"Republicans got the tax cuts they wanted. They got the financial deregulation they wanted. They got the wars they wanted. They got the unfunded spending increases they wanted. And the results were completely, unrelentingly disastrous. A decade of sluggish growth and near-zero wage increases. A massive housing bubble. Trillions of dollars in war spending and thousands of American lives lost. A financial collapse. A soaring long-term deficit. Sky-high unemployment. All on their watch and all due to policies they eagerly supported. And worse: ever since the predictable results of their recklessness came crashing down, they’ve rabidly and nearly unanimously opposed every single attempt to dig ourselves out of the hole they created for us."Here's the whole/short piece, from Mother Jones: What if You Held a Class War and No One Showed Up?
Showing posts with label good vs evil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label good vs evil. Show all posts
Thursday, July 7, 2011
without question, a clusterfuck.
Saw this recently on Greg Hagin's tumblr blog, Blisstortion (which is awesome), a quote from a Mother Jones piece. Sums it up quite nicely. - sj
Friday, March 4, 2011
It's a Tea Party World - You Just Live In It!
clik on title of this post to take you to original post (if cliking on this pic isn't big enough). Tom Tomorrow is STILL the man!
Scott Walker's War on Equality
This is a must read. This might be the best article I've read recently, regarding what's going on in various states throughout this country, and what the Republican/Conservative/Tea Bag voters, and city/state and congressional legislator's master plan really is (and it's in full effect, as we speak, brothers and sisters - just ask a teacher!). Schweber is obviously well-informed and his analysis deadly accurate. Take FIVE minutes and read this. If you click on the title of this entry, you will see the original post, along with the 2 or 3 links he has in article, and also (by clicking on his name) the rest of the blog posts he writes regularly for HuffPo. Every one is awesome! (oh, the post directly after this one on this blog is just as awesome!) - sj
Scott Walker's War on Equality
by Howard Schweber, Associate Professor of Political Science and Law, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Originally posted on Huffington Post: March 2nd, 2011 11:07 AM
"The American system of public education is the greatest mechanism for social and economic mobility in the history of the world." I wish I had said that. Actually, it was my friend Tim. Tim is a conservative Republican. Let me clarify that. At various points in his life Tim has been a professional conservative Republican, with credentials that make Scott Walker look like an over-promoted Boy Scout. Among other things, Tim was the Chairman of California College Republicans, a member of the CA GOP State Executive Committee, and a GOP nominee for state Assembly. In other words, there is nothing liberal or Democratic about recognizing the fact that an assault on public education is an assault on equality.
I do not mean to minimize the extent of inequalities in American education that Jonathan Kozoll and Jennifer Hochschild have so ably documented. And Wisconsin is no different. Since 1993 the state has employed an insanely complicated system of "tiered" state and local funding that numerous analyses show has resulted in money being funneled toward wealthier districts and away from those most in need. The poorer districts in Wisconsin are already operating on a shoestring. But despite all its defects, it remains the case that in America, and specifically in Wisconsin, publicly funded education is a powerful equalizing force, almost the only one left.
Scott Walker's budget seeks to change all that. The budget that Walker unveiled on March 1st contains cuts to education that will devastate Wisconsin's traditionally fine system of public schools, including specific provisions that end state funding for Advanced Placement courses and "science, technology, engineering and mathematics programs," among many other things. There is a great deal to be said about those cuts and their likely consequences, but the cuts in state funding are actually not the most disturbing part of Walker's budget. What is even more disturbing is this: Walker's budget mandates a 5.5% cut in per-pupil local education spending, approximately $550 per pupil. This has absolutely nothing to do with balancing the state budget: it doesn't save the state a dime. This rule specifies that overall education spending must decline regardless of the wishes of the residents of a local district. No district will be permitted to maintain even its current level of property tax-based funding for education, let alone increase that tax to offset state cuts.
Again, this is a provision that does not save the state a dime (not to mention making a mockery of the idea of local control.) To mandate cuts in local spending on top of cuts in state spending is astonishing. Do the math (and thank your math teacher): cuts in state funding plus cuts in local funding equals the end of all those "special" programs. In poorer districts the effects will be even more extreme; here is an excellent analysis by Andre Reschovsky (LaFollete School of Public Affairs) of the distribution of economic effects across districts.
But never mind the poor districts for a moment. What's going to happen in the wealthier districts? I find it hard to believe that Wisconsin Republicans (let alone Democrats) will want to send their children to schools that offer no AP classes or advanced courses in math and science, not to mention drug education programs, language programs, and K-5 enrichment programs. And in fact, that's not likely to happen. Instead, what is likely to happen is a whole new level of inequality.
The first thing that is likely to happen is that families who can afford it will flee the public schools; Walker's budget is the best advertisement for Wisconsin private schools that could be imagined. One local private school in the Madison area reports double the number of inquiries compared with a year ago -- and that was before the budget was unveiled.
And there's another solution: privatize public education. That's what happened in Seattle. Years ago, confronted by deep cuts in education spending, local districts established private foundations. Alumni and current parents contribute money which is then spent in the district. One of the most successful is Roosevelt High School in Seattle: they boast the only full time drama program in the state, funded by private spending. Here's the web site for Roosevelt's private foundation. The list of current grants covers a range of items, including Chemistry textbooks. The school's principal is on the Board of Directors. Now take a look at the names on the Advisory Board: the name "Nordstrom" gives you some idea of the socioeconomic profile of the district. As for other districts that cannot sustain a private foundation? They'll just have to do without Chemistry textbooks. And Washington's shortage of funding for public education is nothing compared to the scenario that Governor Walker is unleashing on Wisconsin.
The budget that Governor Walker announced today cannot be described by any of the usual terms. This is a budget that is targeted like a guided missile, and its target could not be more clear: Governor Walker wants to destroy the state's system of publicly funded education and replace it with charter schools (teaching certification not required), private schools, and private funding.
This would be shocking anywhere -- in Wisconsin it is inconceivable. Let me tell you something about Wisconsin. We like to think we are not just another state. At the University of Wisconsin we talk a lot about "the Wisconsin Idea," the idea that we have a specific mission to serve the public of our state in the tradition of the land grant colleges. Every semester I have been here I have met at least one student who has told me that he or she is the first person in their family to go to college. Those students are the best thing about teaching at a public university. They are what public education is all about. They come from small towns in the northern part of the state, often from families that operate farms or small businesses in their communities. They leave here and they go on to become lawyers or scientists or teachers, or to start businesses of their own.
