July 29, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE MARCH OF STUPIDITY
I remember a quote from an Isaac Asimov novel: "Against stupidity even the gods themselves must contend." The gods would be very disappointed in the contemporary United States. It seems sometimes that stupidity is an epidemic. It's not just the abuse of the English language. It's the absolute inability to relate the past to the present, to separate the absolute nonsense we get from so many pundits and politicians from reality, or the taste in television shows that almost make stupidity a virtue. This article by Leonard Pitts Jr. is at www.commondreams.org:
I am not talking about ignorance. Ignorance is a lack of information; we’re all ignorant in one way or another. Nor am I talking about people prone to punctuation or spelling errors; we all make mistakes.
No, I’m talking about stupidity, which I define as an inability to analyze, draw conclusions from, or otherwise use information even when one has it. And stupidity is often characterized by smug indifference. When a CNN anchor drew Rinehart’s attention to his spelling errors, his reply was, ”I don’t necessarily care.” This is, I feel constrained to remind you, the elected representative of 220,000 people.
For as much as we obsess over black vs. white and red vs. blue, I suspect the defining division of this technology-driven era will be between those who have and can exploit information and those who do not and cannot. Between intelligence and its opposite. One wonders how long we can continue to equate stupidity with ”keeping it real,” being a regular Joe or Jane, and hope to continue leading the world.
TOBY KEITH AND LYNCHING
In right-wing mythology you can get rich in this country if you have talent and work hard. I have a two word answer to rebut that: Toby Keith. I love country music, but I loathe Toby Keith and other fakes who pose as country music artists. Keith's talent is sparse, at best, but what is worse is that the hate message he consistently puts out in what he calls "music." Now Keith is putting lynching to a beat. This article by Max Blumenthal is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Those who doubt the presence of racist undertones in Keith's "Beer For My Horses" should see the song's video. (The embed link to the video's Youtube version was disabled by Keith's record label so you have to click here to watch it). Cue ahead to 3:00 and watch as Keith intones, "We got too many gangsters doin' dirty deeds." The singer's words are not-so-subtly accompanied by the image of a swaggering black man sporting short dreads and baggy clothes. Thus the profile of Keith's ideal lynching candidate is revealed.
Keith's whirlwind publicity tour continues on July 30 with his appearance on CBS's Early Show, then sit-down interviews with Esquire Magazine and Us Weekly. The following week, Jay Leno will play host to another raucous rendition of "Beer For My Horses." Thanks to Keith and his unsuspecting hosts, lynching is becoming cool again.
_______
Monday, July 28, 2008
July 28, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE RELIGION RACKET
I don't understand why people turn off their reasoning ability when they are involved with religion. It must be a strong desire to believe in magic. "Intelligent design" theorists try to put an intellectual gloss on religion, but it doesn't stand up. A belief that has been around a long time, but is even more prominent now, is "prosperity" theology. The snake oil salesmen will tell you that God wants you to be rich. Just pray enough, believe enough, and tithe enough and you too will be rich. Conversely, if you're poor, it must mean that God doesn't favor you. This article by Meg White is at http://www.buzzflash.com/:
There are two things that just shouldn't mix with religion: politics and money. But with President George W. Bush's reliance upon the evangelical Christian vote to get elected and some pastors' promises to believers that worshiping and giving to the church will bring them personal wealth, there's no shortage of examples of people who benefit greatly by combining twisted views of God and economics.
The Bible doesn't seem to square with either the evangelical notion of "prosperity theology" or Republican economic theory. Jesus tells his followers to give everything to the needy. He also says that we should pay our taxes, rendering unto Caesar (i.e., the government) what is his.
What would Jesus do? Well, none of us can say for sure, but I have a feeling he wouldn't advocate slashing social services for the poor and cutting taxes for the wealthy. And as much as he advocated helping the downtrodden, he wasn't passing around the collection plate himself.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE RELIGION RACKET
I don't understand why people turn off their reasoning ability when they are involved with religion. It must be a strong desire to believe in magic. "Intelligent design" theorists try to put an intellectual gloss on religion, but it doesn't stand up. A belief that has been around a long time, but is even more prominent now, is "prosperity" theology. The snake oil salesmen will tell you that God wants you to be rich. Just pray enough, believe enough, and tithe enough and you too will be rich. Conversely, if you're poor, it must mean that God doesn't favor you. This article by Meg White is at http://www.buzzflash.com/:
There are two things that just shouldn't mix with religion: politics and money. But with President George W. Bush's reliance upon the evangelical Christian vote to get elected and some pastors' promises to believers that worshiping and giving to the church will bring them personal wealth, there's no shortage of examples of people who benefit greatly by combining twisted views of God and economics.
The Bible doesn't seem to square with either the evangelical notion of "prosperity theology" or Republican economic theory. Jesus tells his followers to give everything to the needy. He also says that we should pay our taxes, rendering unto Caesar (i.e., the government) what is his.
