tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6742748577431493672024-03-05T19:46:13.811-08:00Did You Check First?This blog has moved to www.didyoucheckfirst.wordpress.com.
Hope to see you there.Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-2415473762829993892013-01-24T10:33:00.001-08:002013-01-24T10:33:37.008-08:00Ask Your House Rep & Senators to "Be A Leader" on Overturning Citizens United<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiooSt53vmmVsr8W3OzdSkRHnyptoSjp0ooEhZ4EdtGmxNDrI35Dke57WY1ggZQEhGwD3jnEnRsDmN2n12IoxBrc4KYN5-iQT_6xRlNTnOUdL_HAEZfUg9ChCKauyuQYTVVaxVDfJcH3GE/s1600/Citizens-United950.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiooSt53vmmVsr8W3OzdSkRHnyptoSjp0ooEhZ4EdtGmxNDrI35Dke57WY1ggZQEhGwD3jnEnRsDmN2n12IoxBrc4KYN5-iQT_6xRlNTnOUdL_HAEZfUg9ChCKauyuQYTVVaxVDfJcH3GE/s400/Citizens-United950.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<a href="http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/be_a_leader" target="_blank">Coffee Party USA has launched a campaign called "Be A Leader"</a> to get our House Reps and Senators in DC to go on record with their plans for overturning the disastrous <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-205.htm" target="_blank">Citizens United v FEC ruling</a>.<br />
<br />
They even have some very simple suggested text to use:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<strong>Dear Representative or Senator,</strong></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<strong>It has been three years since the disastrous <em>Citizens United</em>
decision. As a legislator, you are in a position to fix this bad
decision, but I don't see anything on your web site about your plans to
do so. Will you please be a leader and post your plans on your web
site? </strong></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<strong>Your constituent,</strong></div>
<br />
<br />
Below is what <a href="http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=contact" target="_blank">Senator Toomey</a>'s office sent to me in response to my inquiry. It's clearly a canned response, and it never actually answers the simple question posed.<br />
<br />
<br />
I've also copied in my reply. I think it's important that our elected leaders hear from us when our questions and concerns go unanswered.<br />
<br />
Below the email is additional research and my personal thoughts on Senator Toomey and his position on other issues I feel are important and which influence how I feel about him and his party.<br />
<br />
Trust me, I'm not so naive as to believe that he or even a staffer will read my email or feel compelled to respond to it. If they do, I will share it here. I just want the Senator and his staff to know that ordinary citizens are paying attention; very, very close attention.<br />
<br />
--- <br />
<br />
<b>From: </b>"Senator Pat Toomey" <pat_noreply toomey.senate.gov=""><br /><b>To: </b><email address="" removed=""><br /><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:04:01 AM<br /><b>Subject: </b>Reply from U.S. Senator Pat Toomey<br /></email></pat_noreply><br />
<div id="letter_header" style="font-family: Times; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; height: 63px; margin: 0 0 0 18px; padding: 0; text-align: center; width: 639px;">
January 23, 2013</div>
<div id="letter_content" style="font-family: Times; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0 0 18px; padding: 0; text-align: left; width: 640px;">
<div style="font-family: Times; line-height: 110%; margin-bottom: 0px; margin: 0 0 0.5em 0; padding-bottom: 10px; page-break-inside: avoid; text-align: left;">
<br />
Dear Mr. <name removed="">,</name></div>
<div class="mceLibraryItem" id="b5f058a5a31fda7525c8723110823273">
<div style="font-family: Times; line-height: 110%; margin: 0 0 0.5em 0; page-break-inside: avoid;">
Thank you for contacting me about campaign finance reform. I appreciate hearing from you.</div>
<div style="font-family: Times; line-height: 110%; margin: 0 0 0.5em 0; page-break-inside: avoid;">
As you may know, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a ruling in <em>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</em>,
overturned a federal ban on independent political advocacy by
corporations and unions. I understand your concerns regarding this
decision and political activities by outside groups and businesses. That
said, the Supreme Court has long upheld that political speech,
including the funding thereof, is protected by the First Amendment and
is an integral part of our constitutional democracy. It is important
that Congress be mindful of these constitutional principles, although I
understand your concerns about this issue. Please be assured that I will
keep your views in mind as Congress continues reviewing changes to
campaign finance laws. </div>
<div style="font-family: Times; line-height: 110%; margin: 0 0 0.5em 0; page-break-inside: avoid;">
Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0; padding: 0; page-break-inside: avoid; width: 100%;">
<div style="font-family: Times; line-height: 110%; margin: 0 0 0.5em 0; page-break-inside: avoid;">
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
<img alt="Signature" src="http://web.mail.comcast.net/service/home/%7E/?auth=co&id=674426&part=2.2&t=1359036553871" width="80" /></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; line-height: 110%; margin: 0 0 0.5em 0; page-break-inside: avoid;">
Pat Toomey<br />
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
------<br />
<br />
<br />
Dear Senator Toomey:<br /><br />Thank you for your response.<br /><br />With all
due respect, your attempt to characterize the Citizens United vs FEC
ruling as upholding the rights and protections afforded to actual
citizens by the First Amendment is insulting and disingenuous. It's
insulting because you and those who defend the activism of the
conservatives on the Court seem to believe that you can dupe all of us
into believing your partisan framing of that ruling. I humbly remind you
that we are not all "low information voters."<br /><br />Those of us who
oppose Citizens United know that it is not about free speech. It is not
even about political speech. It is about money. It is about "dark money"
and the inordinate influence so much of it is having from too few
sources on you and your fellow elected leaders who are supposed to be
representing all of us, not just wealthy donors and corporations. (Again
and with all due respect, please spare me any rhetoric on trickle down
economics. We both know that it's a failed economic theory.)<br /><br />You
have chosen not to answer my question directly about publishing your
plans for overturning Citizens United. Given your past role as president of The Club for Growth and the $2.7million they spent on your behalf on attack ads to win you your seat 51% to 49%, I can't say that I'm surprised. I'm left to conclude, therefore,
that you are in favor of that disastrous Supreme Court ruling. I invite
you, of course, to please write back immediately to correct me and to
share your plans if I've come to the wrong conclusion. Nothing would please me more.<br /><br />Once more and only with
the greatest respect, it seems to me that you have a choice to make,
Senator. You can follow -
and even lead - the GOP's steady decline into political
oblivion with everyone except the aging white male evangelical
demographic (your tea party base), or you can be
part of a more modern, thriving, and progressive (it's not a dirty word, by the
way, and is considered by most to be the opposite of 'regressive')
Republican party.<br />
<br />
My humble and sincere recommendation is that you start by taking a stand
against the corrupting influence of big and dark money in our
political system by
publishing your plan to combat and overturn Citizens United. I realize that that may seem antithetical to your past role as leader of a tea party PAC, but that's not who you're supposed to be representing in the Senate.<br /><br />Who knows? You might even win back registered Non-Partisan voters like me.<br /><br /><span></span>Sincerely,<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
While not part of the above email, here's some research and conclusions on why ordinary citizens should oppose Senator Toomey (and similarly positioned Republicans).<br />
<br /><u><b>Energy</b></u> (the closest "issue" the Senator lists when it comes the Environment and Climate Change)<br />
<ul>
<li>Senator Toomey wants to further loosen restrictions on
an already under-regulated fossil fuel industry, wants to
expand mining and drilling of dirty fossil fuels, and is completely silent on renewable energy. <a href="http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=32" target="_blank">http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=32</a></li>
</ul>
<br /><u><b>(Affordable) Health Care</b></u><br />
<ul>
<li>Senator Toomey co-sponsored S.192, the "Repealing
the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," a petty partisan and Bachmann-esque bill that reveals how much more he values the interests of big money from insurance carriers, pharmaceuticals, health
care providers, and corporations than he does the actual health and
welfare of poor, unemployed, and under-employed people. <a href="http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=34" target="_blank">http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=34</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<u><b>Life, Family and Marriage (Inequality) </b></u><br />
<ul>
<li>Senator Toomey seems to have more in common with Rick Santorum than he does with the majority of Americans. Anyone who isn't in support of gay marriage is, in my opinion, a hateful bigot. Period. There is no middle ground and no compromise when it comes to civil liberties, equality, and justice for the LGBTQ community in this country. <a href="http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=33" target="_blank">http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=33</a></li>
</ul>
<br /><u><b>The GOP: A Party in Decline</b></u><br />
It no longer comes as any surprise to me that the GOP is a party in
steep decline. This last election was very telling. Beyond older white
religious men, Mr. Romney had weak and diminishing appeal(1). And while the GOP kept
control in the House, they lost seats in both houses of Congress, and there were fewer votes for House Republicans than there were for House Democrats(2). The GOP's only real appeal now seems to be with a shrinking older, whiter, and more fundamentalist demographic. Oh, and big money.<br />
<br />
<u><b>GOP's Desperate Measures to Rig Elections and Deny Voters Their Rights </b></u><br />
This decline in popularity and appeal is undoubtedly part of the reason why Governor Corbett
and Republican state legislators all over the U.S. want to change the
Electoral College rules so that under-populated and gerrymandered
GOP districts have the same Electoral College weight as the overall voting population.<br />
<br />
Isn't it ironic? One would think that Libertarians, Teapublicans, and ordinary Republicans everywhere would be staunch supporters of
winner-take-all, right? Instead, it looks like the new mantra is, "Since we can't
beat the Democrats fairly, we'll rig the system." To whom does this strategy appeal if it's not the white <u>rural</u> evangelical voter; that subset of the party's base who seems intent on voting against their own economic self interests time and time again?<br />
<br />
The voter ID law
is, of course, another prime example of a party who refuses to face reality. It's nothing more than empty fear-mongering over a problem that simply does not exist except in the minds of Republican politicians and Fox News commentators. To claim that measures must be taken to stop rampant in-person voter fraud is to insult the
intelligence of anyone paying attention to the realities of how rare it
is for someone to impersonate anyone on election day(3).<br />
<br /><u><b>Money in Politics</b></u> <br />
I cling to the belief that politicians are supposed to work for me. My belief was stronger before the Citizens United ruling.<br />
<br />
Now it seems all too
clear that Senator Toomey and his colleagues on both sides are far more beholden
to the Sheldon Adelsons, Harold Simmonses, Karl Roves, and all the Super PACs(4) than they
are to you, me, our fellow Pennsylvanians, and ordinary Americans. <br /><br />To
be fair to Senator Toomey, he's presumably most beholden to his biggest donor, the Tea Party SuperPAC, The Club for Growth, According to OpenSecrets,they have contributed $848,033 to him over the course of his political career(5). They also spent $2.7million in negative ads to help their former president to win his seat 51% to 49%(6).<br />
<br />This is what Democracy looks like?<br />
<br />
It will take a long and hard struggle to get Citizens United overturned. It's not impossible, and I believe that it's up to us - ordinary citizens - to be united in our unending and unbending effort to understand which politicians agree with us and which don't. I think it's obvious what we need to then do with that information.<br />
<br />
Get involved. It only takes a few minutes to let your elected leaders know what you think.<br />
<a href="http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/ask_your_representative_to_be_a_leader" target="_blank">http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/ask_your_representative_to_be_a_leader </a><br />
<br />
<br />-----<br />
Sources:<br />(1) CNN Politics; <a href="http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president</a><br />
(2) Bloomberg, Republicans Can't Claim Mandate as Democrats Top House Vote; <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-16/republicans-can-t-declare-mandate-with-more-democrat-house-votes.html" target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-16/republicans-can-t-declare-mandate-with-more-democrat-house-votes.html</a><br />(3)
The Wall Street Journal, Voter Fraud: Hard to Identify; <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577621732936167586.html" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577621732936167586.html</a><br />(4) ProPublica, Who are the Super PACs's Biggest Donors; <a href="http://projects.propublica.org/pactrack/contributions/tree" target="_blank">http://projects.propublica.org/pactrack/contributions/tree</a><br />(5)
OpenSecrets.org, Senator Pat Toomey, Top Contributors (Since 1989);
<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00001489&type=C" target="_blank">http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00001489&type=C</a><br />(6) The Boston Globe, Tea Party super PAC pours fund into congressional races; <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/06/05/tea-party-super-pac-pours-funds-into-congressional-races/GrJs2J4PKl7A2L3t4BQWjM/story.html" target="_blank">http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/06/05/tea-party-super-pac-pours-funds-into-congressional-races/GrJs2J4PKl7A2L3t4BQWjM/story.html</a><br />
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-66763042111681235942013-01-17T16:21:00.000-08:002013-01-18T06:56:43.194-08:00Guns and the Future of the GOP<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv8BVMdYkML-j-vNVkZrKrin7DzfdNadjZJgL4IAcQhV4hbzMP9RvXg1uvO-E23-6rojCahChOgQDUKRyRCgDTn5l1bxQ6vFFQNQEm0AEhCht311PTq0IlcOBp80d4h5VkJnQs-WlHkKQ/s1600/Ike.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="352" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv8BVMdYkML-j-vNVkZrKrin7DzfdNadjZJgL4IAcQhV4hbzMP9RvXg1uvO-E23-6rojCahChOgQDUKRyRCgDTn5l1bxQ6vFFQNQEm0AEhCht311PTq0IlcOBp80d4h5VkJnQs-WlHkKQ/s640/Ike.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image found at Moveon.org and credited to source there</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
History is replete with milestones and turning points. We have arrived at another, for the country and for the GOP.<br />
<br />
This one is centered on the Second Amendment. The debate rages about its meaning, intent, and relevancy in a modern world and, in the wake of yet another tragic shooting, what to do about gun violence. The burden and judgement of history, in my opinion, now rests squarely on the shoulders of the Republican party, not the president.<br />
