-billion-increase-in-team-values/">the owners’ insistence on one billion additional dollars</a>. One family could have solved the labor issues in the NFL with just their estate tax break. That’s disgusting, and it should never happen again. That’s why my plan would require a sizable estate tax in the vein of the Clinton tax rate. I’m willing to cut a little more slack with exceptions, and I’d have no issue with maintaining a $5 million threshold. If you’re making enough money to have to pay the Paris Hilton Tax (which I’m advocating everyone use when discussing this tax from now on…people tend to react more favorably when they realize she’s going to be rich for being a member of the Lucky Sperm Club (in more ways than one)), though, you’re going to face a rate of 55%. To quote Theodore Roosevelt (a progressive Republican, which would be about as welcome in the Republican party today as <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2003-10-10/entertainment/rush.limbaugh_1_wilma-cline-rush-limbaugh-inaccuracies-and-distortions?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ">Rush Limbaugh at a pharmaceutical trade fair</a>), <span style="font-style:italic;">“Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered, not gambling in stocks but service rendered.”</span> With this, I think America can more closely approach that goal.<br /> <br />Finally, the most hideous perversion (minus the entire corporate tax system, of course) of the tax code: the capital gains tax and its use by stockbrokers and hedge fund managers. Thanks to loopholes written into the tax code, people who generate most of their income through stock market transactions are now permitted to classify their entire income as capital gains, and thanks to the Bush tax cuts (noticing a theme?), the maximum rate for capital gains is 15%. Think about that for a second; if you make more than $34,000 under the current tax system, you pay a higher tax rate than a stockbroker who makes $3 million. If our sample hedge fund manager counts all $150 million of his earnings as capital gains, he’d only pay $22.5 million in taxes. That’s absurd. Now realize that this also counts for everyone who lives off the interest of sizable investments. A 60-something retired executive with no job can make millions in stock dividends, accumulated interest from any number of other investments, cash from property transactions, and real estate speculation and pay no more than 15%. What a farce. To correct this, I would raise the capital gains tax by 200%, to a maximum rate of 45%. I’m aware that this isn’t perfect and could catch some people it isn’t intended to catch (seniors cashing in bonds, for example). There are ways to work around that, and by definition the maximum rate is just that: the most that could be levied. What matters most in the short-term is finally demanding a fair amount of tax be paid for these transactions.<br /> <br />I won’t even get into a few of the other ideas I’ve seen (<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/11/955003/-Sen-Sanders-proposes-54-surtax-on-millionaires-More-like-this-guy,-please!">a surtax on all income above $1 million</a>, <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/56789-afl-cio-dems-push-new-wall-street-tax">a miniscule transaction tax on all stock market trades and transactions</a>) because most of you are probably already asleep. Suffice it to say, though, that while further changes still may well be necessary to get our economy going again, restore our budget to workable levels of debt, and curtail the rampancy of corporate greed, I think this is a good start. Something needs to be done soon, and I see no reason that this couldn’t be that something (well, besides the unrelenting opposition by the Republican drones at the behest of their corporate overlords). When an individual considers a budget, there are always two aspects to discuss: expenses and revenues. The Republicans have placed all kinds of focus on the expense side of the equation. Why can’t the revenue side be part of the discussion as well?<br /> <br />Next time: trade policies and American businesses, Or, Why Protectionism Isn’t a Bad WordRyan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-15056254658186599212010-10-30T23:39:00.000-07:002010-10-31T01:22:30.671-07:00Gutless Obstructionist Punks<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.mattbors.com/strips/610.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 600px; height: 433px;" src="http://www.mattbors.com/strips/610.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />When you were younger, did you ever know someone who, when presented with the itinerary for his/her selected group of friends, would stamp his/her feet, hold his/her breath, and adamantly refuse to do anything unless the plan was changed to meet his/her every specification? Someone who believed that compromise equaled “We’re doing it my way or we’re not doing anything?” Someone who always got his/her way just because it was easier than trying to reason with them? I would assume most of you did, and I would also assume that most of you found that person aggravating at best and downright loathsome at worst.<br /> <br />Who would have guessed that that child would grow up to become the entire modern Republican Party?<br /> <br />Yes, I did just compare an entire political party to a single spoiled, rancorous, unlikable child. Given the party’s platform and choice of action (read: inaction) for the last 22 months, I think it’s an apt comparison. Today’s GOP makes no pretence about their objective: their only interest is in regaining power, all others be damned. What’s the quickest way to regain power? Win elections. How do you win elections these days? Convince the electorate that the “other guy” is doing a lousy job. How best to do so? Ensure that nothing gets done, for if nothing gets done, then the people in charge must not be interested in working.<br /> <br />It’s a simple plan, and has been since Karl Rove laid it out following the GOP’s decimation in the 2008 election: make every bit of progress unbelievably difficult. The American public is, by and large, the laziest and dumbest electorate on the planet, and as such only knows as much about Congress as they saw on The West Wing or Schoolhouse Rock. When the public is clamoring for help and demanding action, they don’t know that one side is making even the tiniest issue an impossible mountain to climb; all they understand is that Congress is sitting on their rears not doing what the taxpayers pay them to do. It’s amazing how easily a lack of action can then be turned into a talking point: “The average American is in trouble, and what’s the Democratic Congress doing about it? Nothing!”<br /> <br />How did they accomplish this? How did they turn a public that overwhelmingly supported the Democrats following President Obama’s election into the most anti-incumbency electorate since the days of FDR? Simple: through arcane senatorial procedures and an unprecedented use of the filibuster. The filibuster has historically been used to prevent votes on controversial bills or to force further debate; while historically its use has been associated with <a href="http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/July-August-08/On-this-Day--Strom-Thurmond-Ends-Longest-Filibuster-in-Senate-History.html">preventing social progress</a>, it can be a legitimate weapon for the minority to check the power of the majority and stop poor decisions from being made (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031679/">as Senator Smith will attest</a>). However, the Republicans now wield the filibuster like a fencer swinging a claymore. <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture-how-gop-filibuster-threats-have-changed-the-senate.php">Anything and everything of any consequence in the Senate now requires a supermajority for passage, as the Republicans threaten requiring a cloture vote on every piece of legislation.</a> This unprecedented use has slowed progress in the Senate to a crawl and even led to an unconscionable delay in unemployment benefits, the extension of which had never before been politicized in a time of recession. The only reason that benefit extension finally made it through the Senate is because Robert Byrd, whose illness had kept him from the Senate floor, died and his replacement was capable of providing the 60th vote. Maybe it’s just me, but when someone has to DIE for a bill to get passed, it would seem that there’s a fundamental flaw in the manner in which a governing body conducts itself.<br /> <br />The supermajority requirement is just the tip of the iceberg. Senate rules allow for senators to place holds on pretty much anything they want: presidential nominations, bills, steam trays in the Congressional cafeteria (joking about the last one, maybe). While an ordinary hold requires the senator to claim it and present a reason for the hold, secret holds allow any senator to do the same thing without claiming the hold or providing a reason for it for up to 6 days, at which point the senator must either claim it or release the hold. In a typical session of Congress, secret holds come up from time to time, again typically on more controversial matters (often times in the past they were used on controversial judicial nominees). In the current session of Congress, nearly every nomination has faced at least one secret hold, and some have faced multiple secret holds (in what some have dubbed “congressional roulette,” one senator can release their secret hold and have another secret hold be immediately placed on the same nomination by another senator). What’s worse is that nearly all of these holds are on nominees with completely noncontroversial backgrounds, nominees that came through committee with no dissent, nominees that ultimately are confirmed by sizable margins if not unanimously. <a href="http://themoderatevoice.com/86997/secret-holds-jeopardize-federal-judiciary/">Judicial vacancies are now at critical levels.</a> Vital government departments are lacking the employees (and in some cases, the leaders) they need to function at full strength. The country becomes a little bit weaker every day that passes without these nominations making it through, and for what? The power to drive the country back off a cliff?<br /> <br />What bothers me the most, though, are the uses of bizarre, previously unused Senate conventions for the sole purpose of stopping anything from happening. For example, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/gop-senators-refusing-to_n_511639.html">the Republicans have invoked on several occasions a never-before-used statute that requires the Senate, whenever there is not unanimous consent to continue, to halt all work and adjourn immediately.</a> Think about that. The average daily session of the Senate starts somewhere between 9 and 10 AM. This rule forces the end of work in as little as 4 hours. Imagine trying that at your place of work, my readers, and then imagine the unemployment line you’d inevitably end up in. This has resulted in the delay and even cancellation of several important committee meetings, including at least one meeting of the Armed Services committee in which several major generals traveled half the length of the globe specifically to give testimony. Here we have an example of the party that allegedly are the only ones that can keep America safe from terrorists deliberately acting in a way to put America at risk. Why doesn't anyone call them on it?<br /><br />I'm sure by this point some of you are wondering why, if the Republicans are so eager to regain power, they don't just present their own ideas to an increasingly skeptical and short-sighted public. To make a long story short, the answer is that they don't have any ideas. <a href="http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/senate-republicans-add-health-care-amendments/">Just have a look at some of the amendments they proposed for the health insurance reform bill.</a> Only two of those amendments weren't <span style="font-style:italic;">already covered in the bill</span>, and neither had anything to do with the debate at all. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/18/gop-blocks-two-key-anti-w_n_580747.html">How about having a look at their objections to Wall Street reforms?</a> Each objection specifically targets an area that can be directly linked to aspects of the financial collapse and economic degradation of the last three years, and each objection could only benefit the fraudulent, irresponsible white collar criminal bankers whose high-risk, greed-soaked actions caused this whole mess in the first place. Or how about we look at <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/29/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus-republicans-20100829">the current House Minority Leader's economic plan</a>? Immediate cutoffs of all stimulus spending, dramatic slashing of funding for federal programs across the board...sounds like a great way to kill any growth, no matter how small, that's come out of the last 12 months. But hey, at least we don't have to worry about taxes going up for the rich. That makes me feel so much better, because keeping taxes low on the rich has worked so well every time it's been tried for the last, oh, FOREVER (end sarcasm). No matter what the issue, the Republicans just don't have any viable answers to solve it. So what do you do when you don't have any ideas and want to win? You set up roadblocks to prevent your opponent from having any success. You drag everything out and fight tooth and nail to cripple or bury necessary legislation. You <a href="http://www.examiner.com/clark-county-elections-2010-in-las-vegas/senator-ensign-votes-against-unemployment-extension">abandon any pretext of caring about your constituents</a> for the sole purpose of scoring points with the corporate bigwigs that run your party and hope that the voters are too stupid to notice.<br /><br />The most disgusting aspect of this? <span style="font-weight:bold;">It's working.</span> <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/">Polls suggest that the Republicans will most likely gain control of the House and cut into the Democratic majority in the Senate substantially.</a> This would appear to be irrefutable proof that the American public is, as I said before, the laziest and dumbest electorate on the planet. At the very least, it stands as a testament to what Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone calls "the American voter's unmatched ability to forget what happened to him 10 seconds ago." If there has ever been a greater indictment of how pathetic, how slothful, how unwilling to seek the truth we have become, I can't think of it. We are no longer a nation of free-thinkers, of knowledgeable human beings determined to do what's right for the good of the country. Now we are a nation that needs to be spoon-fed its opinion on everything, because learning the truth is hard work, and we stopped doing hard work a long time ago. Why waste time searching for the right answer when the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3J_QLtYqlk">ranting crying Mormon on the TV</a> can tell me what the right answer is?<br /><br />No more. We cannot continue like this. People constantly invoke the Founding Fathers to justify any crazy philosophy they have, be it on gun control or policing internet pornography. Well, there is one thing that the founders were undeniably, adamantly in favor of: a well-informed, rational, reasoning electorate. That's why I call on all of you to stop believing what you hear and find out for yourselves. Do the legwork and find out just how little these bullies have done to help us out of this quagmire. Dig a little deeper and see the roadblocks they've put in the way of national healing. Switch over to C-SPAN for a few minutes and watch these empty-headed goons go through the same talking points they've been harping on since last February. And for the country's sake, don't reward these spoiled brats on November 2nd for their constant threats to take their ball and go home.<br /><br />These children need to be grounded. I implore you, America. Be smarter than this. Work harder than this. It's time to lay down some discipline.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-63442062466308439192010-05-18T16:43:00.000-07:002010-05-18T17:54:23.462-07:00Black Death, Reloaded<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.bellona.no/imagearchive/ingressimage_Oil-spill-2..jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 300px;" src="http://www.bellona.no/imagearchive/ingressimage_Oil-spill-2..jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Consider the following, my readers. Suppose you're driving while texting, a seemingly innocuous action. In the course of your distraction, you drive over a curb into a crowd of people downtown, killing 11 of them and causing substantial damage to the downtown area. The odds are fantastic, if not 100%, that you will be spending the rest of your life (or at least a very large part of it) in prison and paying restitution to the families of those whose relatives you killed.<br /><br />Now, consider the following: <a href="http://www.outlookseries.com/N7/Science/3868_Henry_Waxman_Deep_Water_Horizon_Faulty_Fail-Safe_System_Henry_Waxman.htm">An enormous oil rig, mostly out of commission, lacks the modern safety equipment necessary to prevent a catastrophic leak.</a> The company chooses not to outfit it with said equipment because it would cost an extra $500,000 (note: <a href="http://www.bp.com/extendedgenericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7059471">said company made over <span style="font-weight:bold;">$4 billion</span> in profits in the fourth quarter of 2009 alone</a>) and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/sex-lies-and-oil-spills_b_564163.html">the government, loaded at the time (and even now) with corporate cronies and former members of said company, makes compliance with international standards voluntary.</a> These failures all come back to bite everyone related in the ass when a trapped methane bubble causes a massive explosion, rupturing the oil main and opening a geyser into the Gulf of Mexico.<br /><br />The costs: 11 dead oil workers. Millions upon millions of dollars lost to federal cleanup efforts, which to this point have been largely unsuccessful. A devastated ecosystem the likes of which we've never seen. <a href="http://blogs.bnet.com/business-news/?p=1466">Entire local industries decimated.</a> Tens of thousands of Americans facing unemployment through no fault of their own. Sounds a little bit worse than the first situation, right?<br /><br />So what does the company responsible for this catastrophe stand to lose? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Pollution_Act_of_1990">$75 million, plus the cost of cleanup.</a> That's it. For comparison's sake, based on their profits from the last year, BP could pay the entire cost of the cleanup, plus their meager oil pollution fine, with the money made in roughly a week. How is this possible? Are we really OK with letting this happen? Think about what's happened here: through sheer negligence, <span style="font-style:italic;">BP has wounded the Earth.