What would Jesus do? Well, none of us can say for sure, but I have a feeling he wouldn't advocate slashing social services for the poor and cutting taxes for the wealthy. And as much as he advocated helping the downtrodden, he wasn't passing around the collection plate himself.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
July 22, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE PROBLEM, NOT SOCIAL SECURITY
A few months ago I had an "interview" with a guy representing the World Financial Group. They sell investment plans that are supposed to give you a good retirement fund. Somewhere along the way, of course, there was an attack on Social Security. According to the propaganda, we of the Baby Boom generation will bankrupt Social Security, or put an insufferable burden on younger workers who pay into the system. When you examine all the data you see that the claims are nonsense. Social Security is one of the best programs ever devised by the federal government and the only source of survival for many people. This article by economist Dean Baker looks at a right-wing ideologue named Peter Peterson who would like to destroy Social Security. The article is at www.commondreams.org:
Peterson has not been shy about using slippery logic to advance his agenda. For example, back in the 90’s he argued for cutting the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security, which is tied to the consumer price index (CPI), based on the claim that the CPI substantially overstates the true rate of inflation. If Peterson’s claim about a CPI overstatement were true, then it would imply that incomes are rising far more rapidly than our projections show. Peterson’s CPI adjustment would mean that our children and grandchildren will be far richer than we could possibly imagine, because incomes are rising so rapidly. Similarly, the retirees for whom he wanted to cut benefits actually spent much of their lives in poverty. If incomes have been rising more rapidly than the official data show, then we must have been far poorer in the past than the data show.
In the same vein, Peterson supported the partial privatization of Social Security, based on assumptions on stock returns that were inconsistent with the profit growth projections of the Social Security trustees, and the price-to-earnings ratios that existed in the stock market at the time. In the push to cut Social Security and Medicare, Peterson does not feel the need to be bound by the truths of logic and arithmetic.
There is a fundamental point on which Peterson is correct. The long-term budget projections do show a horror story of enormous deficits. But these projections are not driven by aging and overly generous retirement programs. They are driven by projections that our private health care system, which already costs twice as much per person as the average for other rich countries, will get ever more inefficient through time. If we never fix our health care system, then we will face an economic disaster, which will include serious budget problems, since half of our health care is paid for through government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
This reality would suggest the importance of reforming the health care system. Health care reform would mean confronting the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the doctors’ lobbies. These groups have serious power. That’s why Mr. Peterson prefers to stick with granny bashing.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE PROBLEM, NOT SOCIAL SECURITY
A few months ago I had an "interview" with a guy representing the World Financial Group. They sell investment plans that are supposed to give you a good retirement fund. Somewhere along the way, of course, there was an attack on Social Security. According to the propaganda, we of the Baby Boom generation will bankrupt Social Security, or put an insufferable burden on younger workers who pay into the system. When you examine all the data you see that the claims are nonsense. Social Security is one of the best programs ever devised by the federal government and the only source of survival for many people. This article by economist Dean Baker looks at a right-wing ideologue named Peter Peterson who would like to destroy Social Security. The article is at www.commondreams.org:
Peterson has not been shy about using slippery logic to advance his agenda. For example, back in the 90’s he argued for cutting the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security, which is tied to the consumer price index (CPI), based on the claim that the CPI substantially overstates the true rate of inflation. If Peterson’s claim about a CPI overstatement were true, then it would imply that incomes are rising far more rapidly than our projections show. Peterson’s CPI adjustment would mean that our children and grandchildren will be far richer than we could possibly imagine, because incomes are rising so rapidly. Similarly, the retirees for whom he wanted to cut benefits actually spent much of their lives in poverty. If incomes have been rising more rapidly than the official data show, then we must have been far poorer in the past than the data show.
In the same vein, Peterson supported the partial privatization of Social Security, based on assumptions on stock returns that were inconsistent with the profit growth projections of the Social Security trustees, and the price-to-earnings ratios that existed in the stock market at the time. In the push to cut Social Security and Medicare, Peterson does not feel the need to be bound by the truths of logic and arithmetic.
There is a fundamental point on which Peterson is correct. The long-term budget projections do show a horror story of enormous deficits. But these projections are not driven by aging and overly generous retirement programs. They are driven by projections that our private health care system, which already costs twice as much per person as the average for other rich countries, will get ever more inefficient through time. If we never fix our health care system, then we will face an economic disaster, which will include serious budget problems, since half of our health care is paid for through government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
This reality would suggest the importance of reforming the health care system. Health care reform would mean confronting the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the doctors’ lobbies. These groups have serious power. That’s why Mr. Peterson prefers to stick with granny bashing.
Monday, July 21, 2008
July 21, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
JUST WHAT ARE MCCAIN'S QUALIFICATIONS AGAIN?