This is what the Tea Party's capture of the Republican Party has brought us. Right here in Wisconsin we are sounding the death knell for the single greatest mechanism of social and economic mobility that the world has ever known.
Scott Walker's War on Equality
by Howard Schweber, Associate Professor of Political Science and Law, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Originally posted on Huffington Post: March 2nd, 2011 11:07 AM
"The American system of public education is the greatest mechanism for social and economic mobility in the history of the world." I wish I had said that. Actually, it was my friend Tim. Tim is a conservative Republican. Let me clarify that. At various points in his life Tim has been a professional conservative Republican, with credentials that make Scott Walker look like an over-promoted Boy Scout. Among other things, Tim was the Chairman of California College Republicans, a member of the CA GOP State Executive Committee, and a GOP nominee for state Assembly. In other words, there is nothing liberal or Democratic about recognizing the fact that an assault on public education is an assault on equality.
I do not mean to minimize the extent of inequalities in American education that Jonathan Kozoll and Jennifer Hochschild have so ably documented. And Wisconsin is no different. Since 1993 the state has employed an insanely complicated system of "tiered" state and local funding that numerous analyses show has resulted in money being funneled toward wealthier districts and away from those most in need. The poorer districts in Wisconsin are already operating on a shoestring. But despite all its defects, it remains the case that in America, and specifically in Wisconsin, publicly funded education is a powerful equalizing force, almost the only one left.
Scott Walker's budget seeks to change all that. The budget that Walker unveiled on March 1st contains cuts to education that will devastate Wisconsin's traditionally fine system of public schools, including specific provisions that end state funding for Advanced Placement courses and "science, technology, engineering and mathematics programs," among many other things. There is a great deal to be said about those cuts and their likely consequences, but the cuts in state funding are actually not the most disturbing part of Walker's budget. What is even more disturbing is this: Walker's budget mandates a 5.5% cut in per-pupil local education spending, approximately $550 per pupil. This has absolutely nothing to do with balancing the state budget: it doesn't save the state a dime. This rule specifies that overall education spending must decline regardless of the wishes of the residents of a local district. No district will be permitted to maintain even its current level of property tax-based funding for education, let alone increase that tax to offset state cuts.
Again, this is a provision that does not save the state a dime (not to mention making a mockery of the idea of local control.) To mandate cuts in local spending on top of cuts in state spending is astonishing. Do the math (and thank your math teacher): cuts in state funding plus cuts in local funding equals the end of all those "special" programs. In poorer districts the effects will be even more extreme; here is an excellent analysis by Andre Reschovsky (LaFollete School of Public Affairs) of the distribution of economic effects across districts.
But never mind the poor districts for a moment. What's going to happen in the wealthier districts? I find it hard to believe that Wisconsin Republicans (let alone Democrats) will want to send their children to schools that offer no AP classes or advanced courses in math and science, not to mention drug education programs, language programs, and K-5 enrichment programs. And in fact, that's not likely to happen. Instead, what is likely to happen is a whole new level of inequality.
The first thing that is likely to happen is that families who can afford it will flee the public schools; Walker's budget is the best advertisement for Wisconsin private schools that could be imagined. One local private school in the Madison area reports double the number of inquiries compared with a year ago -- and that was before the budget was unveiled.
And there's another solution: privatize public education. That's what happened in Seattle. Years ago, confronted by deep cuts in education spending, local districts established private foundations. Alumni and current parents contribute money which is then spent in the district. One of the most successful is Roosevelt High School in Seattle: they boast the only full time drama program in the state, funded by private spending. Here's the web site for Roosevelt's private foundation. The list of current grants covers a range of items, including Chemistry textbooks. The school's principal is on the Board of Directors. Now take a look at the names on the Advisory Board: the name "Nordstrom" gives you some idea of the socioeconomic profile of the district. As for other districts that cannot sustain a private foundation? They'll just have to do without Chemistry textbooks. And Washington's shortage of funding for public education is nothing compared to the scenario that Governor Walker is unleashing on Wisconsin.
The budget that Governor Walker announced today cannot be described by any of the usual terms. This is a budget that is targeted like a guided missile, and its target could not be more clear: Governor Walker wants to destroy the state's system of publicly funded education and replace it with charter schools (teaching certification not required), private schools, and private funding.
This would be shocking anywhere -- in Wisconsin it is inconceivable. Let me tell you something about Wisconsin. We like to think we are not just another state. At the University of Wisconsin we talk a lot about "the Wisconsin Idea," the idea that we have a specific mission to serve the public of our state in the tradition of the land grant colleges. Every semester I have been here I have met at least one student who has told me that he or she is the first person in their family to go to college. Those students are the best thing about teaching at a public university. They are what public education is all about. They come from small towns in the northern part of the state, often from families that operate farms or small businesses in their communities. They leave here and they go on to become lawyers or scientists or teachers, or to start businesses of their own.
This is what the Tea Party's capture of the Republican Party has brought us. Right here in Wisconsin we are sounding the death knell for the single greatest mechanism of social and economic mobility that the world has ever known.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Union is the measure
What a great @#$%^&* piece by Mark Sumner. Straight. Up. (click title for original post)
Union is the measure
by Mark Sumner
Sun Feb 20, 2011
There's a word in the very first line of the Constitution of the United States that describes the instrument through which freedom is held. It's a term for people acting in concert to secure their liberty and hold those rights against any opponent. That word is union.
From its founding, the story of this nation has been the story of union. It is the story of two centuries spent in building up the ability of ordinary citizens to treat with wealthy, powerful, politically connected entities. That story contains instances of tragedy. Thousands died in the struggle, many thousands more suffered poverty or were outcast from communities. But the story of union also contains far-reaching triumphs. Every paid vacation, every weekend, every overtime dollar, every protection from arbitrary dismissal and unfair treatment, everything that makes your working life tolerable, came because people stood together in union at risk to their own livelihoods and often their own lives. Some of those laws exist only because workers stood in union when not only corporations but their own government attacked them not just with guns, but with bombers. They paid the price. You reap the benefits.
When we talk about "the greatest generation" that brought the nation through World War II and built America into a post-war powerhouse, we're speaking of a population where nearly a third of workers were union members. It's no coincidence that the peak period of growth and progress coincides with the peak period of union membership. When people act in union, there's nothing they can't accomplish. When people cannot join in union, when everyone must face the powerful alone, all rights are nothing more than words.