</span> It has killed, murdered if you will, eleven innocent people. It has contaminated a vibrant ecosystem beyond anything we've known (this makes the Exxon Valdez look like someone tipped over a teacup). It has compounded the problem by using chemical dispersants to ensure that the oil slick looks less serious when photographed from above, ocean life be damned. For the record, while these dispersants allow the oil to be broken down over thousands of years by microscopic bacteria, they're toxic to phytoplankton, which are the bottom rung on nearly every marine food chain. With the base of the food chain gone, there's nothing left for the next highest group to survive on. Slowly, tortuously, everything dies. No life means no fishing industry, so in turn it has obliterated a major local industry, costing the cash-strapped South billions and putting thousands out of work. It has wrecked the local tourism industries as well, <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/05/1613588/fla-tourism-industry-awash-in.html">with some businesses reporting enormous losses as travelers stay away from the ever-growing toxin lake.</a> It has downplayed the ultimate impact of the disaster, <a href="http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/13839">even as scientists begin to warn that the oil threatens to move into strong ocean currents and pose a threat to the coasts of Florida and Texas</a>, with some possibility it could even begin to reach the East Coast.<br /><br />We cannot stand by and let them get away with this. This is no oil spill; this is a cataclysm. This is devastation on an unimagined scale. This is the end of the Gulf of Mexico; for decades, barring any sort of immediate intervention and drastic change of course, the Gulf will be a dead zone. This is an economic massacre; BP ultimately loses nothing, save maybe some public stature, while whole states face untold ruin. To watch BP, Halliburton (that's right, our good friends are also responsible for upkeep on this rig) and Transocean Limited ignore the scale of this problem while pointing fingers at one another makes me physically ill.<br /><br />As you might have guessed from my anger, I've got something of a personal stake in this. I've only seen the ocean once. It was on a spring break while I was in high school, and it was the Gulf of Mexico, from the Port of New Orleans. Much as watching a city I came to love drown hurt me personally, watching these waters, teeming with unique and magnificent life, wither and die as the blackness spreads makes me ache. I'm tired of watching my country let parts of itself die. No more. The time has come to speak out. Tell your congressman that this mockery of justice cannot and must not stand. Tell your attorney general that these companies must be held accountable for their failures in criminal court, that someone must pay for these tragic, inconceivable crimes. Tell your president that the time for cowering in the face of corporate power is over. Tell your country that, in the words of Peter Finch in Network, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"<br /><br />My planet bleeds. I do not accept this wave of death. I do not accept this crime. Until next time, do not accept anything less than justice.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-32420734038715567822010-05-05T15:04:00.000-07:002010-05-05T16:35:25.916-07:00Children, Children, Future, Future<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://blog.mattalgren.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/think-of-the-children.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 331px;" src="http://blog.mattalgren.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/think-of-the-children.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />It's a pretty rare occasion when the far left and the far right agree on something. Typically, the two sides only agree completely when the situation is so black-and-white that literally nothing could lead to disagreement (the obvious example being things like Pearl Harbor). Hence my surprise at the growing accord between the two sides regarding a number of issues, including one which recently reached the Supreme Court. For completion's sake, I'll run down the four I'm thinking of; see if you can guess the common link between the four.<br /><br />1. <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/28/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20100428">Santa Clara County in California has banned the sale of fast food meals that "pander to children."</a><br /><br />2. <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2868548/group_wants_mcdonalds_mascot_ronald.html?cat=5">Corporate Accountability International is demanding that McDonald's eliminate their use of terrifying demonspawn (or, to use a term many of you may find more fitting, clown) Ronald McDonald as a mascot, calling him "a deep-fried 21st century Joe Camel."</a><br /><br />3. <a href="http://www.wmur.com/health/19397989/detail.html">Increasingly, parents are refusing to have their children vaccinated, claiming that the injections are dangerous.</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy">Still others refuse because they believe, despite numerous studies to the contrary, that the preservatives in vaccines lead to autism</a> (I've got major issues with the attention given autism these days, but that's another story for another time).<br /><br />4. <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/2201890,supreme-court-violent-video-games-042610.article">The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding overturning a lower court's own overturning of a California law banning the sale and rental of violent video games to minors.</a><br /><br />The answer, for those of you who saw all the links, remembered my column on "our hyperradical president" and immediately said "tl;dr," is that all of these are examples of legislators pursuing agendas that propose removing responsibility for children from their parents. In essence, legislators are trying to force the state to play nanny, and many parents are all too willing to hop on board for the supposedly altruistic reason of "protecting our children." The far left views this as eliminating unseemly aspects of modern society (particularly childhood obesity and violence anywhere), while the far right can get past the "big government" issues because these issues fall in line with their (mostly) fundamentalist Christian dogma.<br /><br />Man, it just figures that when you finally get them to agree on something, they're wrong, doesn't it?<br /><br />These examples are really a continuation of a trend we've seen since the early 90's: reducing the responsibility of parents for the behavior of their children. Heck, if you want to toss the mass overdiagnosis of attention deficit disorder in with the others, feel free, it'd be fitting. More and more, parents are deciding that raising their children properly is just too hard, so rather than amp up their level of commitment, they seek other ways to absolve them of their own failures. Consider the vaccination issue. In spite of overwhelming physical evidence that proves beyond any doubt that the use of vaccines has drastically reduced childhood mortality and even eradicated certain diseases (smallpox is completely gone, polio no longer present in North America, tuberculosis fairly rare), parents would rather take a chance with their child's health. They claim they're "looking out for their babies," but who they're really looking out for is Number 1. If the kid gets something, then they can make the argument that someone else gave it to the child, thus making it this other ill person's fault. Some will counter with the claim that this is the perfect example of taking total responsibility for their children because they're taking responsibility for any future vulnerability to diseases. To that, I counter that in doing so they are abandoning their responsibility to society to prevent the possible spread of potentially fatal diseases. There are studies currently ongoing that show the lack of vaccination, in conjunction with the increasing number of drug-resistant strains, is beginning to allow certain major childhood diseases to return <a href="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/579800">(the measles, in particular, has returned with disturbing force)</a>. In this instance, abdicating your responsibility to cover your ass is only putting the rest of ours at risk.<br /><br />The irresponsibility doesn't stop there. The two McDonald's-targeted challenges are ostensibly meant to curb the spread of childhood obesity, which is a decent goal. The issue, though, is that last I checked, kids don't buy their own food (most of the time). If I wanted a Happy Meal toy back in the day and my parents weren't interested in going to McDonald's, you know what they did? THEY SAID NO. I know that's a foreign concept to many parents today, but it's what needs to be done. In general, children who don't eat fast food on a daily basis don't typically become obese from fast food. Again, odd concept, I know. At no time should anyone pretend they don't know what they're getting into with fast food. I understand with kids, because at that age many don't read particularly well (another issue for another time) and even fewer would understand a nutrition chart if it smacked them in the face. I don't expect them to know the health risks they face from eating that stuff all the time, but for their parents to pretend that it isn't their responsibility to know what's in their kids' food smacks of laziness, apathy, and an unwillingness to take responsibility for their own decisions. The same is true of the push to eliminate Ronald McDonald. The comparison to Joe Camel is erroneous because Joe Camel pandered to minors <span style="font-style:italic;">a substance they could not legally use</span>, a substance with known addictive chemicals present to ensure their continued use. If a child decides "Screw you, I'm gonna have a burger," there's no real concern that the child will become <span style="font-style:italic;">physically dependent</span> on hamburgers for the rest of his or her life. Above all else, though, it's a matter of having a spine. The child is not the one making the decisions. As such, the child's predilection to follow the wishes of a mephitic burger jester shouldn't come into play. If you're pathetic enough that a charlatan in a yellow jumper has more influence over what your child eats than you do, then you might as well just give your kids to Angelina.<br /><br />The last one, regarding violent video games, really bothers me for a number of reasons. I know a fellow who started playing violent things like Mortal Kombat back in grade school and has continued with it up to this day. He's never had any issues with violence or anger. He graduated at the top of his class in high school, graduated with honors from a respected university, and today is a respected professional with a steady job and fiscal independence. I know this fellow pretty well, because this fellow is me. I've never had an issue with it because from an early age, I could tell the difference between a game and reality. Moreover, my parents understood that I understood the difference, so they permitted me that leeway. To put this simply, if a parent doesn't believe their child can play these sorts of things without reenacting them (in other words, that the child can't tell what's acceptable in real life and what's not), there should be absolutely no way the parent permits the child to play them. There's not even a good excuse for not knowing what games could pose a problem, because THERE'S A RATING SYSTEM. THE ANSWERS ARE ALREADY ON THE DAMN BOX. If parents would just do some research and look at the box, they could be well-informed on what their child could be witnessing and make their decisions based on that. It reminds me of the parents who go to Blockbuster, see the cartoon pictures on the box, rent Urotsukidoji for their kids, and come back furious over what was in it (if you're curious, Google it...there's no way in hell I'm linking anything on that). There's a certain level of responsibility that goes into these sorts of things, and if you're going to duck that responsibility, you deserve the consequences.<br /><br />You might have noticed I keep using the word "responsibility." That's because that's what all this comes back to: responsibility, and an unwillingness to accept it. There are certain things that a parent needs to know to make informed decisions. For some reason, there's a distinct lack of interest in learning those necessary things; I'm tempted to call it "willful ignorance." Instead, the prevailing thought has become "Let's force everyone to play by a set of rules because we don't have the stones to make our own." That disturbs me, as it should disturb anyone who respects the notion of a free, well-educated society. When did we stop forcing people to own up to their mistakes? When did we decide parenting was the government's job? When did we decide that individual responsibility is irrelevant when it comes to progeny? Why haven't we fixed that? It's time to face facts: if there's something wrong with your child, the first person you should even consider blaming is the person in the mirror. Until next time, whenever someone says "Won't someone pleeeeeease think of the children?", respond with these two little words:<br /><br />You first.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-36520840521297626312010-04-27T16:08:00.000-07:002010-04-27T17:38:41.900-07:00Two Sides Of The Same Coin<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.sterling-design.co.uk/blogAssets/batman_coin.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 211px;" src="http://www.sterling-design.co.uk/blogAssets/batman_coin.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />In the last week two stories from distinctly different parts of the world regarding two distinctly different groups of people have sprung up. Each regards the passage/possible passage of a law allegedly designed to solve a specific social problem. Each specifically targets a single ethnic group. Yet the reaction to each law has been distinctly different. As might be expected when anything regarding "targeting ethnic groups" comes up, the right is heavily in favor of both laws. Surprisingly, though, while the left is adamantly opposed to one (and with good reason), they also seem to be in favor of the other. Why the discrepancy? Let's have a look.<br /><br />The first law is the one I assume most of you have heard about: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html">Arizona's new bill targeted, allegedly, at curbing illegal immigration</a>. The bill requires - remember that; it doesn't suggest, it <span style="font-weight:bold;">mandates</span> - police to stop anyone they may suspect of being an illegal immigrant and demand their immigration papers. If the "suspect" cannot produce said papers, the "suspect" is to be immediately arrested and, unless such documentation can be produced in relatively short order, deported. What exactly denotes a potential illegal? The bill doesn't say; the language is left intentionally vague. The vagueness of the bill is intentional, as it gives the government an out for claiming the bill doesn't mandate racial profiling. They're welcome to make that claim.<br /><br />They're wrong.<br /><br />Some of you may be wondering, "Gee, where have I heard that 'must have your papers on you at all times or risk return to your alleged place of origin' thing?" I think I may have an answer for that right <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850">here.</a> That's right, the closest thing to this statute in American history is the Fugitive Slave Act, passed 160 years ago. The intent of this bill is no different: to persecute those different from the "threatened" majority (in this case, as usual, old white guys) under the guise of maintaining social order. How many do you believe will be detained in the first month after this law is enacted who are legal American citizens? Remember, this isn't a lily-white state like, say, most of Indiana; a large percentage of the state's residents are of mixed ancestry dating back to the era following the Mexican War. Still more are legal Mexican immigrants. Proponents of the law claim the chances of a legal citizen being detained are few and far between. That's naive, or stupid, or just a blatant lie, or all of the above. There is literally no reason an entire group of people should be made into second-class citizens solely because another group feels they invade on the utopia previously envisioned. Perhaps the most horrifying implication of this law is the likelihood that it will forever shatter the public trust between the Latino community in Arizona and the police. Say a group of local yokels loads into their pickup truck with the American flag and "These Colors Don't Run" pained over the back window and drives to the home of a Mexican-American family, brandishing shotguns and hurling ignorant racist invective. Is that family going to feel confident that the police will protect them knowing that if they can't produce birth certificates in relatively short order, they'll likely be arrested? I ask you, my readers, do you know where your birth certificate is? Could you produce it quickly in a situation of extreme distress? Why should anyone who believes they could be apprehended for the crime of looking/speaking/living different even consider trusting their potential persecutor?<br /><br />Thankfully, a sizable portion of the nation sees this law for what it is: an abomination, a desecration of the Bill of Rights, an embarrassment to the American ideal. The Obama Administration has publicly decried the law, <a href="http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/law-94284-attorney-possible.html">with the attorney general considering a possible legal challenge</a> (the first of many, to be sure). To their credit, <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/21/20100421arizona-immigration-bill-police-chiefs-criticize.html">police chiefs across the nation, including many in Arizona, have come out strongly against the measure</a>, with several outright refusing to force their precincts to follow it. Protesters have already begun their demonstrations, with several dozen already arrested and more sure to follow. I can agree that illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed. Creating a police state reminiscent of Orwell, Huxley, and Moore isn't the way to do it. If you really want to fix illegal immigration, how about dropping the hammer on the companies that employ illegals through severe financial penalties, up to and including forced closure of the business? Eliminate the economic advantages of employing illegals, and companies will stop doing it (no one's going to hire illegals if they have to pay them a decent wage, when they could just hire a native citizen and avoid the possibility of aforementioned strict financial and legal punishment if caught). If the atmosphere in which these people can be employed (some, including me, would say "exploited for massive profit") no longer exists, what are the odds that they'll continue streaming across the border in search of money for their families? This is the simplest answer to the problem, but of course, it cuts into the profits of the rich white guys in control of the corporatocracy, so naturally it'll never happen.