A worthy cause - Help me get to Carnegie Hall!

As several of you know, I'm part of a mass choir (300+ voices) that will be performing at world-famous Carnegie Hall on Feb 19th. By going to this site, you can help us get there. For a sample of what we sound like, look HERE.

Prayer in School?

Big thanks to my friend Steve Woodward for this. Dear John, As you know, We've been working real hard in our town to get prayer back in our schools. Finally, the school board approved a plan of teacher-led prayer with the children participating at their own option. Children not wishing to participate were to be allowed to stand out in the hallway during prayer time. We hoped someone would sue us so we could go all the way to the Supreme Court and get the old devil-inspired ruling reversed. Naturally, we were all excited by the school board action. As you know, our own little Billy (not so little, any more though) is now in the second grade. Of course, Margaret and I explained to him no matter what the other kids did, he was going to stay in the classroom and participate. After the first day of school, I asked him "How did the prayer time go?" "Fine." "Did many kids go out into the hallway?" "Two". "Excellent. How did you like your teacher's prayer?" "It was different, Dad. Real different from the way you pray." "Oh? Like how?" "She said, 'Hail Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners...'" The next day I talked with the principal. I politely explained I wasn't prejudiced against Catholics but I would appreciate Billy being transferred to a non-Catholic teacher. The principal said it would be done right away. At supper that evening I asked Billy to say the blessings. He slipped out of his chair, sat cross- legged, closed his eyes, raised his hand palms up in the air and began to hum. You'd better believe I was at the principal's office at eight o'clock the next morning. "Look," I said. 'I don't really know much about these Transcendental Meditationists, but I would feel a lot more comfortable If you could move Billy to a room where the teacher practices an older, more established religion." That afternoon I met Billy as soon as he walked in the door after school. "I don't think you're going to like Mrs. Nakasone's prayer either, Dad." "Out with it." "She kept chanting Namu Amida Butsu..." The following morning I was waiting for the principal in the school parking lot. "Look, I don't want my son praying to the Eternal Spirit of whatever to Buddha. I want him to have a teacher who prays in Jesus' name!" "What about Bertha Smith?" "Excellent." I could hardly wait to hear about Mrs. Smith's prayer. I was standing on the front steps of the school when the final bell rang. "Well?" I asked Billy as we walked towards the car. "Okay." "Okay what?" "Mrs. Smith asked God to bless us and ended her prayer in Jesus' name, amen just like you." I breathed a sigh of relief. "Now we're getting some place." "She even taught us a verse of scripture about prayer," said Billy. I beamed. "Wonderful. What was the verse?" "Lets see..." he mused for a moment. "And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God." We had reached the car. "Fantastic," I said reaching for the door handle. Then paused. I couldn't place the scripture. "Billy, did Mrs. Smith say what book that verse was from?" "Third Nephi, chapter 19, verse 18." "Nephi what?" "Nephi," he said. "It's in the Book of Mormon. The school board doesn't meet for a month. I've given Billy very definite instructions that at prayer time each day he's to go out into the hallway. I plan to be at that board meeting. If they don't do something about this situation, I'll sue. I'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to. I don't need schools or anybody else teaching my son about religion. We can take care of that ourselves at home and at church, thank you very much. Best Wishes Always, Dan

When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable?

When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable?

Capitalism, Socialism, "Job Creators", and what Conservatives miss about ALL of them

