I've been watching the House debate on C-Span, and, a few minutes ago, I was forced to ask, Why did the people of Michigan elect a concern troll to Congress?
The rest of the Repubs are pushing the same, tired, old talking points, comparing Iraq to WWII, or to the American Civil War. In other words, this is an existential threat to the United States. Of course, in that case, we need to stop half-assing it, slap a draft in place, and gear up all those shuttered factories to crank out tanks and bullets and bombers. Let's impose government rationing plans. They want WWII, let's have some sacrifice from someone other than the military, from the white and well-off, as well as from the overwhelmingly poor and brown.
Yeah, okay, the GOP are the party of disingenuous assholes, what else is new since 1900 or so?
Friday, February 16, 2007
Friday, February 9, 2007
Rabble Rousing, part one of many
I know from history that liberals and progressives have advanced many ambitious sets of programs with catchy names like Square Deal, New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society. I think that now we need another catchy slogan. I call it the Fair Share. The idea isn't unique to me, by any means, but I thought I'd give a bit of stump speechifying a try. The reasoning goes like this:
Most Americans, real Americans, in the heartlands, on the coasts, on the farms and in the small towns, and in the cities, gripe about their taxes. Fair enough, griping is part of what America is all about. But, and here is the important part, they go ahead and pay them. They pay taxes to every level of government, not cheerfully, but they pay them. They recognize that what they get back from the various levels of government depends, in some vague and mysterious way, on taxes being paid. They understand that taxes are their bill for living in a functioning country, not a geographic expression. They know that taxes pay the salaries of their kids' teachers, the beat cops on the street, the firemen who show up for emergencies, the roads that they drive on. Perhaps most personally, they know that the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines serving their country abroad, in whatever capacity, their sons and daughters, are paid by the government, using money from taxes. They may grumble, but in the end, real Americans pay their Army bill.
But there a few who think they are above all that. The ultra-rich, in their decadent enclaves scattered throughout the nation, along with their enablers, declare that they shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of taxation. They don't want to pay their fair share. In a way, this is perfectly understandable. After all, the richest of the rich have been cutting themselves off from the rest of us for decades. They deny that they have any obligation to their employees, to their customers, to the environment, to their communities. Why should the nation be any different? They see themselves as lone wolves, above all us common sheep.
But most of us know that even wolves do better hunting in packs. We understand that "no man is an island", that a certain amount of interdependence is inevitable in any society of any real complexity. We know that we are, to a point, our brothers' and sisters' keepers. And we know that keeping up with our responsibilities to our neighbors, our communities, our nation, is the right thing to do. We pay our fair share. Why won't the "libertarians" and those who hide behind them pay theirs?
Most Americans, real Americans, in the heartlands, on the coasts, on the farms and in the small towns, and in the cities, gripe about their taxes. Fair enough, griping is part of what America is all about. But, and here is the important part, they go ahead and pay them. They pay taxes to every level of government, not cheerfully, but they pay them. They recognize that what they get back from the various levels of government depends, in some vague and mysterious way, on taxes being paid. They understand that taxes are their bill for living in a functioning country, not a geographic expression. They know that taxes pay the salaries of their kids' teachers, the beat cops on the street, the firemen who show up for emergencies, the roads that they drive on. Perhaps most personally, they know that the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines serving their country abroad, in whatever capacity, their sons and daughters, are paid by the government, using money from taxes. They may grumble, but in the end, real Americans pay their Army bill.
But there a few who think they are above all that. The ultra-rich, in their decadent enclaves scattered throughout the nation, along with their enablers, declare that they shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of taxation. They don't want to pay their fair share. In a way, this is perfectly understandable. After all, the richest of the rich have been cutting themselves off from the rest of us for decades. They deny that they have any obligation to their employees, to their customers, to the environment, to their communities. Why should the nation be any different? They see themselves as lone wolves, above all us common sheep.
But most of us know that even wolves do better hunting in packs. We understand that "no man is an island", that a certain amount of interdependence is inevitable in any society of any real complexity. We know that we are, to a point, our brothers' and sisters' keepers. And we know that keeping up with our responsibilities to our neighbors, our communities, our nation, is the right thing to do. We pay our fair share. Why won't the "libertarians" and those who hide behind them pay theirs?
Thursday, February 8, 2007
An open message
To the religious right: Having seen some of the garbage written about Molly Ivins' demise, and then the sheer hypocrisy of the Catholic League's William Donohue accusing other people of bias, I have no choice but to say this.
I renounce you, and all your lies, and all your works. I recognize the true source of the hateful, vicious rhetoric that you spew at every opportunity. You drive people away from the church, instilling in them the false idea that Christianity is about hate and exclusion, not about Christ's message of universal, inclusive love. "No man can serve two masters", and you have clearly chosen yours. And so, I renounce you. And every time I see you rise out of your fetid swamps of bigotry and ignorance, dripping with hate, I will denounce you, renounce you, and reaffirm that you do not speak for me, nor do you speak for the Lord.
I invite you to examine your words and deeds, and then join me, a fellow sinner, in prayer and repentance.