<br /><br />The second law is a bit more obscure, particularly since it hasn't come up in its country's legislative body yet, but it's just as important to expose and discuss. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/22/sarkozy-burqas-are-not-we_n_218920.html">In a speech last week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared the burqa unwelcome in France, seeking to ban the garment from the country altogether.</a> Sarkozy framed his argument in terms of women's rights, declaring the burqa an affront and a means "imprisoning women behind a veil." A number of commentators on the left have come out in favor of this, including Bill Press and Thom Hartmann. Given that I too despise the burqa and what it represents, you'd probably assume that I'm in their camp.<br /><br />You'd be wrong, too.<br /><br />See, there are three major issues with the whole concept of banning an article of clothing, but particularly with banning this particular item of clothing. The first, and perhaps most obvious, is that this isn't a fashion choice for most women; it's either a religious or social requirement. I wholly admit I don't know enough about the strictest Islamic sects, but they take their clothing restrictions extremely seriously. The end result of such a ban wouldn't be "Oh, darn, now that's just taking up space in my closet," it'd be "Well, looks like I can't leave the house anymore unless I want to risk getting stoned to death." That's not an implication I'm interested in testing any time soon. The second is something I'm always concerned with: precedent. If the government can bar an article of clothing, no matter the reason, what's to stop them from banning something else at a later date? Once a precedent has been established, it can't be undone. That's why I was so wary of using reconciliation to pass the health insurance reform bill; what's to prevent a neo-con Senate under another <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush">idiotic sub-chimpanzee President</a> from using reconciliation to pass a massive nuclear arms build-up bill, or completely slash income taxes on the top 1%? Likewise, what's to keep a group of old guys in France from saying "I think halter tops are embarrassing, let's get rid of them" and passing a ban on those? <br /><br />The third, and the thorniest, issue regards the growing cultural divide in France. Over the last decade the number of Muslims in France has grown by leaps and bounds, to the point that France now has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe. It should come as no surprise that this has created substantial tension; many native French are increasingly frightful and angry due to an unwillingness by the Muslim population to completely assimilate, and many Muslims feel increasingly persecuted by a country that preaches complete tolerance but refuses to practice it (the <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/hijab.html">hijab ban</a> being the best example). Hmm, an ethnic group feeling mistreated by an increasingly paranoid and fearful majority. Sound familiar? With a litany of other instances in which the French government has passed increasingly targeted legislation with the intent of forcing assimilation, why should this instance be any different?<br /><br />So, if this law also represents a form of racism, why would the left be in favor of it? The answer is obvious: because it happens to coincide with an ideological goal. The burqa to many (yours included) represents the repression of the female voice, the burial of the individual in favor of the faceless symbol. I don't like it anymore than they do. However, <span style="font-style:italic;">racism for an (allegedly) altruistic reason is still racism</span>. Specifically targeting one specific ethnic group in an attempt to force conformance to an arbitrary set of rules for the purpose of making that group less uncomfortable for the majority is <span style="font-weight:bold;">wrong</span>, no matter the stated reason. We have to remember that in affecting social change, we cannot under any circumstances give in to the same evils that we claim to oppose. To quote, "Using the weapons of the enemy, no matter how good one’s intentions, makes one the enemy."<br /><br />It's my hope that those in favor of this provision can see beyond their ideology and recognize it for what it is: a subtle form of oppression (kind of amusing that removing a symbol of oppression can be oppression itself, but them's the breaks). Likewise, it's my hope that those in favor of the Arizona immigration law will come to their senses and recognize this sort of blatant prejudice should have died with the Confederacy (but I'm not holding my breath). Until next time, remember that while morality can seem black and white, the truth is usually a shade of grey.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-8590146114857556852010-04-20T16:02:00.000-07:002010-04-20T17:49:41.583-07:00How the Gingrich Stole Patriots' Day<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://fupaper.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/newt-gingrich-baby.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 249px; height: 300px;" src="http://fupaper.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/newt-gingrich-baby.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Some of you might have seen <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_us/us_republicans_gingrich">this story</a> in the news last week, in which a certain former Speaker of the House referred to our current president as the "most radical president in American history." I must ask, has Mr. Gingrich ever studied any American history? Somehow Barack Obama, by most accounts to this point a center-left leader with a number of policies identical to Bill Clinton's and a Defense Department and judicial branch largely composed of Bush appointees, is the most radical president EVER? <br /><br />For the sake of discussion, I'm going to note a number of other presidents by which you, my readers, can make your own judgments on this issue. Is the president more radical than <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/georgewashington">a president who bore arms against the country he fought in service of 20 years prior, the president who set precedents still being followed to this day</a>? Is he more radical than <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/johnadams">a president who not only promised to make principled, unpopular decisions, but actually did it</a>? Is he more radical than <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/thomasjefferson">a president who, by any measure, vastly overstepped his Constitutional authority in making a business deal with a foreign power</a>? Is he more radical than <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jamesmadison">a president who let the White House burn to the ground</a>? (Something tells me that would probably lead Glenn Beck's show today.) Is he more radical than <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/andrewjackson">a president who actively promoted a campaign of genocide</a>? Is he more radical than <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/abrahamlincoln">a president who almost single-handedly destroyed an insidious institution that pervaded the country since the earliest colonial days, who had to declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus to do it</a>? Is he more radical than <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/theodoreroosevelt">a president who eliminated the last vestiges of isolationism and promoted peace throughout the world</a>? Is he more radical than <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/franklindroosevelt">a president who broke many of the long-standing precedents of the presidency, attempted to dissolve the Supreme Court, gave the federal government more power than it had ever known, and somehow found the time to drag the country out of the worst financial crisis the country had seen</a>? Is he more radical than <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/dwightdeisenhower">a president who spent sizable amounts of taxpayer dollars on the largest infrastructure program in American history, who slashed the defense budget to promote education and health care</a>? Is he more radical than <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/richardnixon">a president who epitomized the term "cover-up?"</a> Is he more radical than <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan">a president who remade the financial system for the benefit of his wealthy buddies, who created the economic climate that transformed the country into the cesspool of corruption and greed it is today</a>? Is he more radical than<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/georgewbush"> a president whose policies resulted in the (in terms of raw dollars) greatest financial disaster in history, who transformed a budget surplus into a record deficit within two years, who refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror</a>? <br /><br />I'm willing to bet that you, as I do, see the obscene hyperbole in Mr. Gingrich's words. The only way Obama is our "most radical" President is if Mr. Gingrich is using surfer lingo. It's not particularly surprising; after all, he <span style="font-style:italic;">is</span> trying to position himself for the nomination to oppose said radical president in two years. However, I do think it epitomizes the primary issue that the Obama Administration has had to face, more than adamant Republican opposition to doing the job they were elected to do, more than having to face the challenges <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21156.html">of</a> <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100412/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_militia">four</a> <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1361">separate</a> <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/05/obama_cybersecurity_is_a_natio.html">centuries</a>. The biggest issue the President has right now is bridging the gap between Obama the Idea and Obama the Man.<br /><br />As numerous others have elaborated far more eloquently than I will, as a candidate Obama positioned himself, and ultimately became, the "tabula rasa" candidate. More than any other presidential candidate, and thus more than any other president, Obama represented an open canvas onto which any American could project his or her ideals and dreams (or in the case of the other side, their fears and nightmares). It's part of why he won the Nobel Peace Prize; he represented the ideal of a better, more peaceful future for the world, in part because he represented the ultimate triumph of the American ideal of equality. It's also the biggest reason his approval rating is under 50% right now despite having not outright defied any of his campaign promises and despite the economy beginning to turn around. See, to those on the left, Obama became the Champion Of Progressive Issues, the Born Liberal. The fact that he hasn't lived up to their expectations of pushing the country much further to the left is a large part of the reason so many liberals are constantly angry with the Administration. Never mind that he stated from the beginning that he would increase troop levels in Afghanistan; actually doing so makes him a lying warmonger, somehow. Never mind that he's promised to repeal "don't ask, don't tell;" because it's not done RIGHT NOW, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protestors-charged-chaining-front-white-house/story?id=10138564">people are chaining themselves to the White House fences in protest.</a> Never mind that no president had ever gotten any bill regarding changes to the health insurance system through Congress; because this bill didn't have a public option, it's trash and the President should have to answer personally for it. By the same token, because the right has become so radicalized (there's a proper use of the word, Mr. Gingrich), anyone who doesn't stand for their beliefs represents a dire threat to the future of their country (which happens to be an idyllic country similar to the 1950s that never actually existed, but that's another story). Facts are irrelevant; it's whatever's been projected onto the man that becomes the driving factor in the opposition. Never mind that the health insurance reform bill does nothing to anyone's current insurance plan; somehow it's a government ploy to install socialism everywhere. Never mind that the primary "hockey mom who cried socialism" is more of a socialist than the President (that's not coming from me; <a href="http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/democratic-socialist-director-sarah-palin-more-of-a-socialist-than-obama/">that's coming from actual Socialists!</a>). Here's the real kicker: someone actually believes that Obama (who was, as you might recall, Senator Obama...State Senator Obama in the Illinois Legislature, to be exact...at the time) <a href="http://marccooper.com/the-secret-obama-911-conspiracy/">was responsible for 9/11</a>, not based on any facts or evidence, but because to him, Barack Hussein Obama represents all the fears the world can dredge up.<br /><br />What we need to remember as we judge the President is that he, like any other president, is eminently human and thus eminently fallible. As he himself has said, he's not the last son of Krypton come to save humanity from itself. By the same token, he's not the Anti-Christ spawned from the blackest reaches of Hades, either. When I voted for him I did so knowing that I wouldn't agree with all of his positions, and to this point I haven't. Hell, I'm even guilty of falling into the aforementioned trap of associating my ideals with Obama the Idea (you should have seen me when they dropped the public option). What I knew at the time was that he possessed a pragmatism born from careful thought, reasoning, and rationalism. I voted knowing that I was electing a man who based decisions on scientific fact and hard evidence, not "gut feelings" or "<a href="http://www.irregulartimes.com/godspeaksthroughme.html">words from God</a>". As a thinking public we need to remember that the President is not the physical manifestation of what we want for America (or what we most fear), but instead a steward of democracy, a single man with his own thoughts and ideas on how the country should be run. He represents neither impossible extreme, but a reality somewhere in the middle.<br /><br />I leave you with this quote to keep in mind when trying to classify the President right now, and it's one he would do well to remember: "Don't try to be a great man, just be a man. Let history make its own judgment." Until next time, never confuse the Ideal with the Reality.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-11243824655362078462009-08-15T21:11:00.001-07:002009-08-15T23:33:49.590-07:00Being Old Is No Excuse<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/229/88130-26709-grampa-simpson_large.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 285px;" src="http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/229/88130-26709-grampa-simpson_large.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Most of the time, I see no need to mention things that appear in the Opinions section of the newspaper. The section is designed to be a place where anyone can say whatever they want, and I understand that that means I'm going to disagree with a large amount of what is written, and because of that I can ignore most of the idiocy that populates the page. However, when something is grossly idiotic, disturbingly misleading, or both, I cannot stay quiet. That brings me to the subject of today's post. Martin Henrichs is a retired former teacher from the Valparaiso area. Much of his time these days is spent working as a board member for Lutheran Hour Ministries, whose web site can be found <a href="http://www.lhm.org/default.asp">here</a>; in short, his primary area of expertise is indoctrination. For reasons unknown to myself, and I would hazard to the paper itself, he has a regular column approximately once a month. Please keep in mind the fact that he has as many credentials as I do in terms of writing newspaper editorials; most everyone else that has a column possesses some level of knowledge in a specific subject or writes for a major newspaper (the Washington Post is most common, but there are some others grabbed off the wire services). His columns are always filled with completely insane statements, none of which are backed by facts, designed to appeal to those whose primary instinct when confronted with anything remotely resembling change/progress/whatever-the-opposite-of-status-quo-is is fear. I've decided that, quite frankly, I can't let this go anymore. I'm going to do something fairly rare for me: I'm going to break down his entire column, piece by piece, and expose him for the mentally defective charlatan he is. His words are in italics, mine aren't. Let's hop in:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">I am perplexed about so many issues in the news that I can only ask questions today. Maybe someone else has the answers.</span><br /><br />Right away, this should raise some red flags. When someone poses only questions and never posits any answers of their own, there is no interest in discussion, primarily because the asker has no answers and no ideas. Immediately we know that Mr. Henrichs has done no legwork in researching his topic and instead simply wishes to raise moral indignation in his readers.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">* Why is the issue of health care being decided by government and not by the consumers, health professionals and insurance companies? Isn't government the one that can't defend our borders, win the war on poverty or control the cost of stamps? And if Medicare and Medicaid are rampant with corruption and cost overruns, what will government do to a much broader program?</span><br /><br />And the stupid settles in rather rapidly. First, let's get this whole "health care reform" thing out of the way. Of the major fully developed nations (for the sake of discussion, this includes the EU, Japan, Australia, and Canada), ours is the only country where a government-run option for the general public does not exist. No other country spends as much per person on health care as the United States, and no other country has anywhere near the number of uninsured. This is due in large part to allowing insurance companies and health professionals decide the issue of health care. Insurance companies reject customers and refuse to pay for even medically-relevant services based solely on whether that customer will cut into profit margins. Health professionals can set exorbitant prices for services because those services are necessary and there's nothing to stop them from gouging (there are other issues involved in this as well, but to get into all of it would push this past 10,000 words easily). Given that we spend so much, it's sickening how little we get. As for government's other weaknesses, the comparison is laughable. It's impossible to win a war on an abstract idea, so there's really no point in blaming the government for failure to eradicate poverty (which, for those of you playing along at home, can be partially attributed to the broken health care system. You can read more about that <a href="http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml">here</a>.) any more than you can blame it for losing the "war on drugs," the "war on illiteracy," or even the "war on terror." Medicare and Medicaid corruption typically isn't related to the government itself; the fraud is usually on the part of unscrupulous doctors/pharmacists attempting to defraud the government of extra money. Cost overruns related to those two are due to the aforementioned absurd prices charged for medical services. Finally, the government DOES control the cost of stamps. They're the ones who set the prices. Stamp prices increase due to a number of factors, ranging from inflation to hiring additional workers to meet demand, from pension costs to (surprise surprise) health care costs for their employees.