<br />
Public consensus seems clear. When polled, Americans say they want more checks in place before guns can be purchased. We also are saying that we want fewer - not more - dangerous weapons in the hands of ordinary civilians.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u>Ignoring Reality</u> <br />
The leadership of the GOP seems to be ignoring reality yet again. They've done so at nearly every turn since the 2008 election cycle, the short-lived and fading Tea Party movement that disrupted the GOP and elections in 2010 notwithstanding.<br />
<br />
On some level, it seems to be getting worse. A party willing to give any consideration at all to the likes of a Donald Trump, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, or Rick Santorum is already difficult to take seriously. Mitt Romney, by most accounts, was the least offensive choice they could present.<br />
<br />
On the issue of gun violence, Republicans who now insist on adding public concerns and sentiments about guns to the growing list of realities and shifting societal norms and values they choose to ignore do so not only at their own peril, but they put their entire party at peril for the 21st century.<br />
<br />
The reelection of President Obama seems not to have taught Republican leaders a thing except that the more extreme the position they take, the more airtime they'll get with Fox. They truly seem intent on listening only to and parroting the most extreme voices. This time those voices belong to Wayne LaPierre and David Keene of the NRA. Republican leaders are choosing them over their rank-and-file members and even over those Republicans who self-identify as NRA members. <br />
<br />
So how is it possible in the wake of so many gun-related tragedies that elected leaders from the Republican party are not uniform in their support for ANY proposals from the president to reduce gun violence?<br />
<br />
Is there a turning point in the history of the GOP that helps to answer this question, and that helps to inform us about what the question about gun legislation reveals about the underlying beliefs that have guided the party's thinking into the present day and possibly into its future? <br />
<br />
<br />
<u>First, What the Pubic Is Saying About Guns</u> <br />
As <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/16/what-everybody-needs-to-know-about-our-constitution-and-gun-control/" target="_blank">Juan Williams of Fox News pointed out</a> on January 16th (1), polling shows very clear consensus about what Americans think we should do on issues such as background checks and high-capacity magazines.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
"A USA Today/Gallup poll taken last month found that 92 percent of
Americans favor a background check for every gun purchase in the United
States and only 7 percent opposed it. According to the same poll, 62
percent say the<y> approved of a ban on the sale and possession of
high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 bullets while 35 percent
disapprove.</y></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
"A Pew poll from earlier this week found similar results.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
"According to Pew, 85% of Americans, a roughly equal numbers of
Democrats and Republicans, favor universal background checks on gun
buyers including at gun shows. The survey also found that preventing
people with mental illness from buying guns is backed by 80% of
Americans, including 86% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
"In opposing these common-sense gun safety measures under
consideration by President Obama, the NRA is not only at odds with the
general public, it is also at odds with its own membership.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
"After the shooting in Aurora, Colorado this summer, Republican pollster
Frank Luntz conducted a nationwide survey of gun owners who are members
of the NRA. Luntz found that 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of
non-NRA gun owners support background checks on every gun sale. The
poll also found that 79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA
gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks
on all employees." </div>
<br />
<br />
Given this data, how is it possible that Republicans aren't putting petty partisan politics aside and embracing new regulations and laws to curb gun violence?<br />
<br />
Why aren't they distancing themselves from the NRA and their desire to arm even more citizens in more places and with ever more lethal firepower?<br />
<br />
What legacy does the GOP want to have on the issue of gun violence?<br />
<br />
Perhaps most importantly, what are NRA members and faithful Republicans across the board demanding from their elected officials and party leaders on the question about what to do to reduce gun violence in light of what they're purported to be telling Gallup and Pew?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<u>An Historical Turning Point for the GOP</u><br />
How did the party of Lincoln turn into a party which, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/nra-congress/" target="_blank">big money and influence aside for the moment</a> (2), become so willing to knuckle under to extremists at the NRA, an organization which, I'm learning, has itself <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/" target="_blank">been severally radicalized in recent times</a> (3)?<br />
<br />
Is there a milestone in Republican party history that can shed more light on how the GOP has become a party seemingly entrenched in antiquated and unpopular views, and incapable of compromise on any level?<br />
<br />
As part of my research, I found an article titled "<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/30/specter-future-gop-opinions-columnists-bartlett.html" target="_blank">The Dismal Future of the GOP</a>" published by Forbes in 2009 (4). It's author justifiably laments the lose of moderate voices in the Republican party and, hence, its loss of moderate voters.<br />
<br />
It's unreasonable, of course, to expect any single article to cover every single milestone and turning point of history. Still, I think the author, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bartlett" target="_blank">Bruce Bartlett</a>, a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush, and the author of "Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action" and "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy" neglected to cover one of the most critically important factors in the transformation - and, hence, the decline - of the GOP. That critically important factor was Barry Goldwater and his political calculus in the 1964 presidential campaign (5).<br />
<br />
Southern Democrats, still feeling the sting 100 years on of Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the defeat in the Civil War were still using violence and intimidation to suppress minorities. This wing of the Democratic party was still insisting on seating all-white delegates at the Democratic National convention. Putting the KKK aside, Southern Democrats were responding favorably to and electing racists like Alabama's Democratic governor and presidential hopeful, George Wallace, who was infamous for statements such as, "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." <br />
<br />
Racists not only in the Southern wing of the Democratic party but throughout the country were targeted and pursued by Goldwater as part of his "white backlash" strategy in the 1964 campaign. Goldwater (who, according to accounts, is not thought to have been a racist himself) accomplished nothing except the migration of the South from
Democratic to Republican control. This was a turning point for the Republican party, making it the party focused primarily on matters important mostly
to whites.<br />
<br />
1964, therefore, is a very clear and important milestone in the history of the Republican party and its relevance in American politics. White America, including and especially those in the South who had for the previous 100 years used violence and intimidation to keep minorities subjugated and away from primaries and elections, came to see the GOP as a party whose platform included, besides smaller government (which tends to hurt poor and minorities the most), a clear opposition to civil rights. (A quick search on YouTube reveals interviews of Goldwater talking about his opposition to civil rights legislation. It's almost as easy as finding Ayn Rand videos railing against Christianity.)<br />
<br />
For Mr. Bartlett to leave Goldwater and 1964 out of his review of the GOP's history and the role that race still plays now and in the party's future is, in my opinion, inconceivable and could only be deliberate. I guess he was willing to go only so far in his critique of his party.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u>Guns and the GOP's Golden Opportunity</u><br />
Which brings me back to the current issue of gun violence, gun control, and why the GOP seems intent on supporting the NRA instead of the general populace.<br />
<br />
The undercurrent of racism - real or imagined - has been associated with the Republican party at least as far back as 1964. One look at the demographics of the 2012 election results reinforces its disconnect outside of white America, and especially white Christian male America. If nothing else, it's mathematically correct to say that the Republican party is the party of white Evangelical men. What ought to be obvious is that relying on that demographic is and will continue to be insufficient to win national elections, and may eventually be insufficient to win elections anywhere of any consequence.<br />
<br />
This is why the GOP's future is in peril. They seem intent on disenfranchsing everyone but white conservative Christian men. This seems to be true again on the issue of gun violence.<br />
<br />
While I haven't looked for or seen data that makes a definitive and precise connection between their reluctance to distance themselves from the NRA and their dwindling racial diversity, it certainly does raise questions for me about the true motivations behind anything the Republican party is doing these days.<br />
<br />
After all, we shouldn't forget that this is the party....<br />
....who refused to distance themselves from the racist birther movement and those who questioned the president's religion, patriotism, and what it meant to be American<br />
...who not only allowed our economy to be driven into the 2008 recession, but who continue to make unreasonable and unjustifiable demands for cuts to social programs that benefit the poor and aged (whose ranks, by the way, include more than just minorities) while defending and demanding tax breaks for the wealthy (and we all know who makes up the majority of that group)<br />
....who has as their Senate leader a man who publicly stated the party's number one goal was to deny the president any policy victory, thereby creating perhaps the most ineffective Congress in history and doing incalculable damage to our recovery and to the poor and middle class<br />
...who is responsible for state legislation around the country intended solely to make voting more difficult for minorities.<br />
<br />
Can there be any doubt, therefore, that race (and gender) play a part in GOP thinking when it comes to gun violence? Which party is it who wants to increase the Defense budget, defund Planned Parenthood, and nationalize "Stand Your Ground" laws?<br />
<br />
The question now about what the GOP will do (or not do) about gun violence is one more in a long line of questions about their relevance to anyone outside of a shrinking and ever more extreme subset of white America. <br />
<br />
<br />
<u>Cowardice and the Crossroads</u><br />
The answer so far seems to be that the GOP will side with extremists inside and outside the NRA. These people all talk as if the America of the 21st century is some Hollywood version of the Wild West where good guys - always white guys, by the way - with guns kill bad guys with guns. No one is ever caught in crossfire, mistakes are never made about a suspect's guilt or innocence, and it never seems to take more than a single, well-placed, and calmly delivered shot in the most righteous of fairy tales to bring down the bad guy. (Which does beg the question about the need for extended clips, but then I remember it's to repel invading foreign armies and/or a tyrannical domestic government. I suspect the now-popular zombie apocalypse is on that same list somewhere.)<br />
<br />
And just below the surface, there's a disturbing sort of "The Birth of a Nation" feeling to the GOP's fear mongering about Obama. The GOP still refuses to refute birthers, those who talk of "others," and those who question Obama's religion or "understanding of what it means to be American."<br />
<br />
The cowardice of Republican leaders is tragic and on stark display. They refuse to face down the radical and extreme elements in their party and in the leadership of the NRA. In fact, they seem to relish in pandering to them. This strategy will, in my opinion, be the downfall of the Republican party in the coming decades; maybe sooner. This crisis over how to deal with the NRA will be one of the many milestones marking the end of the journey for a party whose appeal continues to slide further and further into right-wing extremist oblivion.<br />
<br />
It's happened before. Political parties who fell out of touch and out of favor have faded into history. The GOP doesn't have to suffer this fate. They can turn it around. The challenges to the NRA on what to do about gun control would be the perfect pivot point for them. They have a golden opportunity to show Americans that they are capable not only of compromise when the health and safety of citizens is at issue, but also that they are capable of refusing to let any organization - even the NRA - bully them into taking positions that are harmful to Americans. (We can keep hoping that they'll someday do the same with Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry, but that's for another post.)<br />
<br />
The question now really is will the Republican party and their members take yet another "hard right" at this milestone and side with the NRA, or will calmer and more rational people within the Republican party prevail?<br />
<br />
Any hope I cling to is with regular people and their courage to voice their opposition to the NRA and to vote GOP extremists out of office.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sources:<br />
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/16/what-everybody-needs-to-know-about-our-constitution-and-gun-control/" target="_blank">(1) "What everybody needs to know about our Constitution and gun control"http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/16/what-everybody-needs-to-know-about-our-constitution-and-gun-control/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/nra-congress/" target="_blank">(2) "How the NRA exerts influence over Congress"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/nra-congress/</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/" target="_blank">(3) "The NRA Once Supported Gun Control" http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/30/specter-future-gop-opinions-columnists-bartlett.html" target="_blank">(4) "The Dismal Future of the GOP"http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/30/specter-future-gop-opinions-columnists-bartlett.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2001/spring/lbj-and-white-backlash-1.html" target="_blank">(5) "LBJ Fights the White Backlash; The Racial Politics of the 1964 Presidential Campaign"http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2001/spring/lbj-and-white-backlash-1.html) </a><b><i><br /></i></b>Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-39131392051006234142013-01-07T07:23:00.002-08:002013-01-07T07:23:39.317-08:00Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt: Big Business's Tax Code Strategy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIWxg_lE8nWZtIfGJYcKEWSj5FcNZ9uk1D606o1wTaM5o88_6RARyZK9s71_aiGQ7Z8B_dOLqNBzjE-MSyzU5sl6ufDkLPel1-yFKte4qagfnDFyri77AVvytF3zdBll7ekBGjfIli1R4/s1600/monopolyman275.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIWxg_lE8nWZtIfGJYcKEWSj5FcNZ9uk1D606o1wTaM5o88_6RARyZK9s71_aiGQ7Z8B_dOLqNBzjE-MSyzU5sl6ufDkLPel1-yFKte4qagfnDFyri77AVvytF3zdBll7ekBGjfIli1R4/s320/monopolyman275.jpg" width="232" /></a></div>
