President Obama is already becoming more moderate. He has to, because the voters spoke and gave him a more conservative legislature. He's already cut a few deals with them and I expect this to continue. These compromises will mean poor policy, but not horrible policy.
The tax deal is a case in point. He gave the Repubs their tax break for rich people (including estates) in exchange for...hmmm....I'm drawing a blank. Oh yeah, in exchange for passing something.
Unfortunately, the country is conservative. Conservative sour grapes at the defeat of McCain/Palin and the victory of the Black Muslim Socialist will not abate as long as Americans keep watching Fox News and listening to knucklehead radio. Every move Obama makes will be wrong and there will be more exasperated cries of "I can't believe we elected this guy" at EVERYTHING he does or doesn't do. Our brief flirtation with wise and effective policies for the last two years is coming to a slow halt. More foolish tax breaks and attempts to de-fund health care reform should be on the short term docket for 2011.
Happy fucking New Year.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Tax Day Philosophy
Last April 15 was the date that the new right was launched in the US. The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) movement, led by grass roots everymen Roger Ailes and Glenn Beck, gathered for the cameras and each other. I felt the earth shift under my feet (no, really) when the reactionary, Reagan worshiping, small-gubment philosophy reappeared as a populist movement. Their main arguments are that government is bad, taxes are bad and that nearly any federal domestic action by the elected and sponsored ruling party is anti-freedom, anti-constitutional, anti-American and communist.
For an educated, thinking person like me these views appear to be too crazy and shallow to even consider. It is now apparent that they have some very strong legs. It seems to be the main organized resistance to the moderately progressive policy ideas and actions of Obama and the Democratic leadership of the federal legislature. Therefore, it is worthy of consideration and response.
The simplest version of the argument I can muster is that Reagan was wrong. He had been spinning reactionary rhetoric all his long political life. In 1979, President Carter presided over a disastrous foreign policy. He took the heat for the high interest rates engineered by Paul Volcker to wring inflation out of the economy. Even worse for Carter, he took heat from within his own party in the form of Ted Kennedy's run for the nomination. Reagan capitalized on these weaknesses with some very simple rhetoric about the evils of government and the greatness of the American flag. That effective rhetoric is still with us at the core of the bullshit believed by the TEA people. It was cute then, but the shallowness of these ideas are now harmful to the country.
Government is not bad - It simply is. The 'government is bad' argument is very difficult to deal with because it is shallow, emotional and illogical. It is often supported by anecdotes about debt, inefficiencies and a distaste for bureaucracy. In other words, the argument that 'government is bad' is just fucking stupid. My simple counter argument, that it simply exists outside of any sort of moral judgment of it goodness, is not something your normal Reagan Republican can grasp.
Taxes are not bad - they are necessary. The main reason for taxes is to generate money to fund government activities. Taxes are not levied as penalties for bad behavior, they are calculations on transactions that can be tracked by accountants. An estate tax is not a tax on death, it is a tax on cash transactions between the holdings of deceased people and their heirs. Income taxes are not sanctions against hard work and good fortune, they are calculations on transactions. Money changes hands, it is tracked by accountants and a calculation is made of a social cut. The cut goes to fund government activities.
Once the cash goes into government coffers, it ceases to be the property of the individual. It becomes the property of the society as represented by elected officials. This is a disconnection the TEA people don't buy. They argue that government money is their money and should not be spent on things they (as individuals) don't want. Federal abortion funding is the latest cry in this category, but the anger over 'handouts' is the loudest and most persistent argument from the right. It is a bullshit argument. Once taxes are levied and individual monies move to societal coffers, the individual can only have power over it via their elected officials. If these individuals yell loud enough, or spend heavy enough, they can have some say in how government funds are spent.