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">* Why are the 10 poorest cities in America the ones that always elect Democrats to public office? Is it because their solutions to problems is welfare, not work?</span><br /><br />You can find all the information on the wealthiest and poorest cities in America <a href="http://dcjobsource.com/richest.html">here</a>. Anyone with any knowledge of economics or common sense can tell you that these cities are not poor because they elect Democrats to higher office; many of the cities listed among the poorest have far more important social and economic problems, among them substantial wealth discrepancy along racial and ethnic demographics. Those issues either do not exist or are far less extensive in the cities listed amongst the wealthy. The reason these cities always elect Democrats is because the Democratic platform is geared toward the middle and lower classes. Why would a group of people choose to vote for someone who makes their plight anything less than a top priority? By the way, for those of you who are curious, 6 of the 10 wealthiest cities currently have Democrat mayors.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">* Why is it considered desirable to register every uninformed voter to cancel out the votes of informed, well-educated people?</span><br /><br />Every person has the right to vote, no matter how poorly they choose to do so. The Constitution's pretty clear on that one. Declaring that anyone should be barred from voting is disenfranchisement, pure and simple. Everyone has a right to be heard in a representative democracy, whether they understand the issues or just like the candidate's hair. <br /><br />(By the way, I'm fully aware that I've stated repeatedly how much I hate when people who don't know the issues vote based on lies or ignorance. However, I also understand that, outside of a djinn granting my wish to increase the general IQ in this country 40 points, that's not something that's going to change, and the best I can do is try to inform people of the facts before they make ill-informed decisions.)<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">* What does it mean when cities with strict gun control laws, like Chicago and Washington, D.C., can't control gangs, drugs and shootings?</span><br /><br />Usually, it means that the problems are bigger than the availability of guns. The two concepts don't show a direct correlation, however. Gang violence and drug use aren't related to guns in any way, outside of the severity of injury the weapons cause. The idea is simply that tougher gun laws make it less likely that someone who shouldn't have one will get one. I really fail to see the problem with this. <br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">* Why is global warming even an issue when the increase in worldwide temperatures during the past 100 years has been only one degree Celsius and, for the past three years, has declined?</span><br /><br />Because that one degree is enormous. One degree is the difference between ice and water. Let's get this cleared up right now: people who bitch about global warming being fake inevitably toss out the "But this summer is colder than last year" excuse or something similar. Global warming does NOT mean that the entire Earth is going to be warmer all the time; rather, it means that the extremes are going to be more pronounced. It doesn't mean that there won't occasionally be cooler summers or cold winters; it means that the hot summers will be brutally hot and the cold winters will be bone-chillingly cold. It doesn't mean that every year there are going to be droughts or floods; it means that when they occur, those events will be far more dangerous and far more deadly than normal. Some of these effects can already be seen; take a look at <a href="http://www.hurricaneville.com/all_time_storms.php">this list</a> of the most powerful hurricanes EVER. Notice anything? 11 of the most powerful hurricanes ever have occurred within the last 20 years. <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp">20% of the Arctic summer ice cap is gone.</a> It's not coming back, ever. That's an enormous supply of fresh water, gone. That's habitat for a number of Arctic species, gone. At what point do people stop thinking these are all coincidences?<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">* Why does President Obama prefer to house terrorists in the United States rather than at Gitmo?</span><br /><br />Because Gitmo exists outside due process? Because the vast majority of those being held there are being held without rights and he wants to bring us back to operating within the scope of international law? Because the stories of human rights violations offend and disgust him, as they should any decent human being? This is another one where I just don't understand the objection. Where do people think these guys are going to be sent, Arkham Asylum? We keep guys who kill and EAT PEOPLE in supermax. We've got guys in prison here who would make Vlad the Impaler say "That's a bit much" and none of us think a second thought about them escaping. What reason is there to think these guys would be any more likely to get out? <br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">* With Cash for Clunkers and $8,000 bribes to first-time home buyers, what will happen to car and home sales when these "incentives" end? (I'm waiting for my 10 grand for grandpas.)</span><br /><br />They'll probably decrease. What a concept, sales decreasing when a good deal comes to an end. Mr. Henrichs must be a wizard. The idea behind these programs was to give the economy a shot in the arm by providing an incentive to make big-ticket purchases. It seems to have worked. Yeah, it's not going to last forever; no one should expect it to. By the time the programs come to an end, things will hopefully be better than they were before they started. So what's the problem? <br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">* Why is there so much weeping and gnashing of teeth over Burr Oak Cemetery? Didn't anyone ever visit the graves of their loved ones on their birthdays or Memorial Day to honor them? Or is there now "money in them there bones"? I found a beautiful tombstone of a relative buried in Germany in 1959. I couldn't find it again five years ago. I discovered that, because of a shortage of burial space, tombstones remain only as long as a relative pays an annual fee. Oh, well, in my opinion, it's what happened to the soul of my relative -- not his bones -- that counts.</span><br /><br />I'm not someone who is overly attached to the physical. I'm not overly concerned with what happens to my body when I die (though <a href="http://www.lifegem.com/">being made into a diamond</a> would be pretty badass). However, I understand the connection people feel to the graves of their relatives. It gives them a site where they can feel as though the spirits of those they've lost are still with them, a place where they can pay respect to those who meant so much to them in life. To even begin to suggest that desecration of such a place is no big deal is despicable at best and worthy of condemnation and scorn.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">* Should I buy a car from a company owned by unions that caused their own bankruptcies and by a government stupid enough to invest taxpayer money to prop them up?</span><br /><br />I'm not getting into the dispute about labor and the car companies again. I've said quite enough about it in previous posts, and I'm sick of belaboring my points. Can you tell that I'm very, very tired of this guy by now?<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">* Whatever happened to the great all-American principle that when a business fails, it provides opportunity for others to step in and do a better job? Has our government become the No. 1 enabler of inefficiency?</span><br /><br />In order for capitalism to continue to "provide opportunity for others to step in and do a better job," it has to still be around. The businesses being protected by the federal government are currently so entrenched in the major workings of our economy that to let them collapse could potentially bury us. Mind you, this isn't necessarily true for <span style="font-weight:bold;">all</span> of them, but this is a place where it's a little better to be cautious. Or would you prefer unemployment to rise to a robust 12%?<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">* Why is the stimulus package loaded with funding that obviously will not stimulate the economy, but will stimulate people to vote a certain way?</span><br /><br />Examples? I honestly have no idea what he's talking about here. On top of that, the Administration ultimately (for better or worse) abdicated much of the meat-grinding involved in producing the stimulus bill to Congress, which promptly altered it to meet its own agenda. That bill was then further hacked to pieces to appease Republicans who still didn't vote for it to prove a point (that point being "We don't give a damn about the country if we don't hold absolute power"). So if you've got any issues with the bill, take it up with a representative.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">* Why is it that public schools that spend $10,000 per pupil can't do any better educating children than private, religious schools spending $4,000 per pupil? Shouldn't more resources go to those who succeed and less to those who are proven failures?</span><br /><br />Again, examples? And maybe, just maybe, cite your statistics? Also, this doesn't make any sense. Giving extra money to the successful groups and diverting funds from the failing ones only ensure that the failing ones fail and the more well-to-do ones grow even more well-to-do while simultaneously excluding the possibility of <span style="font-weight:bold;">any</span> education from those who can't afford the pricier option. Wait a minute...helping those who already have the means to help themselves while ignoring the ones who actually need help...that sounds familiar. Perhaps one of my readers can help me remember?<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">* Why do television network news broadcasts use the term "news"? Isn't their product just tabloid entertainment? Fortunately, we still have good news -papers that do an excellent job of informing.</span><br /><br />This is unbelievably wrong. Granted, most television news broadcasts are terrible. Some, however, are absolutely invaluable. Nightline has been a fantastic source of information for over 30 years. BBC World News is probably the single best source for international news today. In addition, most newspapers (including, amusingly enough, the one in which this column was printed) are unbelievably awful. The New York Daily News takes garbage journalism to a new low on a daily basis. The Wall Street Journal and Chicago Tribune have massive biases that color all their reporting, as does the New York Times on the opposite side of the aisle. Most local newspapers slant distinctively toward one ideology and filter all their information through that ideological lens.<br /><br />So now, my readers, you see the kind of general psychosis that infiltrates an item designed to inform. I know it's just the opinions page, but I don't think it's too much to ask that those opinions actually be based on <span style="font-weight:bold;">something</span> besides fear and loathing. I also don't think it's too much to ask that people who refuse to cite examples or sources while using haphazard guesses and flat-out lies to make outrageous and blatantly wrong declarations of supposed fact be relegated to letters to the editor. <br /><br />People wonder why thoughtful and respectful discussion no longer exists in this country.<br /><br />People like this are why.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-54392111868039131312009-04-20T23:09:00.000-07:002009-04-21T15:29:52.393-07:00I Pity Da Foo<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.candysnob.com/archives/pictures/getsomenuts.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 396px; height: 398px;" src="http://www.candysnob.com/archives/pictures/getsomenuts.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Seeing as it is April, and seeing as I've been noticing that <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbzIefRJ0N8">Mr. T pressure cooker commercial</a> quite a bit, I've decided to create a new annual tradition. So, without further ado, here's the 2009 April Fools List.<br /><br />1. Roland Burris<br /><br />If you're a politician with a history of being somewhat shady, and you're appointed to a high-profile office by a politician with a history of being criminally shady, and you have to give testimony regarding said appointment and your conversations about it with said criminally shady politician, wouldn't you try to be as straightforward as possible, so that absolutely no one could misconstrue your innocence? Well, it appears that for Mr. Burris, that was too difficult. First, he claimed in an affidavit for his testimony to the Illinois State Senate that he had never attempted to raise funds for Rod "Prisoner #364278-B" Blagojevich. Then, he admitted that he tried, but was unsuccessful. Then he tried to backpedal on that as well. There's a decent article on it <a href="http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/02/burris-now-acknowledges-fundraising-effort-for-blagojevich.html">here</a>, and there are plenty of other sources for looking into this. The best part of the whole story is that Burris is still planning to run for reelection in 2010, despite the general consensus that he can't win his own party's primary, and despite overwhelmingly negative poll numbers (in a phone poll on Fox 32 Sunday night, over 78% thought it was wrong for Burris to pursue reelection). If nothing else, Burris has ensured that he will be remembered, though I doubt he expected his term as Senator to be less the culmination of a mediocre political career and more a monument to his own egocentric incompetence.<br /><br />2. Barack Obama<br /><br />Let me preface this by saying that this isn't related to any major policy decisions, though I do wish he'd let someone besides Summers and Geitner have a say in planning for economic recovery, especially regarding bank policy (Stiglitz in particular makes some good points <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/25/stieglitz">here</a>). It's also not related to the declassification of the legal memos the Bush Administration used to justify torture (more on that later), or easing travel restrictions to Cuba (about bloody time), or the polite conversations and gifts with Hugo Chavez (isn't that how a foreign dignitary is supposed to behave?) , or the president's picking of his NCAA bracket (for the record, up until the Final Four I had him outpicked). No, this one is related to his throwaway line on The Tonight Show about his relatively poor bowling ability in which he compared himself to someone in the Special Olympics. Now, I knew what he meant. You knew what he meant. Most everyone with a brain stem knew what he meant; it was designed to be self-depricating. However, when you're the most visible man on Earth, you absolutely cannot say something like that, even in jest, because the media will eat you alive for it. And, naturally, they were all over it. Jenova forbid they discuss the economic or military ideas he'd brought up that night; no, instead we get treated to a dozen "DURR I COULD OUTBOWL THE PRESIDENT DURR" stories. The man has a mind for this sort of thing, most of the time, which makes the blunder all the more surprising and inexplicable. So, for subjecting me to even more utterly banal news than usual, Obama gets a spot in this column.<br /><br />3. Republicans in Congress<br /><br />People always wonder why nothing ever gets done in Washington. Sometimes it's because things get so rapidly bogged down in committees and political grandstanding. Sometimes it's because lobbyists have altogether too much power (never used to be that way...thank you Ronald Reagan). And sometimes, it's because one party has decided to put its own pursuit of power ahead of doing its job. This has become the modus operandi for the Republican Party: do absolutely nothing to fix anything and hope that all measures fail. This isn't some hidden agenda for gaining power, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/05/buchmann-thwart-obama/">this is the STATED GOAL of at least one Republican congressperson</a>. <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/14/1891500.aspx">A Republican senator from TEXAS is trying to have a say in the legal process for seating the (finally) elected Al Franken.</a> The goal seems to be to abdicate as much responsibility as possible so no mistakes can be tied to them, thereby allowing them to use those mistakes as a means to retake power in 2010 (the vote on the stimulus, particularly in the House, seems to symbolize this thoroughly). There's a little problem with this strategy, though: things are really bad right now! This is not the time to wait around and hope things go poorly so you can point and laugh, because if the plan works, there won't be anything left! I would think that being a subject in a semi-fertile kingdom would be superior to being the emperor of a wasteland, but hey, what do I know?<br /><br />4. Democrats in Congress<br /><br />Back in 2005, George W. "Thank God The Black Guy Has To Deal With It Now" Bush nominated a sizable number of judges to fill vacancies in the federal courts. A number of these nominees were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown">ultraconservative</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Owen">sociopaths</a> and as such were opposed by the Democratic minority. In response, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist began to tout the use of the so-called "nuclear option," by which the filibuster would be banned, in essence silencing the minority view and allowing anything with a simply majority to be pushed through. Democrats cried foul and promised to shut the Senate down if this went through; ultimately, 14 senators came to an agreement that pushed some of the nominations through in exchange for not eliminating the filibuster as an option. Now, Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are discussing the use of the "nuclear option" as a means to bypass the aforementioned Republican obstructionism. While I sympathize with the goal, this is the stupidest possible way to achieve it. Remember all that video footage of you decrying the idea of reconciliation, guys? They don't erase those tapes once you get into power! Pursuing this strategy is the fastest way to give up the moral high ground and would give the Republicans all the ammunition they needed to destroy any hopes of getting the President's agenda through Congress on the back of the currently burgeoning populist movement. The rules you play by have to be the same when you're in the minority as when you're in the majority. The Dems have been (correctly) ripping the Republicans for trying to play by two separate sets of rules for the last eight years; to do the exact same thing they did as soon as they get into power would be the definition of hypocrisy.