Whether in a union of states and nations or a union of workers and citizens, only by working in concert can rights be wrested from oppressors and held against despots. That's why tyrants quake at the sound of union. That's why the right to act in union is the ability that the downtrodden most desire and authorities first attack. Union is the measure of freedom.
The outlawing of independent unions is the clearest and most consistent marker of despotism around the world. When Gaddafi seized control of Libya in 1969, his first speech proclaimed the end of labor unions. No sooner had he secured control of Cuba than Fidel Castro banned the ability of unions to strike or to bargain over salary and benefits, saying such demands were detrimental to "the national economy." In Colombia today, right-wing militias work together with corporations to keep down costs and demands for decent working conditions in the most effective way they know–they execute union leaders.
There's a good reason why governments and corporations alike show trepidation when people are able to organize. Union is effective. For all the pretty speeches and all the ham-handed threats, the signal that the Iron Curtain was finally rising didn't come in Berlin or Washington, D.C., it came in the shipyards of Gdańsk, when men dared to wave the flag of an independent union. Want to determine where governments are actually concerned about the rights of their people? You only have to look at how free people are to organize for a cause. Without that, no other rights matter. With it, all other rights will follow.
The First Amendment to the Constitution enshrines a number of freedoms including religion, speech and the press, but this amendment should not be read as a random list of disconnected items. Everything in it directly depends on the liberties held out in the closing words: the ability of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition for redress. When the Constitution extends the right of assembly, it's not just giving us the right to gather together for no purpose. What's protected is the right to join together in common cause, and to seek as a group to move institutions that would not respond to individuals acting alone.
The American dream—the dream that an average citizen can enjoy a decent life, raise a family, and hope for the future—was created in union, sustained by union, and is dependent on union. That dream stands on a knife edge. Already the forces that oppose union have torn away the hopes of many Americans. As union membership has fallen, decent pensions have disappeared. As union membership has fallen, health care costs have increased. As union membership has fallen, pay for workers has stagnated. As union membership has fallen corporate profits—and executive pay—have soared. The decline of union is the birthplace of inequity.
At this moment, the same forces that have ripped union away from most workers are acting against those few who still share the ability to speak with a collective voice. They want to wreck this last bastion, burn it down, stomp it, bury it, extinguish it forever, so that they can sleep safe knowing their power will not be challenged. They want to erase the work of two centuries, turn the American dream into a subject for nostalgia, and make the Bill of Rights into a sheet of paper.
That is what's on the line in Wisconsin.
Nothing has changed since the time that first line of the Constitution was written. Union is not just a means to oppose tyranny, it is the only means.
....the storming of the Wisconsin Statehouse.
Union is the measure
by Mark Sumner
Sun Feb 20, 2011
There's a word in the very first line of the Constitution of the United States that describes the instrument through which freedom is held. It's a term for people acting in concert to secure their liberty and hold those rights against any opponent. That word is union.
From its founding, the story of this nation has been the story of union. It is the story of two centuries spent in building up the ability of ordinary citizens to treat with wealthy, powerful, politically connected entities. That story contains instances of tragedy. Thousands died in the struggle, many thousands more suffered poverty or were outcast from communities. But the story of union also contains far-reaching triumphs. Every paid vacation, every weekend, every overtime dollar, every protection from arbitrary dismissal and unfair treatment, everything that makes your working life tolerable, came because people stood together in union at risk to their own livelihoods and often their own lives. Some of those laws exist only because workers stood in union when not only corporations but their own government attacked them not just with guns, but with bombers. They paid the price. You reap the benefits.
When we talk about "the greatest generation" that brought the nation through World War II and built America into a post-war powerhouse, we're speaking of a population where nearly a third of workers were union members. It's no coincidence that the peak period of growth and progress coincides with the peak period of union membership. When people act in union, there's nothing they can't accomplish. When people cannot join in union, when everyone must face the powerful alone, all rights are nothing more than words.
Whether in a union of states and nations or a union of workers and citizens, only by working in concert can rights be wrested from oppressors and held against despots. That's why tyrants quake at the sound of union. That's why the right to act in union is the ability that the downtrodden most desire and authorities first attack. Union is the measure of freedom.
The outlawing of independent unions is the clearest and most consistent marker of despotism around the world. When Gaddafi seized control of Libya in 1969, his first speech proclaimed the end of labor unions. No sooner had he secured control of Cuba than Fidel Castro banned the ability of unions to strike or to bargain over salary and benefits, saying such demands were detrimental to "the national economy." In Colombia today, right-wing militias work together with corporations to keep down costs and demands for decent working conditions in the most effective way they know–they execute union leaders.
There's a good reason why governments and corporations alike show trepidation when people are able to organize. Union is effective. For all the pretty speeches and all the ham-handed threats, the signal that the Iron Curtain was finally rising didn't come in Berlin or Washington, D.C., it came in the shipyards of Gdańsk, when men dared to wave the flag of an independent union. Want to determine where governments are actually concerned about the rights of their people? You only have to look at how free people are to organize for a cause. Without that, no other rights matter. With it, all other rights will follow.
The First Amendment to the Constitution enshrines a number of freedoms including religion, speech and the press, but this amendment should not be read as a random list of disconnected items. Everything in it directly depends on the liberties held out in the closing words: the ability of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition for redress. When the Constitution extends the right of assembly, it's not just giving us the right to gather together for no purpose. What's protected is the right to join together in common cause, and to seek as a group to move institutions that would not respond to individuals acting alone.
The American dream—the dream that an average citizen can enjoy a decent life, raise a family, and hope for the future—was created in union, sustained by union, and is dependent on union. That dream stands on a knife edge. Already the forces that oppose union have torn away the hopes of many Americans. As union membership has fallen, decent pensions have disappeared. As union membership has fallen, health care costs have increased. As union membership has fallen, pay for workers has stagnated. As union membership has fallen corporate profits—and executive pay—have soared. The decline of union is the birthplace of inequity.
At this moment, the same forces that have ripped union away from most workers are acting against those few who still share the ability to speak with a collective voice. They want to wreck this last bastion, burn it down, stomp it, bury it, extinguish it forever, so that they can sleep safe knowing their power will not be challenged. They want to erase the work of two centuries, turn the American dream into a subject for nostalgia, and make the Bill of Rights into a sheet of paper.