John McCain has been in the Senate a long time. If you used that as a qualification for anything, then certain types of fungi would be qualified to be president. He got shot down in Vietnam and was a POW. How does that remotely qualify him for the presidency? Every time he opens his mouth McCain just proves we shouldn't let him anywhere near the Oval Office. In this column Frank Rich looks at the McCain campaign. The column is at www.nytimes.com:
Mr. McCain’s fiscal ineptitude has received so little scrutiny in some press quarters that his chief economic adviser, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, got a free pass until the moment he self-immolated by whining about "a nation of whiners." The McCain-Gramm bond, dating back 15 years, is more scandalous than Mr. Obama’s connection with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. McCain has been so dependent on Mr. Gramm for economic policy that he sent him to newspaper editorial board meetings , no doubt to correct the candidate’s numbers much as Joe Lieberman cleans up after his confusions of Sunni and Shia.
Just two weeks before publicly sharing his thoughts about America’s "mental recession," Mr. Gramm laid out equally incendiary views in a Wall Street Journal profile that portrayed him as "almost certainly" the McCain choice for Treasury secretary. Mr. Gramm said that the former chief executive of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, was "probably the most exploited worker in American history" since he received only a $158 million pay package rather than the "billions" he deserved for his success in growing Southwestern Bell.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
JUST WHAT ARE MCCAIN'S QUALIFICATIONS AGAIN?
John McCain has been in the Senate a long time. If you used that as a qualification for anything, then certain types of fungi would be qualified to be president. He got shot down in Vietnam and was a POW. How does that remotely qualify him for the presidency? Every time he opens his mouth McCain just proves we shouldn't let him anywhere near the Oval Office. In this column Frank Rich looks at the McCain campaign. The column is at www.nytimes.com:
Mr. McCain’s fiscal ineptitude has received so little scrutiny in some press quarters that his chief economic adviser, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, got a free pass until the moment he self-immolated by whining about "a nation of whiners." The McCain-Gramm bond, dating back 15 years, is more scandalous than Mr. Obama’s connection with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. McCain has been so dependent on Mr. Gramm for economic policy that he sent him to newspaper editorial board meetings , no doubt to correct the candidate’s numbers much as Joe Lieberman cleans up after his confusions of Sunni and Shia.
Just two weeks before publicly sharing his thoughts about America’s "mental recession," Mr. Gramm laid out equally incendiary views in a Wall Street Journal profile that portrayed him as "almost certainly" the McCain choice for Treasury secretary. Mr. Gramm said that the former chief executive of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, was "probably the most exploited worker in American history" since he received only a $158 million pay package rather than the "billions" he deserved for his success in growing Southwestern Bell.
Friday, July 18, 2008
July 17, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE STRATEGY OF CAPTURED AGENCIES
Conservatives love to fulminate against "big government." But they have no problem with government that acts as a tool for their friends. For instance, you appoint people who are anti-environment to head up agencies charged with enforcing environmental regulations. Or you put a corporate lackey like Elaine Chao in charge of the Labor Department. The agency has dragged its feet repeatedly during Bush's term in investigating abuses against working people. This editorial is from The New York Times at www.nytimes.com:
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE STRATEGY OF CAPTURED AGENCIES
Conservatives love to fulminate against "big government." But they have no problem with government that acts as a tool for their friends. For instance, you appoint people who are anti-environment to head up agencies charged with enforcing environmental regulations. Or you put a corporate lackey like Elaine Chao in charge of the Labor Department. The agency has dragged its feet repeatedly during Bush's term in investigating abuses against working people. This editorial is from The New York Times at www.nytimes.com:
President Bush has filled top posts across his administration with people who do not agree with the missions of their organizations. His Environmental Protection Agency has failed to protect the environment; his Justice Department has promoted injustice.
To lead the Department of Labor, Mr. Bush appointed Elaine Chao, who took office in 2001 arguing that states should be able to opt out of the federal minimum wage — a terrible idea that would drive down wages for the lowest-paid employees. For more than seven years, Ms. Chao has run a department that has tilted toward employers and failed to properly enforce labor laws.
"RANDOM" JURY SERVICE
Today I got my fourth jury summons from Fresno County in just eight years. Fresno County has a fairly sizable population. Granted, some of those people wouldn't be eligible for jury service due to age, physical handicaps, being too young, etc. But this is still astonishing, especially since most people I know have never gotten a jury summons.
I know we're supposed to feel "privileged" by jury service. I wonder, then, why you get threatened with jail if you don't follow their orders. Some privilege. I wonder why juries will slave away on lawsuits, only to have some elitist judge reduce or throw out the judgment. We saw that recently in a case involving a female basketball coach who sued California State University, Fresno, for sexual discrimination. And I wonder why employers are not required to pay your salary when you get shanghaied into jury service. You're magically supposed to make it on $15.00 a day.
This is just another example of why Fresno County wouldn't my first choice of places to live.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
July 17, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE INEQUALITY GAP
When George W. Bush sauntered off the stage at the latest summit he arrogantly crowed, "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." The United States is number one in too many bad categories. We do lead the world in contributing to greenhouse gases. We lead the world in military expenditures. We have an astonishing infant mortality rate for such a rich country. We rate well down the list for life expectancy, especially for African-Americans. There is something very wrong here. You can attribute much of it to our rotten free market economic system. This article by Leonard Doyle is at http://www.commondreams.org/:
The United States of America is becoming less united by the day. A 30-year gap now exists in the average life expectancy between Mississippi, in the Deep South, and Connecticut, in prosperous New England. Huge disparities have also opened up in income, health and education depending on where people live in the US, according to a report published yesterday.