<br /><br />5. Denver Broncos owner Pat Bowlen<br /><br />As a momentary break from the heavy stuff, let's hear a little bedtime story. Once upon a time there was a GM/coach who drafted his team's first franchise quarterback since their Hall of Famer retired. The new QB fit into the organization well and learned his craft, and for three years it was good, even if they didn't make the playoffs (when you go through 8 running backs in a season and couldn't play defense against the Indiana School for the Blind, that tends to happen). Then the owner fired the GM/coach. The new QB was not pleased, but understood the need for change and asked only that his offensive coordinator be kept (not too much to ask, seeing as the team had the 2nd best passing offense in the league in that last year). The owner of the team assured the new QB that he would do so. The owner then hired a new coach/GM with a massive ego despite no legitimate reason for possessing it. The new coach/GM then fired the offensive coordinator. The new QB was not pleased. The new coach then attempted to trade the new QB for another quarterback who, while lacking the raw talent of the new QB, was a better fit for the new coach's system. Ultimately the trade never happened, and the new QB found out he was being shopped and asked what was going on. The new coach/GM first denied that any such trade was in the works, then (once it was obvious that was a lie) admitted to the subterfuge and told the new QB that he could still be traded at any time. The new QB was irate and demanded a trade. The owner at this point stepped in and made it clear to both sides that they needed to be able to work together while simultaneously making no apologies for the extremely poor handling of the situation. The new coach/GM tried to play both sides, both stating that the new QB was "his guy" while also repeating that he could trade him whenever he felt like it. Meetings and phone calls produced nothing, and the owner continued to support his new coach's view, ultimately leading to the trade of the team's most valuable player to a team that hadn't seen a franchise QB in over 50 years. The new coach has gotten most of the blame (as he should), but the owner, the person with the most clout and the most power in ensuring that this didn't have to happen, has caught little flack for his impotence in resolving the situation positively. The moral of the story, boys and girls? If you're going to be an owner, grow a pair when you need to.<br /><br />6. Organizers and participants in Tax Day Tea Parties<br /><br />Seemingly since the birth of the nation (and, amusingly enough, done to an incredibly flagrant extent in D.W. Griffith's <span style="font-style:italic;">Birth of a Nation</span>) people have perverted the image and the ideologies of the Founding Fathers to justify any and every crazy concept they could come up with. I'm not talking stuff like Sam Adams beer or Benjamin Franklin Plumbing, I'm talking stuff like "Jefferson and Madison founded the first major political party, so hardcore partisan politics are both hallmark and status quo for American democracy" and "Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, so they obviously were white supremacists." The newest in this line of utter idiocy comes in the form of the Tax Day Tea Party. The concept is simple and ludicrous: rather than go to work, meet up with a group of other ill-informed malcontents, make signs with ignorant catch phrases ("Commander-in-Thief" is one of my personal favorites), find the nearest government building, and throw tea bags at it while marching in a circle, waving the signs, and chanting moronic wanna-be populist drivel. Never mind that the primary protest makes no sense (apparently taxes on these fools have been made too high by the administration that just gave all of them a substantial tax cut), and never mind that the secondary argument makes no sense (if you haven't noticed, while they certainly are spending a large amount of taxpayer money, they aren't just throwing this away on <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/09/lieberman-laser-planes-mo_n_185061.html">laser-planes</a>, unwinnable insurrection fighting, and parties for Henry Paulson's buddies; heck, Obama just asked each of his Cabinet members to find $100 million they can cut from their budget). My biggest issue lies in that they genuinely believe that their arguments are so in line with the Founders' response to the Tea Act that they can have a tea party of their own. It's not. The Boston Tea Party was about high taxes, but the issue wasn't that the taxes were unfairly high (in fact, the Tea Act of 1773 actually <span style="font-style:italic;">reduced</span> taxes from their high under the Townshend Acts). The issues of the Boston Tea Party were that of taxation without representation, of government-created monopolies, and of government officials being unanswerable to anyone in the areas where they enforced laws. Do any of those jive with any part of the Tax Day Tea Party agenda? Didn't think so. The only thing more steeped in idiocy (pun totally intended) than the Tea Parties themselves were the people who attended them. If you want to sully the names of the Founders, there are certainly ways to do it, as none of them were without their vices...but don't insult my intelligence by doing it via pairing their protest against unjust treatment with your ignorant whining. You want to bitch, that's what MySpace is for.<br /><br />7. Everyone on Fox News<br /><br />I don't think this requires any explanation. However, as an example, let's toss this one out there. Today the Obama Administration declassified <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-excerpts17-2009apr17,0,6906770.story">a number of memos</a> drafted by Bush Administration legal scholars (if you can call them that) justifying the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding and "walling." As expected, there was an outcry from just about everyone. Most of the world saw these memos and their tortured (pun, again, totally intended) constitutional justifications as one more example of the wayward imperialistic tenor of Bush's executive branch. Fox News, too, decried the release of these memos, but for an entirely different reason: allegedly, now that Al Qaeda knows what techniques were used, the terrorists can train for these techniques and they will no longer be effective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole idea behind this Administration's policy regarding prisoners that we don't torture anymore? So if we're not going to be doing any of this stuff, what does it matter if people know how it was done when we did? <a href="http://www.truveo.com/Karl-Rove-about-Secret-CIA-memos-on-torture/id/2193620441">Karl Rove</a> and Bill Kristol in particular argue that the country is now less safe because these techniques will no longer be available to wrangle intelligence from captured "terrorists" (surprisingly few of the people being held as terrorists actually were when they were picked up, though I'd chance a guess that the numbers have increased since they first were taken into captivity). News flash, guys: Jack Bauer is a fictional character. Sometimes torture does work. The vast majority of the time, it does not. Numerous studies have been done that show the majority of people will say anything to make the pain stop, whether it makes any sense or not. Yes, something might be missed by not torturing prisoners. Am I willing to take that risk to uphold what I consider to be a necessary aspect of our honor and our national character? Yes.<br /><br />I'm sure that, given enough time, I could add a ton more people to this list. However, I think this will do for this year.<br /><br />Until next time, find your own fools to pity.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-51733021004124388062009-03-11T22:49:00.001-07:002009-03-12T00:11:16.193-07:00He Blinded Me With Science<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjzZcEElJ0PhjQEFeUQRplnxolrGKak2ohTaBCf616FgQVjyWbN9izHlyYfMvCbrNoTqvPDE3673F6rddkkrdXkha3f-794HzhRCkJ8xFpUp5kp-OdOo0sdTxcXTBCslOP5eHoPjJo11fK/s320/the_cast_closeup.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 207px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjzZcEElJ0PhjQEFeUQRplnxolrGKak2ohTaBCf616FgQVjyWbN9izHlyYfMvCbrNoTqvPDE3673F6rddkkrdXkha3f-794HzhRCkJ8xFpUp5kp-OdOo0sdTxcXTBCslOP5eHoPjJo11fK/s320/the_cast_closeup.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Have you ever noticed that whenever progress is made, some sort of example pops up to show just how much further society needs to go? It seems as though life is a sort of cosmic Hokey Pokey, where every time a segment of humanity puts its left foot in, another segment does its damnest to put its left foot out. This time, the dichotomy lies in the realm of science and its place in governing, well, governing. In this case, the progress is represented by President Obama's decision to allow federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. It's been quite some time (about eight years, to be exact) since we've had a president who based scientific policy on, as Mr. Obama put it, "fact, not politics." To be honest, it's a little disconcerting to know that this represents a new direction in national scientific policy; should not facts be the source of all decision-making? However, the fact that the change has now been made is a definite step forward, despite what those against this specific process say. I've actually got quite a bit to say about them, too, but that can wait for another time.<br /><br />The same day that Mr. Obama overturned the Bush Administration's stem-cell policy and changed the way science was regarded in Washington (well, as best as one can change that sort of thing when Sam Brownback is still in office), the following letter ran in the Opinion section of the Post-Tribune. I've decided to reprint it here, in its entirety, because quite frankly, I couldn't honestly believe what I was reading. It's my genuine hope that none of you will, either.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Jerry Davich's recent column asked, "Is it possible to believe in both evolution and creationism?"<br />In these last days, God is revealing more and more in the Bible. Daniel 12:4 says, "But thou O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."<br />We know from the Bible that on May 21, 1988, the Earth was exactly 13,000 years old to the very day, and it was also the end of the church age and the beginning of the great tribulation period, which will culminate on May 21, 2011, when the rapture of the believers will occur. These facts are known in part because we now have a biblical calendar of history.<br />His column poses another question, "Did dinosaurs rule the earth 100 million years ago?" We would not have the fossils of the bones of the dinosaurs if God had not destroyed this world in 4990 B.C. with a cataclysmic flood, which reached over the highest mountains in Noah's day. Genesis 7:20-21 says, "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the Earth."<br />Why have biologists and others not considered this solution? Possibly because they think they are smarter than God. It would take a gigantic disaster, such as the flood of Noah's day, so we could have these bones and fossils to argue about.<br />For details on all of these issues, the following books and booklets, as well as others, are available to be downloaded from familyradio.com: "Adam When?" "We are Almost There" and "To God Be The Glory."<br />These are also available free and postage-paid by calling Family Radio in Oakland, Calif., at (800) 543-1495.</span><br /><br />I chose to omit the writer's name because I feel wholly embarrassed for him. Give that another quick read. The Earth is apparently 13,000 years old, because the Bible says so. It wasn't a meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, it was the Great Flood, despite the fact that any such flood would have occurred at least 64.75 million years AFTER the last dinosaurs died out. The writer wonders further why biologists/paleontologists/anthropologists would not consider these ideas, and the first thing he can come up with is that scientists think they're smarter than God.<br /><br />(Trying to tamp my response down to a reasonable level...)<br /><br />(Still trying...)<br /><br />(Come on, you can do this...)<br /><br />All right, I think I'm good to go. First: if the Earth is 13,000 years old, then thousands upon thousands of artifacts are apparently imaginary. There is no shortage of items that can be attributed to times before what would be 11,000 B.C. How do we know this? A little thing called carbon-dating. For those of you who are unfamiliar, I'll break it down: there is a radioactive isotope of carbon, specifically carbon-14, whose half-life is well known. Using this data, a sample can be examined for the amount of carbon-14 present, and based on the type of material from which the sample is constructed, it can be determined how much carbon-14 there was when the sample was first created. Most of what we know about prehistoric man comes from samples that have been backdated using this process; for example, Chauvet Cave in France, home to the largest known collection of cave drawings by prehistoric man, contains drawings that date to at least 26,000 years ago.<br /><br />Second: the dinosaurs allegedly dying in the Great Flood. Wow, I don't even know where to start with this one. Despite numerous fictional examples to the contrary (the comic strip B.C. being one of the more prominent ones), there is absolutely no proof that man and dinosaurs even existed in the same era, let alone at the same time. This isn't even one of the things supposedly up for debate, like evolution (which I'll get to another time) or global warming (ditto); there is total consensus among scientists. Those who pose this question are not scientists, but rather, and I quote, "Christian historians;" in other words, people who try to fit history into the timeline of the Bible, science be damned. This actually isn't that hard to do, if you assume that all accounts in the Bible are certain fact and that any potential interpretation of said accounts is also fact. <br /><br />Finally, the reason that scientists haven't considered this idea? BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE! (Sorry, told myself I wasn't going to yell this time.) There's no point in exploring a ridiculous and utterly stupid theory when the one we have is not only sensible, but backed up by scientific evidence. It's the same reason why most schools teach evolution and only the absurdly over-religious teach creationism. When the evidence on one side of the scale weighs it down to the ground, and the evidence on the other side couldn't budge a feather, why should the other side receive equal credibility?<br /><br />This is the sort of problem I'm talking about. For every action that places decision-making in the hands of logic, reason, and scientific fact, there are five people who decry it as an affront to God because their interpretation of the Bible deems it to be so. Even if you get past the fact that these people view the Bible as literally true, which it most certainly isn't (at best, it's a series of parables designed to keep people in line, especially the Old Testament), there is no getting past their hostility to science. To these people, I offer the words of Lewis Black: "SCIENCE IS NOT F****** VOODOO! SCIENCE IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE LORD ALMIGHTY! IT IS NOT THE WORK OF THE DEVIL!" Nothing prevents the two from coexisting but the stubborn will of fearful people terrified of being proven wrong.<br /><br />I'm going to close with a line from Bill Maher's last appearance on The Daily Show. It seems especially pertinent to the current discussion.<br /><br />"There are two Americas, there's a progressive European America that a lot of us live in or would like to live in, and it's being strangled by the Sarah Palins of the world and can't quite be born because this other stupid redneck nation won't allow it."<br /><br />Until next time, here's hoping we're on the path to one America.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-38761163404082476052008-12-16T22:11:00.000-08:002008-12-17T00:11:09.593-08:00Rollin' Down Highway 41<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/blagojevich-bball.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 177px;" src="http://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/blagojevich-bball.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Another day, another musing. Time for another column of shorter thoughts. As always, bonus points to whoever figures out why I used the title I did.<br /><br />1. So Rod Blagojevich got nailed for corruption. Is anyone actually surprised by this? <a href="http://blogs.e-rockford.com/inchambers/files/2008/05/blagojevich-sucks-photo.jpg">Just look at the guy.</a> Doesn't he have that "I'd shake down your kids for their lunch money" look to him? People act as though they're shocked - SHOCKED - that he would try to ransom a Senate appointment. Haven't they been paying attention? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich#Federal_investigations">He was already under investigation for about twelve other forms of corruption</a>; the only shocking thing is that he was stupid enough to do this now. He must have known that Fitzgerald was still listening in on his conversations. And what kind of idiot speaks so candidly about making an under-the-table deal when he's already under investigation? Even Mafia guys know to speak in code unless they're in a safe house. Didn't he watch any of The Sopranos?<br /><br />As for the Senate seat, the state pretty much has to have a special election. I can't foresee the people of Illinois being willing to let anyone in that administration appoint someone for the remainder of what used to be President-elect Obama's term. That said, I'm in favor of the lieutenant governor's suggestion of a temporary appointment until such a special election can be held. There's really no excuse for Illinois being underrepresented in the Senate for the minimum 4 months it would take until the election is held (as they'll almost certainly piggyback it onto the usual local election primaries in April; this would save up to $25 million) when there's an easy way to solve it. Of course, the Republican Party is painting with a broad tar brush yet again, claiming that anyone who stood in line with Blagojevich's aides for a cup of coffee at Starbucks is equally corrupt, and as such no one in the administration should be trusted with the power to make this decision. Naturally there's no evidence for this, but hey, evidence is the standard of proof of the <span style="font-style:italic;">last</span> century, right? Honestly, what's the worst that could happen? Congress has an equally difficult time getting the necessary things accomplished because of pointless partisan filibustering? If there's going to be an election in April, what would they stand to lose? If the guy that gets appointed is corrupt, the voters will get rid of him. Simple enough.