The striking foolishness of the TEA position becomes crystal clear to me when every single person I have heard speak as a TEA enthusiast uses the word "we" when they are speaking out of their individual mouth or typing with their own pair of hands. How is it that one person can talk about "we the people" or "taking our country back from them"? It sounds crazy to speak for "the people" when I disagree with you so deeply. You don't speak for me, so you certainly can't speak for "the people". The entire movement shakes down to Reagan populist bullshit.
For an educated, thinking person like me these views appear to be too crazy and shallow to even consider. It is now apparent that they have some very strong legs. It seems to be the main organized resistance to the moderately progressive policy ideas and actions of Obama and the Democratic leadership of the federal legislature. Therefore, it is worthy of consideration and response.
The simplest version of the argument I can muster is that Reagan was wrong. He had been spinning reactionary rhetoric all his long political life. In 1979, President Carter presided over a disastrous foreign policy. He took the heat for the high interest rates engineered by Paul Volcker to wring inflation out of the economy. Even worse for Carter, he took heat from within his own party in the form of Ted Kennedy's run for the nomination. Reagan capitalized on these weaknesses with some very simple rhetoric about the evils of government and the greatness of the American flag. That effective rhetoric is still with us at the core of the bullshit believed by the TEA people. It was cute then, but the shallowness of these ideas are now harmful to the country.
Government is not bad - It simply is. The 'government is bad' argument is very difficult to deal with because it is shallow, emotional and illogical. It is often supported by anecdotes about debt, inefficiencies and a distaste for bureaucracy. In other words, the argument that 'government is bad' is just fucking stupid. My simple counter argument, that it simply exists outside of any sort of moral judgment of it goodness, is not something your normal Reagan Republican can grasp.
Taxes are not bad - they are necessary. The main reason for taxes is to generate money to fund government activities. Taxes are not levied as penalties for bad behavior, they are calculations on transactions that can be tracked by accountants. An estate tax is not a tax on death, it is a tax on cash transactions between the holdings of deceased people and their heirs. Income taxes are not sanctions against hard work and good fortune, they are calculations on transactions. Money changes hands, it is tracked by accountants and a calculation is made of a social cut. The cut goes to fund government activities.
Once the cash goes into government coffers, it ceases to be the property of the individual. It becomes the property of the society as represented by elected officials. This is a disconnection the TEA people don't buy. They argue that government money is their money and should not be spent on things they (as individuals) don't want. Federal abortion funding is the latest cry in this category, but the anger over 'handouts' is the loudest and most persistent argument from the right. It is a bullshit argument. Once taxes are levied and individual monies move to societal coffers, the individual can only have power over it via their elected officials. If these individuals yell loud enough, or spend heavy enough, they can have some say in how government funds are spent.
The striking foolishness of the TEA position becomes crystal clear to me when every single person I have heard speak as a TEA enthusiast uses the word "we" when they are speaking out of their individual mouth or typing with their own pair of hands. How is it that one person can talk about "we the people" or "taking our country back from them"? It sounds crazy to speak for "the people" when I disagree with you so deeply. You don't speak for me, so you certainly can't speak for "the people". The entire movement shakes down to Reagan populist bullshit.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Frank Rich - quote of the day
"The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play."
Monday, March 22, 2010
Health care reform passes
President Obama is rightly basking in the glory of the passage of health care reform. This is a big victory for the sensible, compassionate portion of the electorate known as "fascist communist socialists" to the Republican Party.
As a former liberal and current "communist" I think this is as good an overhaul as we could get. I would prefer that abortion be available on demand. I would prefer either government price controls on procedures or a single-payer socialized model, but that's just too radical for the vast majority of Americans. Still, this is a good plan. More people will be insured, the insurance companies will be subject to more rules of fair play which is all for the better.
It is a very moderate, sensible approach that Obama pounded in his campaign. A campaign that WON, despite Republican and Tea Bagger assertions that fighting for health care reform goes against the wishes of 'the people'. I don't know what 'the people' they are referring to, but it seems pretty fucking obvious that the majority that voted for Obama had every chance to understand that they were voting in favor of comprehensive health care reform just like the bill that passed the House last night.