Conservatives have shown their off-kilter view of the world by refashioning definitions of words and terms in order to create entirely new connotations. Socialism is now defined as a "government take over"; Capitalism is now completely and utterly patriotic, and the wealthy are now defined as "job creators". But you can redefine all you want - it's not going to change the true meaning of these terms one whit. CONSERVATIVE-ESE:Socialism = Government takeover of all industries. ACTUAL FACT: Socialism does not mean the abolition of a free market society, nor does Socialism call for a government takeover of all industry. That would atcually be Communism, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the former Soviet Union for clearly demonstrating how monstrously unworkable it is. The Socialist acknowledges that the free market is good, but limited, and believes that some industries should not be run for profit. Police protection, fire protection, prisons, education, health care, parks, electricity, water supplies, waste and sewage removal, and roadways are just a few examples of industries which should not be run for profit. Why? When these industries are operating for profit, not only will prices rise, but corresponding services would then be reserved only for those who can afford them. Or more succinctly, no one person should be able to profit over running services from which everyone benefits. One excellent example of how Socialism can at times beat the free market can be found in our banking industry. While most banks operate for the profits of their stockholders (most of whom are not customers of the bank) and CEOs (paying said CEOs GINORMOUS amounts of money), credit unions are owned and operated by their members. The money that ISN'T paid to CEOs are reflected back to the customer in higher interest rates for investments, lower interest rates on loans, and a nominal dividend to the member/customer, which usually gets reinvested right back into the credit union as a deposit. It's worth pointing out that credit unions did not run the same risks as banks when our financial bubble burst, and thus did not request nor receive any TARP bailout money. Nor have the credit unions contributed to the morass of fraudulent foreclosures that the banks have. Another example: health care. The free market creates for-profit businesses ranging from medications, medical testing, medical treatments, medical research, to hospitals. None of these have lowered the cost of health care through innovation or through competition. This is because the demand for health care is a basic necessity; it's non-negotiable. Like clean water & air, humans cannot survive without such products or services. The demand for these is a constant, therefore they are not subjected to the law of supply and demand. When prices go up, demand does not lessen beyond a certain threshold. Where the free market brings economic ups and downs which effects everyone, Socialism believes that there is a limit on the protections a free market provides for everyday citizens. And quite simply, some things should not be run for profit, especially at the expense of everyone else. CONSERVATIVE-ESE: Capitalism is pure good, and if you oppose it in any way, you are Un-American. FACT:Capitalism is an economic term for the free market system which is structured upon the accumulation of money, where the means of production are privately owned and operates for profit. Capitalism is neither right nor wrong, it is simply an economic term. Nor is Capitalism patriotic! A system which encourages the accumulation of wealth does not salute a flag, nor is it loyal to a native country. This market system crosses state and national borders in order to provide larger profits for business owners. If labor costs are cheaper overseas, then it is capitalism which will drive businesses out of our country. If a company finds it cheaper to produce a dangerous product than it is to produce a safe one, it is capitalism which will produce the most profitable option without consideration of customer safety. Capitalism only seeks profits and will by nature migrate operations towards areas which promotes greater profits. Capitalism has no allegiance to any one country as it operates in a global economy. Again, capitalism has no allegiance with patriotism. Where would a business find themselves most profitable? Would they find a country with extremely lower labor costs to be more profitable for manufacturing than a country with higher labor costs? Would they find a lower taxed area more profitable than an area with high demand for their products? But most of all, wouldn’t it be more patriotic for an American business to spark demand in order to operate, manufacture and sell their goods or services inside America, as opposed to overseas? CONSERVATIVE-ESE:The wealthiest among us are the Job Creators. FACT: The wealthy are not necessarily the job creators. Poor and desperate innovators have sparked many new business ventures despite their lack of wealth. Many small businesses began out of practically nothing, but only an idea executed inside of their garages. (Anybody ever hear of Apple? Hewlett-Packard?) The fact of the matter is that neither wealth nor lower taxes create jobs; only demand creates jobs, as I have stated elsewhere. This little tidbit of truth is lost in translation when the wealthy are deemed as “Job Creators”. All this is is a ploy designed to promote additional tax breaks for those who have more than enough while at the same time promoting cuts in public services for those who do not have enough. Another tidbit of truth which is diluted in this argument is the inequality of income between the workers and the owners. A CEO today typically earns 343 times more than an average employee - up from 30 times more in the 1950s - when top tax rates were around 90%! Did CEOs become THAT much more valuable? And while 88% of domestic profits go to corporate bank accounts and CEO bonuses, only 1% of these profits gets applied towards labor. The business owner shoulders no responsibility for producing any product or service. Rather the business owner invested their money (and in most cases time) into a business which is productive. Productivity is a result of the balance between the investors, the managers, and the workers. It is a symbiotic relationship, which many Americans cannot conceive of. For where would any business be without any one of these three elements? Despite conservative talking points, even the lowest of employees is an invaluable asset to a business. In a restaurant, an effective business owner knows that the dishwasher and busboys are just as important to their operation as their managers and customers. If you remove the dishwasher and/or busboys from the equation, the business suffers. Yet an effective manager can be absent from their responsibilities and the operation may not not suffer. So which employee should be valued more than the other, the laborer, the manager, or the investor? The answer is neither of the three. For without one, the other two would not have a business operate or a job to tend to. Yet the argument goes that only the wealthy create jobs. Without enough demand, even these jobs won’t last very long. Conservatives are actually correct that we should not tax our job creators in a time of economic recession. But they've BADLY misidentified exactly who these job creators are. When our recession is being prolonged out of a lack of demand, it is not the business owner who can create jobs; rather it is consumers who create jobs by spurring demand. So let’s not overburden our true job creator, the consumer. In order to spark higher demand, we must effect the largest target market we have at our disposal. It’s not the wealthy who can spark this demand; they only constitute up to 2% of our populace. Rather, we should focus our attention on the other 98% of our populace, our struggling middle class and poor. Henry Ford understood this well - he believed that his product meant nothing unless he had customers who could afford to purchase it. In order to ensure his company’s success, he paid his laborers more than other businesses, so they could buy his cars. This enabled his employees to comfortably afford to buy Ford products. This sparked higher demand, which in turn produced higher job growth, which led to Ford’s success story. Henry Ford did not believe in paying the least amount possible for labor, eliminating the minimum wage, or acquiring higher profits at the expense of his workforce. Instead he realized the symbiosis between business and labor and between business and customer. And not only did Ford boost his OWN business - by paying his own workers more, he forced other businesses to boost worker pay lest they lose their employees. This increase in salaries boosted consumer demand across the board, beginning the economic boom that culminated in the Roaring '20s.

Jim Hightower | Rising public anger explained in daily headlines

Jim Hightower | Rising public anger explained in daily headlines

A VERY worthy cause (NOT political for once!)

Hey, guys. Something VERY worthwhile that my friend Randy Blair is doing up in Michigan, raising money to help fight ALS - Lou Gehrig's disease. Check it out here, and donate if you can - spread the word if you can't.
http://bit.ly/alsdesmond

"Fiscal Responsibility", my FOOT!

Shamelessly stolen from Steve Benen:

"1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget

1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.

1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.

1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged.

2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.

2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.

2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.

2002: Dick Cheney declares, “Deficits don’t matter.” Congressional Republicans agree, approving tax cuts, two wars, and Medicare expansion without even trying to pay for them.

2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.

2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives — including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act — which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction.

September 2010: In Obama’s first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.

October 2010: S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.

November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.

December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit financing. GOP continues to accuse Obama of fiscal irresponsibility.

March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage — a move without precedent in American history — until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.

July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets.

August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility.

There have been several instances since the mid 1990s in which I genuinely believed Republican politics couldn’t possibly get more blisteringly ridiculous. I was wrong; they just keep getting worse."

Is there ONE adult left in the GOP?!?

You certainly wouldn't know it from the way the debt ceiling business has gone on...