<br /><br />2. Off and on, I read Ruben Navarette's column, either on CNN or when it's in the local paper. I don't always agree with his viewpoint (in fact, I'm usually about 80-20 against), but usually I can at least respect his opinion, as it comes from thought and reasoning (a rarity in conservative writing these days). In fact, in some regards I consider him one of the very few who is pretty much right on regarding immigration. That being said, <a href="http://www.news-press.com/article/20081127/OPINION/811270326/1015">his last column</a> actually bothered me quite a bit, though not for the reasons you may think. As you can read, he argues that Bill Richardson would have been a superior choice for Secretary of State. In that regard, we're on the same page; I said for months after Biden was named VP that if Lugar didn't want the job, it should go to Richardson, as his years as UN ambassador and his numerous negotiations in the Middle East made him the most qualified candidate. Navarette, however, argues that Richardson - and the Hispanic community in general - deserve better than what they've been given because of their support of Obama in the general election. In essence, he claims that Obama "owes" the Hispanic population for their support, and failing to name Richardson Secretary of State (and, to this point, failing to name any other Hispanics to Cabinet posts) is an insult to the community. That is utter hogwash. This is the problem I've long had with the Cabinet: rather than appoint the people most qualified for the positions, politicians feel they need to hit every demographic group to show their "desire for equality." In some cases, the two coincide. I don't think anyone had a problem with Colin Powell as Secretary of State; Condoleezza Rice, on the other hand... No one group of people is owed <span style="font-weight:bold;">anything</span> by the President; their support was freely given in the hope that said President would best represent the wishes of the constituency. Instead of complaining about the people put into these jobs, perhaps Mr. Navarette should be more concerned about what these people are going to <span style="font-weight:bold;">do</span>. The best way to ensure that your community is best represented is to make your policy wishes known and to fight for them; that, rather than fighting the choices of who will enact said policy (especially given that most potential choices have relatively similar views), presents the greatest opportunity for effecting change.<br /><br />3. The auto "bailout" is a touchy subject with me. First of all, I come from a family of unionized labor, so my opinions on the subject are naturally going to be colored by my experience. Second, it's not really a bailout at all. The companies aren't asking to just be given money with no expectation of return payment; they're asking for a bridge loan, something that the government <a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/09/24/a-25-billion-lifeline-for-gm-ford-and-chrysler.html">has done for them before</a>. Third, the fact that is even a discussion at all bugs the hell out of me. The federal government gives $700 billion to Henry Paulson to do with as he sees fit, and now <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/12/11/oversight_panel_questions_use_of_bailout_money/">we have no idea where huge chunks of that money went</a>, and Congress is balking at $15-30 billion? I think Jon Stewart said it best: "When the auto industry f**** up, <span style="font-weight:bold;">WE STILL GET CARS!</span>" I'm not saying that there shouldn't be conditions attached; a good chunk of their problems were obviously self-inflicted, and there need to be drastic changes in their business model if they're going to succeed and pay back said money. However, when you're facing a 3 million job sinkhole (thank you Rachel Maddow, that's a good way to put it), you don't just let it swallow the city! If you think things are bad now, what do you think would happen if unemployment were to jump 1-2% literally overnight? <br /><br />4. On a related note, Senate Republicans killed the last attempt to lend money to the automakers following two things that seem astonishing to the outside viewer. First, they tried to directly force the UAW and its related unions to accept substantial wage cuts, using the threat of vetoing the loan as leverage...no, let's call it what it was: extortion. The claims that UAW workers make drastically more than Japanese workers are so far off base as to be laughable. In actual wages, all the major auto companies pay about the same; <a href="http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081213/BUSINESS02/812130362">the numbers the Republicans used for their arguments included both pensions and health benefits.</a> Anyone with even basic knowledge of how health care works globally knows that the average health care plan has a drastically higher per person cost here as opposed to most other countries. You can thank the insurance companies for that. Forcing people who are already making the industry standard to cut wages (because any person who would willingly sacrifice health benefits must need them to treat that massive head injury they must have sustained) by holding the prospect of losing their livelihoods over their heads isn't just low, it's criminal.<br /><br />The second thing is that said Senate Republicans were warned by Dick Cheney (honestly, how many of you thought that I'd be siding with Dick Cheney, well, ever?) that if they failed to work to push the auto loans through, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16515_Page2.html">"it'll be Herbert Hoover time."</a> You know what the sad thing is? THEY TOOK IT AS A COMPLIMENT! Think about that for a second. There is actually a segment of our Congress that thinks that Herbert Hoover made the right moves in the early 1930s. They honestly believe that taking no action is the best way to overcome certain economic collapse, that if we just get out of the way, things will fix themselves. You want an example of how ass-backwards this is? Bush and Cheney both think these guys are completely wrong, and they've been championing the free market for the last 8 years! Shouldn't someone be looking into recall votes for these guys? Heck, shouldn't there be protesters sitting outside their houses right now?<br /><br />All right, that ended up being longer than I thought it would be. I've got a lot of other thoughts, but they'll have to wait for another night. Part 2 should be coming within the next couple nights. <br /><br />P.S. If you've been reading these, please feel free to post a comment, either here or on my Facebook page. I'd like to know if people are actually reading these, and I'm always interesting in fomenting discussion.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-34617982985280240332008-11-19T23:08:00.000-08:002008-11-20T00:35:26.445-08:00Between Barack and a Hard Place<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://commentsfromleftfield.com/uploaded_images/palpatine_lieberman-768475.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 311px; height: 262px;" src="http://commentsfromleftfield.com/uploaded_images/palpatine_lieberman-768475.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">"Betrayal is the only truth that sticks."</span> - Arthur Miller<br /><br />I have known the name Joe Lieberman since I was seven years old. At the time, the only reason I knew his name was because of my status as an avid gamer. Repeatedly, his name came up in discussions about censorship of video games and TV, and as I was a fan of both, I resented his insinuation that I couldn't tell the difference between reality and fiction. Even at such a young age, my first thought about Joe Lieberman was "Doesn't this guy have anything better to do?" He was my first introduction to the concept of legislating to counteract an unwillingness to be a good parent and to the idea that someone who didn't know anything about me could somehow know what was best for me.<br /><br />Needless to say, I haven't cared for Joe Lieberman for quite some time.<br /><br />As the years passed, Lieberman for the most part harped on about the same things, pursuing a Democratic domestic agenda while simultaneously brandishing a Republican foreign policy (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman">this is something he himself has said</a>). For the most part, I was free to ignore him, as much of Congress ignored his moralizing in favor of <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/">doing their own moralizing</a>. Then, in 2000, Al Gore chose him as his running mate. I was conflicted (which ultimately didn't mean a whole lot, since I couldn't legally vote yet). I liked Al Gore. Despite the fact that <a href="http://tagd1.ytmnd.com/">he was incredibly boring at times</a> I knew that he was a fellow intellectual, and at the time he was essentially the only one speaking out on climate change. Unlike some people I know, I could divorce the individual from his family (specifically Tipper, whose pursuit of censorship in music I consider as abhorrent as Lieberman's positions). I couldn't, however, divorce him from Lieberman. This was his choice to serve in the second-highest office in the land: a man diametrically opposed to several of my own positions. For that reason, I couldn't put my support behind Gore. Of course, I couldn't support Bush either, so I was left without any option.<br /><br />Following the election Lieberman disappeared from the public eye for a time, until the buildup for the war in Iraq began. Lieberman became the Administration's "go-to Dem." On the war, he sided, and continues to side, with the Administration on all matters; he was the one who sponsored the Senate resolution giving President Bush free reign to use the military as he sees fit in Iraq. He declared his support for Alberto Gonzalez's definition of the Geneva Conventions, effectively permitting the use of torture. Time and again he has voted to uphold the Patriot Act and reauthorize funding for the War without any conditions. My general distaste for Lieberman grew into a bitter loathing; to me, he represented the absolute worst the Senate could offer: a yes man with no interest in finding his own answers, only in trusting the words of a patently untrustworthy conservative hegemony. I began to find amusement in his failures. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2004">His inability to draw more supporters than Al Sharpton</a> in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries amused me, as did his loss to Ned Lamont in the 2006 Democratic Senate primary. For a time, I thought that people had finally seen him for the wolf he is.<br /><br />Then something unexpected happened. Lieberman reneged on a promise not to run if he lost the primary, and under the mantle of "Connecticut for Lieberman" party candidate, he won reelection, largely in part to the support of conservatives. At this point, he became Public Enemy #1 in my eyes. Yet the Democratic Party continued to tolerate his shenanigans, agreeing to allow him to maintain his seniority and all his committee positions in exchange for his continued caucusing with the Democrats, thus granting them a slim majority. There's an old saying, that the enemy of an enemy is a friend. What then, is the friend of an enemy who gives you an advantage over said enemy?<br /><br />For some reason Lieberman once again disappeared, for the most part, from public view, <a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331075715&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull">despite some pretty crazy goings-on. </a>Then came the 2008 campaign and the candidacy of John McCain. It's not much of a surprise that Lieberman backed McCain, as the two are old friends and share similar views on the use of the military in foreign affairs. What <span style="font-style:italic;">did</span> come as a surprise was his grandstanding for McCain. His repeated campaigning for McCain, his perpetuation of the myths about Obama, <a href="http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/10/06/lieberman-quot-competent-quot-palin-will-win-quot-with-god-s-help-quot.aspx">his stunning support of Sarah Palin</a>...all of this, coupled with his speech at the Republican National Convention (a slap in the face to his party if there ever was one), convinced me that Lieberman no longer viewed himself as a Democrat. Apparently several Democrats thought the same thing, for following the election several members of the Party wanted him out of his position as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, a post which had allowed him over the past four years to prevent Congress from performing the oversight duties necessary to keep the Bush Administration in check. However, in part because of their desire to possibly hold a filibuster-proof majority, in part because of the mercy of President-elect Obama (God, I love typing that), they ultimately decided to do nothing.<br /><br />By now, most people know that Lieberman didn't lose his chairmanship and chalk it up to Democratic mercy, as I've suggested above. What they don't know is the third part, that Lieberman told Harry Reid that if his chairmanship was stripped, he would leave the Democratic caucus for the Republicans. In essence, Lieberman held the Democrats hostage, playing political games with a position that holds far too much significance for that sort of nonsense. Maybe taking his position is vengeful. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is the notion that he should keep the position simply because he has it now. He's done nothing with a position that presented the prime opportunity for Congress to check the absurd excesses in executive power the Bush Administration has built up over the last eight years. Why not give it to someone else who might, you know, hold some hearings once in a while?<br /><br />I'm not going to knock Lieberman for his support of McCain. I will knock him for his choice to get in the mud with him, though. There's a big difference between supporting a candidate and actively trying to slander the opposing candidate. Sooner or later he should have to pay, not just for this, but for all of his other failings: his refusal to take on an Administration so off-course they couldn't find their way back to the road with three maps and a GPS, <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051130-5651.html">his concentration on legislating morality </a>at a time where far more important matters deserved the scrutiny of a United States Senator, his shifty manner of ignoring his own proclamations. What does it take for people to notice that the snake in their midst is a snake? Moreover, what does it take for them to do something about it? The Democratic Party has been bitten by the snake and still refuses to cut off the head.<br /><br />Hopefully, someday someone in Washington will grow a pair and put an end to this chicanery. Until then, here's hoping that Connecticut, and America, see him for what he is: pathetic.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-57259606363421380752008-10-20T22:39:00.000-07:002008-10-21T00:03:51.396-07:00Sing My Song<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://blog.case.edu/james.chang/2007/07/30/leaves.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://blog.case.edu/james.chang/2007/07/30/leaves.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />I've decided that, rather than blather on about the bailout, this post is going to be more in the form of "Ramblings;" those familiar with Bill Simmons will know what I'm talking about. I'm going to hit a lot more subjects with much shorter paragraphs. Grab something sturdy and hold on. Oh, and 20 points to the first person who gets why I went with that title.<br /><br />1. I understand the necessity of the bailout as far as unfreezing credit markets goes. I understand the concept of directly purchasing stakes in the banks to restore confidence and enable flexibility. I even understand that the complexity of the problem (seeing as the problem lies in at least four separate areas of credit) requires an immediate response of massive proportions. What bothers me about this bailout, like most things this administration has done, is the precedent. Pumping substantial money into businesses that by all rights deserve to fail for their irresponsible speculation and mindless greed functions against the basic principles of capitalism. Those who know me should know by now that I'm not the world's biggest defender of capitalism because it leads to problems like this where a whole industry can go under thanks to rampant greed and unchecked idiocy. The issue is that the people in charge of this bailout ARE the world's biggest defenders of capitalism. Deregulation and government promotion of the laissez-fair attitude are part of what got us into this mess in the first place; for years now, President Bush has pushed his tax breaks with the tagline "Don't worry, the market will fix itself." Well, that's what the market's doing now; the ones who stupidly pursued securities in risky mortgage debt are failing, while those that kept their assets in more stable funds remain solvent. So what's our solution? Give money to the people who made bad choices! If these people can be paid off for their ignorance, what's the limit? Will we subsidize the oil companies when the first <a href="http://www.gizmag.com/compressed-air-car-set-for-us-launch-in-2010/8896/">cars that run on compressed air and magnets</a> are released? Will we have to pay when retailers underperform this Christmas? Will we be paying for farmers who can't grow crops? (OK, that last one was a bad example.)<br /><br />Again, I understand the bailout's necessity. I just hate the precedent it sets.<br /><br />2. I might hate nearly every appointment President Bush has made, as most smack of cronyism (Alberto Gonzalez and Harriet Miers, anyone?) or just flat-out arrogance (John Bolton, Samuel Alito). The one appointment I can't disagree with, however, is Robert Gates, who has done a nice job as Secretary of Defense. Intelligent, measured, willing to disagree with or even ignore the claims of the power-hungry executive branch, he is a marked improvement over his predecessor. Then again, a severely impaired box turtle with a very busy schedule could do a better job than Rumsfeld did. I hope the next administration keeps him on in some form, preferably as a foreign policy advisor. I don't expect him to stay Secretary of Defense, but there's no reason to just kick him to the curb.