I challenge anyone bitching about this to state a specific part of the bill/law that they dislike. "Big gubment" is not specific. Its about as general as you can get.
And one more gripe. I would prefer more energy put into reforming financial markets. The mid-term election is nearly upon us, and the bad guys will certainly win big. The banks and insurance companies that nearly fell apart just prior to the Obama's election have still not been re-regulated. Time is wasting.
As a former liberal and current "communist" I think this is as good an overhaul as we could get. I would prefer that abortion be available on demand. I would prefer either government price controls on procedures or a single-payer socialized model, but that's just too radical for the vast majority of Americans. Still, this is a good plan. More people will be insured, the insurance companies will be subject to more rules of fair play which is all for the better.
It is a very moderate, sensible approach that Obama pounded in his campaign. A campaign that WON, despite Republican and Tea Bagger assertions that fighting for health care reform goes against the wishes of 'the people'. I don't know what 'the people' they are referring to, but it seems pretty fucking obvious that the majority that voted for Obama had every chance to understand that they were voting in favor of comprehensive health care reform just like the bill that passed the House last night.
I challenge anyone bitching about this to state a specific part of the bill/law that they dislike. "Big gubment" is not specific. Its about as general as you can get.
And one more gripe. I would prefer more energy put into reforming financial markets. The mid-term election is nearly upon us, and the bad guys will certainly win big. The banks and insurance companies that nearly fell apart just prior to the Obama's election have still not been re-regulated. Time is wasting.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Disturbing
I had a little run-in with a true believer in the right wing fear and blame ideology today. It scared me, but not for the reasons the TB would want. Mr. TB warned me that interest rates are headed into middle double digits, that real estate values would plummet much further than they are now, led straight down the drain by Barney Frank, Tim Geithner and all liberals.
His theory goes something like this: Barney Frank and his liberal buddies forced banks to make bad loans to undesirables in the name of helping deadbeats. The deadbeats (being animals) naturally did not pay the loans back. This left lots of bad debt in the hands of the banks, which was then dumped on the government. The government (especially that tax cheat Geithner) is now borrowing more money than can ever be repaid to cover the bad loans and that international credit markets will soon refuse to buy US Treasury debt. As a matter of fact, Geithner is already having problems selling Treasury Notes so his house of cards will fall soon. This will send interest rates through the roof and further damage the credit markets, real estate prices and the flow of money.
I can't make this as scary as it appeared, when I was faced with the wide-eyed, self-assured terror in this man's eyes. He seemed very much like a rational, hard-working man. Still, it is scary to realize that many Americans are walking around with this kind of fear in their heads and their hearts. Scary to think what they might do with this fear.
I'm not afraid that his predictions could turn out to be right, because the logic and facts he believed are just wrong. Almost entirely wrong. A mass of angry, fear-ridden voters can do horrible things to their country and their own interests. That disturbs me.
His theory goes something like this: Barney Frank and his liberal buddies forced banks to make bad loans to undesirables in the name of helping deadbeats. The deadbeats (being animals) naturally did not pay the loans back. This left lots of bad debt in the hands of the banks, which was then dumped on the government. The government (especially that tax cheat Geithner) is now borrowing more money than can ever be repaid to cover the bad loans and that international credit markets will soon refuse to buy US Treasury debt. As a matter of fact, Geithner is already having problems selling Treasury Notes so his house of cards will fall soon. This will send interest rates through the roof and further damage the credit markets, real estate prices and the flow of money.
I can't make this as scary as it appeared, when I was faced with the wide-eyed, self-assured terror in this man's eyes. He seemed very much like a rational, hard-working man. Still, it is scary to realize that many Americans are walking around with this kind of fear in their heads and their hearts. Scary to think what they might do with this fear.