Today's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/business/economy/companies-exploit-tax-break-for-asset-exchanges-trial-evidence-shows.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130107" target="_blank">New York Times article titled "Major Companies Push the Limits of a Tax Break"</a> strikes me as a microcosm of the challenges with the federal tax code.<br />
<br />
It also reveals something else. It's a marketing strategy called FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt - and it's being used by the rich and powerful to protect tax codes which benefit them by making the rest of us afraid to support efforts to change or eliminate those tax loopholes.<br />
<br />
The article describes a 90-year old tax code modification supposedly meant to be helpful to farmers and small businesses. When discussing tax codes as "helpful" it's important to always remember that that help comes with a price tag. That "help" means that the government isn't taxing a transaction. That, of course, means less tax revenues into the federal treasury and, like it or not, we will not see our federal debt lowered and our federal budget come closer to balance unless both sides of the ledger - expenses AND revenues - are tackled.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong. I don't oppose every tax code meant to help businesses, especially small businesses. What I vehemently oppose is what seems to have happened here. It appears from this article that this incentive originally intended to benefit farmers and small businesses was eventually expanded and perverted into something that the likes of JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, and GE may have abused.<br />
<br />
How does that happen and why aren't we capable of doing something about it?<br />
<br />
Perhaps this is one possible answer.<br />
<br />
Whenever the topic turns to the economy, business, and taxation, we seem to allow the rich and powerful to control the discussion and to set the framework for what to do next. We allow the to do this by employing a strategy those of us in the sales and marketing profession know as FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Here's how it works.<br />
<br />
We allow them to manipulate and control us by controlling the discussion mostly through fear and with heavy doses of uncertainty and doubt. Too many of us are easily (and to some degree, justifiably) frightened by the threat of the loss of the most basic thing needed to survive in a modern society; namely and for starters, a job which pays enough (but not always enough) just for food and shelter.<br />
<br />
The things that used to signal the arrival into the middle class - higher education, vacations, and even a little free time to pursue interests outside of two or three part-time jobs - are now available and affordable to fewer and fewer people. All this at a time when taxes are at historic lows, regulation on businesses of all types has been progressively shredded over the last 30 years, the wealth gap is wider than it's been since the Gilded Age, and the federal debt keeps ballooning.<br />
<br />
<br />
When it comes to taxes, the rich and powerful use FUD to make the same argument they always
make: the beneficial tax treatment of these "...asset exchanges
spur investment and help create jobs." They frame the discussion about raising taxes and doing away with loopholes by saying that if they are taken away there will be
less investment and fewer jobs. My response to that argument is pretty consistently this: if that's true then why is unemployment still just under 8% and why isn't the economy growing faster? You rich and powerful people are getting what you want and it's still not enough?<br />
<br />
This is overly simplistic, I know, but I still believe it's a valid stance to take in this argument. It's still a legitimate way to tear down and take back the framing they want to use when it comes to the tax code. If tax breaks like this are so great, then why are we in the terrible state we're in and why aren't the rich and powerful investing more into a recovery? <br /><br />
And when it comes to changing the tax code as a means for helping to reverse the federal government's mounting debt, the discussion must be first and foremost about the sort of code changes like this one that benefit GE and Wells Fargo long before even thinking about code changes such as eliminating mortgage interest deductions.<br />
<br />
It's far past the time to end the corporate welfare system. That must begin with changes to the corporate tax codes. They must pay more, not less. Corporations have already proven they'll adapt and, besides, how much more is left for them to outsource overseas? They've refused to do anything except hold us all hostage through fear of job loss while they sit atop record-setting profits.<br />
<br />
It's time to call their bluff.<br />
<br />
One of the greatest challenges we face for reversing tax codes that benefit only the strong, the wealthy, and the powerful is our ability and willingness to call them out on their FUD strategy and to tell them that, "We're mad as hell and..."Well, you know the rest.<br />
<br />
More than that, our elected officials need to know they can't use FUD on us either. If they have the courage to stand up to big money and the power elite, then they need to know that we will stand with them. We need more people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who seem to actually care about the middle class enough to stand up to Wall Street, big corporations, and the infinitesimally small number of wealthy people in America who already have rigged the system far too long and far too much to their advantage.<br />
<br />
The wealthy aren't doing anything much to help the rest of us, so why should we keep kowtowing to them and their interests? Let's close tax loopholes that benefit large and wealthy corporations. It's a better place to start than with my home mortgage interest deduction.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.house.gov/representatives/" target="_blank">Click here to find your Congressional Representative</a> and tell him/her what you think. It's the only way they'll know.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/" target="_blank">Click here to learn more about and to get involved with Coffee Party USA</a> and the work they're doing to restore our democracy.<br />
<br />
<br />Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-31356263120238232142012-12-18T09:24:00.000-08:002012-12-18T09:24:00.061-08:00"Gang Rush" to Conclusions Without Context<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrVGyU6i-v5gyZxUy_G-dHjTAFw1E_YHxdqwz0fs2tL_zELRR3NAwb6nQXN1swPh3qg9-XaWYmgOOLDkwbKLVz1CICq3Vk007zUMCLW92JlChb5sv4R1OXplGwMe3nLhdzX0-C4WhRpCE/s1600/guns.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrVGyU6i-v5gyZxUy_G-dHjTAFw1E_YHxdqwz0fs2tL_zELRR3NAwb6nQXN1swPh3qg9-XaWYmgOOLDkwbKLVz1CICq3Vk007zUMCLW92JlChb5sv4R1OXplGwMe3nLhdzX0-C4WhRpCE/s320/guns.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A table of illegal firearms confiscated in a large weapons bust in East
Harlem are on display at a press conference on October 12, 2012 in New
York City. (Mario Tama/Getty)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
To anyone ready to jump all over Megan McArdle for suggesting that we teach kids to bum rush shooters: <br />
STOP AND READ <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html" target="_blank">HER ENTIRE BLOG POST</a> FIRST, PLEASE!<br /><br />Caveats: I'm not her fan, friend, follower, or defender. <br />
<br />
I
just think that it's important that with something as emotionally
charged as Newtown and gun violence that we avoid jumping to too many
conclusions about what someone else is supposedly suggesting we do about
it. <br />
<br />
I think that's especially true when all we know
about said suggestion is what someone else has decided to dissect and
share from it. It's too easy for that someone to then, intentionally or
unintentionally, deliver it to us out of context. (Yes, I'm mostly
looking at you, Fox News and all the right-wing mouthpieces, but not
this time. This time it's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/18/newsweeks-megan-mcardle-calls-for-children-to-b/191889" target="_blank">Media Matters</a> using this same strategy.)<br />
<br />
Without
reading the entire post, I think it's impossible to put the presumably
worrisome passage into context. I read the entire post. I came away
convinced this idea of a "gang rush" was meant to reinforce the message
of the rest of her post. <br />
<br />
My conclusion is that she's
of the opinion that in the America we live in today there is little, if
anything, in practical terms that can be done to prevent people from
going on shooting sprees short of an outright ban on all guns, and that
we all know that that is impossible.<br />
<br />
Or, do we?<br />
<br />
Links:<br />
<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html">http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html</a><br />
<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/18/newsweeks-megan-mcardle-calls-for-children-to-b/191889">http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/18/newsweeks-megan-mcardle-calls-for-children-to-b/191889</a><br />
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-19473264457230691722012-12-14T08:11:00.001-08:002012-12-14T08:39:16.315-08:00Right-to-Work and The New Gilded Age<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvYWytftvf2iGOsS-7Ber0BENEONZeHhvCX30ooiqfNKiii2PSolev-Oyi1hc2T5UdnzhEBrHFKxxfHHRj_wmT8xOIP6dR73DqyKcSUUlm4uJz6aW_T-67M7VI7TCcjgUl1AocA1fuM3E/s1600/labor-greed.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvYWytftvf2iGOsS-7Ber0BENEONZeHhvCX30ooiqfNKiii2PSolev-Oyi1hc2T5UdnzhEBrHFKxxfHHRj_wmT8xOIP6dR73DqyKcSUUlm4uJz6aW_T-67M7VI7TCcjgUl1AocA1fuM3E/s320/labor-greed.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(<span class="caption"><span class="photoCredit">Credit: AP Photo/Dave Kolpack)</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Here's a byproduct of the so called Right-To-Work laws I never knew:
besides being a masterful bit of marketing in terms of its labeling,
these laws have helped to move jobs from Northern states to Southern
states and
eventually to cheaper overseas markets.<br />
<br />
In fact, the
more I learn about them, the more I come to understand that they are
anything but a vehicle to ensure anyone's "rights" or that there's work
created by them for anyone. At least not work normally associated with
what we fancifully recall as a middle class lifestyle.<br />
<br />
As the New York Times op-ed piece entitled, "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/opinion/union-power-wanes-in-michigan.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121214" target="_blank">Workers' Paradise Lost</a>" points out, union and non-union workers both benefit when unions are more
powerful and influential. Corporations
once literally had to compete for labor by offering good wages and benefits.<br />
<br />
Anyone
happen to notice, recall, or learn in their rapidly-disappearing civics
classes about the wealth and prosperity the middle class in America
enjoyed after World War II and up to about the late 70s and early 80s?
(Bonus points will be awarded for naming the
B-movie-actor-turned-president who launched the decline in earnest back
then by firing federal union workers and being the willing mouthpiece
and marionette at the end of Alan Greenspan's fingertips.)<br />
<br />
Here's another new fact I learned from the Times op-ed.<br />
<br />
The Taft-Hartley
Act was pushed through in 1947 by "pro-business Republicans and Southern
Democrats" in the immediate wake of the UAW's rise to prominence. This Act was how states in the South and out West
were able to pass right-to-work laws and attract businesses away from their neighbors in northern markets with cheaper
labor. I didn't know how it had gotten started and that it went
back that far.<br />
<br />
And what happened next and when
corporations felt that the labor wasn't cheap enough in the South and
West? What has been happening since the early 80s and as unions have
continued to lose their influence over elected officials,
corporations, and thanks to years of vilifying by corporations and the
GOP, even the influence unions and their members had with their
neighbors? Where did business look for even cheaper
labor? It wasn't on these shores. Labor is and was increasingly
powerless to fight the flight of manufacturing overseas. It's sad when
you consider that they couldn't even get their neighbors to stand with
them to defend those jobs, and that those neighbors all too often are
still jealous of what they perceive to be the largess of being a union
worker.<br />
<br />
(To be sure, we as consumers also have
ourselves to blame, too, for demanding the Walmartification of America
with cheaper and cheaper goods, but that's fodder for its own post.)<br />
<br />
All
of us owe a debt of
gratitude to organized labor for basically forcing corporations to share
the wealth. That's not a dirty or even Socialist expression. Labor is
what brings into being and delivers to market the creativity and genius
of the entrepreneur. One cannot exist without the other. It must be
understood, however, that only one
side has the "accounts receivables" and, hence, control over how
revenues are
distributed. CEOs didn't always make hundreds and even thousands of
times what they pay their workers, and corporate profits overall in
America are at historic highs.<br />
<br />
We also owe a debt to
unions for things we take for
granted today. Things like child labor laws, workplace safety, the
8-hour
workday, the 5-day week, and so much more. When examined purely from the
economic and business perspective, these changes would probably never
have come into being without workers literally dying as part of the
labor movement to win them.<br />
<br />
These are all things worth thinking about
the next time we're tempted to side with trickle down theorists and
defenders of capital - as if they needed us to stick up for them.<br />
<br />
Actually
and come to think of it, maybe they do.<br />
<br />
So long as
they - and let's be candid, "they" are big money, corporations, and most
assuredly the Republican party - are successful at
duping so many of the middle class into believing the "us versus them"
of non-union versus union, we're likely to see the scales continue to
tip away from the middle class and even more toward the wealthy. It's
like something I saw recently on Facebook that said (and I'm
paraphrasing), "Don't be jealous of my union benefits. Demand your own."
I agree with that sentiment.<br />
<br />
The scales of
labor-management are out of balance. I think it's important to
understand whose thumbs are on it and how the scales continue to tip
toward the 1-percenters and big business. If we don't bring the scales
back to the middle then my advice is that we might want to start
thinking up names for this new Gilded Age.Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-55704594752058847782012-12-10T14:54:00.000-08:002012-12-10T14:54:47.303-08:00Right To Work... for LessFor the record, I've spent most of my career in management. I have never belonged to a union. <br />
<br />
I
have, however, become a stronger and stronger supporter of organized
labor the more I read and understand the facts about them and how the
once mighty American middle class came into being, grew, and prospered
primarily and almost exclusively because of organized labor. <br />
<br />
We must be clear on facts. <br />
<br />
The
rise and prosperity of the American middle class had precisely nothing
to do with any generosity or leadership principles of management.