That is what's on the line in Wisconsin.
Nothing has changed since the time that first line of the Constitution was written. Union is not just a means to oppose tyranny, it is the only means.
....the storming of the Wisconsin Statehouse.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Ghandi, Stephen Colbert, Jesus Christ, & the GOP.
Stephen Colbert is one of the greatest comedians, simplifiers and messengers of my generation. This video proves it. Here are two quotes from this 4-minute clip.
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy and then admit that we just don't want to do it."
"Jesus was always flapping his gums about the poor, but not once did he call for tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Romans."
(damn embed code is broken from Colbert site, so all I can do is link it for now; click HERE, nonetheless, and watch. it kills!)
Perhaps Mahatma Ghandi said it best:
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy and then admit that we just don't want to do it."
"Jesus was always flapping his gums about the poor, but not once did he call for tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Romans."
(damn embed code is broken from Colbert site, so all I can do is link it for now; click HERE, nonetheless, and watch. it kills!)
Perhaps Mahatma Ghandi said it best:
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Thursday, November 4, 2010
What the Fuck has Obama Done so Far?
If you haven't seen this yet, you're missing out, plain and simple. Most of us know how much Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Democrats have accomplished the last two years. Too many people don't. Especially the less-educated and less-informed people of the country (Rush Limabaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity to name just a few).
Well, when you click on the title of this post, or here, you'll get dozens of the policies, bills and legislation that Obama and his administration have established and implemented the last two years, in a "couldn't-be-easier-to-read" format. Next time your whining "independent" or libertarian friend alludes to him not doing anything, just point them towards whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com and tell them to shut the fuck up.
I don't know who Shavanna Miller, Will Carlough and Richard Boenigk are, but they are to be seriously commended for thinking this up. Great job peoples!
below are just two screen shots. check the rest out now, here!
Well, when you click on the title of this post, or here, you'll get dozens of the policies, bills and legislation that Obama and his administration have established and implemented the last two years, in a "couldn't-be-easier-to-read" format. Next time your whining "independent" or libertarian friend alludes to him not doing anything, just point them towards whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com and tell them to shut the fuck up.
I don't know who Shavanna Miller, Will Carlough and Richard Boenigk are, but they are to be seriously commended for thinking this up. Great job peoples!
below are just two screen shots. check the rest out now, here!
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Eat the Rich: Bill Maher's "New Rule: Rich People Who Complain About Being Vilified Should be Vilified"
He consistently nails it. Whatever the 'it' is. This New Rule from his recent "Real Time with Bill Maher" -sj
New Rule: The next rich person who publicly complains about being vilified by the Obama administration must be publicly vilified by the Obama administration. It's so hard for one person to tell another person what constitutes being "rich", or what tax rate is "too much." But I've done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy asshole.
And let's be clear: that's 3.6% only on income above 250 grand -- your first 250, that's still on the house. Now, this week we got some horrible news: that one in seven Americans are now living below the poverty line. But I want to point you to an American who is truly suffering: Ben Stein. You know Ben Stein, the guy who got rich because when he talks it sounds so boring it's actually funny. He had a game show on Comedy Central, does eye drop commercials, doesn't believe in evolution? Yeah, that asshole. I kid Ben -- so, the other day Ben wrote an article about his struggle. His struggle as a wealthy person facing the prospect of a slightly higher marginal tax rate. Specifically, Ben said that when he was finished paying taxes and his agents, he was left with only 35 cents for every dollar he earned. Which is shocking, Ben Stein has an agent? I didn't know Broadway Danny Rose was still working.
Ben whines in his article about how he's worked for every dollar he has -- if by work you mean saying the word "Bueller" in a movie 25 years ago. Which doesn't bother me in the slightest, it's just that at a time when people in America are desperate and you're raking in the bucks promoting some sleazy Free Credit Score dot-com... maybe you shouldn't be asking us for sympathy. Instead, you should be down on your knees thanking God and/or Ronald Reagan that you were lucky enough to be born in a country where a useless schmuck who contributes absolutely nothing to society can somehow manage to find himself in the top marginal tax bracket.
And you're welcome to come on the show anytime.
Now I can hear you out there saying, "Come on Bill, don't be so hard on Ben Stein, he does a lot of voiceover work, and that's hard work." Ok, it's true, Ben is hardly the only rich person these days crying like a baby who's fallen off his bouncy seat. Last week Mayor Bloomberg of New York complained that all his wealthy friends are very upset with mean ol' President Poopy-Pants: He said they all say the same thing: "I knew I was going to have to pay more taxes. But I didn't expect to be vilified." Poor billionaires -- they just can't catch a break.
First off, far from being vilified, we bailed you out -- you mean we were supposed to give you all that money and kiss your ass, too? That's Hollywood you're thinking of. FDR, he knew how to vilify; this guy, not so much. And second, you should have been vilified -- because you're the vill-ains! I'm sure a lot of you are very nice people. And I'm sure a lot of you are jerks. In other words, you're people. But you are the villains. Who do you think outsourced all the jobs, destroyed the unions, and replaced workers with desperate immigrants and teenagers in China. Joe the Plumber?
And right now, while we run trillion dollar deficits, Republicans are holding America hostage to the cause of preserving the Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest 1% of people, many of them dead. They say that we need to keep taxes on the rich low because they're the job creators. They're not. They're much more likely to save money through mergers and outsourcing and cheap immigrant labor, and pass the unemployment along to you.
Americans think rich people must be brilliant; no -- just ruthless. Meg Whitman is running for Governor out here, and her claim to fame is, she started e-Bay. Yes, Meg tapped into the Zeitgeist, the zeitgeist being the desperate need of millions of Americans to scrape a few dollars together by selling the useless crap in their garage. What is e-Bay but a big cyber lawn sale that you can visit without putting your clothes on?
Another of my favorites, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said, "I don't know where they're going to get all this money, because we're running out of rich people in this country." Actually, we have more billionaires here in the U.S. than all the other countries in the top ten combined, and their wealth grew 27% in the last year. Did yours? Truth is, there are only two things that the United States is not running out of: Rich people and bullshit. Here's the truth: When you raise taxes slightly on the wealthy, it obviously doesn't destroy the economy -- we know this, because we just did it -- remember the '90's? It wasn't that long ago. You were probably listening to grunge music, or dabbling in witchcraft. Clinton moved the top marginal rate from 36 to 39% -- and far from tanking, the economy did so well he had time to get his dick washed.