I'm not afraid that his predictions could turn out to be right, because the logic and facts he believed are just wrong. Almost entirely wrong. A mass of angry, fear-ridden voters can do horrible things to their country and their own interests. That disturbs me.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Light at the end of a tunnel of doom
I'm still reeling from Tuesday's Scott Brown win. Today I'm feeling better.
The Boston Globe has an article today where they go to the three main epicenters of Massachusetts liberalism: Amherst, Cambridge and Provincetown. It felt good to get a reminder of the strength of my State's liberalism. The recent election made me feel a bit ashamed to be here. Then I thought about it.
I put myself in the shoes of a suburban middle class voter. Which is not too difficult because that's what I am. Except I went a little further and meditated on things I have heard my fellow suburbanites say in the last week or so. Anger, frustration, fear and more fear. Mainly economic fear for their own futures. Martha Coakley (and President Obama) have been focused on health care reform. Massachusetts has already reformed, and has nearly universal insurance coverage. Scott Brown could have said nothing and just smiled pretty for the cameras and he would have gotten a lot of votes from Massachusetts suburbanites. As it was, he got more than a lot, he got a whole big lot of suburban votes. Health care reform for the rest of the United States is nice, but it ain't at the top of our priority list. It certainly isn't at the top of mine.
Scott Brown was greeted with great fanfare in Washington, yesterday. At the same time, President Obama was laying out his newly minted priorities in the face of the Republican victory in Massachusetts. He pounded his fist as he admonished the banking industry for contributing to the woes 'on main street'. He railed against the institutionalized corporate money in our political system that was approved by the Supreme Court. He also signaled that he would be willing to consider breaking the healthcare overhaul bill into smaller pieces.
Re-regulating banks and overriding the Supreme Court's decision to grant unlimited political spending to corporations and unions are two ideas that would have a tremendously positive effect on our American financial and political systems. These fantastic practical applications of law to help the working class are a difficult sell in the marketplace of American ideas that the voters hear. The Fox Party (aka Republicans) will stomp their feet, suck their thumbs, and in the deep voice of Limbaugh and the pleading whine of Beck will cry "SOCIALISM!" This will be their cry heading into the mid-term elections. It may win them a few seats or it may win them a lot of seats. I wouldn't place a bet either way.
But good can win here. My country could gain some needed financial and political protections in the very short run that would serve it in the long run. I wish I could be a fly on the wall when the senior Senator from my State hangs out with the new junior Senator. I hope the junior Senator can be manipulated...I mean negotiated with to do the right thing and support these reforms. Now is the time.
The Boston Globe has an article today where they go to the three main epicenters of Massachusetts liberalism: Amherst, Cambridge and Provincetown. It felt good to get a reminder of the strength of my State's liberalism. The recent election made me feel a bit ashamed to be here. Then I thought about it.
I put myself in the shoes of a suburban middle class voter. Which is not too difficult because that's what I am. Except I went a little further and meditated on things I have heard my fellow suburbanites say in the last week or so. Anger, frustration, fear and more fear. Mainly economic fear for their own futures. Martha Coakley (and President Obama) have been focused on health care reform. Massachusetts has already reformed, and has nearly universal insurance coverage. Scott Brown could have said nothing and just smiled pretty for the cameras and he would have gotten a lot of votes from Massachusetts suburbanites. As it was, he got more than a lot, he got a whole big lot of suburban votes. Health care reform for the rest of the United States is nice, but it ain't at the top of our priority list. It certainly isn't at the top of mine.
Scott Brown was greeted with great fanfare in Washington, yesterday. At the same time, President Obama was laying out his newly minted priorities in the face of the Republican victory in Massachusetts. He pounded his fist as he admonished the banking industry for contributing to the woes 'on main street'. He railed against the institutionalized corporate money in our political system that was approved by the Supreme Court. He also signaled that he would be willing to consider breaking the healthcare overhaul bill into smaller pieces.