Without the labor movement, there would have been no middle class
because there would have been nothing in it for management and the
shareholders to pay workers decent wages, provide for safe working
conditions, and for companies to have to negotiate some portion of the
wealth generated to be shared back with the workers that made goods and
delivered services.<br />
<br />
The worker-management relationship
is symbiotic, but the movement in this country was been away from
organized labor for decades. Many would trace it back to Reagan and his
treatment of the air traffic controllers. <br />
<br />
Regardless
of when it began, the so-called "righ to work" laws are nothing more
than well-crafted marketing by Big Money and their puppets in state
legislations. It is designed to dupe Americans into believing that such
laws - presumably to give workers the "freedom" or "right to work"
without paying union dues in unionized shops - is what's best for both companies and workers.<br />
<br />
That's absurd. Why should
on employee be allowed to benefit from collective bargaining done by his/her co-workers and yet not have to be required to pay their dues to fund the organization that handles the collective bargaining on behalf of all workers. How is that fair? <br />
<br />
Right-to-work laws are terrible for the middle
class. The only jobs they are likely to create will be those that
are lower paying with fewer hours and fewer benefits. They will not be the kind
of middle class jobs on which anyone can live or raise a family.<br />
<br />
Ask any Walmart worker.Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-73175091360629811442012-12-08T09:59:00.000-08:002012-12-08T11:20:31.420-08:00Note to Christians: Not to Worry, Your Holiday is Safe<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNQm84-M7FFECoqSHvyZqCbxsupFjUQAeu1IJ17fHwBZQrYfJbnOAYo2N_7AKn3XHBCEbsPCk4vHvckBMPlM_ATyMT47qFhVvF01bJ5CTNAJ-wv4OGSJa1Db3MUXryZiV16ePiBeYtA_o/s1600/stained-glass-window-of-nativity.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNQm84-M7FFECoqSHvyZqCbxsupFjUQAeu1IJ17fHwBZQrYfJbnOAYo2N_7AKn3XHBCEbsPCk4vHvckBMPlM_ATyMT47qFhVvF01bJ5CTNAJ-wv4OGSJa1Db3MUXryZiV16ePiBeYtA_o/s320/stained-glass-window-of-nativity.jpg" width="190" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
Today, December 8, 2012, is Bodhi Day which, according to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhi_Day" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a> is, </div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
"...the Buddhist holiday that commemorates the day that the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautauma (Shakyamuni), experienced enlightenment, also known as bodhi in Sanskrit and Pali. According to tradition, Siddhartha had recently forsaken years of extreme ascetic practices and resolved to sit under a peepal tree and simply meditate until he found the root of suffering, and how to liberate oneself from it."</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
So to Buddhists everywhere, I'd like to send my best to you this day and everyday.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">Ok, I admit it. This post and my well-wishes to Buddhists are the result of sheer happenstance. It all started when I read an email from a Christian relative. They are very concerned about the takeover of Christmas by the politically correct apparatchiks hell-bent on taking Christ out of Christmas. The chain email was meant to be sent to everyone, demanding that we stand up to the rest of society and express proudly to everyone (presumably whether they believe in Christ or not) a Merry Christmas. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">That said, and besides not knowing that today is Bodhi Day, I'm supposed to wish everyone a Merry Christmas.</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"> Consider this greeting banked for those who believe until December 25th.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">What I'm curious about now is h</span></span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">ow is it possible in the age of smartphones, ubiquitous wi-fi, and the 24-hour news cycle that I didn't know that today is Bodhi Day? (Not to worry. I'll get to Chanukah in a minute.)</span><br />
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
How's that possible? How can I miss a religious holiday at this time of year when the volume is turned up to what one of my fellow <a href="http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/" target="_blank">Coffee Party</a> friends calls "a Spinal Tap 11" over the fears and concerns that America is losing sight of the religious significance of this time of year?</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
I think I know the answer.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
First, it's my fault. I'm an atheist. I don't pay very much attention to religious holidays, and were it not for Facebook I wouldn't know that today is also significant to Jews and the celebration of Chanukah. So, a sincere Happy Chanukah to Jews everywhere!</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">On top of being an atheist, I was raised by Catholics. These were two of the best and finest people to ever walk the planet, mind you, but they were not of a generation sensitive to multiculturalism. December - and for my father who was raised an Eastern Orthodox Catholic, it was January - meant Christmas and only Christmas. Besides being raised by Catholics, I grew up in an all-white, working class, and, as far as I know to this day, all-Christian enclave in southwestern Pennsylvania.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">As for my public school education, and to the best of my recollection, there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever in the curriculum of any other holiday being celebrated in December besides Christmas. To their credit, we didn't have Nativity displays at school, but I also don't recall any lessons about other world cultures and their holidays. (Happily, educators are paying more attention to this issue nowadays. See <a href="http://www.edutopia.org/blog/december-dilemma-religious-holidays-anne-obrien" target="_blank">"The December Dilemma: Acknowledging Religious Holidays in the Classroom"</a>)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">What else is going on in December and all year and with other religions, you might be asking? </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">Lots.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">One look at this <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/religious-holidays-2012_n_1171749.html" target="_blank">Huffington Post piece on religious holidays for 2012 </a>shows just how much religious celebrating is going on throughout the year for </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">nine of the world's major world religions: Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Paganism, Shinto and Sikhism. (What no Flying Spaghetti Monster?!?) </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">One of the takeaways for me was how many Christian religious holidays there are. They beat their next closest competitor, the Hindus, by more than 2 to 1. Who knew?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Besides winning the race to rack up the most religious holidays, Christians are also unmistakably among the largest religions by membership in the world and<a href="http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0075.pdf" target="_blank"> in America</a>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Given these facts, why do we seem to get treated each year around this same time to so much concern from Christians about their religion and their holiday coming under attack? For me to go merrily along with the chain email and to wish everyone a Merry Christmas may be the statistically correct greeting, but it still might not be right and it does nothing to account for the fact that not everyone is a Christian.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">My advice to Christians is to relax. For now, you are the dominant religion in America. Even </span></span><a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/159050/seven-americans-moderately-religious.aspx" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;" target="_blank">Gallup says</a><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"> we're telling them we're still a religious people and that we're primarily a Christian nation. Please, stop with all the hand-wringing, wailing, gnashing of teeth and chain emails already. You're the majority, no one is attacking you, and pretty much everyone still calls Christmas Christmas. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">You shouldn't think of "Happy Holidays" as an insult or an attack. I can't for the life of me see how it diminishes or detracts one bit from your holiday. Is it so hard to accept that I simply don't believe as you do and yet still want to wish you and everyone around me happiness? Is that so terrible, and w</span></span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">hy are you put off by the fact that I want to be as universal in my well-wishing as possible? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">Ask yourself how you would feel as a Christian if I said Happy Chanukah or Merry Yuletide or Kung Hei Fat Choi. If I know you celebrate Christmas, I'm just as likely to say, "Merry Christmas!" If, however, </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">I choose instead to say, "Happy Holidays," it's not a metaphorical slap in the face (although your prophet would tell you to turn the other cheek). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">What's the problem with Happy Holidays? For me, </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Happy Holidays takes all the risk out possibly insulting or offending the </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">statistically</span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> less likely (and seemingly less emotionally troubled) encounters with Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and even the rare </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Zoroastrianist. You don't hear them complaining.</span><br />
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
Please. Christians. I'm begging you. Take a break this year. At least take a breath. The rest of us in all the minorities who don't believe as you do and who may or may not also be celebrating this time of year are not out to get you or to keep you from celebrating Christmas. All we want to do is wish you happiness.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">Besides, all this complaining from the religion that holds the majority in population and in holidays is really tiresome, tedious, disingenuous, and is flat out spoiling the fun in the holidays - whatever holiday we choose to celebrate - for the rest of us.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
Happy Holidays, One and ALL!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-77395513853232908452012-12-06T08:34:00.002-08:002012-12-06T08:55:06.109-08:00Class Warfare and John Galt; Both are Fiction<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxNSH9eywyykgXb8Z4XOE66AvYxI8Rqmww_-i5dU6kPxsfYQ1YWSFgx_mtZkyurnBdLeN8ojk9orG4uLDG_ob4SxlL_X9BX313r9TAeI6Q8qpwCU0D5JrRtZ_CUjbOPGhv8DPrEQgD5NQ/s1600/Love+Thy+Neighbor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxNSH9eywyykgXb8Z4XOE66AvYxI8Rqmww_-i5dU6kPxsfYQ1YWSFgx_mtZkyurnBdLeN8ojk9orG4uLDG_ob4SxlL_X9BX313r9TAeI6Q8qpwCU0D5JrRtZ_CUjbOPGhv8DPrEQgD5NQ/s320/Love+Thy+Neighbor.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
A recent Facebook post by <a href="http://www.thechristianleft.org/" target="_blank">The Christian Left</a> (image courtesy of that post), sparked some interesting discussion. Some people apparently saw this as a metaphor for Obama acting as a messiah while simultaneously dividing the country with his "class warfare" against the rich.<br />
<br />
<br />
This whole idea of "class warfare" strikes me as being mostly an issue for wealthy conservatives. Even more curious is that it's become a rallying cry for middle class conservatives who feel compelled to rise to the defense of the wealthy and the threat they face from onerous government intervention and taxation.<br />
<br />
Why is that?<br />
<br />
Well, it seems to me that there's no denying that conservative (and GOP) media spokespersons like O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, and that whole crowd are intent on convincing us of the evils of government. Their rhetoric seems focused on protecting their benefactors while simultaneously serving their own greedy self interests by attracting as many eyeballs (and devotees) as possible. Nothing seems to work like some good old hyperbole (devoid to the degree possible of any facts) for riling up the uninformed and for driving wedges between all kinds of people. If it's not the fake (and worn out) War on Christmas, it's the new (and just as fake) Battle Royale between Takers and Makers.<br />
<br />
(And before conservatives accuse me of bias, let me at least come clean and admit to mine. I am proud to call myself a progressive and a liberal. Yes, similar accusations can be made about the hyperbole from left wing personalities, too. However, and to my experience, at least they seem to be defending us little guys with their rhetoric. They don't try to scare us into siding with the wealthy in the hopes that someday the wealthy will shower us with generosity in the form of....what?....jobs at Walmart? Oh, and the so-called "liberal media" actually seem to care about and cite real science and actual facts. Bonus points in my book for that sort of behavior.) <br />
<br />
Conservative spokespeople from Boehner and McConnell on down through Faux (sorry, Fox) News, The Drudge Report, and tea partiers everywhere would have us all believe that if we don't stop hating the wealthy and don't start supporting even more and more concessions - Boehner is actually proposing lowering the tax rates?!? - we're doomed. They seem to actually think - or more likely, want us to believe - that we in the middle class will actually witness a physical manifestation of the disappearance of "job creators" a la John Galt if the middle class comes out on top in this so-called war of the classes.<br />
<br />
In other words, if the middle class triumphs and taxes go up on the wealthy, the wealthy will retreat to points unknown while the rest of us are left standing around wondering from where our next hand out will appear.<br />
<br />
For the record, just because I favor raising taxes on all corporate profits, closing all corporate tax loopholes (especially of the offshore variety), and doing away with subsidies to last century's industries like oil, coal, and natural gas doesn't mean I hate the wealthy. Oh, and I'm not a socialist. (Ok, I admit it. I am a little on issues such as universal health care and higher education, but that's for another post.)<br />
<br />
And, just because I think the Bush Tax cuts for individuals earning over $250K ought to expire and, frankly, those rates ought to go up a little more, also doesn't mean that I hate the wealthy. Hell, I've spent my entire adult life working pretty hard and taking risks with start-ups - including my own; twice! - to try to be among them. Never once has my tax rate come into the thought process that went into those decisions. Never once have I met a true entrepreneur who said that taxes - especially of the personal income variety - were part of their decision making process for starting a business.<br />
<br />
There is no class warfare. It's imaginary, just like that fictional character in that novel written by a Russian atheist who didn't know you-know-what from Shinola when it came to economics. There's nothing to be afraid about. The wealthy are not going to take their marbles and go home if their taxes go up. They aren't going to curl into fetal positions on beach chairs somewhere and wallow in their hatred of government. They'll do what they do best; find ways to create more wealth for themselves.<br />
<br />
As for those CEOs and business owners who want to make a statement by laying people off or closing up operations because their taxes are too high, I say this. Either they aren't very bright, they aren't really entrepreneurs, or they are liars. Only a foolish business person would take such actions if the business was doing well. Business people don't just walk away from their business. At the very least, they sell it so they can go someplace sunny the rest of their lives and enjoy their prosperity. I hope to join them one day, so long as it's not as the old guy bringing them fresh towels and cold drinks.<br />
<br />
It takes a thriving and prospering middle class to be a thriving and prosperous economy. This is why I'm so absolutely astounded by anyone who isn't making $250K or more who identifies themselves with the GOP and supports the likes of Boehner, Ryan, Cantor, McConnell and that crowd. Here's why I say that.<br />
<br />
Businesses cannot survive and thrive without customers. Without a strong and consuming middle class, there is no market, businesses won't prosper, and business people can't make as much money. Smart politicians and business people understand this, and history has proven that the middle class needs more than some "trickle" coming down from on high in order to grow. Ask the medieval kings how that whole serfdom thing worked for them.<br />
<br />
Today, it's not class warfare. It's not warfare of any kind. It's ethics and arithmetic. The wealthy are not paying their fair share. That's the arithmetic. More than that are the ethics. The wealthy are not paying enough back to society. It's our society and how economics within it operates, after all, that gives them the environment in which to create, function, and prosper. (No, conservatives, business did not build that.) The wealthy owe a debt back to our society paid in the form of taxes in order to keep our society functioning for this generation of all people and for the next generation of entrepreneurs.<br />