Thank you,
Scott
I renounce you, and all your lies, and all your works. I recognize the true source of the hateful, vicious rhetoric that you spew at every opportunity. You drive people away from the church, instilling in them the false idea that Christianity is about hate and exclusion, not about Christ's message of universal, inclusive love. "No man can serve two masters", and you have clearly chosen yours. And so, I renounce you. And every time I see you rise out of your fetid swamps of bigotry and ignorance, dripping with hate, I will denounce you, renounce you, and reaffirm that you do not speak for me, nor do you speak for the Lord.
I invite you to examine your words and deeds, and then join me, a fellow sinner, in prayer and repentance.
Thank you,
Scott
Friday, February 2, 2007
Somthing you don't see every day....
Rick Perry actually did something right, good, and useful. Whoda thunkit?
via comments at Eschaton:
Texas may not be that backward after all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ 20070...cervical_cancer
JohnJS
via comments at Eschaton:
Texas may not be that backward after all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ 20070...cervical_cancer
JohnJS
Crass Warfare
Sorry about missing yesterday. Thinking up something to be coherent about daily is harder than I thought.
So, today's subject is the minimum wage increase, and the opposition to it. Frankly, I find it mystifying that this is even an issue. Inflation in prices has continued since the last minimum wage hike, so why shouldn't wages keep up? No, really, why shouldn't minimum wage hikes be triggered automatically, indexed to inflation? Because that would make life easier for those making the minimum? I know you've all heard the argument that we shouldn't make life easier for minimum-earners, because they are losers. Apparently, we're all still in high school, where the number one priority is being able to identify, feel superior to, and mock all the laaa-hooooooo-seers. It's especially important that we rub their face in their loserdom, it seems, lest they start to think of themselves as human beings with value not measured by their wallet's contents.
And this is where that real third rail of American politics, class, comes in. We're told, over and over, by very rich people,. and those on the payrolls of the very rich, that there are no classes in America. That really, the interests of the richest of the rich are our own interests, because there's no class. That wages are best left to the "marketplace", because their we excel or fail based on our merit, because there is no class. There's a lack of class involved, all right, but not in the way it's portrayed.
As expected the "libertarian" defenders of all things free-market (as long as it benefits the rich), have rolled out the arguments against the very concept of a minimum wage, or any government regulation at all. Hell, I've seen it argued that it's tantamount to slavery. Yes, having to deal with minimum wages and affirmative action and OSHA laws is exactly like slavery. Excuse me while I roll my eyes. Look, the arguments against a minimum wage seem to be dependent on certain assumptions. For instance, that the consequences of not taking a job are exactly the same as those of not offering one. Or that all employers will make an immediate, accurate, honest, and fair evaluation of a prospective employee's potential contribution, and then offer a wage exactly in line with that. And a dishonest boss will be promptly driven out of business by the invisible hand. And anyway, there's no way that an employer would take advantage of someone from a lower socioeconomic class, because there is no class. Because we live in a pure and perfect meritocracy.
And if you'll buy that, come see me after this post, because I'd like to have an exciting conversation with you about the many merits of bridge ownership.
EDIT: Hot damn, we won this one.
So, today's subject is the minimum wage increase, and the opposition to it. Frankly, I find it mystifying that this is even an issue. Inflation in prices has continued since the last minimum wage hike, so why shouldn't wages keep up? No, really, why shouldn't minimum wage hikes be triggered automatically, indexed to inflation? Because that would make life easier for those making the minimum? I know you've all heard the argument that we shouldn't make life easier for minimum-earners, because they are losers. Apparently, we're all still in high school, where the number one priority is being able to identify, feel superior to, and mock all the laaa-hooooooo-seers. It's especially important that we rub their face in their loserdom, it seems, lest they start to think of themselves as human beings with value not measured by their wallet's contents.
And this is where that real third rail of American politics, class, comes in. We're told, over and over, by very rich people,. and those on the payrolls of the very rich, that there are no classes in America. That really, the interests of the richest of the rich are our own interests, because there's no class. That wages are best left to the "marketplace", because their we excel or fail based on our merit, because there is no class. There's a lack of class involved, all right, but not in the way it's portrayed.
As expected the "libertarian" defenders of all things free-market (as long as it benefits the rich), have rolled out the arguments against the very concept of a minimum wage, or any government regulation at all. Hell, I've seen it argued that it's tantamount to slavery. Yes, having to deal with minimum wages and affirmative action and OSHA laws is exactly like slavery. Excuse me while I roll my eyes. Look, the arguments against a minimum wage seem to be dependent on certain assumptions. For instance, that the consequences of not taking a job are exactly the same as those of not offering one. Or that all employers will make an immediate, accurate, honest, and fair evaluation of a prospective employee's potential contribution, and then offer a wage exactly in line with that. And a dishonest boss will be promptly driven out of business by the invisible hand. And anyway, there's no way that an employer would take advantage of someone from a lower socioeconomic class, because there is no class. Because we live in a pure and perfect meritocracy.
And if you'll buy that, come see me after this post, because I'd like to have an exciting conversation with you about the many merits of bridge ownership.
EDIT: Hot damn, we won this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)