Re-regulating banks and overriding the Supreme Court's decision to grant unlimited political spending to corporations and unions are two ideas that would have a tremendously positive effect on our American financial and political systems. These fantastic practical applications of law to help the working class are a difficult sell in the marketplace of American ideas that the voters hear. The Fox Party (aka Republicans) will stomp their feet, suck their thumbs, and in the deep voice of Limbaugh and the pleading whine of Beck will cry "SOCIALISM!" This will be their cry heading into the mid-term elections. It may win them a few seats or it may win them a lot of seats. I wouldn't place a bet either way.
But good can win here. My country could gain some needed financial and political protections in the very short run that would serve it in the long run. I wish I could be a fly on the wall when the senior Senator from my State hangs out with the new junior Senator. I hope the junior Senator can be manipulated...I mean negotiated with to do the right thing and support these reforms. Now is the time.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
How did this happen?
I'm writing this to kill some anxiety as the Brown vs. Coakley results are coming in. It looks like a loss for the good guys. How can this happen in a state with 3-1 Dem-Repub registration? Good question.
Here's my take. The Dem Party walked slowly into this very short race. There was virtually no turnout in the primary and a pretty high turnout in the general. This tells me that the uninformed, normally apathetic middle ground 'independent' voter decided this election. Coakley was the only name candidate in this race, which is how she won the primary and she coasted into the general election as the national Republican machine was pumping huge piles of cash into advertising in the state. Meanwhile, the Dems just coasted.
Brown is a pretty boy who's main campaigners were Mitt Romney, Bill Weld, Doug Flutie and Curt Schilling. He walked through the primary and was a great vessel for the Repub machine to sell, while the TEA Party PAC and their ilk pumped cash into the local advertising market.
The 'independent' voter, the ignorant middle (as I like to call them), buys the shit that is sold to them in advertising. The don't think, they don't remember the recent results of Republican power in the GW Bush era. They buy what is sold, and they bought the Brown candidacy with all the thought and consideration that they would spend in selecting a fatty sandwich for their drive-thru pleasure.
Thanks to the ignorant 'independent' voter and the cash pumped into the state from PACs, the Republicans have pulled off something miraculous. They snagged a Senate seat in the formerly great State of Massachusetts.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Sarah Palin: Someone get this woman a book PLEASE!
Duh of the day. I am sure there will be many more of these. Really stupid answer in many many ways.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Election anxiety and one year of Obama
It hasn't really been a year, but close enough. Next week we Massholes get our chance to fill the vacant Senate seat left by the late great Ted Kennedy. I am a bit worried that the bad guys will win. There is some disillusion with the Obama Admin on the left, lots of anger toward Obama on the right, and (just as natural as the right anger) lots of apathy in the middle. Massachusetts is 3-1 Dem-Rebub in registered voters, but low turnout could mean victory for the evil Republicans. The right seems pretty fired up, and the left not so much.
The actions of the Congress and the President have been a bit weak for my liking. I would prefer much a more progressive health care bill, strong financial regulations, more federal stimulative spending, a more progressive tax structure and some actual action on expanding rights for gay Americans. So I understand the disillusion on the left. But I'm not angry. I understand that the right is very powerful, especially within the Democratic Party. Obama has dealt with this strength admirably.
The Obama Administration has negotiated with the legislature and made great progress on all the fronts I have listed, with the exception of gay rights. I cut them slack on the latter because they have had so many more pressing issues to deal with. The Republicans left behind a near wasteland of damage done by their years of ideological foolishness. America's standing in the world is at a low because Bush and his constituents found diplomacy distasteful. America's economic power was shattered by years of Republican and Democratic non-regulation of capital markets. The US health care system has failed lower income citizens and costs have spiraled out of control, mostly for lack of government participation in this market.
I would finish with the message to my disillusioned and angry citizens that this is how our constitutional republic is supposed to function. Elections create winners and losers.