A simple procedure that was little more than a rubber stamp while Ronald Reagan was tripling the National Debt - and George W. Bush was doubling it - has suddenly become THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD.

To understand what it's all about, read this.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the debt ceiling has been increased by Congress 74 times since 1962. On average, that's about 3 times every couple of years. Under George W. Bush, it was raised 10 times in 8 years. We never heard about it. But now a Black guy is President. Makes you wonder...

But once again, the Republican Party is REALLY hoping you have a short memory. When Americans blamed Republicans for the government shut down in 1995, one would think the GOP learned their lesson. But the eternally short memories of Republicans and their apparent inability to deal in historical fact once again compels them to try something that failed. What is it about the GOP that makes them believe that they can hold America hostage?

As the debt ceiling deadline approaches, Republicans are once again sticking to their guns, refusing any and all deals that include tax increases on the wealthiest Americans.

BIG surprise (rolls eyes).

I have continually said for over a decade that, unless you make over $250K/year,Republicans do not give a damn about you - they seem hell-bent on proving me right.

Their recklessness and general irresponsibility over that span of time has put us in the economic situation we are currently in and once again they are willing to dig us deeper into economic calamity. It’s as if they think that a recession isn’t enough, that what they really want is a second Great Depression.

If Americans weren't clear about Republican intent before, they damn well better have clarity now. The Republicans have thrown hissy fit after hissy fit over the insistence of Democrats (and over 2/3 of the American people) that raising taxes on the wealthy and closing tax loopholes on large corporations be part of any debt ceiling deal. Their refusal to agree to revenue increases of ANY KIND means that they are negotiating in bad faith. President Obama, despite taking heat from his own party, put Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table and that still wasn’t good enough for the GOP. As the President stated earlier, Can Republicans say yes to anything? Republicans expect Democrats to cave in and givhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gife Republicans everything they want, and at the same time refuse to give Democrats anything in return. It’s a dishonest and dangerous game. It reminds me much of Yasser Arafat in 2000 - the Israelis made him an offer that gave the Palestinians over 90% of what he said he wanted, and he walked away, throwing Middle East peace away with both hands. That is precisely what Speaker Boehner is doing to the US Economy.

Republicans are already trying desperately to lay the blame at the feet of the Democratic Party in an attempt to spin away from the fact that they have been intentionally sabotaging the economy for political and personal gain. Eric Cantor is set to gain financially if the economy crashes and it is likely that many other Republicans have something to gain as well. They have made bets that the United States will fail, and they are doing everything they can to bring it to ruin. The Republican Party is using fear over the economy to advance their agenda and gain power. Their main goal is to make President Obama fail and has been since the day he won in 2008.

That’s why they won’t say yes.

But their plan is beginning to backfire.

As things get worse, the American citizenry is waking up to realize that the Democrats are the adults in Washington and that Republicans are acting like children that can’t have everything their way. Speaker John Boehner rejected a grand bargain that would have required compromise from both sides. He has also claimed that Democrats haven’t offered anything, which is a flat-out lie. Eric Cantor stormed out of the debt talks simply because taxes were brought up. Mitch McConnell continues to accuse Democrats of not negotiating in good faith. But all Democrats have asked for is that the wealthy pay only a bit more in taxes and that the tax subsidies for Big Oil and other corporate tax loopholes come to an end.

Republicans have continually sided with corporations and the wealthiest 2% of Americans. They have spent all of their time in Congress tearing down programs that benefit the other 98% of the American people. They have managed to spend every single moment in the House of Representatives focusing on their social agenda and have not spent any time on jobs and the economy. In fact, they have contributed to the unemployment rate by slashing government jobs and have destroyed jobs that depend on government funding such as Planned Parenthood. Their biggest campaign issue in 2010 was job creation, and now they don’t want to take it seriously.

When August 2nd arrives and America defaults, it will absolutely, no doubt about it, be the fault of the Republican Party. When Social Security checks fail to go out, senior citizens WILL notice. When our men and women in uniform go unpaid for their sacrifices, they WILL notice. And when businesses come to a standstill because the government shuts down, small business owners and even greedy CEOs WILL notice. And who will they all blame you ask? Surveys are showing that most Americans will blame the GOP for a government shut down. 71% of Americans disapprove of Congressional Republicans. And even if Congress kicks the can down the road, Republicans will still be blamed for not negotiating in good faith and for their irresponsible political posturing on behalf of the wealthy and corporations that results in no real solution to the big issue. Republicans are ignoring the vast majority of the American people at their own peril and may even take heat from their own masters since their profits ultimately depend upon a stable economy. Default is not good for anyone in these troubled times and Republicans are only making things worse (as usual).

The Republicans had the spending cuts they wanted on the table and they rejected them solely on the grounds that their corporate masters would see an increase in taxes. The way I see it, if the Republicans got the spending cuts they demanded, Democrats should get to close some tax loopholes for the rich like they’ve demanded. Of course in a perfect world, Democrats would take Social Security and Medicare off the table, and replace them with cuts to defense instead. The silver lining in all of this is that Republicans will get the blame. They actually believed that history wouldn’t repeat itself and that they could turn the tables on the Democrats this time. But just like they were in 1995, Republicans are being stubborn, uncompromising, and insensitive to the majority of Americans that demand a raise in taxes. As long as Republicans continue to demand spending cuts and reject revenue increases, they are finished politically and THAT is without a doubt something to look forward to, as this version of the GOP needs to go down HARD and be replaced by adults.

Happy 4th of July!

Here's why we celebrate:

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Happy 4th of July Weekend!