<br /><br />3. I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again, but undecided voters have to be the dumbest people on Earth. I can offer some level of grudging respect to McCain supporters; at least they know what they want, even if it is the most blindingly incompetent campaign of all time. How in the name of Vishnu can people not know what they want from their candidate at this point? Even worse, how can they watch the staggering ignorance coming out of the McCain campaign (more on this to come) and put any trust in his side to do anything they claim? I think Stephen Colbert said it best tonight when he discussed Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama (more to come on this, too): "You want a transformative figure? Vote for McCain! This campaign has transformed him into everything he used to hate!" You've had nearly two years to hear anything and everything about these candidates, and if that wasn't enough, you've had three debates to figure out where they differ on the issues (when they aren't talking about Bill Ayers). If you haven't picked by now, you should be required to forfeit your right to vote. You obviously can't make up your mind based on the facts, so disenfranchisement will save you from making a decision that's obviously beyond your thinking capacity.<br /><br />4. As any of you who read the news know, former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama this weekend. Naturally, the first question Pat Buchanan had to ask was "Would he have endorsed Barack Obama if he was a white liberal Democrat?" You know, I've come to accept the fact that race is going to play a part in this election because this country is full of idiots who put race and\or religion at the top of their decision-making process. Voting for or against someone solely because they're black or Muslim (he's not, but why should it matter?) is the single most pathetic reason I can think of to justify casting a ballot, but I understand that it's going to happen, and despite my disgust that it's going to affect this race, I've made peace with it. To suggest that Colin Powell, a known conservative, former general, and a rather intelligent man, would be the type to make his decision based solely on race smacks of racism.<br /><br />5. If you haven't seen Bill Maher's new movie "Religulous," do it, while you still can. Those who know me know that I don't ridicule faith in and of itself, but I do ridicule those who blindly accept it without asking tough questions about <span style="font-style:italic;">why</span> they believe what they do. Maher asks those questions without reservation in this movie, which earns him my eternal respect. If you come out of this movie still believing whatever you believe, good for you; you've challenged your convictions and they've come out all the stronger for the challenge. If you don't believe following this, then you believed for all the wrong reasons, and you should be glad that the flimsiness of your faith was exposed now, when you can still find something that resonates more strongly with you. If you refuse to see the movie solely on account of "blasphemy," then you're a waste of brain matter; the inability to question your convictions indicates that you lack the mental fortitude to handle any sort of challenge to your established worldview.<br /><br />6. Speaking of people who are a waste of brain matter, several people have asked my opinion on Sarah Palin. To fully divulge my opinion would require several hours of writing and more expletives than I care to put in one post. Suffice it to say, I think she is the most woefully unqualified, undeniably ignorant, unquestionably dangerous person ever to be put in this sort of position. She visits a faith-healer to cleanse her of witches, for Marduk's sake! Her pastor (who for some reason hasn't been scrutinized nearly as much as Rev. Wright, go figure) believes that Alaska is the last refuge for the true believers during the Rapture, and that people who voted for Kerry won't be saved! She wants to hunt elk from helicopters! The things that she claims to be against (say, for example, the Bridge to Nowhere) only meet her opposition when it becomes politically necessary; until they do, she's all for them! She doesn't answer the questions posed to her, but instead performs the Nixonian art of talking around the question until the interviewer becomes frustrated and gives up! Why are people letting her get away with this? This woman makes Dan Quayle look like the head of frickin' Mensa. I know what people are going to say: "But she's just like me! I've never gotten to vote for someone like me before." Guess what? There's a reason for that: YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED TO BE VICE-PRESIDENT! Do people understand that we could be one John McCain heart attack away from President Palin? Does that register with people? How can you not be terrified by that possibility?<br /><br />7. Every day I read something about a soldier or an aid worker dying in Afghanistan. One more life lost because of this administration's arrogance and refusal to prioritize its own War on Terror ahead of conquering an oil state. May the fallen rest in peace, and may the idiots who put them in this position never rest until we fix this problem, get our men and women over there some help, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">get them out.</span><br /><br />All right, I'm starting to feel like Keith Olbermann, so I guess that's all for now. As long as I'm channeling him, might as well end the same way. Good night, and good luck.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-75396195497996161782008-10-12T23:05:00.000-07:002008-10-12T23:20:46.700-07:00Children, Children, Future, Future<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.theworldaccordingtokang.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/rat.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://www.theworldaccordingtokang.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/rat.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />To those turning in for my post on the bailout, I must apologize. Things have been a little unsettled and crazy this week (quitting your job will do that), so it's not quite ready yet. I should have it up in a couple days. In the meantime, I've decided to introduce you to the next great Role Model: Danny Donkey. Remember, the children ARE our future.<br /><br /><a href="http://peterbeers.net/Danny-Donkey.bmp">On One's Mission In Life</a><br /><br /><a href="http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e93/constantlight/Comic%20Strips/DannytheDonkey.jpg">On Handling Bullies</a><br /><br /><a href="http://a2.vox.com/6a00cd96fa97954cd500e398b0bcca0003-500pi">On Waiting Your Turn</a><br /><br /><a href="http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d199/SuperBrice/Just%20Funny/DannyDonkey.jpg">On Dealing With People</a><br /><br /><a href="http://pics.livejournal.com/jfboyd/pic/000r6bx5">On Being An Activist</a><br /><br /><a href="http://pics.livejournal.com/vendaz/pic/000h7fh3">On Tough Decisions</a><br /><br />Again, my latest vitriol should be ready soon. Until then, bang your head against a wall as you wish you had thought up the preceding concept.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-73888645870591093442008-08-21T21:57:00.000-07:002008-08-21T23:39:43.180-07:00Spin the Choice<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Al_Gore_on_Futurama.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Al_Gore_on_Futurama.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Those of you who read this on a regular basis recognize that I was fairly excited for the possibility that this year's presidential race would be between Senators Obama and McCain, as I believed both were intelligent, sensible men who refused to "go with the flow" of partisan politics. I thought for quite some time that either would restore some integrity to an office that has sorely lacked it for the last 15.6 years (mind you, I thought Clinton did a fairly decent job, but his personal issues destroyed his credibility both as a leader and as a human being). And yes, I fully realize that this means I'm saying that there was some credibility to the office when Bush Sr. was in office; believe it or not, the more I look at his presidency, the more I can respect some of his decisions (did you know <span style="font-style:italic;">he</span> was the one who signed the ban on further development of offshore oil reserves?).<br /><br />My excitement, however, has waned, disappeared, and transformed into utter revulsion as Senator McCain has mutated into Right-Wing Man, Beholden Both to Special Interests And The Whims Of The Party. I watched him change his positions drastically from those he held as recently as 18 months ago (link <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/mccain-backs-aw.html">here</a>) to correspond to those of the Republican platform. I watched him embrace people (both <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1188858/posts">literally</a> and <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8JPJOP00&show_article=1">figuratively</a>) that he publicly excoriated, and rightly so, in 2000 for the sole purpose of "rallying the base." And now, I watch as he runs what might be the worst presidential campaign since Walter Mondale ran on the "I Will Raise Taxes" platform. My dissatisfaction with Senator McCain and my disgust at what he has become cannot be measured.<br /><br />Why do I mention this? I do so because I'm about to use the rest of this post to catalogue Senator Obama's potential choices for vice president, including both front runners and dark horses, listing both strengths and weaknesses that each could potentially bring to his campaign. I simply wanted you to know, my readers, that I had not forgotten about Senator McCain, nor had I forgotten that he too must choose a VP soon. It's not that I don't care who he chooses, it's that I already know that there's no way the choice will be either interesting or independent. It will simply reflect who he believes will reach his new best friends, the standard Republican core of conservative voters. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if he picked Michael Phelps.<br /><br />With that out of the way, let us launch into a discussion of the pros and cons of potential Democratic VPs. You might want to save this for when you have some time to spare.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Front-runners</span><br /><br />Joe Biden (Sen., Delaware): One of the most experienced, well-respected, and likable members of Congress. Has experience on both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Foreign Relations. Pros: Tons of experience; highly intelligent and respected; several interesting ideas regarding Iraq and other foreign affairs. Cons: support for the Iraq war, both in the beginning and recently; strong personality may clash with Obama's; would seem to be a better Secretary of State pick.<br /><br />Tim Kaine (Gov., Virginia): Current governor of a potential swing state. Has the credentials (worked as a Roman Catholic missionary in Honduras) to potentially sway Southern Christians toward voting Democrat. Delivered the rebuttal to Bush's State of the Union in 2006. Pros: Could draw Christian voters; most of his views are very similar to Obama's, specifically regarding abortion and same-sex marriage; recognized as a leader in the field of fair housing. Cons: Relatively inexperienced; not much popular appeal outside his home state.<br /><br />Kathleen Sebelius (Gov., Kansas): Similar credentials to Gov. Kaine: governor of a battleground state, rebutted Bush's State of the Union in 2008, longtime association with Catholicism through education. Appears to be meant to bring back those voters who oppose Obama because he isn't Hillary. Pros: See above; views on gun control are relatively centrist. Cons: Views on abortion, same-sex marriage, and the death penalty, while in line with the party in general, somewhat oppose Obama's and place her well to the left; some worry that her inclusion could present too radical a choice for voters (which I feel is ridiculous, but hey, most of the public's opinions are ridiculous).<br /><br />Evan Bayh (Sen., Indiana): If there were a real-life Harvey Dent, this would be it. Experience as both governor and senator, with substantial popular appeal. Could single-handedly swing Indiana. Here's hoping no one throws acid in his face. Pros: "Pretty boy" appeal a la John Edwards (though these days, that association may not be a good thing); substantial experience; relatively moderate views; excellent ideas regarding education and fiscal responsibility. Cons: Supported both the Iraq war and the reauthorization of the Patriot Act; "pretty boy" appeal could be considered by idiotic public as lack of substance; ties to Hillary represent major hurdle.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Dark Horses</span><br /><br />Wesley Clark (Retired General): Intelligent and well-respected. Military experience a definite plus. Support of Hillary and numerous controversial comments, not so much. Not the best speaker, and lacks experience in most domestic issues. Pros: See above; gives Dems massive boost when it comes to national security issues. Cons: See above.<br /><br />Jim Webb (Sen., Virginia): Former front-runner now relegated to the back burner since Gov. Kaine became a potential candidate. The fact that he has publicly stated he doesn't want the job doesn't help. Served in numerous roles during the Reagan administration. Rebutted Bush's State of the Union in 2007 to high regard and recognition. Probably the most independent of all possible candidates, as his allegiance lies with no one person or party. Pros: military service; Cabinet experience; independent streak. Cons: Numerous controversial incidents; doesn't want the job.<br /><br />Bill Richardson (Former Gov., New Mexico): Tons of foreign policy experience and an automatic link to the Hispanic vote. Stellar record regarding fiscal responsibility. His ties to the Clinton administration hurt his chances, as does the possibility of his selection as Secretary of State. Pros: Excellent foreign policy experience; helps with the Hispanic vote; top-notch credentials regarding economics and energy. Cons: Lacks popular appeal; previous ties to Clinton administration (though his early support of Obama helps to move him away from them); like Biden, probably better suited to be Secretary of State.<br /><br />Hillary Clinton (Sen., New York): No. Just...no. Pros: Gains bitter middle-aged feminist vote; possibly gains bitter elderly vote. Cons: Loses everyone else; would constantly clash with Obama; choice would immediately increase likelihood of Obama's assassination by 40% (yeah, I made that number up, but it's probably pretty close).<br /><br /><br />So, with all that said, who's the right choice? That remains to be seen. Personally, I'd love to see him pick Chuck Hagel (Sen., Nebraska). As one of the very few moderate Republicans left and as a man unafraid to ignore the wishes of his party to serve the greater good, Sen. Hagel is one of the few men I respect and admire in the Senate, and <a href="http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/13/hagels-retirement-bigger-news-it-seems">it's unfortunate he won't be serving another term.</a> His selection would show Obama's willingness to work in a bipartisan manner and would substantially help his credentials regarding national security. That being said, he's the leading candidate for Secretary of Defense in an Obama White House, so he's probably not very likely to be the choice. Honestly, any of the above candidates probably wouldn't be a bad choice (except for Hillary), as Obama has the personality and charisma to ensure his own ideas would be foremost (unlike Senator Kerry, who seemed a touch overshadowed by Senator Edwards at times) while also possessing the intelligence and forethought to take into account his VP's ideas and specific appeals and apply them to situations as best befits them. Whoever he selects, I expect that his decision will be based in careful assessment and rational discussion, and I expect that will serve him well as the slog to Election Day continues.<br /><br />Besides, I doubt any of them will shoot an old man in the face.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-2003079100360060722008-05-21T00:17:00.000-07:002008-11-18T16:12:44.741-08:00TTRWPHLABAHCHMTWLR: Part I<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv7LRZlB6GnUcD_7ETYcLFvkz_jONaS6YoKBGyPOr_acHBjMWJJzHmJVPFKKppYxddC9vZ7aL0df6V180zw_dPqJfHfCfJqttWujH3ievzC4SewZ5JdmffeHNIyobS3mwjcl3g9GqhH1Un/s1600-h/patriotism.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv7LRZlB6GnUcD_7ETYcLFvkz_jONaS6YoKBGyPOr_acHBjMWJJzHmJVPFKKppYxddC9vZ7aL0df6V180zw_dPqJfHfCfJqttWujH3ievzC4SewZ5JdmffeHNIyobS3mwjcl3g9GqhH1Un/s200/patriotism.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5202740078010294210" /></a><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">The author would like to predicate this column by noting that he is an avowed moderate and as such has no inherent bias towards or against liberals, just against stupidity.</span><br /><br />Some time ago I was looking at the Opinions section of the local newspaper (that last bastion of idiocy for the bored senior citizen or opinionated housebody) and I noticed a letter in which the writer made several blatantly ignorant statements that reminded me of why it's so difficult to get even slightly enlightened ideas across anymore. Thus, I'd like to present part one of my new ongoing threepart series, The Three Reasons Why People Hate Liberalism And, By Association, How Conservatives Have Made The Word Liberal Reviled:<br /><br />1. Liberals Hate America<br /><br />The idea, as I understand it, is that liberals find fault with America for something that happens, so they must hate it. This is also the idea behind "liberals who like things foreigners do." The simple fact of the matter is that this is a gross distortion of the facts, at the very least. There are some who take it too far (those who blame America for the violence in the world by claiming it's the result of our imperalistic hegemony come to mind), but finding fault in the way things are doesn't inherently imply disgust with the ideals of America, just with a single specific practice within the country. That's the way we grow as a nation: by finding the things about our country we don't like and changing them for the better. The statement that claiming our country isn't as good as it could be is treasonous both insults the intelligence and betrays the foundations of the country (lest we forget, a Mr. Jefferson believed that a revolution every so many years was a necessity and good for the health of the nation). Along with this concept comes something that's come up lately in the presidential race. Michelle Obama stated that lately, she hasn't been too proud to be an American, a point the McCain campaign seized on and fed into its grist mill of spin: "I'm proud of America every day! I've always been proud to be an American!" and so on. If you've always been proud to be an American, then you either haven't been paying attention or you haven't done enough reading. Maybe it's just my bleeding-heart nature clouding my vision, but Indian massacres and Japanese internment camps don't exactly scream patriotism and liberty to me. Oddly, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo don't seem to be helping. Ignoring the faults and disgraces of your people is both ignorant and dangerous. As the old saying goes, those who forget their mistakes are destined to repeat them, and while for some the idea of rounding up all Arabs and marching them to Oklahoma seems like the perfect solution to a "grave problem," to me such a notion offends every aspect of my being.