The American Human Development Index has applied to the US an aid agency approach to measuring well-being - more familiar to observers of the Third World - with shocking results. The US finds itself ranked 42nd in global life expectancy and 34th in survival of infants to age. Suicide and murder are among the top 15 causes of death and although the US is home to just 5 per cent of the global population it accounts for 24 per cent of the world’s prisoners.
Despite an almost cult-like devotion to the belief that unfettered free enterprise is the best way to lift Americans out of poverty, the report points to a rigged system that does little to lessen inequalities.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE INEQUALITY GAP
When George W. Bush sauntered off the stage at the latest summit he arrogantly crowed, "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." The United States is number one in too many bad categories. We do lead the world in contributing to greenhouse gases. We lead the world in military expenditures. We have an astonishing infant mortality rate for such a rich country. We rate well down the list for life expectancy, especially for African-Americans. There is something very wrong here. You can attribute much of it to our rotten free market economic system. This article by Leonard Doyle is at http://www.commondreams.org/:
The United States of America is becoming less united by the day. A 30-year gap now exists in the average life expectancy between Mississippi, in the Deep South, and Connecticut, in prosperous New England. Huge disparities have also opened up in income, health and education depending on where people live in the US, according to a report published yesterday.
The American Human Development Index has applied to the US an aid agency approach to measuring well-being - more familiar to observers of the Third World - with shocking results. The US finds itself ranked 42nd in global life expectancy and 34th in survival of infants to age. Suicide and murder are among the top 15 causes of death and although the US is home to just 5 per cent of the global population it accounts for 24 per cent of the world’s prisoners.
Despite an almost cult-like devotion to the belief that unfettered free enterprise is the best way to lift Americans out of poverty, the report points to a rigged system that does little to lessen inequalities.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
July 16, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
FREE MARKET ONLY WORKS FOR SOME
Right-wingers idolize the "free market." To hear them speak, you would think we lived in a virtual Garden of Eden before there was regulation of markets. Read a little history and you find out differently, of course, but history and reading are not trademarks of right-wing "thought." You really only have to go back to the Great Depression to see what a miserable failure free markets are. It took the interventions and innovations of the New Deal to save the United States economy. Right-wingers would rather spit about "socialism" than look at the real world. We're seeing the poison fruit of free market orthodoxy now: the bank crisis, the home mortgage crisis, the health care crisis, rocketing gasoline and food costs, and the incestuous relationship between big corporations and the federal government. This column by Peter G. Gosselin is at www.latimes.com:
Spurred by the continued housing crisis, turmoil in financial markets, spiking oil prices, disappearing jobs and shrinking retirement savings, the nation and its political leaders have begun to sour on the notion that the current market system is the key to a fair, stable and efficient society.
"We're at a hinge point," said William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who helped craft President Clinton's market-friendly agenda during the 1990s. "The strong presumption in favor of markets, which has dominated public policy since the late 1970s, has been thrown very much into question."
Now, to a degree not seen in years, politicians and outside experts are looking with favor at more, not less, government involvement in the economy.
REGULATION IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
Imagine, if you will, driving your car on roads and freeways with no rules. Everyone would do what they wanted. It would be survival of the fittest. There would be no pesky rules about speed limits and merging and stopping at lights or signs. It would be horrifying. But that is essentially what right-wingers want in the economy. We're supposed to believe that big corporations will police themselves and that the "market' will make them toe the line. It's absolute nonsense. What's more, it's a prescription for disaster. This column by Cenk Uygur is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Complete deregulation is an intellectually indefensible position. It is also the current Republican platform. We have been trained, and yes even brainwashed, into believing that the government is a bad thing and the less you have of it, the better. That is until of course your house is burning down, then all of a sudden government help -- in the form of the fire department -- seems like a pretty good idea.
The reason we have government is because it serves a role that we need in society. Police, fire department, public education, common defense and financial regulation of the markets. If you don't have a check on insider trading, the rich get richer and the average guy gets screwed. So, you need the cops of Wall Street. But this isn't just the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is every regulatory agency that watches over the financial industry to protect the interests of all of us.