A pretty amazing video on America - how far we've come and how far we have yet to go to "form a more perfect Union":
http://youtu.be/j9apMRjugSA
I especially like REPUBLICAN Presidents Reagan and Bush43 speaking on religious freedom.

Wow - a Republican talking SENSE...

...too bad she'll be labeled a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and run out of the party on a rail.

Her name is Nancy Argenziano, and she served as a Republican state representative and state senator in Florida whose districts included Citrus County. After serving in the Legislature, she served on the Florida Public Service Commission.
Here's some of what she had to say:

"Make no mistake: This is not about liberals vs. conservatives — or Republicans vs. Democrats; it’s about what is right and what is wrong. The legislation and policies of the governor and legislative leadership are wrong.

It’s about shouting a warning to Floridians that their elected leaders are selling them down the river, saying one thing, but doing another.

In my 16 years in the Florida House, state Senate and Public Service Commission, I have tried to inform people about what was going on in their government and provided the inside scoop that political leaders did not want you to know about. I have been warning for years, and providing examples of our representative government/democracy being sold to the highest contributors, the slush funds, the corruption — that it really is about money.

I have been a Republican, and believe in the Republican principles of long ago: Less government in my private life; don’t tax us to death; personal freedom; personal responsibility; the right to protect myself and family; and for allowing business to do what it does best — do business, without excessive or unnecessary regulations.

But, contrary to the current crop of Republican leaders, I do not want Halliburton in charge of the Pentagon, BP heading up the Department of Environmental Protection, or Enron making energy policy.

In recent years I have seen much corruption; so much so that a grand jury ranked Florida No. 1 in corruption.

I have a problem with those who have hijacked the Republican Party to use it for their own self gain; those who wouldn’t have a clue what a Republican platform is and who have mutated the “R” philosophy beyond recognition.

I take offense that they use the hard-working grassroots level Republicans to help promote a philosophy that they do not practice. Many good Republicans who worked hard for this party have written books telling us what was happening, apparently to no avail. It cannot be that all that matters is that our side wins at any cost. I refuse to believe anyone could not see the harm in doing that."

See the rest of Ms. Argenziano's impressive rant here.

John McCain to Bush apologists: Stop lying about Bin Laden and torture

From yesterday's Washigton Post:

Senator John McCain has become - again - the John McCain of 2000, whom I could easily have voted for. THIS John McCain calls it like he sees it, and yesterday in an Op-Ed, McCain slammed the claim that the killing of Osama Bin Laden somehow vindicates the "enhanced interrogation" methods of the Bush administration. But he went even further. As the Post's Greg Sargent writes:

...on the Senate floor, he uncorked a new broadside that is quite remarkable, taking direct aim at Bush apologists who are reviving this debate in order to claim Bin Laden’s death as part of the Bush legacy.

McCain amplified his case, and called on former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey — whose recent op ed claiming torture led to Bin Laden has been widely cited by the right — to retract his claims. McCain’s speech is worth quoting at length:

“With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:

“The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda.

“In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.

“I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in Al-Qaeda and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’

“In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. (emphasis mine - DM) I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts (emphasis again mine -DM).

This is taking on the makings of an old-fashioned, barn-burning senatorial crusade, and it’s unclear if anyone of McCain’s stature is going to step up and make the pro-torture case. For all his flaws, McCain carries great authority on this issue because of his own past experiences.

It’s becoming clearer that despite the Obama administration’s desire to avoid relitigating the torture debate, this is precisely the time to do it. The emerging evidence is on the side of torture opponents: A careful and extensive New York Times investigation concluded that torture “played a small role at most” in tracking down Bin Laden. Beyond this, the larger dynamic is perfect: The president that has been widely derided by the right as weak for ending torture tracked down and killed the world’s most wanted terrorist. That’s a pretty strong starting point for this argument.

Republican Senators are apparently set to grill David Petraeus and Leon Panetta at their confirmation hearings over torture’s role in getting Bin Laden. So in addition to McCain’s increasingly high profile on the issue, we may soon see the popular Petraeus reiterating his opposition to torture in a high-visibility setting — after the Obama administration killed America’s number one terrorist foe. Gettin’ mighty interesting.

Here is video of McCain's entire speech: pretty lengthy, but the part Sargent quotes is about 5:40 in.

Here's a radical thought on national security:

National Security policy that ISN'T focused on the military or counterterrorism.

The product of a left-wing think tank?

That's what I would have expected.

But the authors of the study? A US Navy Captain and a Marine Lt. Colonel!

From the paper:

"We cannot isolate our own prosperity and security from the global system. Even in a land as rich as ours, we too, have seen the gradual breakdown of rural communities and the rapid expansion of our cities. We have experienced migration, crime, and domestic terrorism. We struggle with joblessness and despite a low rate of illiteracy, we are losing our traditional role of innovation dominance in leading edge technologies and the sciences. We are, in the truest sense, part of an interdependent strategic ecosystem, and our interests converge with those of people in virtually every corner of the world. We must remain cognizant of this, and reconcile our domestic and foreign policies as being complementary and largely congruent."

These officers are suggesting that the stronger the US is at home, the stronger it is abroad. And they're exactly right. We need to focus on education, infrastucture improvement, etc. in order to keep our position as Top Dog.

Such we are, despite the alarm bells being rung by the declinists. Those bells have been effective - 47% of Americans believe China is the world's #1 economy, according to a National Journal poll conducted last year.

That's not even close.

Today the U.S. economy is still 2 1/2 times larger than the Chinese economy with only 1/6 of the population. Their per capita GDP is 1/20 of ours. And they're not going to be putting the screws to us over our debt anytime soon, either - we are, by FAR, their #1 export customer - they try to destroy our economy, theirs goes down the drain first!