<br />
I think that it's childish, silly, and dangerous for us to believe that Big Money isn't pulling the strings in DC. Let's not kid ourselves about which strings they have more of and pull more often. It's the self-appointed defenders of business. It's the GOP.<br />
<br />
That said, this "war" being waged over taxes on the wealthy and the possibility that they will therefore refuse to magically create jobs if their taxes go up is even sillier and more dangerous. We need to be more mature in our thinking when it comes to politics, policies, regulations, laws, and tax codes that are more progressive and which move to ensure the majority of Americans are not back in the conditions that most average people endured in the Gilded Age.<br />
<br />
My grandparents came to America in the great immigration of the early 20th century. My parents were born in America in 1915 and 1925. They told vivid and disturbing stories of what it was like to live under the boot heal of unregulated, under taxed, and wildly powerful Big Money corporations back then. Why today's middle class thinks we need to return to tax policies and regulatory environments that even come close to those days is beyond my comprehension.<br />
<br />
So, I wonder what it will take to get the dwindling middle class in the GOP to stop voting against their own economic self interest?<br />
<br />
I wonder if the GOP will ever stop trying to sell us on the fallacy of trickle down economics, and I wonder how many more times we will need to see that economic theory proven wrong before we shunt politicians who espouse it to the sidelines where they belong?<br />
<br />
My advice is simple. Let's do the math, do what's right, and put ourselves back on a track toward recovery for the vast majority, not the privileged few. Let's stop pretending that there's a war between the classes, and let's stop believing in fiction as a basis for an economy.<br />
<br />Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-25705192907255417242012-12-02T12:41:00.001-08:002012-12-02T12:41:59.589-08:00The Invisible Hand Wants More Hand Outs<br />
The New York Times published an article on December 1 titled <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corporations.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121202" target="_blank">As Companies Seek Tax Deals, Governments Pay High Price</a>.<br />
<br />
It ought to disturb everyone who isn't in the 1%. To begin with, it should have been "Citizens" instead of "Government" as we're the ones who pay the price.<br />
<br />
We should all be disturbed by the amount of public money being extorted by companies from all levels of government. They can do this, in my opinion, because we let them.<br />
<br />
How do we let them? I think it begins with the fact that too many of our fellow citizens are quaffing copious amounts the Randian Kool-Aid-turned-Tea-Party-tea that's being served up so generously by the high priests and priestesses who worship The Invisible Hand from inside the GOP, from within their broadcasting company, Fox, their newspaper publisher, The Wall Street Journal, and from all the their faithful followers.<br />
<br />
It seems clear to me that big money, politics, and business have combined into a force the likes of which none of us has seen in our lifetimes. The level of concentrated wealth and power is all but incomprehensible (who among us really understands what a trillion dollars is?), and we and our progeny will be the ones who pay the tab when The Invisible Hand brings it to our table for all the blind, willful, and excessive drinking we're doing now.<br />
<br />
I do believe there's something we can do about it.<br />
<br />
I think it starts by voting for progressive people who will truly represent ordinary citizens and then demanding real representation and leadership from those elected officials; from city councils on up through the president.<br />
<br />
I also think we citizens need to present calm, rational, and most of all, vocal objection about the imbalance, inequity, and unfairness to each other and to our elected officials. They do, after all, work for us. It's incumbent on us as citizens to hold them accountable. They need to know that we're not going to tolerate - or vote for them - if they continue to offer sweetheart deals to so-called "job creators" who don't create jobs and who, in the end, only bankrupt us and our governments.<br />
<br />
Could it be that part of the reason governments at all levels can't balance budgets includes expenditures like the $80 billion (yes, billion with a 'b', as in bull****) a year that's being given away in incentives? If these incentives are so effective, shouldn't we be asking corporations (and mostly the big ones) where are the jobs?<br />
<br />
(Let me hasten to say at this point that I have nothing against corporations, profits, or wealth. I don't begrudge anyone their hard-earned and honestly-achieved wealth. I'm not a socialist (ok, maybe I am just a little), and I'm certainly not a fascist or a communist. I'm registered non-partisan, have never held elected office, and have never been in a union. As of today, I'm an unemployed sales and marketing executive who wants to work and who cares enough about how this impacts his family, his neighbors, our society to take time from job searching to post this.)<br />
<br />
Make no mistake. Politicians are just as culpable as corporations in this mess.<br />
<br />
As this NYT article points out, politicians tend to be weak negotiators who have the unenviable task of having to convince us in the simplest terms and most expeditious way possible every few years to reelect them back into their jobs. Some (and for the more jaded among us, maybe most) politicians seem to behave in such a way most of the time as to convince us that they'll say and do just about anything to win their jobs back.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that they will do a deal - even bad deals - with a corporation just to stake the claim to have brought jobs to their constituents? It is worth wondering about only if we don't pay attention to the deals they're cutting and then don't hold them accountable to what we value in addition to a job.<br />
<br />
And therein rest their defense for their actions. We don't pay attention, we stay silent, and we seem willing to accept any condition so long as there's the promise of employment.<br />
<br />
Politicians know that we seem, on the whole, to not pay very much attention. They know lots of us can be pretty easily duped into believing almost anything. What other explanation is there for the viewership of Fox News and movements like the Tea Party, birtherism, and climate science deniers?<br />
<br />
Politicians can remain confident that we'll be too distracted by The Walking Dead, Dancing With The Stars, and the latest South Korean music video on YouTube to pay attention to what they're doing. They know most of us will keep getting our information from the talking heads screeching the loudest at us from inside our self-imposed information bubbles. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Fox News viewers.)<br />
<br />
Most of us can be counted on to look at the so-called collaboration between government and corporations through a short-term lens, and to then heap praise (and votes) upon our elected officials for ostensibly working in partnership with the private sector to create new jobs.<br />
<br />
The irony is this.<br />
<br />
The Invisible Hand of the free market isn't concerned with real partnership. It's about winners and losers. That cannot be what's best in these "partnerships" between private companies and the public sector. Just consider these factors:<br />
1. There are no contractual and legally binding obligations on the part of the corporation, and there's no recourse to recover our "investments" should the venture fail<br />
2. There's no assurance as to if and when those jobs will actually materialize<br />
3. There are no promises that any job will actually pay a living wage or how long it will last<br />
4. There appears to be little scrutiny of the corporation's past behaviors or results in these matters<br />
5. No one seems to be examining or considering if the facts and evidence show whether or not those jobs would have been created without the incentive<br />
<br />
And, since when did The Invisible Hand need incentives from government?<br />
<br />
To compound the challenges and as the New York Times article points out, elected officials are ill-equipped to negotiate. They are basically held hostage by corporations. We go on about our lives oblivious to the tabs our politicians are running up for us and what could have been done with those corporate welfare funds.<br />
<br />
<i> "<span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">The practical consequences can be easily seen. The </span><a href="http://www.manhattan-institute.org/" style="background-color: white; color: #004276; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">Manhattan Institute for Policy Research</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;">, a conservative group, found that the amount New York spends on film credits every year equals the cost of hiring 5,000 public-school teachers."</span></i><br />
<br />
<br />
I understand and, yes, even appreciate and applaud the basic tenants of capitalism. I understand that corporations have an obligation to shareholders first and foremost. I don't deny nor argue that they ought not to consider and pursue the deals that are best for them and their shareholders. The problem I have is when those decisions about how best to maximize profit are made without concern for the moral, ethical, and economic consequences to us as citizens and to society at large. Profit cannot and should not be the only consideration by people who run companies. We're all in this together.<br />
<br />
Again, it's not only corporations at fault. They have a duplicitous partner in this dance.<br />
<br />
Ill-equipped and out-matched government officials not only are manipulated by corporations they are actually competing with one another to see who can give away the most money to attract the corporations.<br />
<br />
Think about that. Our elected officials are negotiating against each other to see who can "win the business" with corporations by giving away the most money - our money - while they get nothing that's legally binding in return.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i> A group of taxpayers in Michigan and Ohio went as far as suing DaimlerChrysler after Ohio and the City of Toledo awarded the automaker $280 million in the late 1990s. The suit argued that it was unfair for one taxpayer to be given a break at the expense of all others.</i><br />
<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i> The suit made its way to the Supreme Court, and G.M. and Ford signed on to briefs supporting Daimler, as did local governments. The National Governors Association warned the court that prohibiting incentives could lead to jobs moving overseas. “This is the economic reality,” the association said in a brief.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i> The governors offered no hard evidence of the effectiveness of tax credits, but the Supreme Court did not consider whether they worked anyway. In 2006, the court concluded that the taxpayers did not have the legal standing to challenge Ohio’s tax actions in federal court.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
There's only one way this can go under current circumstances. Unchecked and unchanged, the bidding will be won by whatever community is willing to give away the most with almost nothing assured in return. And, whose money is it? Yours and mine.<br />
<br />
I don't claim to understand every detail and all the nuance. What I clearly don't understand is all the anger and rancor coming from anyone outside the 1% in America about the role of government. They seem intent on allowing themselves to be guided by what they perceive to be the benefits of The Invisible Hand and all that will trickle down to them. Is there another explanation for why some of us appear to have elevated corporations to some pretty lofty status while simultaneously vilifying government at all levels?<br />
<br />
It makes wonder how it is that so many people who claim to want smaller government and cuts to social programs seem to be the very same people who....<br />
<br />
...Rail against today's tax rates - which are at historic lows - but don't complain about their tax dollars subsidizing corporations<br />
<br />
...Complain about their tax dollars being spent on social programs that benefit the so-called "takers" at a time when unemployment is still too high, the wealth gap is at levels not seen since the Gilded Age of the robber barons, corporations are enjoying record profits while they get more and more government handouts, and yet those magnanimous "job creators" don't seem to be creating many jobs<br />
<br />
...Despite corporate welfare, believe that government interferes too much with business despite the fact that regulatory bogeymen like the SEC and EPA have been progressively stripped of their oversight authority<br />
<br />
<br />
Why isn't there more outrage about corporate welfare from the people who so strongly believe in free market forces and less government?<br />
<br />
And, why aren't all citizens demanding that our elected officials work on and pass legislation to simplify THOSE tax codes first so that corporations pay their fair share like the rest of us?<br />
<br />
After all, aren't corporations and the people who work for them part of the society in which we all live?<br />
<br />
Don't employees, managers, stakeholders, customers, and suppliers all benefit from a government that educates our children, is responsible for public safety, infrastructure, and the like?<br />
<br />
(And by the way, no, you corporations did NOT build public education, infrastructure, police forces, fire stations, etc. Good thing, too.)<br />
<br />
So, the over-arching question I'm asking is this. What's with all this requirement (extortion, really) for tax breaks and incentives to be given to corporations in order for them to compete?<br />
<br />
Isn't The Invisible Hand enough.....or can't they make it without hand outs?<br />
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-69554750776704068672012-11-14T16:26:00.002-08:002012-11-14T16:26:50.274-08:00The Republican Party's Brand Appeal, or Lack Thereof<br />
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhMxCENyM-gjTuN9YIjIfbPK21xaXBvfdvjDYm9Uj-CkM-FexM-79AA6yiabQUr0W6wyJ3jJkbbhiCHrVsLLLy2ErLe2wArCvu5gHKy2UlMnPhZQfAqFj_S76vQeWsXmwuJWhMT50by6k/s1600/GOP+Brand.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhMxCENyM-gjTuN9YIjIfbPK21xaXBvfdvjDYm9Uj-CkM-FexM-79AA6yiabQUr0W6wyJ3jJkbbhiCHrVsLLLy2ErLe2wArCvu5gHKy2UlMnPhZQfAqFj_S76vQeWsXmwuJWhMT50by6k/s320/GOP+Brand.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
"Just think if those Frosted Flakes brand gurus felt that the problem with selling their cereal to diabetics was one of semantics, not sugar, or that customers' inability to afford boxes of the stuff was simply the free market in action. What if the company did things to limit who could hope to buy its products, or found ways to punish customers who didn't. How about if it envisioned a radically new idea of what breakfast meant entirely, including where, when and by whom it would be eaten (and claimed it was the only way breakfast could survive as an institution), only there were other solutions to changing breakfast, and everybody knew about them." - <a href="http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/time-republicans-write-a-brand/238263/" target="_blank">Jonathan Salem Baskin, AdAge</a></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
As the paragraph in the AdAge article which precedes the above excerpt points out, "selling products instead of meeting consumer needs" is a predictable path to failure. It’s true for cereal and for politicians.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Republicans in this cycle clearly chose a losing branding and marketing strategy. They branded themselves and their solutions to appeal only to those who were already sold on their ideas. To compound their problems, they then made no attempts to do anything but alienate anyone who wasn’t already sold. How in the world is that supposed to attract new “customers” to their party?</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
It now seems pretty clear that, along with a deficient "product" in terms of policy positions, the other really big failure came from the decision about whom they chose as their core target market - the ultra-conservative, neo-libertarian, and mostly low-information white male voter. I’m not trying to be unkind with the “low-information” description. I’m simply basing that on the amount of shock and surprise that seems to have overwhelmed all the GOP-supporting media outlets like Fox, AM talk radio, and even the so-called strategists like Mr. Rove. As for the “white male” component, those numbers are easily confirmed at sources like <a href="http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Assuming that their core target market is the non-Hispanic white (and more male than female) voter, their core target market is also too narrowly defined, too small in shear numbers, and insufficiently interested in and motivated by their product to have won big in this election. By all accounts with which I’m familiar, and if the trends hold true into the future, the non-Hispanic white market is also going to be a shrinking market. This gives the current GOP strategy even greater appearance as being on the path toward even greater losses in the future.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
“The non-Hispanic white population will increase more slowly than other racial and ethnic groups; whites will become a minority (47%) by 2050.” (<a href="http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/" target="_blank">Pew Research Center, U.S. Population Projections: 2005-2050, February 11, 2008</a>) </div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