<br /><br />Yet somehow, this idea has actually worked! It kind of falls in with the "if you don't support us, the terrorists win" idea in its use of jingoism to cloak xenophobia in the clothes of patriotism. There's one hell of a logical leap between not liking the monitoring of library lists and strapping on a bomb and running into a crowded marketplace screaming Ahallu Ackbar, and anyone with half a brain would make this as much of a wide, ugly ditch as Lessing and Kierkegaard made rational religious belief. Fortunately for conservatives, there's an easy way to circumvent logic, especially among the dimwitted: utilize fear and patriotism as twin tools. People against Halliburton? They're spreading liberty into the Middle East. My Lai massacre got you down? Those boys are fighting for our freedom so we don't have to fight tyranny and evil here. See how easy it is?<br /><br />As I've mentioned, some self-titled liberals take it too far and do blame America for everything (consumer culture, moral breakdown, global violence, etc.) without placing fair blame where it's due. These people need to understand how their ill-guided extremism does just as much damage as the "We're Never Wrong" attitude does (though since these people are often pacifists, the physical damage is usually negligible). Importantly, though, most liberals wouldn't be crazy or stupid enough to push the thought to these extremes. The reasonable notion of placing blame where it's due and seeking to fix that which ails the country <span style="font-style:italic;">should</span> be one of the guiding principles by which people determine what it is they want from their lives and their government. But most people are too buried in their flag pins and pledges to pull their heads out of the sand and listen.<br /><br />What would Fox News do without them?Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-5331880845925953692008-04-30T18:02:00.000-07:002008-11-18T16:12:44.841-08:00Where Have All The Flowers Gone?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2MZRRSqNRiOaf0ZL7jps5Nxs_2d4-g5AEqNlZX8_ccjpFC-o7NQODPpo9JsT5zJ3MW8tgOsSW0oTVQ1qVm4cToolL9g7wHn-uq4fop0NwKtPvsj9SVFVpn_NuFC3pEkeqydlWMzJevNX1/s1600-h/nicholson+joker.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2MZRRSqNRiOaf0ZL7jps5Nxs_2d4-g5AEqNlZX8_ccjpFC-o7NQODPpo9JsT5zJ3MW8tgOsSW0oTVQ1qVm4cToolL9g7wHn-uq4fop0NwKtPvsj9SVFVpn_NuFC3pEkeqydlWMzJevNX1/s200/nicholson+joker.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5195215741051778786" /></a><br />I must apologize to my readers (all three of you) for my lack of updates recently. School and work have come together in an unholy union of pure busy, so I haven't really had the time to write anything. Since both will be coming to an end shortly, I should have more updates relatively soon. In the meantime, enjoy a few links that have brought me great amusement in the last two months:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn0ecHHHUGo">The Reason For My URL</a><br /><br /><a href="http://garfieldminusgarfield.tumblr.com/">Proof That Eliminating Characters Is The Best Way to Liven Things Up</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9o5_W6hn9k">IT'S PIKACHU!!!</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE3KdcTgrno"><br />I've Got Balls Of Steel! (Note: definitely NSFW)</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuuTRuKcLrg">How To Win An Oscar By Yelling For Two Hours</a><br /><br /><a href="http://forgotaboutpoland.ytmnd.com/">The Reason John Kerry Lost The 2004 Election</a><br /><br /><a href="http://starch.ytmnd.com/">I Guarantee You'll Think Of This The Next Time You Have Thanksgiving Dinner</a><br /><br /><a href="http://primaryescape.ytmnd.com/">Metal Gear Primary: Solid Obama vs. Liquid Clinton...tell me that's not an evil laugh</a><br /><br /><a href="http://maceobama.ytmnd.com/">Mace Obama Meets His End</a><br /><br />I think that's enough for now. I should have something more substantial for you by the end of next week; until I find a job, I don't exactly have a ton to do.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-38833992142213061622008-03-07T21:44:00.001-08:002008-03-19T13:12:58.762-07:00The Anti-Variety Fair<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.beautifulhorizons.net/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/28/time_echoes_newsweek_on_jihadistant.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://www.beautifulhorizons.net/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/28/time_echoes_newsweek_on_jihadistant.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />On the off chance you haven't heard, Brett Favre retired from football on Tuesday. As a football fan, I can say that the game will be worse without him and that the state of Wisconsin will miss him immeasurably. That being said, did his retirement really require OVER 4 HOURS of continuous coverage on ESPN? Did it really need to be one of the lead stories on the evening news? The short answer is simply no. The long answer is actually yes.<br /><br />Let me explain. A while back, news media (especially the cable news networks) noticed that their ratings seemed to spike whenever they talked about something that A, people had some familiarity with, B, had some level of shock value, C, involved a celebrity, and/or D, didn't make people feel stupid. It's sort of like Fry said in an episode of Futurama: "Clever things make people feel stupid, and unexpected things make them feel scared." For the most part, this is 100% true regarding the populace in general, and the networks picked up on it. So, rather than research and air important stories (say, something regarding the rebuilding of New Orleans, or bringing to light the abysmal constitution of the American health care system), "serious" journalists bring us such wonders as "Britney's Latest Meltdown" or "Paris's Night in Jail" or my personal favorite, "Is Anna Nicole Smith Still Dead?"<br /><br />However, I can't really blame the news networks for noticing a trend and capitalizing on it. All told, they're still part of a business, and they'd be stupid to ignore something that fills their coffers. No, the blame for this lies solely on the American public. We see this tripe on a daily basis...and we take it, we feed on it, we gorge ourselves on what is the cotton candy of information (easy to swallow, no real substance). No one calls them out for burying us under so much unnecessary garbage that we don't see the things happening in the world around us. No one questions the decisions made because no one has the information needed to comprehend those decisions, and no one cares enough to find the info on their own; they're too busy with "George Clooney's Latest Lady: Will He Finally Settle?" In a world where there are so many things we should be concerned about, so many things that should matter to us, why are so many people so very ignorant when it comes to the important stuff?<br /><br />There are some people out there who want as much information as possible. Yours truly tries to read at least three newspapers every day and reads both Time and Newsweek on Sundays, and I still consider myself somewhat ignorant (in part because one of those newspapers is the school paper, and there aren't words for how dreadful <span style="font-style:italic;">that</span> is). There are documentary filmmakers who dig and dig on some of these issues, brining as much to light as possible, and they should be commended for it. Only thing is, the vast majority of people never hear about any of those films, and many of the ones they do hear about get pushed aside as being "politically driven." That's another interesting topic, the concept that anything can be given political motives unless it shows no preference in any way, but that belongs in another column.<br /><br />So to expand on my long answer from the beginning, yes, the networks do need to spend that much time on a relatively trivial subject because it <span style="font-weight:bold;">sells</span>, and they know that people aren't going to ask them to put the same kind of emphasis on the important things. Should they spend that much time? Hell no. Until the public develops a thirst for knowledge, though, those of us who want meaty issues will have to dig through "Rosie and Donald's Latest Spat" for real news.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-78783269649459811822008-02-07T19:17:00.000-08:002008-02-07T20:25:16.442-08:00Annie Get Your Kalashnikov<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.vistawallpaper.com/data/media/5/terminator.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://www.vistawallpaper.com/data/media/5/terminator.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />For the last two weeks people have been arguing (rather ineffectively, I might add) in the opinions section of the school newspaper about the 2nd Amendment, gun control, and the expiring ban on the sale of assault weapons. I'd like to start off by saying that I don't disagree with the 2nd Amendment. If you want to have a gun to protect your family from the King of England or hunt dangerous or delicious animals, fine, whatever. Assault weapons, however, are another matter. It's ludicrous for anyone not in the military to have assault weapons. What could you possibly need them for that you wouldn't be able to accomplish with conventional firearms? Among the arguments I've heard in favor of allowing the assault weapons ban to expire is one that genuinely astonished me: "I've been using automatic weapons for hunting and recreational shooting for years." Now that's just lazy! Are you seriously telling me your aim is so bad that you can't take out a squirrel without whipping out a minigun? If you really need an AK to take out ordinary game, do yourself a favor. Sell your auto, go to an army surplus store, and get yourself a bolt-action .22. Spend a few weekends practicing with it until you become relatively consistent, and then start hunting again. There should be a lot more satisfaction in taking something down with a single, clean, lethal shot than in spraying rounds into the bushes, and (assuming it is a clean kill) whatever you're hunting will ostensibly suffer less from one shot to the head than from taking 17 shots to the torso and being left to bleed to death. You also won't be picking bullets out of your dinner.<br /><br />The second argument I see fairly often is in favor of their use in defending your family. Again, by no means do you need that much firepower to stop an intruder! If you're genuinely concerned that you won't take down an attacker with a simple handgun, get a shotgun or a high-caliber Magnum and PRACTICE. When you use a gun that requires you to AIM, there's less of an opportunity for stray bullets to fly into other rooms and wound people you care about.<br /><br />The last argument, besides being the weakest, is also the most presumptuous: "It's my constitutional right to own a gun; Congress can't tell me I can't have the one I want." That is beyond preposterous, and I think what amuses me the most about this is that the same people who push this viewpoint are some of the ones who push the war on drugs. If you said to them, "Well, what right is it of Congress to keep heroin or crack from me?", they'd likely cite corrupting moral influences, degradation of society, drugs making baby Jesus cry, etc, etc. Yet they can't see how those same arguments apply to them. Primary weapons of choice in drive-bys are typically automatics (Uzis, MAC 10s, other machine pistols). Drive-bys destroy the security and peace of a neighborhood. Automatics convey a feeling of invincibility ("You can't stop me, I got more bulllets!") that leads to further deaths. You wanna tell me that's not corrupting?<br /><br />Personally, I'm not a big fan of guns at all; give me a well-made sword or knife any day of the week. However, if you're going to own a gun, you might as well be safe about it, and a part of that is learning the intricacies of firing it. Practice is vital for any firearm, both for improving accuracy and for ensuring that you don't hurt someone you care about. With a handgun or a standard rifle, there are numerous questions: "Do I have my target lined up?", "Am I steady?", "Am I braced to handle the kickback?", "Do I have a clean shot?", etc. With an assault weapon, the only concerns are "How many bullets?" and "Is the safety on?"<br /><br />If you want to fire randomly into the distance without regard, play HALO. If you want to be a responsible firearm owner, pass on the assault weapons.Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4187148939892696370.post-56758351252564013982008-02-04T20:25:00.000-08:002008-02-04T21:50:24.249-08:00Super Tuesday (or, How To Give Away the Presidency Without Really Trying)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.usasurvival.org/images/hillary.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://www.usasurvival.org/images/hillary.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Note: The author would like to go on record as saying this post is not meant to endorse any specific candidate. That column, "132 Reasons to Vote for Obama," will come later. </span><br /><br />The Democrats are in one of the most enviable positions a political party can be in. Their dominating victory in the 2006 midterms showed that the American public was sick of the direction the Republicans were steering the country, and the current president enjoys some of the worst approval ratings since Truman (who, unlike this president, was a highly principled and intelligent man caught in Dean Acheson's sphere of Communist propaganda, but that's another story). For years, people have assumed that the Democratic candidate would win the 2008 election. In fact, it's been a given.<br /><br />Now, there's a possibility they might very well screw it up.<br /><br />Think about that for a second. How often do you see someone in a situation where they can't possibly lose choke the opportunity away due to sheer stupidity? Granted, sheer stupidity has been on the rise in the last decade, but with an opportunity this golden, even morons have enough common sense to make one right choice.<br /><br />Yet it could very well happen tomorrow. Democratic primary voters could very well botch the easiest victory in American political history with their selection. It all starts and ends with Hillary Clinton.<br /><br />I'd like to take a second to mention that this post is not meant (at least, not entirely) to bash Hillary. Granted, she was the worst part of the Clinton administration, and her health care plan accomplished basically nothing, and she's just a generally sour person, and she's been one of the most Republican Democrats in the Senate since elected (the title of "most Republican" goes to Joe Lieberman, and before anyone writes in, I know he ran as an independent last time; he couldn't win his own party's primary, shouldn't that have clued people in?), and basically every other Democrat disagrees with most of her proposals (even Gravel, and he's a nutcase); that doesn't mean that I'm denigrating her for those things here or railing against her on those grounds. No, my reasons are entirely statistical and logical, two things sorely lacking in the political system these days.<br /><br />According to the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, if the election were held today, both Clinton and Obama would beat Romney handily in the general election (Clinton by 8%, Obama by a whopping 21%). However, if John McCain were the Republican nominee (and it's beginning to appear he will be), Clinton would lose by 5%, while Obama would run in a virtual dead heat. Other polls (CNN, NBC News, Wall Street Journal, Reuters) show nearly identical results. Admittedly, polls are unreliable, and a lot can change between now and November. However, it should be noted that Hillary started this campaign as the prohibitive favorite, with no one else in either party even close to her. Within two months she's fallen into a deadlock with her primary rival, and a Republican has moved past her in national opinion. Shouldn't that tell Democrats something? Obama started the campaign with relatively little support beyond Oprah and grassroots fundraising, and in every state where he's been given time to campaign, he's surpassed Hillary or at the very least erased her lead. Shouldn't that tell Democrats something? Both Obama and McCain draw a large number of independents to their side, and both candidates have won contests largely on the strength of those independent voters; Hillary can't even beat Edwards among independents. Shouldn't that tell Democrats something? Both Obama and McCain (Obama far more so than McCain) have actively sought young voters and have succeeded in making the college-age block an important aspect of their support, a task that neither party has done successfully before. Hillary's primary supporters? Age 65 or older. Rather than energizing new voters to become Democrats for the foreseeable future (as Obama has, in a way that no candidate has since Kennedy), Hillary has staked her claim on voters who may very well be dead before November. Shouldn't that tell Democrats something?<br /><br />Perhaps the most damning evidence of all, though, comes from that "bastion of the truth," Fox News (quotes = sarcasm, for those not familiar with my work). In an interview conducted over the weekend, Ann Coulter (along with Rush Limbaugh, one half of the Scylla and Charybdis of the conservative punditry) actually said she'd actively campaign for Hillary if McCain received the Republican nomination. Think about that. The Democratic candidate for President of the United States may very well be promoted by the shrillest woman on Earth, who has asked that women be denied the right to vote "because women are voting so stupidly," who has stated that Jews are "imperfect Christians," who has accused John Edwards and his wife of using their son's death to their advantage (a similar theme to her claim that the widows of September 11th victims were "enjoying their husbands' deaths"). This is actually acceptable to you, Howard Dean? Do you relish the opportunity to work hand-in-hand with a woman you asked your party's candidates not one year ago to denounce in order to promote a woman whose philosophies contradict those of the party's platform in numerous ways?<br /><br />The simple fact of the matter is that none of the signs point to Hillary's campaign being a success. Nothing, not even trotting out Bill (who has lost some of my respect, I'm sorry to say), has worked for her thus far. She's had 2 years to prepare, to solidify her status as the front-runner and guarantee her status as the next President. She has uniformly failed.<br /><br />What makes anyone think she'll figure it out now?Ryan Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08593212807272917607noreply@blogger.com5