This is one of the reasons I lean to the left - most conservatives have far too simplistic a worldview, and fail to take into accouint the complexity of the modern world.

A socioeconomic theory:

(Big shout-out to "Ishkur" at FARK.com for this - Spot-on, IMO)

I have a theory. A socio-economic theory. This theory explains all the crime, all the corruption, all the social and moral decay, all the ills and pitfalls in a system that plague us daily, from crooked cops to white collar criminals to homeless drug addicts on the street. I call it Ishkur's General Theory of Inequitable Distribution of Affluence.

It's a basic premise. In every system, there are rich people, and there are poor people. And there is a gap between these two. The wider this gap, the more problems you have. Everything evil, immoral, degrading, corrupt and criminal stems from the size of this gap. The smaller this gap, the better everything is.

Now, that doesn't mean the goal is to eliminate the gap completely. You can never get rid of the gap, and for economic prosperity's sake you don't want to get rid of it. That's socialism/communism, and it leads to stagnation, misery and despair. We've all been there. Likewise, you don't want the gap to get too large. That leads to feudalism, human property, and more misery and despair (except for a chosen few). We've all been there too.

The trick is to find a happy medium by which the rich can stay rich enough to foster investment, growth and employment, but not too rich that they suck up all the money and the poor are literally dying of starvation in the streets (see France, 1789).

Now, the poor: They may be poor, but they need to have money. In fact, poor people should be as well off as possible without driving up the prices of things. When Henry Ford built his first factories, he did something crazy: He paid his workers $8/day, which was an incredible amount of money in those days. His friends in the business sector were aghast, and threatened him to reduce the wages. They feared that he would drive up the median income of workers in all factories across the board, and that just didn't sit well with them. At the next business summit Ford calmly told them, "Gentlemen, if I do not pay my workers $8 a day, there will be no one with any money to buy my cars."

Henry Ford understood that poor people need money to buy the consumer crap the rich people hire them to make. So you want affluence on both sides of the divide, and only the way to do that is to have a really fat middle-class.

In economics, it doesn't matter who has the money or where it's going, so long as it keeps moving. The purpose of money is to change hands; it's supposed to be spent. When money is not spent, it stays in the same place and doesn't do anything useful or help anyone, and that's bad.

This is why supply-side economics (aka Reagonomics) was such an abject failure: The belief that if you give money to rich people, they will use it to build factories and hire labor and make everyone around them wealthy via a model insultingly referred to as "trickle-down". That didn't happen, for a number of reasons. For one thing, money does not create jobs -- demand for work creates jobs. If there is no work to be done, no employer will feel compelled to hire more labor no matter how much money he has (and besides, if the work is out there, no employer has ever not found the money to hire. Even if they are flat broke. They will take out loans, raise venture capital, apply for grants and subsidies, sell shares, or do whatever it takes to find the money to hire, but just giving it to them will not make the jobs magically appear). And secondly, none of it trickled down. Instead, the rich only spent it on each other, re-investing in their own companies, capitalizing in others, and driving the stock market through the stratosphere (contrary to popular belief, a roaring stock exchange is not entirely an indicator of overall economic health; it's only an indication of the wealth of its participants, who number comparatively few to the vast majority of Americans who have little to no net worth or savings to speak of). This widened the gap, which, according to Ishkur's General Theory of Inequitable Distribution of Affluence -- IGTIDA for short -- is bad.

When there's a lot of money at the top, that means there is less money at the bottom -- really the best place where money can do some good and make a difference. There is no change in a person's standard of living between 1 billion and 2 billion dollars. But the difference between $10,000 and $20,000 can completely change someone's station in life.

(and before you interject, yes, I know that wealth creation is not a zero-sum game, but it also doesn't exist in a vacuum either. If someone makes a lot of money really quickly, that means people elsewhere lost some money, especially after inflation sets in)

The truth is the poor in America don't have any money at all, and haven't had any for several decades or so. The rich solved this problem by lending out credit to the poor so they can continue consuming at their current rate, essentially replacing money with plastic, racking up record amounts of debt. This has been happening since the 80s, and it's going to collapse sooner or later (especially after the Boomers retire, en masse, within the next 10-15 years).

If you want to solve society's ills, stop crime, fix the economy and end corruption, one thing needs to be done: The rich must get poorer, and the poor must get richer. The gap must get smaller. I know that is never going to happen in America, though. Not without some torches and pitchforks.

Gap. Disparity. An inequitable distribution of affluence. The money is in one location for too long, and it is not moving. All problems stem from it."

Just to illustrate the point...

Remember the other day when I said "we don't have a spending problem, we have a REVENUE problem"?
Well this illustration will show you what I'm talking about when I say you and I are being made to pay for GE and ilk:

As David Callahan writes:

But I doubt that there is a single top tax attorney or chief financial officer in the country who was all that surprised. You see, these people are denizens of Loophole Land – a very different place than W-2ville where most Americans live.

In Loophole Land, nothing is quite as it seems. Yes, there is a top corporate tax rate of 35 percent, but it is well understood that nobody actually pays that. On the contrary, many companies pay nothing at all.

How can this be?

For starters, Loophole Land has no national borders and so it is easy to shift money around in ways that avoid taxes. General Electric works all over the world, and under tax law, it isn’t taxed on its foreign profits as long as it says that it is reinvesting those profits abroad. Many companies become expert at shifting profits abroad to foreign subsidiaries in low-tax or no-tax nations. In 2008, Goldman Sachs, had 29 subsidiaries located in offshore tax havens and reported profits of over $2 billion. It paid federal taxes of just $14 million on those profits.