It will be interesting to watch what evidence there will be about precisely what the GOP leadership has learned from this election. I’m pretty skeptical about what that will be. McConnell already <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324894104578109000926531558.html" target="_blank">sounds as intransigent as ever</a>, and I have almost no expectation that Boehner actually has the courage to distance himself and the rest of the House from <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/09/boehner-we-dont-have-a-tea-party-caucus-to-speak-of-in-the-house/#ixzz2BpU6A7K2" target="_blank">the tea party caucus</a>.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
To be sure, the post-election landscape is only beginning to take shape. Still, I wonder who the more rational heads are within the GOP?</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Yes, Huntsman gets some well-deserved attention as a likely candidate to help lead the GOP back toward a more reasonably-defined center, but he’s currently unemployed, as it were. He also doesn’t seem to me to fit the current mold of a party that inexplicably is willing to give their stage over to the likes of Cain, Bachmann, and Perry as presidential candidates. (Side note: Kudos to the GOP for having the good sense to ostracize Palin and recognize George W. Bush as a marketing liability.)</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Without some dramatic and immediate changes, I suspect that the GOP - with the help of Fox, talk radio, and the Sheldon Adelsons of the world - will continue to pursue a strategy based more on spin and deception than on facts and reality. All that said and as much rancor and entrenchment as there seems to be these days, I'm cautiously optimistic.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
I’m optimistic that concerned citizens like those involved with the Coffee Party (<a href="http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/">http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/</a>) will keep taking the time to separate fact from fiction. I’m optimistic that they’ll take the time to try to influence the public discussion about the real problems and challenges facing our society and the world at large, as well as what the options are for addressing them in everyone’s best interest.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
I'm even more optimistic about the generation of 20-somethings coming up behind us. Speaking from first-hand experience as the proud father of two 20-somethings, they aren't nearly so gullible and easily duped as our generation (or at least a significant portion of us) seems to be. I only hope we don’t end up leaving messes so big even they can’t clean them up.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
It’s important for all of us to take the time to inform ourselves, to ask those to whom we listen or elect to back up their statements and positions with facts, and to be willing to compromise but only to the degree that such a compromise will serve the greatest good.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
As for the Republican party, my advice is the same that <a href="http://youtu.be/IUzWqjFsQkA" target="_blank">Hal Ziegler offered</a> just before his passing: real leaders within the GOP better start rising up to loudly and proudly call their colleagues out when they are being ideologues, especially when that ideology isn’t rational, truthful, or anything except obstructionist. And, they better hurry. Their party, to borrow a word from Mr. Rove’s fundraising efforts, really seems to be at a crossroads.</div>
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-17921398613629207892012-09-16T09:30:00.000-07:002012-09-16T09:30:20.332-07:00Voter ID Laws Are Unwarranted<br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Our polling place here "in the sticks" requires me to sign a book next to my name and all the signatures I've made over the years ostensibly so that a poll worker can confirm it. Not sure how long that system has been the norm, but it's basically all I've ever known. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Even that bastion of liberal journalism, the WSJ, published the same data I've read in other places. 10 cases of voter impersonation since 2000. Ten. (<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577621732936167586.html">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577621732936167586.html</a>) </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Were there more? Undoubtedly. In a perfect world, we'd have zero impersonation but we don't live in a perfect world. 10 cases in 12 years sounds to me to be statistically zero. I think we have bigger problems to solve than this one. After all, the evidence points to a reasonable conclusion that we seem to have been collectively behaving ourselves in the voting booths. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Voter ID laws strike me as one of those "intrusions into our lives and a waste of taxpayer dollars" that is always part of the rallying call from conservatives. It strikes me as completely antithetical to the principles of smaller government and less waste. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Anyway, this all got started when I decided to try and figure out what I would have to do if I didn't have a driver's license. First obstacle: what if I was poor(er), didn't have Internet access, or lived way out in the country? Not sure how I would go about even finding out what to do. I guess I'd start with the mayor's office to see if they could point me to the local elections officials. Make a bunch of phone calls. Leave messages. Hope to get a call back. Find someone to give me a ride, etc. etc. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The simplest of the possibilities I looked at was what if I had had a driver's license that expired more than 1 year ago but after 1990. In that case, and if I could find a way to get to a PennDOT office, I could get a free photo ID without any other documentation. (That seems to be the simplest possibility, but does nothing for someone who has never had a license.) I still have to find a way to get there. We all know they aren't located on every corner or open outside the normal work day. So, now I have to locate the nearest office, check bus schedules or find a ride, take time off work, maybe ask someone else to take time off their job......I could go on and on, but this is way too long already. Not very simple.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">IMHO, it's a solution looking for a problem. All I think that it will accomplish is to deter certain voters who, as the data shows, are not breaking any laws today by impersonating others on election day. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Fox reports that nearly 759,000 PA voters don't have the required ID. Barely 1% have so far received the free ID. (<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/13/pennsylvania-supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-voter-id-law/">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/13/pennsylvania-supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-voter-id-law/</a>) Why is that? Could it be that it's because it's not so simple? That's the conclusion I've come to after looking at the <a href="http://www.state.pa.us/" target="_blank">state's own web site</a>.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I'm convinced that this whole effort is meant to disenfranchise certain voters. Plain and simple. Mathematically and legally, there is no problem here that needs solving. Voter impersonation simply does not exist. Putting that aside (although I don't know why we should) what the "Postpone" post (</span><a href="http://signon.org/sign/postpone-pa-voter-id.fb23?source=s.icn.fb&r_by=48422">http://signon.org/sign/postpone-pa-voter-id.fb23?source=s.icn.fb&r_by=48422</a>) <span style="font-family: Arial;">is saying is let's postpone the voter ID law until after the election. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If we're going to put this law into place while the data proves there is no problem, can't it wait so that 759,000 voters in PA who aren't breaking any laws today can still vote this year without the photo ID they've never had to have before? </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Don't we owe it to all the people who aren't breaking any laws to be able to exercise their most valuable freedom and civic responsibility? </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">Why would we want to make that harder when there is no impersonation? </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">My personal opinion is that this a law that is completely unwarranted, totally motivated by partisan politics, and never should have been passed. It spends money we don't have in the state coffers, is an onerous and burdensome intrusion into innocent lives, is meant to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist, and is completely contrary to some principles of conservatism as far as I understand them.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Then again, maybe it's a good thing. It starts to look like a government jobs program. Someone has to take all those new pictures!!</span></div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-34542474546424311802012-08-31T18:17:00.000-07:002012-08-31T18:18:11.977-07:00We do start from third base...<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px;">...it's why I never could and still can't understand all the whining and complaining.</span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXeKrbtMz2M">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXeKrbtMz2M</a>
<br />
<br />Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-26728151252900554512012-08-12T17:02:00.001-07:002012-08-12T17:39:14.501-07:00What is Romney Hiding?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnhM3VB7Oqcqp7EWzt6mFZ3ZqzvF_Jo7lkUTidX1TXQ3srDl0plXUttlhYYfXrzIabWEHG6o4UrrfEsD-dAOKS8Ha0CTPALfYojPPZufr5cZ35Cc7sxFb758p45eCkJ1G2rYBbsP6G0rE/s1600/120718024127-kleinbard-romney-tax-story-top.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnhM3VB7Oqcqp7EWzt6mFZ3ZqzvF_Jo7lkUTidX1TXQ3srDl0plXUttlhYYfXrzIabWEHG6o4UrrfEsD-dAOKS8Ha0CTPALfYojPPZufr5cZ35Cc7sxFb758p45eCkJ1G2rYBbsP6G0rE/s320/120718024127-kleinbard-romney-tax-story-top.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/opinion/kleinbard-canellos-romney-tax/index.html?hpt=hp_t1">http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/opinion/kleinbard-canellos-romney-tax/index.html?hpt=hp_t1</a>
<br />
<br />
I don't understand why he's refusing to release more tax returns unless what they reveal is worse than the price he's paying and will keep paying for his reluctance to do what every other candidate has done starting with his own father.<br />
<br />Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-9239023950041090002012-08-10T06:53:00.001-07:002012-08-12T17:37:58.199-07:00Romney's Impossible Tax Promise (via FactCheck.org)"<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px;">Tax experts - including one who supports Romney's plan - say the Republican presidential candidate's promise to cut individual income tax rates without either favoring the wealthy or losing revenue isn't mathematically possible."</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/">http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/</a>Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-63664622750853620382012-04-14T06:01:00.000-07:002012-08-12T17:42:28.266-07:00<h1 class="notranslate">
The Fox Effect by Media Matters for America, David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt (Excerpt)</h1>
<span class="truncated_text">
<span class="truncated_long">
<span class="notranslate">Based on the meticulous research of
the news watchdog organization Media Matters for America, David Brock
and Ari Rabin-Havt show how Fox News, under its president Roger Ailes,
changed from a right-leaning news network into a partisan advocate for
the Republican Party</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="truncated_text"><span class="truncated_long"><span class="notranslate"><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/81739775/The-Fox-Effect-by-Media-Matters-for-America-David-Brock-and-Ari-Rabin-Havt-Excerpt" target="_blank">http://www.scribd.com/doc/81739775/The-Fox-Effect-by-Media-Matters-for-America-David-Brock-and-Ari-Rabin-Havt-Excerpt </a></span></span></span>Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-33607505695982889782011-12-17T17:39:00.000-08:002011-12-17T18:05:59.649-08:00The World Could Use More Christians Like Mark Sandlin"Whatever the reason, the perspective in these clobber verses were based on an understanding of sex and sexuality that was just as misinformed as their understanding of the earth in relationship to the sun, of fish, of pork and of reasons for stoning children. In our scientific age, it is time to let go of archaic perspectives and start recognizing the things that are truly an abomination in the eyes of God: lacking in compassion and love, exercising judgment against others, and practicing and encouraging hate." <br /><br /><br />Read Minister Sandlins' entire blog post, Clobbering "Biblical" Gay Bashing, at <a href="http://www.thegodarticle.com/7/post/2011/10/clobbering-biblical-gay-bashing.html">http://www.thegodarticle.com/7/post/2011/10/clobbering-biblical-gay-bashing.html</a>Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-83074454078169066882011-12-08T14:13:00.000-08:002011-12-08T17:55:50.547-08:00Perry's Bigoted Christian Ad<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxD39yU9C0xrklkyxKfp8jWxsiEdr55bSj8LF1hOxMsibLFjxFgRbSthNw3O238bylg3isaLJBAwNxFVppoZnntbBzIKPxTsaDgqT45QGavF_1AujsdAfHfZxXoonjOqCYhoXYguETRcQ/s1600/Texas-Observer.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 389px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxD39yU9C0xrklkyxKfp8jWxsiEdr55bSj8LF1hOxMsibLFjxFgRbSthNw3O238bylg3isaLJBAwNxFVppoZnntbBzIKPxTsaDgqT45QGavF_1AujsdAfHfZxXoonjOqCYhoXYguETRcQ/s400/Texas-Observer.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5683886924123229698" /></a><br /><br /><br />I couldn't believe this was real when I saw it. <br /><br /><a href="http://youtu.be/3K1o78mQjYU">http://youtu.be/3K1o78mQjYU</a><br /><br />Maybe I can get the conversation started by asking some questions based exactly on the things he says.<br /><br />1. What is so wrong with gays serving openly in the military?<br />Have we been attacked since repeal of DADT? Have their been mass resignations? Are the well-armed and well-trained gays suddenly forcing straight servicemen and women to engage in homosexual acts at gun point? <br /><br />How about we all grow up on this question and stop acting like sex is the only thing that matters or that it's anyone's business but the people involved?<br /><br /><br />2. Who is keeping anyone from celebrating Christmas openly?<br />I haven't seen any jack-booted Obamanators rounding up and burning Christmas trees. Christians just seem to be acting like selfish children (again) by not acknowledging that theirs is NOT the only holiday being celebrated at this time of year.<br /><br />Besides, this whole "season" is mostly about commerce.<br /><br /><br />3. Prayer in school is a resolved issue. <br />It flies in the face of separation of church and state. Everyone knows that. If you want your kid to pray in school, send him to a private school that allows open prayer, be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or whatever. <br /><br />How come you never hear Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or Druids or whatever whining about this?<br /><br /><br />4. Obama's war on religion? <br />What war? Where? Against whom? Being waged how? Everyone knows what he's implying here: that scary half-black Barack HUSSEIN Obama is really a Muslim, and we all know what that leads to next, right? <br /><br />Yep. The birth certificate.<br /><br /><br />5. What Liberal attacks against religious heritage? <br />No one I know denies the role religion has played in our cultural and national development. <br /><br />In fact, we liberals seem to be the ones who have to keep reminding people like Perry about that pesky First Amendment to the Constitution.<br /><br /><br />Look, I get it. Everyone gets it. Faith plays an important role in many people's lives. There's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong, IMHO, is the endless attempts by zealous Christians at rewriting history to somehow claim that it was because we were and are a predominantly Christian nation as the only reason we grew strong as nation and now is how we can somehow regain whatever it is they claim we've supposedly lost.<br /><br />This ad is just another example of incredibly irresponsible and erroneous hyperbole meant to rile up a segment of the GOP base. It makes me roll my eyes in wonder at what in the world has happened to the GOP and how it is that rational Republicans aren't outraged by Perry. <br /><br />In my book, the only thing separating a guy like this and a mullah in the tribal regions of Afghanistan is which "flavor" of monotheism he wants to see become the law of the land....at any cost.Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-58720251364235670652011-11-18T11:32:00.000-08:002011-11-18T11:32:59.958-08:00Open Letter to that 53% Guy<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/12/1025555/-Open-Letter-to-that-53-Guy">Open Letter to that 53% Guy</a>Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-35063702630799433022011-11-11T23:22:00.000-08:002011-12-15T08:05:26.992-08:00PSU, Paterno, and Pedophilia. How I see it<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw1_It1rYv8um7kaLU2dbBeE9SWsmEEjYnodUQ-oolTzujalL9C9t44D1FS7LPV-1SqCm218wEHlYCPmdQUxMeSEa6R-yMCu_lmS5FYPDOc00aKmu9KIfWlzMEBOo_EYb0lSiJdEUBigI/s1600/jerry_sandusky.