Even 39% isn't high by historical standards. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 91%. Under Nixon, it was 70%. Obama just wants to kick it back to 39 -- just three more points for the very rich. Not back to 91, or 70. Three points. And they go insane. Steve Forbes said that Obama, quote "believes from his inner core that people... above a certain income have more than they should have and that many probably have gotten it from ill-gotten ways." Which they have. Steve Forbes, of course, came by his fortune honestly: he inherited it from his gay egg-collecting, Elizabeth Taylor fag-hagging father, who inherited it from his father. Of course then they moan about the inheritance tax, how the government took 55% percent when Daddy died -- which means you still got 45% for doing nothing more than starting out life as your father's pecker-snot.
We don't hate rich people, but have a little humility about how you got it and stop complaining. Maybe the worst whiner of all: Stephen Schwarzman, #69 on Forbes' list of richest Americans, compared Obama's tax hike to "when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939." Wow. If Obama were Hitler, Mr. Schwarzman, I think your tax rate would be the least of your worries.
New Rule: The next rich person who publicly complains about being vilified by the Obama administration must be publicly vilified by the Obama administration. It's so hard for one person to tell another person what constitutes being "rich", or what tax rate is "too much." But I've done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy asshole.
And let's be clear: that's 3.6% only on income above 250 grand -- your first 250, that's still on the house. Now, this week we got some horrible news: that one in seven Americans are now living below the poverty line. But I want to point you to an American who is truly suffering: Ben Stein. You know Ben Stein, the guy who got rich because when he talks it sounds so boring it's actually funny. He had a game show on Comedy Central, does eye drop commercials, doesn't believe in evolution? Yeah, that asshole. I kid Ben -- so, the other day Ben wrote an article about his struggle. His struggle as a wealthy person facing the prospect of a slightly higher marginal tax rate. Specifically, Ben said that when he was finished paying taxes and his agents, he was left with only 35 cents for every dollar he earned. Which is shocking, Ben Stein has an agent? I didn't know Broadway Danny Rose was still working.
Ben whines in his article about how he's worked for every dollar he has -- if by work you mean saying the word "Bueller" in a movie 25 years ago. Which doesn't bother me in the slightest, it's just that at a time when people in America are desperate and you're raking in the bucks promoting some sleazy Free Credit Score dot-com... maybe you shouldn't be asking us for sympathy. Instead, you should be down on your knees thanking God and/or Ronald Reagan that you were lucky enough to be born in a country where a useless schmuck who contributes absolutely nothing to society can somehow manage to find himself in the top marginal tax bracket.
And you're welcome to come on the show anytime.
Now I can hear you out there saying, "Come on Bill, don't be so hard on Ben Stein, he does a lot of voiceover work, and that's hard work." Ok, it's true, Ben is hardly the only rich person these days crying like a baby who's fallen off his bouncy seat. Last week Mayor Bloomberg of New York complained that all his wealthy friends are very upset with mean ol' President Poopy-Pants: He said they all say the same thing: "I knew I was going to have to pay more taxes. But I didn't expect to be vilified." Poor billionaires -- they just can't catch a break.
First off, far from being vilified, we bailed you out -- you mean we were supposed to give you all that money and kiss your ass, too? That's Hollywood you're thinking of. FDR, he knew how to vilify; this guy, not so much. And second, you should have been vilified -- because you're the vill-ains! I'm sure a lot of you are very nice people. And I'm sure a lot of you are jerks. In other words, you're people. But you are the villains. Who do you think outsourced all the jobs, destroyed the unions, and replaced workers with desperate immigrants and teenagers in China. Joe the Plumber?
And right now, while we run trillion dollar deficits, Republicans are holding America hostage to the cause of preserving the Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest 1% of people, many of them dead. They say that we need to keep taxes on the rich low because they're the job creators. They're not. They're much more likely to save money through mergers and outsourcing and cheap immigrant labor, and pass the unemployment along to you.
Americans think rich people must be brilliant; no -- just ruthless. Meg Whitman is running for Governor out here, and her claim to fame is, she started e-Bay. Yes, Meg tapped into the Zeitgeist, the zeitgeist being the desperate need of millions of Americans to scrape a few dollars together by selling the useless crap in their garage. What is e-Bay but a big cyber lawn sale that you can visit without putting your clothes on?
Another of my favorites, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said, "I don't know where they're going to get all this money, because we're running out of rich people in this country." Actually, we have more billionaires here in the U.S. than all the other countries in the top ten combined, and their wealth grew 27% in the last year. Did yours? Truth is, there are only two things that the United States is not running out of: Rich people and bullshit. Here's the truth: When you raise taxes slightly on the wealthy, it obviously doesn't destroy the economy -- we know this, because we just did it -- remember the '90's? It wasn't that long ago. You were probably listening to grunge music, or dabbling in witchcraft. Clinton moved the top marginal rate from 36 to 39% -- and far from tanking, the economy did so well he had time to get his dick washed.
Even 39% isn't high by historical standards. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 91%. Under Nixon, it was 70%. Obama just wants to kick it back to 39 -- just three more points for the very rich. Not back to 91, or 70. Three points. And they go insane. Steve Forbes said that Obama, quote "believes from his inner core that people... above a certain income have more than they should have and that many probably have gotten it from ill-gotten ways." Which they have. Steve Forbes, of course, came by his fortune honestly: he inherited it from his gay egg-collecting, Elizabeth Taylor fag-hagging father, who inherited it from his father. Of course then they moan about the inheritance tax, how the government took 55% percent when Daddy died -- which means you still got 45% for doing nothing more than starting out life as your father's pecker-snot.
We don't hate rich people, but have a little humility about how you got it and stop complaining. Maybe the worst whiner of all: Stephen Schwarzman, #69 on Forbes' list of richest Americans, compared Obama's tax hike to "when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939." Wow. If Obama were Hitler, Mr. Schwarzman, I think your tax rate would be the least of your worries.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
"get ready, criminals: hell is coming to breakfast"
Obama nails it. No ambiguity. Elizabeth Warren has been hired to protect Americans from evil, and put financial institutions, predatory lenders, and other criminal entities in check. This is what real change looks like, baby!
clicking on title of this post will bring you to HuffPo piece, filled with mad information and details on who she is, why she rules, and what the particulars are; including an incredibly-simple breakdown of just how easy it was for the mortgage brokers and financial services industry to hoodwink americans and just how they were responsible for the near-depression we find ourselves still in. Following are some excerpts....sj
"Anyone who knows her knows that she would only take a position that had real meat to it," said one source who had worked closely with Warren in the past. "I mean, seriously, you've seen her in action. Do you really think she's going to be anyone's lapdog? She bites hard."