Loophole Land is also a place where past business losses are never, ever forgotten. So, for instance, if you run a giant conglomerate with a profit-hungry credit division that makes a lot of stupid loans to people who can’t pay them back, fear not: you’ll be able to write off those losses – in effect getting ordinary taxpayers to subsidize your gambling debts. General Electric is widely seen as a manufacturing company. But up to half of its profits during the Bush years came from its large consumer lending business, GE Capital, and that business suffered huge losses during the crash – reportedly $32 billion. Now we are all helping GE foot the bill for that unlucky streak.

So, if you're feeling like you're barely able to keep your head above water financially, and you don't have as much money as you used to, you're right! Tax policy over the past 30 years has been designed to shift the tax burden off corporations and the wealthy, dumping it onto - you guessed it -

US.

Now consider that GE got $4B of OUR money in subsidies.

With all this, if you DON'T think our tax structure needs radical reform - YESTERDAY - then I can recommend a good Psychologist for your delusional disorder.

This from ...FOX?!?!

See it here:

"There’s a reason why it’s illegal to unjustifiably yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Motivated by fear, crowds can do very dangerous things.

And yet here we are allowing Congress to dangerously cut federal spending on which we all rely because, when Wall Street lobbyists yelled, “Fire!” about the state of our nation’s budget, we believed them. And now we are letting Congress literally trample on our future.

There is no Social Security crisis. And the extent of the federal budget crisis as a whole is being wildly overblown to scare us toward drastic measures rather than rational solutions.

We are being manipulated to give government handouts to the very same big banks and corporate scam artists that crashed our economy in the first place. We are told that what is good for big business is good for America. But these so-called “job creators” are only creating jobs for yacht manufacturers and maids. Check the math. The profits of our nation’s (and the world’s) largest corporations are rising, as are the salaries and bonuses paid to executives. Are they creating jobs? No.

Well, that’s not exactly true. I think Wal-Mart is hiring if you’re willing to work for $7.78 and hour.

Yet big corporations and their lobbyists have literally been manipulating our government --- both Republicans and Democrats --- to grease the wheels for big business while putting up more and more obstacles for working families, small business owners, homeowners, etc. Yes, working families’ taxes are too high and yes, small business owners struggle under too much bureaucracy. But not big business and the super rich. No, our government is literally designed for their advantage.

And so, at their behest, politicians of both parties --- as well as the media owned by the very same big businesses --- tell us that the government is broke and our debt level is unsustainable and, therefore, we’re going to have to cut things like unemployment benefits and funding for public school teachers. Wall Street doesn’t care. They can afford private schools. But what are you going to do when your child literally doesn’t have a classroom?

There’s a reason the Founding Fathers designed things so that the federal government can borrow money and carry debt --- because, at times like these, that’s precisely what’s needed. When the economy recovers, the debt is resolved. For instance, economist Dean Baker writes:

"In spite of the deficit hawks' whining, history and financial markets tell us that the deficit and debt levels that we are currently seeing are not a serious problem. The current projections show that even ten years out on our current course the ratio of debt to GDP will be just over 90 percent. The ratio of debt to GDP was over 110 percent after World War II. Instead of impoverishing the children of that era, the three decades following World War II saw the most rapid increase in living standards in the country's history."

Instead, big business interests lobbied for the extension of monstrous tax giveaways to the super rich, which literally starved the government. And then they turn around and say government is broke and can’t afford to help poor and working families who are really struggling. It’s like Wall Street took a bat to our collective head and then turned around and said, “Oh, you look hurt!”

Similarly, Social Security isn’t in crisis. If you ignore the “sky is falling” fear-mongering long enough, you’ll quickly learn that Social Security is fully paid for through the next 30 years and considered sustainably solvent beyond that based on current revenue levels. If revenues go up (meaning, if the economy improves), Social Security will be in an even better position.

Yet there are some who want to manufacture a crisis to ram through an ideological agenda. Wall Street has wanted to privatize Social Security for years --- not because they give a damn about improving our quality of life in retirement but because they want to get rich off the fees they could charge. For decades, big business has wanted to gauge workers of wages and benefits and undermine the right to collectively bargain. From Wisconsin to Ohio and elsewhere, they’re using the “fiscal crisis” as a fig leaf excuse to do so.

It’s a simple formula: Make a big fuss that the system is broken and that “reform” is needed to fix it. But in case after case, monied interests are using that formula to actually break things that were never broken --- to help themselves and hurt you.

Wall Street could tell the truth --- that they royally and recklessly screwed up and are too busy continuing to hoard profits rather than stimulate growth, and the only way to recharge our economy is with robust, public spending that creates demand. Ah, but that would only help people like you and me, who could get small business loans or jobs repairing roads, who could send our kids to good public schools and maybe even pay less to private health insurance companies. In other words, government actually doing what it takes to spend money and fix the economy would cut into the power and profits of big business.

If at this point you are arguing with me in your head, please note that you are literally siding with Wall Street fraud artists and against the interest of not only yourself and your neighbors but your children and your grandchildren for generations to come.

Those who are trying to convince us that our government is broke and cannot afford to borrow more are, consciously or unwittingly, reinforcing the vastly unequal society that we have become, where the size of the silver spoon in your mouth when you’re born matters infinitely more than how hard you work.

Yes, our level of national debt is in the long-term untenable. And yes, the fact that large swaths of that debt is owned by China and Saudi Arabia is deeply problematic. The solution, however, is to use government spending on innovation and new industries not only to kick start a private sector that has been reluctant to create jobs but also retool the American economy so we actually make things again and have a broad middle class with good wages and benefits who can afford to buy the stuff we make, creating the kind of demand we need for long-term sustainability. But Wall Street and big business lobbyists don’t want you to own your own business, make a good salary and have a nice house with a reasonable mortgage. How would they make money on that?