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 360px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw1_It1rYv8um7kaLU2dbBeE9SWsmEEjYnodUQ-oolTzujalL9C9t44D1FS7LPV-1SqCm218wEHlYCPmdQUxMeSEa6R-yMCu_lmS5FYPDOc00aKmu9KIfWlzMEBOo_EYb0lSiJdEUBigI/s400/jerry_sandusky.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5674007431959192882" /></a><br />This is a sad, shameful, and completely unforgivable chapter in PSU's history. It's already not looking good for Paterno. No one is above the law, and any concerns about "JoePa" and how he's being treated is ridiculous, shallow, and empty. He's already admitted that he was told what Sandusky was doing to those kids. Reporting it to the AD? Please. For all intents and purposes, he did nothing. There can be no forgiveness for Sandusky's heinous acts or for Paterno for being part of the culture that swept it under the rug. That includes McQueary, at the time a 28-year old grown man.<br /> <br />To the PSU students "protesting" Paterno's firing, I say this: You are an embarrassment. Your only defense is the ignorance of youth. You will look back on this one day and wonder what you were thinking.<br /><br />As for the current players, I'm sorry but IMHO the rest of the football season should be canceled. You should be men about this and accept that this is the only right and honorable thing to do. If the season isn't canceled, you should have the morality and strength of character to quit the team. That is what the person we all thought Paterno was would have wanted - would have expected - you to do.<br /><br />As for Paterno, all the "good" you have ever done cannot make up for this. Your name and likeness needs to be forever erased from every plaque, building and likeness on campus.<br /><br />The Grand Jury's report can be read <a href="http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf">here</a>.<br /><br />Class of '82Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-70920754678750946642011-10-30T08:32:00.000-07:002011-10-30T09:29:30.151-07:00When 1% is Bigger than 99%<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitq453II2-x8_UcNGXelvlg4sHFC65vDYx5KLBnETP10JRYkaaGY7kqNpolUsOGRrtaNqIp74dDE3LeozWdpOfgKFqR83c7R_TFGhHNBIe6aeQe9Eo-2WY7W4fYu_g4izqM3JEhv5nr7o/s1600/occupy-wall-street.bmp"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 225px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitq453II2-x8_UcNGXelvlg4sHFC65vDYx5KLBnETP10JRYkaaGY7kqNpolUsOGRrtaNqIp74dDE3LeozWdpOfgKFqR83c7R_TFGhHNBIe6aeQe9Eo-2WY7W4fYu_g4izqM3JEhv5nr7o/s400/occupy-wall-street.bmp" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5669320549435505634" /></a><br />What I love most about stats and math is that they are apolitical (or at least they used to be). They care not for party affiliation, for whom you vote, or where you get your news.<br /><br />To wit.....<br />....If your household income isn't at least $386,000 a year you're in the 99%, not the 1%<br />....14,000 American families make up the top 0.01% and AVERAGE $31million a year<br /><br />0.01% is 1 out of every 10,000 families. They earn 5%, or 5 out of every 100 dollars, of all income earned in America. That leaves the other 95 to be split up among the remaining 131,986,000 American households(1).<br /><br />Is it any wonder poverty in America is now at 14.3%(2)? That's 14 out of every 100 people. 14% is just over 2 out of the 17 people listed in the To: field of the original email from which this post was created. Think about that. 2 people out of every group this size in America lives in poverty. Not working poor. Not middle class. Not having to sacrifice that European vacation or third car in the driveway this year. Not cutting back on eating out or trading in filet mignon for ground chuck at the grocery store.<br /><br />Poverty.<br /><br />What is poverty? Poverty defined for a family of 4 is earning $22,314/year(3). That's $10.72/hour if it's full-time work; 40 hours a week, 2080 hours a year, at $10.72 per hour.<br /><br />The second largest single employer in the U.S. (behind the federal government which, btw, includes everyone in the military before anyone starts ranting about the size of government) is, you guessed it, Wal-Mart. Average employee take home pay at Wal-Mart is $250 a week, or $13,000 a year if they actually work all 52 weeks. Wal-Mart's "full-time" employees average $6 - $7.50 an hour for working 28 - 40 hour weeks(4)<br /><br />The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour(5).<br /><br />Am I the only one who thinks it's madness for companies to be required by law to pay $3.50 an hour LESS than the poverty rate?<br /><br />I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. I am not a communist.<br /><br />I'm all for a strong, vibrant, and sustainably-consuming middle class because we are the true engine of the economy. Without us, there are no markets to whom corporations can sell their goods and services, make a profit, and create more wealth for themselves and their shareholders. I am perfectly fine with that.<br /><br />Something has gone terribly wrong, though, over the last 30 years or so and we need to get back to what we know works.<br /><br />I'm no big devotee, but for all his faults and his anti-union stance Henry Ford seemed to understand how things could work for himself, his company, and his workers. He knew that in order to build a big, successful company he had to:<br />a) build a product people would want,<br />b) price that product (based on cost and a reasonable profit) so enough people could actually afford to buy it and,<br />c) create a big enough and sustainable market to buy his cars, partly by paying his workers enough to actually buy the damned things.<br /><br />Like I said, there's a lot about Ford's business methods I don't like, but what confuses me now is how we seem to be living in an age when some of us in the middle class have forgotten this "symbiotic" reality between producing goods and services that markets want and can afford versus how much the people at the top want to earn from that buying and selling.<br /><br />In other words, without all of us in the 99% underneath the 1% from where is their wealth supposed to come?<br /><br />Oh, yeah. Wait. That's right.<br /><br />Their wealth can still come from record-level profits derived at least in part from continuing to outsource what we used to call middle class jobs to the absolute cheapest overseas labor markets. The government isn't forcing them to do that. In fact, "free trade agreements" help to facilitate that. It's a P&L decision made easier by government removing regulation.<br /><br />If that's not enough, their wealth can still come from duping some of us into believing that what we need to do is elect people who will bring "certainty" to their business, as if that's ever supposed to be a component of a free market and capitalism. Exactly how does government provide certainty to those poor, abused, and fearful titans of industry and commerce? I thought government was supposed to get out of their way, not do things for them?<br /><br />From what we're being told by one party in particular (and only to a lesser degree by the other), certainty would come if only the following could be realized:<br /><br />1) Deregulation<br />If corporations - and especially the financial services sector - were utterly and completely deregulated, the economy would just grow like crazy because who needs a watchdog when you have the "invisible hand" to guide you? We've seen - and even Greenspan has admitted - that hasn't worked out all that well, but what does he know?<br /> <br />2) Lower - even zero - taxes<br />If only the wealthy "job creators" and corporations - which, when it comes to corporations, we are now told by the Supreme Court and certain GOP candidates are people just like us - could just pay even less - better yet, no - taxes they could hoard even more cash until "certainty" finally arrived. Then they would have the confidence they need to create all those wonderful minimum wage and non-union jobs, and everyone could stop all their occupying and whining about not being able to find a job and get back to work.<br /><br />3) Fear-driven cuts and bailouts<br />And if all else fails? Well, the powerful elite will still have their bought-and-paid for minions in Big Government in both parties who will be more than happy to cut social programs for the poor (who have no power anyway) while they take that money - our tax dollars - and distribute what's left to banks and private companies as tax breaks and bailouts for the mistakes they made because, as we all know, a free market based on libertarian principles and pure capitalism cannot afford to fail.<br /><br /><br />Sources:<br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1">(1) Where the One Percent Fit in the Hierarchy of Income, New York Times, 10/28/2011. <br />http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1</a><br /><br /><a href="http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html">(2) U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts. <br />http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/">(3) U.S. Census Bureau Poverty Data. <br />http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html">(4) Store Wars: When Wal-Mart Comes to Town, PBS. <br />http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm">(5) U.S. Department of Labor; Wages. <br />http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm</a>Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-39760425333115255722011-10-16T08:28:00.001-07:002011-10-16T08:35:38.099-07:00CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbGAFKy_ZIIfcCfv2xThm3KSns_8Ml8AynxXRlajmCPamEFmlP6okt9sfn1RbwMp_B_n0T5w3x-KgBs-jjmMN_n5Ui1XKQaximvwUr2Y5DzuDiLqOIS5uXf4LSxb52LRIAyrGelnR76UI/s1600/OWSvsTP.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 219px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbGAFKy_ZIIfcCfv2xThm3KSns_8Ml8AynxXRlajmCPamEFmlP6okt9sfn1RbwMp_B_n0T5w3x-KgBs-jjmMN_n5Ui1XKQaximvwUr2Y5DzuDiLqOIS5uXf4LSxb52LRIAyrGelnR76UI/s400/OWSvsTP.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5664112479918723602" /></a><br />I think this <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1">Business Insider article</a> is one of the best collections of facts I've ever seen assembled about the economy.<br /><br /><br />Each graph is linked to its source or has the source stated as part of the chart image. Most come from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Others are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CIA (yeah, that CIA), UC Santa Cruz, Institutional Risk Analytics, Reuters, and the New York Times.<br /><br />It is apolitical. It is simply historical data in graphical form about unemployment, corporate profits, banking, and the like. It doesn't project or forecast anything. It does offer brief descriptions about what that data means to everyone, not just the <a href="http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet">Occupy Wall Street movement</a>.<br /><br />The author, Henry Blodget, is no left-wing loon. Besides being CEO and Editor-in-Chief of Business Insider, he has firsthand and what some might call a "colorful" history in the financial services industry.<br /><br /><br />On a related note, I also thought that the image above was telling. It comes from <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/a-very-simple-venn-diagram-of-where-the-tea-party-and-occupy-wall-street-agree/246687/">The Atlantic</a><br /><br />Was hoping we all might borrow this idea from that article:<br />"The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together," Sinclair writes. "There are currently two sizable coalitions of angry citizens that are almost on the same page about that, and they're too busy insulting each other to notice."<br /><br /><br />---<br />"If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause we'd better reexamine our reasoning."<br />Robert McNamara, former president of Ford Motor Company, Secretary of Defense to JFK and LBJ, and former president of the World Bank in the 2003 documentary, "The Fog of War", on America's involvement in Vietnam and the fact that we, as a nation, are not and never have been omniscient or perfect.Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-15500396820013928762011-10-08T07:21:00.000-07:002011-10-08T07:37:58.020-07:00Reagan--No Loopholes For Millionaires<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFSK8dRvsC5KpmkZ-UTrRij6yXA2fXwx3jNPIHgu0b47_swi-C4eyFCpLuMZmbnxiZO-r-0k0ccHnnHToelCf9mTMK_jkBRedYkAeINod3hn08M-nwJsv8jPRkye66SUGpo-kRUZ2bGWg/s1600/reagan.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 257px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFSK8dRvsC5KpmkZ-UTrRij6yXA2fXwx3jNPIHgu0b47_swi-C4eyFCpLuMZmbnxiZO-r-0k0ccHnnHToelCf9mTMK_jkBRedYkAeINod3hn08M-nwJsv8jPRkye66SUGpo-kRUZ2bGWg/s400/reagan.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5661129795993956066" /></a><br /><br /><br />So if the holy man of the GOP said it, and the holy man of the Democrats (who ain't so much what was hoped for after all) is saying it, how come the resistance is almost exclusively from just one side?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Hint: It has nothing to do with facts.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">59 seconds of undeniable reality at <a href="http://">http://youtu.be/cgbJ-Fs1ikA</a></span>Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-66378890450650734012011-10-02T12:32:00.000-07:002011-11-05T09:48:13.615-07:00The Inconvenient Truths About the Economy and the GOP<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iOi3QcTq8oc/TojCUgemwHI/AAAAAAAABxo/HxWA3ghhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifePqA/s1600/GOP%2BJobs%2BProgram.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 349px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWslzN0xyzLD6u0gNt1ojg9Rn8H-W4mrYpUDnzZxcbDWMblD0_Ysphzh4pTndhhW7D-WPRdrN7G3dhkgi5Xc5BHYjS3wU4t8L0mblrPxz2OvsmT8tooO4DCSogLa2GqiE3e4NZ8eJ98qw/s400/GOP+Jobs+Program.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5658986589362503794" /></a><br />First Trust chief economist <a href="http://www.ftportfolios.com/Commentary/EconomicResearch/2011/9/29/real-gdp-growth-in-q2-was-revised-up-slightly-to-a-1.3percent-annual-rate">Brian Wesbury's 2nd Quarter GDP research</a> reports...<br /><br />"Corporate profits were also revised up slightly, to a new all-time record high. Profits were up at a 13.7% annual rate in Q2 and are up 8.5% versus a year ago."<br /><br /><br />How's that for an inconvenient truth for the GOP, for their big business puppet masters, and for the inexplicable non-two-percenters who defend them both?<br /><br />So where are the jobs? <br />Where's the recovery? <br />Anyone? Anyone?<br /><br />Greta? Gretchen? Shawn? O'Reilly? Anyone?<br /><br />Herman? Michele? Rick? Mitt? Sarah? Anyone?<br /><br />How come none of them talk about this? <br /><br />Corporate profits are at historic levels, as is the wealth gap. Taxes are already at historically low levels, as are interest rates on credit for those rich corporations and individuals who have access to it and the neo-cons, Randians, tea baggers and the GOP want to blame all of our problems in our economy on, what, overpaid civil servants, the 11% of American workers still in a union, illegal immigrants, and the poor and working poor?<br /><br />Isn't that just a little bit ridiculous?Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-68459680807306867082011-10-01T09:50:00.001-07:002011-10-01T09:55:03.325-07:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWnpO3fGUNNA7_t71iibR8dcA3I5ZtjedfivKnsgqn6Y6O30LLVB66sMczhFRJGRYjAgHa0O2ArYUKRi97wkuQ7Gj36fXPPF-0Xh-7_fEHSJeqR4tp65W4InzE_8dTfM_YaZP1GKwHRCM/s1600/309210_273936225961855_109200595768753_903919_1582556797_n.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 223px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWnpO3fGUNNA7_t71iibR8dcA3I5ZtjedfivKnsgqn6Y6O30LLVB66sMczhFRJGRYjAgHa0O2ArYUKRi97wkuQ7Gj36fXPPF-0Xh-7_fEHSJeqR4tp65W4InzE_8dTfM_YaZP1GKwHRCM/s400/309210_273936225961855_109200595768753_903919_1582556797_n.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5658567293021063170" /></a><br /><br />While it does sometimes seem like things never change, I still hope for something different in my lifetime.<br /><br />During my daily commute I've been listening to the book "Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned" (<a href="http://amzn.to/nGQl0J">http://amzn.to/nGQl0J</a>).<br /><br />It's amazing how similar the times we live in now resemble the Gilded Age's concentrated corporate wealth dictating to government the policies and laws that only increased the imbalance and led to economic collapse.<br /><br />My kids understand the the lunacy of our generation better than we do. They know how badly some of us have gone astray and screwed things up. I'm encouraged by their morals, ethics, and sense of right and wrong.<br /><br />What's <a href="http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet">happening on Wall Street</a> now and in places elsewhere in the country is another positive sign. Here's Lee Camp's take on it: <a href="http://youtu.be/E9BKKr_CAAI">http://youtu.be/E9BKKr_CAAI</a><br /><br />The invitation is still open if anyone wants to meet up in DC on Oct 29. <a href="http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/">http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/</a>Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674274857743149367.post-89155417043681149002011-08-13T08:14:00.000-07:002011-08-13T08:46:51.884-07:0030 Years Ago: The Day the Middle Class Died<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5hKFLzeuWUF79E06RLAwRIWDLlctFuQUhcDMu53R81UTuC-liVPk5zHNs5jM_EbXWIkKGPR1K2KpN7LUHmIyhJQ5rdlAXJZ-mZslKJu-_SkvMy7kkld-LmjHvBjvU-1CgJuniJRFOJLI/s1600/Confused+Ronny.bmp"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 202px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5hKFLzeuWUF79E06RLAwRIWDLlctFuQUhcDMu53R81UTuC-liVPk5zHNs5jM_EbXWIkKGPR1K2KpN7LUHmIyhJQ5rdlAXJZ-mZslKJu-_SkvMy7kkld-LmjHvBjvU-1CgJuniJRFOJLI/s400/Confused+Ronny.bmp" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5640367330012550482" /></a>
<br />Had to add a few comments to this one.