"Republicans, too, began to endorse her. A former top official in the Reagan administration said a vote for Warren was akin to a vote for capitalism and free markets."
"Later that year, her opposition widened to include much of the House GOP. Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee introduced an amendment to the pending financial reform legislation intended to prevent Warren from ever heading the agency. It was defeated."
Wanna see why she rules? Watch this...
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Read this article by Al Gore, on global warming. Seriously.
"...January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago....Similarly, even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade, scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept."
This editorial by Al Gore was originally run in last week's NY Times. It's a good read, with some good links. Most importantly, it's filled with facts. Remember those? - sj
We Can't Wish Away Climate Change
by Al Gore
Op-Ed Contributor
The New York Times
Published: February 27, 2010
It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.
Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.
But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.
click here for rest of original piece, with great and informative links throughout
Monday, February 22, 2010
Thoughts On Not Being Gay
great thought here, from a person named Paul, I've never met; I completely agree. Perhaps we'll see more of him on cx3 blog... - sj
Thoughts On Not Being Gay
by: Paul Lubaczewski
I spend alot of time and effort on gay rights,and Im straight. Why? Because I dont care.
What do I mean?
I dont want to care. Frankly, I dont like to picture any of my friends knocking boots, regardless of the boots they care to knock.
And its not fair that my gay friends are pushed into a situation where they constantly feel the need to defend themselves for their own sexuality; just the basic them of who they are. They get so drawn in to a corner, that being gay becomes their identity, because they have to mentally protect themselves against the backlash they know is coming.
We can do better then that. We can and should reach a level of tolerance where we really dont give a flying fuck about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom.
So as long as I have gay friends, and as long as society paints them in to a corner and tries to keep them there, I'll fight for them.
When society lets them serve in the military and the board rooms, and nobody cares one way or the other, then I'll put down my sword.
Until then, its on.
Thoughts On Not Being Gay
by: Paul Lubaczewski
I spend alot of time and effort on gay rights,and Im straight. Why? Because I dont care.
What do I mean?
I dont want to care. Frankly, I dont like to picture any of my friends knocking boots, regardless of the boots they care to knock.
And its not fair that my gay friends are pushed into a situation where they constantly feel the need to defend themselves for their own sexuality; just the basic them of who they are. They get so drawn in to a corner, that being gay becomes their identity, because they have to mentally protect themselves against the backlash they know is coming.
We can do better then that. We can and should reach a level of tolerance where we really dont give a flying fuck about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom.
So as long as I have gay friends, and as long as society paints them in to a corner and tries to keep them there, I'll fight for them.
When society lets them serve in the military and the board rooms, and nobody cares one way or the other, then I'll put down my sword.
Until then, its on.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
They live among us! The 2010 comprehensive Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll of self-identified republicans
Okay, folks this is too much. The new poll from Markos Moulitsas (a hero of my mine) and Daily Kos. And it's 100% independent and legitimate, as you can read the COMPLETE methodology at bottom of poll. There are links to the complete story, and analysis below; the poll is long, but the the findings are truly extraordinary. The summaries are short, but all are worth reading. This is too damn important to not read, and I sincerely urge you to do so.
I learned years ago, I lived among tens of millions of Americans who aren't that bright (too put it nicely), but honestly, I didn't know it was this many. And I didn't know the extent of their gullibilty (is that a word?!) and ignorance. At a time when information and facts are at everyone's disposal, we STILL have millions of people who apparently forgo fact, for fiction, and choose to believe the craziest batshit out there (it especially helps when Rush/Rove/Hannity/FAUX news tell them what to believe)! Well, in this case, it's solely republicans I'm speaking about, as only self-described republicans were polled independently for this survey. No, not all republicans are clueless (in all seriousness, I have plenty of friends and neighbors who are republicans, and many of them are far from clueless; not all of them though). But according to these poll results, LOTS of them are! These are their OWN answers! Just look at them! So w/out further rambling, I'll try and get the whole of the poll on this post, w/ a few summaries/results printed, and links to the original stuff.-sj
by Kos
Tue, Feb 02, 2010, at 08:58:03 AM PST
As I've mentioned before, I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world. But I found myself making certain claims about Republicans that I didn't know if they could be backed up. So I thought, "why don't we ask them directly?" And so, this massive poll, by non-partisan independent pollster Research 2000 of over 2,000 self-identified Republicans, was born.
The results are nothing short of startling.
Ultimately, these results explain why it is impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country. Their base are conspiracy mongers who don't believe Obama was born in the United States, that he is the second coming of Lenin, and that he is racist against white people. They already want to impeach him despite the glaringly obvious lack of high crimes or misdemeanors. If any Republican strays and decides to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Even the Maine twins have quit cooperating out of fear of their homegrown teabaggers.
Given what their base demands, and this poll illustrates them perfectly, it's no wonder the GOP is the party of no.
(just a few brief results followed by thought; click on link just below these for the rest! - sj)
Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
Yes39
No32
Not Sure29
...for what? who the heck knows. who needs high crimes and misdemeanors when...
Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?
Yes24
No43
Not Sure33
...not just a quarter of Republicans believe this ludicrous premise, but another third think it's a matter open to debate. How do you negotiate with a party whose rank and file are that divorced from reality?
Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
Yes42
No36
Not Sure22
...We still have over a half of Republicans who don't think Obama was born in the US or think it's a matter open to debate.
click here for the summary, breakdown, captions and comments.
click here for the actual & complete poll, hard numbers, questions, answers and methodology.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Obama smacks down SCOTUS activist judges in his first SOTU address
Barack Obama's first State of the Union Address was very, very good. Some say excellent. Beck and Hannity "HATED IT!" Well, here's one of the highlights. Just weeks ago, The Supreme Court of the United States struck down a decades-old law that limited what corporations could pay to support presidential campaigns. How did this happen? Well, there are 5 Republicans on the bench now, unfortch. both pilgrim99 and me spoke about this in earlier posts, just before the one. Well here's Barack's take on it, and we see (Republican) Justice Alito mouth "that's a lie" after Barack states the truth about the decision. Good times.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
no room for the weak: a tough & rough day for concerned Americans...
what...a fucking...day. here are my thoughts on the good, the bad, and the ugly from today.
the Good: Obama and his team have instituted real regulation on banks to stop their corrupt practices of using taxpayer money to take unnecessary risks for their own profits.