Even Adam Smith realized the need for government regulation. And it is a perverse situation we find ourselves in that I even have to make the case for such fundamental and obvious points. But yet, here is the campaign for one of the major party candidates for president hiring as their top economic adviser the man who embodies this bloodlust for limitless deregulation. This is probably the one person who best represents all that is wrong with radical deregulation. His name is Phil Gramm.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
FREE MARKET ONLY WORKS FOR SOME
Right-wingers idolize the "free market." To hear them speak, you would think we lived in a virtual Garden of Eden before there was regulation of markets. Read a little history and you find out differently, of course, but history and reading are not trademarks of right-wing "thought." You really only have to go back to the Great Depression to see what a miserable failure free markets are. It took the interventions and innovations of the New Deal to save the United States economy. Right-wingers would rather spit about "socialism" than look at the real world. We're seeing the poison fruit of free market orthodoxy now: the bank crisis, the home mortgage crisis, the health care crisis, rocketing gasoline and food costs, and the incestuous relationship between big corporations and the federal government. This column by Peter G. Gosselin is at www.latimes.com:
Spurred by the continued housing crisis, turmoil in financial markets, spiking oil prices, disappearing jobs and shrinking retirement savings, the nation and its political leaders have begun to sour on the notion that the current market system is the key to a fair, stable and efficient society.
"We're at a hinge point," said William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who helped craft President Clinton's market-friendly agenda during the 1990s. "The strong presumption in favor of markets, which has dominated public policy since the late 1970s, has been thrown very much into question."
Now, to a degree not seen in years, politicians and outside experts are looking with favor at more, not less, government involvement in the economy.
REGULATION IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
Imagine, if you will, driving your car on roads and freeways with no rules. Everyone would do what they wanted. It would be survival of the fittest. There would be no pesky rules about speed limits and merging and stopping at lights or signs. It would be horrifying. But that is essentially what right-wingers want in the economy. We're supposed to believe that big corporations will police themselves and that the "market' will make them toe the line. It's absolute nonsense. What's more, it's a prescription for disaster. This column by Cenk Uygur is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Complete deregulation is an intellectually indefensible position. It is also the current Republican platform. We have been trained, and yes even brainwashed, into believing that the government is a bad thing and the less you have of it, the better. That is until of course your house is burning down, then all of a sudden government help -- in the form of the fire department -- seems like a pretty good idea.
The reason we have government is because it serves a role that we need in society. Police, fire department, public education, common defense and financial regulation of the markets. If you don't have a check on insider trading, the rich get richer and the average guy gets screwed. So, you need the cops of Wall Street. But this isn't just the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is every regulatory agency that watches over the financial industry to protect the interests of all of us.
Even Adam Smith realized the need for government regulation. And it is a perverse situation we find ourselves in that I even have to make the case for such fundamental and obvious points. But yet, here is the campaign for one of the major party candidates for president hiring as their top economic adviser the man who embodies this bloodlust for limitless deregulation. This is probably the one person who best represents all that is wrong with radical deregulation. His name is Phil Gramm.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
July 13, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SEE HOW THEY WHINE
Today's Fresno Bee letters section had yet another whiny, poor pitiful me letter from a right-winger who thinks the country should be partitioned by county. He claims, without any sourcing, of course, that Bush won over 2,000 counties in the 2000 election, whereas Al Gore allegedly won 600 counties or so. Of course, Al Gore actually won more votes. The counties that supported Bush are mostly inhabited by prairie dogs and tumbleweeds.
The right-wing meme of late is that they are just terribly put upon. They can't practice their "Christian" beliefs. The gays are coming and abortion is legal, oh my! Heaven forbid they should pay any taxes that might possibly benefit someone else, especially if the someone else is disadvantaged somehow. How does that jibe with the basic tenet of Christianity called the Golden Rule? Oh, never mind.
The world would be a far better place without the selfish, me first, ignorant and bigoted philosophy called conservatism.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
SEE HOW THEY WHINE
Today's Fresno Bee letters section had yet another whiny, poor pitiful me letter from a right-winger who thinks the country should be partitioned by county. He claims, without any sourcing, of course, that Bush won over 2,000 counties in the 2000 election, whereas Al Gore allegedly won 600 counties or so. Of course, Al Gore actually won more votes. The counties that supported Bush are mostly inhabited by prairie dogs and tumbleweeds.
The right-wing meme of late is that they are just terribly put upon. They can't practice their "Christian" beliefs. The gays are coming and abortion is legal, oh my! Heaven forbid they should pay any taxes that might possibly benefit someone else, especially if the someone else is disadvantaged somehow. How does that jibe with the basic tenet of Christianity called the Golden Rule? Oh, never mind.
The world would be a far better place without the selfish, me first, ignorant and bigoted philosophy called conservatism.
Friday, July 11, 2008
July 10, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
ANOTHER RIGHT WING HISSY FIT
Yesterday I read a letter in The Fresno Bee by another anal-retentive right-winger upset that anyone would suggest banning fireworks. As anyone around here knows, fires have been blazing throughout California. The smoke from those fires has made bad air even worse. For people with asthma and other respiratory ailments, it has to be sheer misery.
You can always tell the prototypical nut job right-winger because they manage to slip in the word "liberal" somewhere and go on a rant about liberals denying them their freedoms. According to Mr. Brilliant, we want to ban guns and ban drilling and ban nuclear power plants and, now, even ban fireworks. Oh, the humanity!