After enough times running scared, maybe soon we'll figure out big business is really just crying wolf.

"

The USA does not have a spending problem -

it has a great big screaming REVENUE problem.
Why do I say this? I say this because my wife and I, (with our low 6-figure income)paid MORE in taxes in 2010 than GE with it's $5.1B in profits (US-based); not only did they pay SWABO in taxes, they got $4B in tax subsidies. Guess who pays for that?
As Chuck Collins puts it:

"Our communities are enduring mammoth state and federal budget cuts because we have, in large part, failed to sufficiently tax America's millionaires and billionaires or prevent aggressive tax avoidance by multinational companies. The rest of us are paying to pick up the slack. (emphasis added)
Congress has blown holes in our tax code, losing hundreds of billions in revenue. Worse, lawmakers have averted their eyes as corporate lobbyists drill new tax loopholes and extract new corporate welfare subsidies."

This is a society that has its priorities seriously bent, as proven by proposals before Congress to cut services for children and the mentally ill while leaving these tax loopholes in place.

Collins proposes $400B/year in new revenues that would impact just under 2% of the nation:

:"There are four revenue raisers that Congress could institute tomorrow that would generate $400 billion a year--or $4 trillion over the next decade. Such programs would restore greater fairness to our tax system and reduce the extreme levels of inequality polarizing our society.

Congress could levy a modest financial transaction tax on the transfers of stock, currency, and speculative investments that do little to strengthen the real economy. This would generate $150 billion a year while exempting smaller investors.

Lawmakers could reduce corporate tax dodging by closing overseas tax havens and requiring companies to pay U.S. taxes on the profits they actually earn in this country. This could generate as much as $100 billion a year.

Congress could establish new top tax rates on households with annual incomes over $1 million, which could generate another $100 billion a year. Under our current tax system, a person earning $374,000 a year pays the same top tax rate as someone earning $10 million a year.

Lawmakers could institute a progressive estate tax on fortunes over $5 million, with higher rates on billionaire estates. That would generate $45 billion a year."

Harry Truman - a man of foresight...

He said this in 1948:
"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke.
They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing.
They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights.
They favor minimum wage--the 'minimumer' the better.
They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools.
They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them.
They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.
They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people.
And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
Amazing how it's still 100% truth.

How the Tea Party is killing the GOP

This from a REPUBLICAN named Bruce Bartlett, author of Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy:,

Republicans in Congress have reached a crossroads – they must decide if they are a governing party or one so beholden to its ideological fringe that it is incapable of doing the basic work of a legislative body. How the party answers that question will determine not only the direction of policy on key issues and Republican prospects for reelection next year, but who will be president in 2013.

It is obvious that the Tea Party phenomenon has rocked Republican politics; pushing an already conservative party much further to the right and bringing into it a vast number of new members who are highly energized and deeply ideological, but very inexperienced at politics and not very knowledgeable about how Congress operates on a day-to-day basis. This has proven deeply frustrating to many veteran Republican legislators.

I have long sought a good explanation for where the Tea Party came from and the source of its intensity. Toward this end, I have been reading newly-elected Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) book, “The Tea Party Goes to Washington.” He is, of course, a Tea Party favorite; son of another Tea Party favorite, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX); and someone who got elected by opposing the GOP establishment in Kentucky, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.


According to Sen. Paul, much of what drives the Tea Party is sort of a delayed reaction to the disappointing presidency of George W. Bush. In a revealing passage from his book, Paul says:

“Imagine this – what if there had never been a President George W. Bush, and when Bill Clinton left office he was immediately replaced with Barack Obama. Now imagine Obama had governed from 2000 to 2008 exactly as Bush did – doubling the size of government, doubling the debt, expanding federal entitlements and education, starting the Iraq war – the whole works. To make matters worse, imagine that for a portion of that time, the Democrats actually controlled all three branches of government. Would Republicans have given Obama and his party a free pass in carrying out the exact same agenda as Bush? It’s hard to imagine this being the case, given the grief Bill Clinton got from Republicans.”

This argument hits close to home for me because after 30 years of working in Republican politics, including for Ronald Reagan and Rand’s father, I became deeply alienated from the party for the very reasons Rand explains. The final straw for me was the way Republicans rammed the Medicare Part D program into law in 2003. This took place at the very moment when the Medicare program was starting to seriously hemorrhage money. It was grossly irresponsible to add massively to its deficit largely for the purpose of buying re-election for Bush and his party in 2004.

This year, Medicare Part D will add about $55 billion to the deficit – far more than can be saved with all the budget cuts Republicans can possibly hope to achieve in fiscal 2011. Furthermore, it annoys me to see so many of those who voted for Medicare Part D, such as House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), treated as if they are paragons of fiscal responsibility. In fact, their concern for excessive spending is highly selective, directed almost entirely at programs supported by Democrats primarily to undercut their political support, not because they care so much about deficits.

My disgust with the GOP became so intense after the Medicare Part D debacle, I wrote a bookon the subject. I thought if conservatives broke with Bush at that time and adopted a more Tea Party-like approach to getting our fiscal house in order that it might stave off the political disasters I saw looming in 2006 and 2008.

Republicans preferred to kill the messenger, leading to my permanent estrangement from both the party and the conservative movement. But perhaps my effort wasn’t entirely for naught. Apparently, one of the few readers of my book was Rand Paul, who quotes me saying this:

“The point is that George W. Bush has never demonstrated any interest in shrinking the size of government. And on many occasions, he has increased government significantly. Yet if there is anything that defines conservatism in America, it is hostility to government expansion. The idea of big government conservatism, a term often used to describe Bush’s philosophy, is a contradiction in terms.”