<br />
<br />The Reagan worshipers don't want my emails. Too bad. I would truly like to understand how this narrative can be repudiated.
<br />
<br />Didn't they actually live the life described below, too? I can't say with absolute certainty, but I'm pretty sure that no one I know grew up in places like today's Westlake, TX, Kenilworth, IL, Mission Hills, KS, or a whole list of NYC suburbs (<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/18/americas-most-affluent-communities-business-beltway.html">http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/18/americas-most-affluent-communities-business-beltway.html</a>), and they don't live there now.
<br />
<br />My father was a high school graduate who put 3 of his 4 kids through college without crushing debt and with one decent paying union job at Westinghouse. He owned his own home after paying off the 30-year mortgage. We went on vacations to "exotic destinations" like Washington, DC, and Ocean City, MD. We occasionally but not all that often ordered a pizza or went out for dinner. (Anyone else remember the Ho-Jo fried clams? That was big time for us!). Every 6 or so years he was able to buy new middle class sedans like Plymouth Satellites, Dodge Darts and Ford Futuras (woo-hoo!) made in America by fellow middle class workers. He had decent enough benefits so that he and we weren't bankrupted when he was diagnosed with heart disease and needed a quadruple bypass in the late 70s.
<br />
<br />He retired with dignity and with a pension that wasn't anything like a lottery windfall but at least was sufficient enough to keep him from having to find part-time work at a McDonald's or WalMart just to make ends meet.
<br />
<br />What was so wrong with that America?
<br />
<br />What would be so wrong with having some of that back?
<br />
<br />How the hell did we screw things up this badly?
<br />
<br />I'll tell you. The unvarnished, bald-faced, honest and harsh truth is that we got here exactly and precisely by believing the lies we were told by Reagan, Greenspan, the GOP, and the rest of the trickle-downers who convinced too many of us that if the rich got richer all our boats would rise with that tide.
<br />
<br />It was and still is a lie. Now those of us left in the middle class are left to drown in that rising tide.
<br />
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/06">Published on Saturday, August 6, 2011 by CommonDreams.org</a>
<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">30 Years Ago: The Day the Middle Class Died<span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span>
<br />by Michael Moore
<br />
<br />From time to time, someone under 30 will ask me, "When did this all begin, America's downward slide?" They say they've heard of a time when working people could raise a family and send the kids to college on just one parent's income (and that college in states like California and New York was almost free). That anyone who wanted a decent paying job could get one. That people only worked five days a week, eight hours a day, got the whole weekend off and had a paid vacation every summer. That many jobs were union jobs, from baggers at the grocery store to the guy painting your house, and this meant that no matter how "lowly" your job was you had guarantees of a pension, occasional raises, health insurance and someone to stick up for you if you were unfairly treated. [On August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired every member of the air traffic controllers union (PATCO) who'd defied his order to return to work and declared their union illegal. They had been on strike for just two days.] On August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired every member of the air traffic controllers union (PATCO) who'd defied his order to return to work and declared their union illegal. They had been on strike for just two days.
<br />
<br />Young people have heard of this mythical time -- but it was no myth, it was real. And when they ask, "When did this all end?", I say, "It ended on this day: August 5th, 1981."
<br />
<br />Beginning on this date, 30 years ago, Big Business and the Right Wing decided to "go for it" -- to see if they could actually destroy the middle class so that they could become richer themselves.
<br />
<br />And they've succeeded.
<br />
<br />On August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired every member of the air traffic controllers union (PATCO) who'd defied his order to return to work and declared their union illegal. They had been on strike for just two days.
<br />
<br />It was a bold and brash move. No one had ever tried it. What made it even bolder was that PATCO was one of only two unions that had endorsed Reagan for president! It sent a shock wave through workers across the country. If he would do this to the people who were with him, what would he do to us?
<br />
<br />Reagan had been backed by Wall Street in his run for the White House and they, along with right-wing Christians, wanted to restructure America and turn back the tide that President Franklin D. Roosevelt started -- a tide that was intended to make life better for the average working person. The rich hated paying better wages and providing benefits. They hated paying taxes even more. And they despised unions. The right-wing Christians hated anything that sounded like socialism or holding out a helping hand to minorities or women.
<br />
<br />Reagan promised to end all that. So when the air traffic controllers went on strike, he seized the moment. In getting rid of every single last one of them and outlawing their union, he sent a clear and strong message: The days of everyone having a comfortable middle class life were over. America, from now on, would be run this way:
<br />
<br />* The super-rich will make more, much much more, and the rest of you will scramble for the crumbs that are left.
<br />
<br />* Everyone must work! Mom, Dad, the teenagers in the house! Dad, you work a second job! Kids, here's your latch-key! Your parents might be home in time to put you to bed.
<br />
<br />* 50 million of you must go without health insurance! And health insurance companies: you go ahead and decide who you want to help -- or not.
<br />
<br />* Unions are evil! You will not belong to a union! You do not need an advocate! Shut up and get back to work! No, you can't leave now, we're not done. Your kids can make their own dinner.
<br />
<br />* You want to go to college? No problem -- just sign here and be in hock to a bank for the next 20 years!
<br />
<br />* What's "a raise"? Get back to work and shut up!
<br />
<br />And so it went. But Reagan could not have pulled this off by himself in 1981. He had some big help:
<br />
<br />The AFL-CIO.
<br />
<br />The biggest organization of unions in America told its members to cross the picket lines of the air traffic controllers and go to work. And that's just what these union members did. Union pilots, flight attendants, delivery truck drivers, baggage handlers -- they all crossed the line and helped to break the strike. And union members of all stripes crossed the picket lines and continued to fly.
<br />
<br />Reagan and Wall Street could not believe their eyes! Hundreds of thousands of working people and union members endorsing the firing of fellow union members. It was Christmas in August for Corporate America.
<br />
<br />And that was the beginning of the end. Reagan and the Republicans knew they could get away with anything -- and they did. They slashed taxes on the rich. They made it harder for you to start a union at your workplace. They eliminated safety regulations on the job. They ignored the monopoly laws and allowed thousands of companies to merge or be bought out and closed down. Corporations froze wages and threatened to move overseas if the workers didn't accept lower pay and less benefits. And when the workers agreed to work for less, they moved the jobs overseas anyway.
<br />
<br />And at every step along the way, the majority of Americans went along with this. There was little opposition or fight-back. The "masses" did not rise up and protect their jobs, their homes, their schools (which used to be the best in the world). They just accepted their fate and took the beating.
<br />
<br />I have often wondered what would have happened had we all just stopped flying, period, back in 1981. What if all the unions had said to Reagan, "Give those controllers their jobs back or we're shutting the country down!"? You know what would have happened. The corporate elite and their boy Reagan would have buckled.
<br />
<br />But we didn't do it. And so, bit by bit, piece by piece, in the ensuing 30 years, those in power have destroyed the middle class of our country and, in turn, have wrecked the future for our young people. Wages have remained stagnant for 30 years. Take a look at the statistics and you can see that every decline we're now suffering with had it's beginning in 1981 (here's a little scene to illustrate that from my last movie).
<br />
<br />It all began on this day, 30 years ago. One of the darkest days in American history. And we let it happen to us. Yes, they had the money, and the media and the cops. But we had 200 million of us. Ever wonder what it would look like if 200 million got truly upset and wanted their country, their life, their job, their weekend, their time with their kids back?
<br />
<br />Have we all just given up? What are we waiting for? Forget about the 20% who support the Tea Party -- we are the other 80%! This decline will only end when we demand it. And not through an online petition or a tweet. We are going to have to turn the TV and the computer and the video games off and get out in the streets (like they've done in Wisconsin). Some of you need to run for local office next year. We need to demand that the Democrats either get a spine and stop taking corporate money -- or step aside.
<br />
<br />When is enough, enough? The middle class dream will not just magically reappear. Wall Street's plan is clear: America is to be a nation of Haves and Have Nothings. Is that OK for you?
<br />
<br />Why not use today to pause and think about the little steps you can take to turn this around in your neighborhood, at your workplace, in your school? Is there any better day to start than today?
<br />
<br />P.S. Here are a few places you can connect with to get the ball rolling:
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/affiliates/entry/msc1">Main Street Contract for America</a>
<br /><a href="http://showdowninamerica.org/">Showdown in America</a>
<br /><a href="http://democracyconvention.org/">Democracy Convention</a>
<br /><a href="https://occupywallst.org/">Occupy Wall Street</a>
<br /><a href="http://october2011.org/welcome">October 2011</a>
<br /><a href="http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/how/">How to Join a Union by the AFL-CIO</a> (they've learned their lesson and have a good president now) or <a href="http://www.ueunion.org/org_steps.html">UE</a>
<br /><a href="http://changetowin.org/">Change to Win</a>
<br /><a href="http://front.moveon.org/">MoveOn</a>
<br /><a href="http://mikeshighschoolnews.com/">High School Newspaper</a> (Just because you're under 18 doesn't mean you can't do anything!)
<br />
<br />
<br />---
<br />"I thought Republicans believed in government out of our lives, the precious right of privacy, and the right to be left alone. Well, then what they hell are we doing in abortion, and gay/lesbian issues, and mental health…I have a cousin who was gay who was a war hero, World War II. We're all human beings.”
<br />Former Wyoming GOP Senator Alan Simpson (http://bit.ly/k5FRjB)
<br />Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12636871661540027659noreply@blogger.com3