This is a victory for all americans, and should go far to help ensure a collapse like we've seen during the end of Bush's term, doesn't happen again. as I understand it, some of these rules are not dissimilar to the controls put on baks after the great depression.
the Bad: SCOTUS struck down a DECADES-old ruling, which restricted corporations from spending money on political campaigns.
So much for there not being 'activist republican judges' on the bench! This sucks for americans, and really, is just more proof of how corrupt the republican party is: we know the overwhelming majority of large corporations favor the Republican platform of tax sheltering, steering lobbies, and putting profits ahead of working americans. It's difficult to argue, w/ unfathomable precedences liek this, that we are not "a government for the corporations, of the corporations, and by the corporations."
the Ugly: The WH, Senate Dems and many other Americans were hoping to have the Senate healthcare reform bill passed by the House of Representatives within days or weeks, and get it to Obama's desk before the end of February. There were to be guarantees by President Obama, that the government would work on partnering w/ the house, immediately after signing bill into law, to satisfy some of their demands, and changes they wanted to make to the Seante's version. Why the rush? because the new GOP Senator from MA, Scott Brown, was going to vote against it, in effect killing it, due to Senate not having enough votes, by the time the House amended the Senate's version (this was a huge blunder by the Obama administration, to not put "high - priority" status on this MA senate seat, both to find a better candidate, and ensure a dem victory. No way in a thousand years does Hillary Clinton make this mistake). Pelosi announced today, ""In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," the speaker said. "I don't see the votes for it at this time. The members have been very clear." Moving forward, it's anyone's guess as to WHAT will happen next.
Guess what? The Senate's HCR bill sucked. I'm a Dem and deemed it week, and didn't want it to pass. Most progressives, many liberals, and hardcore Dems feel the same way. I consider this a win. Let them go back to the drawing board, and re-craft a REAL healtchare/insurance reform bill, that has a public option, no mandate, and (gasp!), perhaps even a single-payer plan! It will be better for ALL americans in the long-run!
So...what's the 'ugly' part? Do I really need to tell you? Let me (not) count the ways. In a nutshell, Republicans will use this to drub the democratic party into submission, for failing on their #1 goal, and they will win back many seats in the House and Congress this year, and almost lassuredly, the Presidency in 2012, along with more congressional seats.
This was ANOTHER mistake Obama and his team made, boren out of inexperience, to hang his entire presidency on passing HCR. NEVER, would Hillary Clinton make that same mistake. Obama, simply couldn't imagine the size and scope the battle would be, against the greed-frenzy corporations and their gigantic lobbies-monster.
...is it time to pick up the kids from school yet?!
the Good: Obama and his team have instituted real regulation on banks to stop their corrupt practices of using taxpayer money to take unnecessary risks for their own profits.
This is a victory for all americans, and should go far to help ensure a collapse like we've seen during the end of Bush's term, doesn't happen again. as I understand it, some of these rules are not dissimilar to the controls put on baks after the great depression.
the Bad: SCOTUS struck down a DECADES-old ruling, which restricted corporations from spending money on political campaigns.
So much for there not being 'activist republican judges' on the bench! This sucks for americans, and really, is just more proof of how corrupt the republican party is: we know the overwhelming majority of large corporations favor the Republican platform of tax sheltering, steering lobbies, and putting profits ahead of working americans. It's difficult to argue, w/ unfathomable precedences liek this, that we are not "a government for the corporations, of the corporations, and by the corporations."
the Ugly: The WH, Senate Dems and many other Americans were hoping to have the Senate healthcare reform bill passed by the House of Representatives within days or weeks, and get it to Obama's desk before the end of February. There were to be guarantees by President Obama, that the government would work on partnering w/ the house, immediately after signing bill into law, to satisfy some of their demands, and changes they wanted to make to the Seante's version. Why the rush? because the new GOP Senator from MA, Scott Brown, was going to vote against it, in effect killing it, due to Senate not having enough votes, by the time the House amended the Senate's version (this was a huge blunder by the Obama administration, to not put "high - priority" status on this MA senate seat, both to find a better candidate, and ensure a dem victory. No way in a thousand years does Hillary Clinton make this mistake). Pelosi announced today, ""In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," the speaker said. "I don't see the votes for it at this time. The members have been very clear." Moving forward, it's anyone's guess as to WHAT will happen next.
Guess what? The Senate's HCR bill sucked. I'm a Dem and deemed it week, and didn't want it to pass. Most progressives, many liberals, and hardcore Dems feel the same way. I consider this a win. Let them go back to the drawing board, and re-craft a REAL healtchare/insurance reform bill, that has a public option, no mandate, and (gasp!), perhaps even a single-payer plan! It will be better for ALL americans in the long-run!
So...what's the 'ugly' part? Do I really need to tell you? Let me (not) count the ways. In a nutshell, Republicans will use this to drub the democratic party into submission, for failing on their #1 goal, and they will win back many seats in the House and Congress this year, and almost lassuredly, the Presidency in 2012, along with more congressional seats.
This was ANOTHER mistake Obama and his team made, boren out of inexperience, to hang his entire presidency on passing HCR. NEVER, would Hillary Clinton make that same mistake. Obama, simply couldn't imagine the size and scope the battle would be, against the greed-frenzy corporations and their gigantic lobbies-monster.
...is it time to pick up the kids from school yet?!
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Healthcare Reform Bill is "In Da House, Boy-eeee!"
The Healthcare bill is IN Da House, as we speak. An unprecedented day for America. You can follow it throughout day on huffington post's 'almost-live' blog here, or any number of blogs on the cx3 blogroll. You can also follow, live, from various tweeter feeds, directly from reporters in the chamber, here: @oknox and probably Ana Marie Cox's twitter feed: @anamariecox
I'd call this a coin flip, this vote passing: we already know every miserable, healthcare insurance-backed republican will vote against insurance for 40 million Americans, and even some Dems. But wow, what a day/weekend if the House could pass this thing!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
World Series, Game 6, live bloggin'...from 5th inning thru end..