So why is it that I have been disdainful of the Tea Party from its first manifestation in early 2009? The main reason is that so many of its members simply don’t know what they are talking about; they seem to think that strong opinions are a substitute for facts, research and analysis. Consequently, many Tea Party members hold views on various topics that are, frankly, nuts, and these views have been embraced by some Republican voters as well.


For example, a March 15, 2011, poll by Public Policy Polling found that 25 percent of Republicans expect that a group called ACORN is going to steal the election for Obama next year and 31 percent aren’t sure; only 43 percent of Republicans believe this is false. In point of fact, ACORN no longer even exists, and it’s doubtful that it could have stolen a local election for dog catcher even if it wanted to.

An August 27, 2010, poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates International found that 52 percent of Republicans believe that Obama sympathizes with Islamic fundamentalists and favors imposing Islamic law around the world; only 7 percent thought this was definitely untrue.

A March 24, 2010, Harris poll found that 67 percent of Republicans believe that Obama is a socialist, 61 percent think he wants to take away the right to own guns, 57 percent believe he is a Muslim, 45 percent say he was not born in the U.S. and has no right to be president, and 41 percent think he is just looking for an excuse to seize dictatorial power.

As a consequence, even solid conservatives like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) are considered dangerous liberals. And slightly less conservative Republicans such as former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman are treated as dangerous radicals. In a March 14 New York Times report, Utah Tea Party leader Jacqueline Smith said of Huntsman, “On a good day, he’s a socialist. On a bad day, he’s a communist.”

This sort of rhetoric serves no useful purpose and is at best distracting. It also elevates minor differences on policy or strategy among Republicans into deep disagreements over principle. This has made it impossible for Congress to finish work on the 2011 budget, which should have been done last summer. Hard line Tea Party members keep insisting on impossibly large budget cuts despite the fact that the vast bulk of the budget is effectively off limits.

Not surprisingly, a March 16 Pew poll found that Republicans are losing ground rapidly. Backing for their approach to the budget has fallen even with Republicans and Tea Party members. Support among the former has fallen from 69 percent last November to 52 percent now; among the latter it has fallen from 76 percent to 52 percent. Support among independents is down from 37 percent to 17 percent.

For these reasons, I think Republicans are blowing it. They are rapidly using up their limited political capital for getting control of the budget on trivial spending cuts, such as defunding National Public Radio, that will have no long-term impact. Furthermore, we know from experience that the public’s support for budget cuts quickly ran out in 1981, leading inevitably to tax increases. And according to a February 16 Harris poll, there is less support for spending cuts today than there was back then.


Although Republicans today are confident that they will retake the Senate and the White House next year, I think their current strategy of pandering to Tea Party extremists is undermining these hopes. Polls show Democrats up for reelection next year, such as Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, to be rapidly improving their chances. And Republicans should remember that one reason they controlled the White House during most of the postwar era is that the American people don’t really trust either party to control the entire government. Moreover, the lousy job Republicans did when they controlled Congress and the White House from 2001 to 2006 is still a recent memory.

It’s possible that the Tea Party will turn out to be a force for good, but increasingly it looks like populist movements of the past that quickly burned out without having a lasting impact on policy. The more quickly the movement matures, learns patience, and becomes sophisticated about the nature of politics, the better its chances of achieving its goals.

Martha Stewart went to jail for this...

...but how much you wanna bet Clarence Thomas WON'T?

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8331

"Evidence is mounting that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas violated federal law by failing to report his wife's annual salary of more than $120,000 per year from conservative political organizations by checking "NONE" on the box for "Non-Investment Income" for his wife Virginia on judicial Financial Disclosure Reports for the last 20 years."



Under Title 18 of US Code, Section 1001, it is a crime to:

1. knowingly and willfully;
2. make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation;
3. in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States.

This is what Martha Stewart was jailed for. Lying to the Feds is a felony, and carries with it a possible fine, as well as 5-8 years in the slammer.

So now, we see whether or not the Supreme Court Justices are subject to the law. Equal treatment under the law, or special treatment under the law - what's it gonna be, Mr. Holder?

The economy is SO bad...

I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.

Wives are having sex with their husbands because they can no longer afford batteries.

CEO's are now playing miniature golf.
...
Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.

I saw a Mormon with only one wife.

I bought a toaster oven and my free gift was a bank.

Angelina Jolie adopted a child from America .

Motel Six won't leave the light on anymore.

A picture is now only worth 200 words.

They renamed Wall Street 'Wal-Mart Street.'

When Bill and Hillary travel together, they now have to share a room.

And, finally...I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Hotline. I got a call center in Pakistan,and when I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited,and asked if I could drive a truck...

(BIG thanks to my Facebook friend Kevin Colter for this!)

Republicans, taxes, and you...

So, here's what Rep. Paul Ryan (the guy who delivered the pack of falsehood known as "the Republican Response to the State of the Union") wants to do to reduce the deficit:

Basically, everybody sacrifices except the top 10% of income earners - the other 90% of us pay for their tax cuts.
So, people who make LESS pay MORE, and those who make MORE pay LESS. The total opposite of Adam Smith. And Republicans have the gall to call LIBERALS "socialist" and accuse them of "class warfare" when they've been practicing BOTH since 1980.
And after 30 years of Republicans mostly running things, we wonder WHY the economy's in the crapper?

A cake fit for a Geek...

Would you believe this is a CAKE?

Apparently, a company in Cambridge, Ontario called Kandy Cakes makes this, as well as other cake art. Inasmuch as I was a HUGE fan of "Battlestar Galactica", my inner geek just died of happiness a little...now, if they do the Enterprise...