If this guy represents right-wingers, I guess we can believe that right-wingers like dirty air, people getting slaughtered by guns, the oceans getting filled with toxic oil and other wastes from drilling, the despoliation of ANWR for oil that won't help us much at all, and nuclear plants, which are really like nuclear bombs ready to explode, in our very own neighborhoods. What visionaries they are!
On the other hand, they have no problem with interfering in people's personal lives, ripping up civil liberties, bankrupting the government, and starting immoral wars.
THE WORKING CLASS DESERVES A BREAK
A trend I've noticed over the past several years is that employers want you to possess world class skills, but they don't want to pay even decent wages and benefits. No matter how hard or well you work it's never quite enough. They find excuses to deny raises, take away benefits, or even outsource jobs. In the meantime, the richest people in the country are rolling in money. They whine about government regulation or about taxes while they live like kings. This commentary by Steven Greenhouse is at tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com:
In talking with workers--be they software engineers or hotel housekeepers, factory workers or freelancers--I often sensed a frustration, even an anger, that unfairness has muscled aside fairness in America in recent decades and especially in recent years, and it goes far beyond stratospheric C.E.O. salaries. Many workers are upset that their families have been sinking economically--median income for working-age households fell $2,375 from 2000 to 2006 (after accounting for inflation). For the typical worker, wages have inched up less than 1 percent since the most recent economic expansion began in November 2001, even as corporate profits have soared and productivity per worker has jumped more than 15 percent. And there's also widespread resentment that while middle-class and low-wage workers have been treading water, average income for the top 1 percent of households, averaging $1.1 million in annual income, has more than tripled over the past quarter century. The top 1 percent of household has more after-tax income than the bottom 40 percent of Americans.
And I hardly need to point out that for the great majority of workers, the pain has grown only worse in recent months as fuel prices, food prices and foreclosures have soared.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
ANOTHER RIGHT WING HISSY FIT
Yesterday I read a letter in The Fresno Bee by another anal-retentive right-winger upset that anyone would suggest banning fireworks. As anyone around here knows, fires have been blazing throughout California. The smoke from those fires has made bad air even worse. For people with asthma and other respiratory ailments, it has to be sheer misery.
You can always tell the prototypical nut job right-winger because they manage to slip in the word "liberal" somewhere and go on a rant about liberals denying them their freedoms. According to Mr. Brilliant, we want to ban guns and ban drilling and ban nuclear power plants and, now, even ban fireworks. Oh, the humanity!
If this guy represents right-wingers, I guess we can believe that right-wingers like dirty air, people getting slaughtered by guns, the oceans getting filled with toxic oil and other wastes from drilling, the despoliation of ANWR for oil that won't help us much at all, and nuclear plants, which are really like nuclear bombs ready to explode, in our very own neighborhoods. What visionaries they are!
On the other hand, they have no problem with interfering in people's personal lives, ripping up civil liberties, bankrupting the government, and starting immoral wars.
THE WORKING CLASS DESERVES A BREAK
A trend I've noticed over the past several years is that employers want you to possess world class skills, but they don't want to pay even decent wages and benefits. No matter how hard or well you work it's never quite enough. They find excuses to deny raises, take away benefits, or even outsource jobs. In the meantime, the richest people in the country are rolling in money. They whine about government regulation or about taxes while they live like kings. This commentary by Steven Greenhouse is at tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com:
In talking with workers--be they software engineers or hotel housekeepers, factory workers or freelancers--I often sensed a frustration, even an anger, that unfairness has muscled aside fairness in America in recent decades and especially in recent years, and it goes far beyond stratospheric C.E.O. salaries. Many workers are upset that their families have been sinking economically--median income for working-age households fell $2,375 from 2000 to 2006 (after accounting for inflation). For the typical worker, wages have inched up less than 1 percent since the most recent economic expansion began in November 2001, even as corporate profits have soared and productivity per worker has jumped more than 15 percent. And there's also widespread resentment that while middle-class and low-wage workers have been treading water, average income for the top 1 percent of households, averaging $1.1 million in annual income, has more than tripled over the past quarter century. The top 1 percent of household has more after-tax income than the bottom 40 percent of Americans.
And I hardly need to point out that for the great majority of workers, the pain has grown only worse in recent months as fuel prices, food prices and foreclosures have soared.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
July 08, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
CARTER WAS RIGHT ABOUT ENERGY
It became popular in right-wing circles to suggest that the Carter administration was a massive failure and it took the "savior" Ronald Reagan to restore us to greatness. I know that I did better economically during the Carter administration. Reagan's supposed great economy wasn't all that great. One area where Jimmy Carter stands out is his vision about energy policy. The United States experienced its first oil shock in the 1970's. It should have been a wakeup call, but Ronald Reagan and right-wingers never liked to face a reality that means inconvenience or sacrifice. This article by Stephen Pizzo is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Have you forgotten what real leadership and real straight talk look and sound like? No wonder.