Conservative TEA Party, Republicans: You lost. Keep up the obstructionism and inaccurate rhetoric. That is what you are supposed to do, and it is working. You will gain some ground in the mid-term election.
Disillusioned Democrats: Keep pounding on your people to move left, I want my government to go with you. Cut Obama some slack, he has to work with the very committed right wing. He could act like they don't exist, but that would just be out Bushing the Bushies.
Apathetic Middle: Shut the fuck up if you don't have an opinion. Don't vote, don't argue, don't even try. If you can't work up enough energy to have an opinion, then just plop your ignorant ass in front of your large television and keep your jokes to yourself.
The actions of the Congress and the President have been a bit weak for my liking. I would prefer much a more progressive health care bill, strong financial regulations, more federal stimulative spending, a more progressive tax structure and some actual action on expanding rights for gay Americans. So I understand the disillusion on the left. But I'm not angry. I understand that the right is very powerful, especially within the Democratic Party. Obama has dealt with this strength admirably.
The Obama Administration has negotiated with the legislature and made great progress on all the fronts I have listed, with the exception of gay rights. I cut them slack on the latter because they have had so many more pressing issues to deal with. The Republicans left behind a near wasteland of damage done by their years of ideological foolishness. America's standing in the world is at a low because Bush and his constituents found diplomacy distasteful. America's economic power was shattered by years of Republican and Democratic non-regulation of capital markets. The US health care system has failed lower income citizens and costs have spiraled out of control, mostly for lack of government participation in this market.
I would finish with the message to my disillusioned and angry citizens that this is how our constitutional republic is supposed to function. Elections create winners and losers.
Conservative TEA Party, Republicans: You lost. Keep up the obstructionism and inaccurate rhetoric. That is what you are supposed to do, and it is working. You will gain some ground in the mid-term election.
Disillusioned Democrats: Keep pounding on your people to move left, I want my government to go with you. Cut Obama some slack, he has to work with the very committed right wing. He could act like they don't exist, but that would just be out Bushing the Bushies.
Apathetic Middle: Shut the fuck up if you don't have an opinion. Don't vote, don't argue, don't even try. If you can't work up enough energy to have an opinion, then just plop your ignorant ass in front of your large television and keep your jokes to yourself.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
My favorite quote from Ted Kennedy's "True Compass"
"I feel that Ronald Reagan led the country in the wrong direction, sensing and playing into its worst impulses at a moment in history that called desperately for a higher vision. The term 'government' was degraded into a working synonym for 'ineptitude' or even 'hostile entity.'"
Makes me feel not quite so alone in my reaction to Reagan. Kennedy is much kinder to Reagan that I have ever been, but this quote sums up the harm he has done to my country. Harm that is still repeated by his conservative followers every day. I don't want to pull a Glenn Beck crying act, but it breaks my heart that the Reagan ideology has is so strong even today. It undermines the good instincts of people who know their duly elected government can do good things.
Makes me feel not quite so alone in my reaction to Reagan. Kennedy is much kinder to Reagan that I have ever been, but this quote sums up the harm he has done to my country. Harm that is still repeated by his conservative followers every day. I don't want to pull a Glenn Beck crying act, but it breaks my heart that the Reagan ideology has is so strong even today. It undermines the good instincts of people who know their duly elected government can do good things.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Dumbass Economics
Here's a piece of a little argument I had on a comment section of a podunk newspaper site recently:
Me: "Reagan was a great marketing device, creating debt through tax cuts and huge military spending were the reality. Creating TARP, bailing out AIG and Leaman were Reaganomics in action - engineered by supplysiders, Greenspan lovers and other conservatives."
Some conservative dumbass said: "Tax cuts don't create debt, they increase tax revenue but stimulating the economy. How do you think Bush had the money to spend too much. It was actual real money. Not Obama bucks that keeps flying off the presses. Do some research on the tax revenue, not the tax cut."