5th inning begins…
9:44 – need another beer to go w/ my wine.
9:47 – sweet hit by Jeter. Fuck, he is awesome. Nice bunt, gets Jeter to third.
9:53 - wow, we really don't have one pitcher from our bullpen that can come in and just take care of business. not a one. not this series anyway.
can you tell I'm a little bored?
10:02 – this game is over. Time to watch some DVR’s comedies and WSOP!
10:11 – what point was Joe Buck just trying to make, when he said: “many people criticize the Yankees for buying championships, with C.C., Burnett and A-Rod totaling about $500 million dollars, but them you have Pettitte who only makes $5 Million…” What the hell was that? Yes, Steinbrenner buys championships. Literally. It’s why Yankees are the most-hated sports team in the world.
10:39 – Top of the 7th, 7 to 3 Yankmees. Time to switch to the other World Series. The World Series of Poker. Fuck the Yankees.
10:51 – still here. Utley did NOT go all the way around on that check-swing. Ridonkulous call by the 3rd base ump. Friggin idiot.
11:07 – falling asleep….
11:53 – Yankmees win. And they STILL suck. Fuck ‘em. Now, more than ever….
9:44 – need another beer to go w/ my wine.
9:47 – sweet hit by Jeter. Fuck, he is awesome. Nice bunt, gets Jeter to third.
9:53 - wow, we really don't have one pitcher from our bullpen that can come in and just take care of business. not a one. not this series anyway.
can you tell I'm a little bored?
10:02 – this game is over. Time to watch some DVR’s comedies and WSOP!
10:11 – what point was Joe Buck just trying to make, when he said: “many people criticize the Yankees for buying championships, with C.C., Burnett and A-Rod totaling about $500 million dollars, but them you have Pettitte who only makes $5 Million…” What the hell was that? Yes, Steinbrenner buys championships. Literally. It’s why Yankees are the most-hated sports team in the world.
10:39 – Top of the 7th, 7 to 3 Yankmees. Time to switch to the other World Series. The World Series of Poker. Fuck the Yankees.
10:51 – still here. Utley did NOT go all the way around on that check-swing. Ridonkulous call by the 3rd base ump. Friggin idiot.
11:07 – falling asleep….
11:53 – Yankmees win. And they STILL suck. Fuck ‘em. Now, more than ever….
Yankees history lesson/Phillies inspiration from Chip D., heading into game #6 tonight!
"I'm sure you don't need reminding, but in 1926, Grover Cleveland ("Pete") Alexander entered Game Seven of the World Series for the Cardinals against the Yankees. The Cards were up 3-2 in the bottom of the seventh inning, but the Yankees had two on and the dangerous Tony ("Poosh 'Em Up") Lazzeri at the plate....
...Alexander was at the tail end of a Hall of Fame career, unpredictable, but still able to flash a little of the old magic? Alexander struck out Lazzeri, killing the rally and quieting the Yankee Stadium fans. He then retired the side in order in the eighth, got the first two Yankees in the ninth, and then walked Babe Ruth on a full count. Ruth ... Read Morepromptly got himself thrown out trying to steal second, and the Cardinals won the World Series.
Pete Alexander had begun his career as a Phillie. In fact, until 1980, he was the only Phillies pitcher to win a post-season game, winning Game One of the 1915 World Series against the Red Sox. Let's wish a little of that mojo on Pedro "Petey" Martinez tonight." - Chip D.
...Alexander was at the tail end of a Hall of Fame career, unpredictable, but still able to flash a little of the old magic? Alexander struck out Lazzeri, killing the rally and quieting the Yankee Stadium fans. He then retired the side in order in the eighth, got the first two Yankees in the ninth, and then walked Babe Ruth on a full count. Ruth ... Read Morepromptly got himself thrown out trying to steal second, and the Cardinals won the World Series.
Pete Alexander had begun his career as a Phillie. In fact, until 1980, he was the only Phillies pitcher to win a post-season game, winning Game One of the 1915 World Series against the Red Sox. Let's wish a little of that mojo on Pedro "Petey" Martinez tonight." - Chip D.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Alan Grayson (Dem Congressman, FL) cuts straight to the chase!
smacking down the GOP, w/ humor! - sj
Friday, September 25, 2009
Why Americans Hate Democrats - The Unteachable Ignorance of the Red States
This is one of my absolute, all-time, favorite articles/analyses. It was originally written/posted the day after the 2004 election. There are lots of links and related dialogues to click on, written by well-known and excellent writers, that I highly recommend clicking on as well. Succinct and right to the point. - sj
Why Americans Hate Democrats - A Dialogue
The unteachable ignorance of the red states.
By Jane Smiley - Slate
The day after the election, Slate's political writers tackled the question of why the Democratic Party—which has now lost five of the past seven presidential elections and solidified its minority status in Congress—keeps losing elections. Chris Suellentrop says that John Kerry was too nuanced and technocratic, while George W. Bush offered a vision of expanding freedom around the world. William Saletan argues that Democratic candidates won't win until they again cast their policies the way Bill Clinton did, in terms of values and moral responsibility. Timothy Noah contends that none of the familiar advice to the party—move right, move left, or sit tight—seems likely to help. Slate asked a number of wise liberals to take up the question of why Americans won't vote for the Democrats. Click here to read previous entries.
I say forget introspection. It's time to be honest about our antagonists. My predecessors in this conversation are thoughtful men, and I honor their ideas, but let's try something else. I grew up in Missouri and most of my family voted for Bush,* so I am going to be the one to say it: The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58 million—my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)
Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states. There used to be a kind of hand-to-hand fight on the frontier called a "knock-down-drag-out," where any kind of gouging, biting, or maiming was considered fair. The ancestors of today's red-state voters used to stand around cheering and betting on these fights. When the forces of red and blue encountered one another head-on for the first time in Kansas Territory in 1856, the red forces from Missouri, who had been coveting Indian land across the Missouri River since 1820, entered Kansas and stole the territorial election. The red news media of the day made a practice of inflammatory lying—declaring that the blue folks had shot and killed red folks whom everyone knew were walking around. The worst civilian massacre in American history took place in Lawrence, Kan., in 1863—Quantrill's raid. The red forces, known then as the slave-power, pulled between 150 and 200 unarmed men
click here for rest of article and original story
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