Well here's a refreshing refresher course. Back in 1977 the much maligned, President Jimmy Carter, showed genuine leadership and political courage, two traits almost entirely missing from today's "leaders." Following the Arab oil boycott of 1973, Carter took a cold, hard look at world oil supplies and declared them a national security threat just waiting to happen. He laid out a vision of what must be done, and done quickly to avoid just such a threat to America's robust, but excessive, lifestyle. Carter, as was his wonkish wont, laid out both his vision and his solutions in painstaking detail in a prime-time television address.
It was filled with hard truths and bitter pills, neither of which pampered Americans had (and still have) no use for and conservatives scorn as "defeatism" and "surrender." On a ship of fools it's always "full speed ahead -- and stop with the iceberg business! Yahooooooo."
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
CARTER WAS RIGHT ABOUT ENERGY
It became popular in right-wing circles to suggest that the Carter administration was a massive failure and it took the "savior" Ronald Reagan to restore us to greatness. I know that I did better economically during the Carter administration. Reagan's supposed great economy wasn't all that great. One area where Jimmy Carter stands out is his vision about energy policy. The United States experienced its first oil shock in the 1970's. It should have been a wakeup call, but Ronald Reagan and right-wingers never liked to face a reality that means inconvenience or sacrifice. This article by Stephen Pizzo is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Have you forgotten what real leadership and real straight talk look and sound like? No wonder.
Well here's a refreshing refresher course. Back in 1977 the much maligned, President Jimmy Carter, showed genuine leadership and political courage, two traits almost entirely missing from today's "leaders." Following the Arab oil boycott of 1973, Carter took a cold, hard look at world oil supplies and declared them a national security threat just waiting to happen. He laid out a vision of what must be done, and done quickly to avoid just such a threat to America's robust, but excessive, lifestyle. Carter, as was his wonkish wont, laid out both his vision and his solutions in painstaking detail in a prime-time television address.
It was filled with hard truths and bitter pills, neither of which pampered Americans had (and still have) no use for and conservatives scorn as "defeatism" and "surrender." On a ship of fools it's always "full speed ahead -- and stop with the iceberg business! Yahooooooo."
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
July 02, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH'S TOXIC WASTE
George W. Bush, as far we know, will shuffle off the stage next January and it will be a temporary moment of celebration around the world. But the harm Bush has wrought will live after him. I'm hoping a President Obama can take us in a new progressive direction that will do something about global climate change, end this filthy war in Iraq, do something about restoring the middle class, take action on health care, and make the federal government responsive to the needs of the majority, not just a tiny elite. But Obama won't be able to work miracles. It is far easier to destroy the way Bush has than it is to build. This article by Mark Morford is at www.sfgate.com:
Let us be reminded, the Bush virus will be with us for years, generations. Aside from the shambles of Iraq and the Middle East, aside from handguns and the decided mixed blessing of the Supreme Court's recent spate of decisions, there are maneuvers and decisions we don't even know about, nefarious arrangements, a corruption so deep that normally staid historians are behaving more like alarmed climate-change scientists: We know it's going to be bad, but we just don't know how bad.
There are destroyed nations, mauled infrastructures, horribly compromised federal agencies from FEMA to the EPA, the CIA to the FCC. There is a rogue outsourced military, citizens who can no longer sue gun manufacturers, six straight years of increased poverty, untold numbers of homophobic, misogynistic judicial appointees, devastating environmental policies the consequences of which could take generations to comprehend, much less repair.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH'S TOXIC WASTE
George W. Bush, as far we know, will shuffle off the stage next January and it will be a temporary moment of celebration around the world. But the harm Bush has wrought will live after him. I'm hoping a President Obama can take us in a new progressive direction that will do something about global climate change, end this filthy war in Iraq, do something about restoring the middle class, take action on health care, and make the federal government responsive to the needs of the majority, not just a tiny elite. But Obama won't be able to work miracles. It is far easier to destroy the way Bush has than it is to build. This article by Mark Morford is at www.sfgate.com:
Let us be reminded, the Bush virus will be with us for years, generations. Aside from the shambles of Iraq and the Middle East, aside from handguns and the decided mixed blessing of the Supreme Court's recent spate of decisions, there are maneuvers and decisions we don't even know about, nefarious arrangements, a corruption so deep that normally staid historians are behaving more like alarmed climate-change scientists: We know it's going to be bad, but we just don't know how bad.
There are destroyed nations, mauled infrastructures, horribly compromised federal agencies from FEMA to the EPA, the CIA to the FCC. There is a rogue outsourced military, citizens who can no longer sue gun manufacturers, six straight years of increased poverty, untold numbers of homophobic, misogynistic judicial appointees, devastating environmental policies the consequences of which could take generations to comprehend, much less repair.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
July 01, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
OH THE OUTRAGE!