The views expressed by the dumbass in question are very stubborn. The idea that tax cuts create tax revenue is just stupid. Plainly illogical, historically inaccurate, mathematically impossible, but believed as fact by American Conservative ideologues. What a shameful state of affairs this is.
Reagan cut taxes, increased spending, stimulated economic demand, spurred economic growth and exploded the national debt. GW Bush did the same thing, Obama is trying to do the same thing but is coming up against the old Reagan (and Jack Kemp) supply side argument that tax cuts increase tax revenue.
Did I mention that is stupid?
Me: "Reagan was a great marketing device, creating debt through tax cuts and huge military spending were the reality. Creating TARP, bailing out AIG and Leaman were Reaganomics in action - engineered by supplysiders, Greenspan lovers and other conservatives."
Some conservative dumbass said: "Tax cuts don't create debt, they increase tax revenue but stimulating the economy. How do you think Bush had the money to spend too much. It was actual real money. Not Obama bucks that keeps flying off the presses. Do some research on the tax revenue, not the tax cut."
The views expressed by the dumbass in question are very stubborn. The idea that tax cuts create tax revenue is just stupid. Plainly illogical, historically inaccurate, mathematically impossible, but believed as fact by American Conservative ideologues. What a shameful state of affairs this is.
Reagan cut taxes, increased spending, stimulated economic demand, spurred economic growth and exploded the national debt. GW Bush did the same thing, Obama is trying to do the same thing but is coming up against the old Reagan (and Jack Kemp) supply side argument that tax cuts increase tax revenue.
Did I mention that is stupid?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
TedObamaCare
A few days ago we donated a few bucks to St. Jude's Hospitals via a campaign at a chain restaurant. We had a little family discussion about sick children, charity, cancer, and death over a nice basket of warm chips and cool salsa. Our 7-year-old son gave this some thought for a few days.
As he was considering the discussion, Ted Kennedy was being buried and I have been toying with how come up with a large co-payment I need to make to have my gallbladder removed in the face of so many other bills and our recession-battered income.
That's the context of a little discussion from last night:
- Dad, what is cancer?
- It is a serious disease that can get into almost any part of a person's body and has to be treated by doctors. Adults and children can get it, and it can kill them.
- Does it cost money to see doctors?
- Yes
- So, it costs money to save your life?
- Yes
- (Sarcastically) Um, that's kind of stupid.
- Yes
I shared a little tidbit of this on my Facebook status, which prompts an unexpected discussion about health care. The fact that this surprised me is a bit of a testament to my stupidity. The Conservative responses were about 'responsibility' of the individual, rights of providers to be paid and other things that seemed to have little to nothing to do with the central point that my son was making.
Conservatives also made the argument that 'government will screw it up worse' with great confidence. Libertarians and Reagan lovers recite the mantra as if it were true and anyone who thinks otherwise is either stupid, misinformed or just naive. There's a physical fact that these people do not accept as even possible, it is the economic concept of public goods. Their existence run the gamut from national defense, to societal safety nets like publicly sponsored health care. I'm at a loss as to how to make this argument because arguing that public goods exist is like trying to argue that the earth is round. It just is.
That point my son was making is this: He is a child. He has no money. Lack of money should have nothing whatsoever to do with life or death decisions people make to seek and receive life and health. He is kind of making the point Senator Kennedy made over and over throughout his 47 years in the Senate: Health care should be a right. How can anyone disagree with such a simple concept? Only government (as much as you might hate this fact) can guarantee a right.
As he was considering the discussion, Ted Kennedy was being buried and I have been toying with how come up with a large co-payment I need to make to have my gallbladder removed in the face of so many other bills and our recession-battered income.
That's the context of a little discussion from last night:
- Dad, what is cancer?
- It is a serious disease that can get into almost any part of a person's body and has to be treated by doctors. Adults and children can get it, and it can kill them.
- Does it cost money to see doctors?