On a Sunday talk show General Wesley Clark said that John McCain riding in a fighter jet didn't necessarily qualify McCain to be commander-in-chief. You would think Clark had burned the flag on national TV. McCain likes to make a big deal of his military record, which frankly isn't that distinguished. I'm sorry he was a POW and I'm definitely sorry he was tortured. No human being should be tortured. But the people displaying such outrage at General Clark's remarks seem to conveniently forget the "swift boating" of John Kerry in 2004. Attacks against Kerry were smears; General Clark's comments about McCain were simply the truth. This commentary by Zachary Roth is from the Columbia Journalism Review at http://www.cjr.org/:
So: The latest round of mock outrage—in a presidential race that has turned the tactic into an art form—now comes in response to comments made by General Wesley Clark. Appearing as a surrogate for Barack Obama on CBS’s "Face the Nation", Clark, in reference to John McCain, said
I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war…But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.
When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that "Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down", Clark responded: "Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had "attacked John McCain’s military service record." Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.
REPUBLICAN ROLE IN HIGH GAS PRICES
The right-wing bluster these days is that Democrats and environmentalists are responsible for record high gas prices. Those Democrats and pesky environmentalists just won't allow drilling, we're told. The fact is that offshore drilling or drilling in ANWR would do little to alleviate our problem. Oil companies already have federal land leases they are not using. Even if we drilled all our offshore oil and all the oil in ANWR it would take years, and the supply would be exhausted pretty quickly. When Jimmy Carter was president we had our first oil shock and President Carter talked about conservation. People didn't want to hear it. Ronald Reagan said we didn't have to worry. If we had taken steps back then to improve fuel efficiency and break our dependence on oil, we would be in a far better position today. This commentary is from Richard H. Serlin at richardserlin.blogspot.com:
For decades Republicans have constantly blocked Democratic attempts to increase fuel mileage and many other efficiency and conservation measures. They've also constantly blocked or cut spending on alternative energy, all the while mindlessly chanting "Free market". The economics community had proven long ago that there are many situations and ways where a government role can add greatly to efficiency, wealth, and welfare, but this is a party that long ago refused to think beyond slogans. They acted as though not being simple-minded was a vice, liberal and un-American, when in fact, thinking, and believing in science, evidence, and logic is one of the things that made this country great, and the richest and strongest in the world.
Now we're paying a big price for Republican ideology in energy and so many other things. Had the Democrats not been outvoted, filibustered, and vetoed from enacting their "big government" mileage, conservation, research, and other energy measures over the last almost three decades, gasoline might be less than half its price today, and mileage more than twice as high, making the gas cost per mile less than a quarter of what it is now.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
OH THE OUTRAGE!
On a Sunday talk show General Wesley Clark said that John McCain riding in a fighter jet didn't necessarily qualify McCain to be commander-in-chief. You would think Clark had burned the flag on national TV. McCain likes to make a big deal of his military record, which frankly isn't that distinguished. I'm sorry he was a POW and I'm definitely sorry he was tortured. No human being should be tortured. But the people displaying such outrage at General Clark's remarks seem to conveniently forget the "swift boating" of John Kerry in 2004. Attacks against Kerry were smears; General Clark's comments about McCain were simply the truth. This commentary by Zachary Roth is from the Columbia Journalism Review at http://www.cjr.org/:
So: The latest round of mock outrage—in a presidential race that has turned the tactic into an art form—now comes in response to comments made by General Wesley Clark. Appearing as a surrogate for Barack Obama on CBS’s "Face the Nation", Clark, in reference to John McCain, said
I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war…But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.
When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that "Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down", Clark responded: "Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had "attacked John McCain’s military service record." Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.
REPUBLICAN ROLE IN HIGH GAS PRICES
The right-wing bluster these days is that Democrats and environmentalists are responsible for record high gas prices. Those Democrats and pesky environmentalists just won't allow drilling, we're told. The fact is that offshore drilling or drilling in ANWR would do little to alleviate our problem. Oil companies already have federal land leases they are not using. Even if we drilled all our offshore oil and all the oil in ANWR it would take years, and the supply would be exhausted pretty quickly. When Jimmy Carter was president we had our first oil shock and President Carter talked about conservation. People didn't want to hear it. Ronald Reagan said we didn't have to worry. If we had taken steps back then to improve fuel efficiency and break our dependence on oil, we would be in a far better position today. This commentary is from Richard H. Serlin at richardserlin.blogspot.com:
For decades Republicans have constantly blocked Democratic attempts to increase fuel mileage and many other efficiency and conservation measures. They've also constantly blocked or cut spending on alternative energy, all the while mindlessly chanting "Free market". The economics community had proven long ago that there are many situations and ways where a government role can add greatly to efficiency, wealth, and welfare, but this is a party that long ago refused to think beyond slogans. They acted as though not being simple-minded was a vice, liberal and un-American, when in fact, thinking, and believing in science, evidence, and logic is one of the things that made this country great, and the richest and strongest in the world.
Now we're paying a big price for Republican ideology in energy and so many other things. Had the Democrats not been outvoted, filibustered, and vetoed from enacting their "big government" mileage, conservation, research, and other energy measures over the last almost three decades, gasoline might be less than half its price today, and mileage more than twice as high, making the gas cost per mile less than a quarter of what it is now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)