- Yes
- So, it costs money to save your life?
- Yes
- (Sarcastically) Um, that's kind of stupid.
- Yes
I shared a little tidbit of this on my Facebook status, which prompts an unexpected discussion about health care. The fact that this surprised me is a bit of a testament to my stupidity. The Conservative responses were about 'responsibility' of the individual, rights of providers to be paid and other things that seemed to have little to nothing to do with the central point that my son was making.
Conservatives also made the argument that 'government will screw it up worse' with great confidence. Libertarians and Reagan lovers recite the mantra as if it were true and anyone who thinks otherwise is either stupid, misinformed or just naive. There's a physical fact that these people do not accept as even possible, it is the economic concept of public goods. Their existence run the gamut from national defense, to societal safety nets like publicly sponsored health care. I'm at a loss as to how to make this argument because arguing that public goods exist is like trying to argue that the earth is round. It just is.
That point my son was making is this: He is a child. He has no money. Lack of money should have nothing whatsoever to do with life or death decisions people make to seek and receive life and health. He is kind of making the point Senator Kennedy made over and over throughout his 47 years in the Senate: Health care should be a right. How can anyone disagree with such a simple concept? Only government (as much as you might hate this fact) can guarantee a right.
Mike Huckabee - Republican Asshole of the Week
“Proponents deny that the bill would devalue older people’s lives, or encourage them to accept less care to save money. But it was President Obama himself who suggested that seniors who don’t have as long to live might want to just consider taking a pain pill instead of getting an expensive operation to cure them,” Huckabee said.
“Yet when Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at 77, did he give up on life and go home to take pain pills and die, of course not,” the former Republican governor said. “He freely did what most of us would do. He chose an expensive operation and painful follow up treatments.”
From: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26554.html#ixzz0PbNZGHmk
I would have gone with John McCain for snubbing Vicky Kennedy after speaking at Ted's wake, but I'm not sure what motivated him. If he was hiding his tears from the camera, his a bit less of an asshole than he would be if he was pointedly turning away from her.
Whatever the case, Huckabee's comments are horrible on two levels. He misstates Obama's position, then he uses his mistaken premise to claim that Senator Kennedy would disagreed with Obama. Shameful.
“Yet when Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at 77, did he give up on life and go home to take pain pills and die, of course not,” the former Republican governor said. “He freely did what most of us would do. He chose an expensive operation and painful follow up treatments.”
From: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26554.html#ixzz0PbNZGHmk
I would have gone with John McCain for snubbing Vicky Kennedy after speaking at Ted's wake, but I'm not sure what motivated him. If he was hiding his tears from the camera, his a bit less of an asshole than he would be if he was pointedly turning away from her.
Whatever the case, Huckabee's comments are horrible on two levels. He misstates Obama's position, then he uses his mistaken premise to claim that Senator Kennedy would disagreed with Obama. Shameful.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
What's wrong with this person?
This chick looks very confident and passionate. I wonder if she is a lousy speller or if she really has issues with pubes.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Karl Marx's "Capital"
This summer I'm slogging through Karl Marx's masterpiece (aka "Das Capital"). I borrowed it from the library, and it seems that I have a first American printing from 1911. All the name calling and stupidity from the right wing over the first few months of the Obama Administration made it an attractive thing to do. I am about half way through.
The pages of the copy are thin and fragile. There is at least one section of pages that are missing. Some of the print is spotty, maybe due to age or poor quality of printing in the first place. I feel like I have something beautiful and original in my hands and am eagerly trying to take it into my brain. All this made more fun by the idea that nearly 150 years after it was written, this book is a bit naughty. Marx is a man who is especially vilified by the American right wing; so much so that the left can barely speak his name.
This is some early, crude economic thought and sophisticated political thought that was (like every intellectual pursuit) a product of the time it was conceived and written. Lifting the ideas and placing them into a different historical context twists the beauty of its originality. This is especially true of Marx. I'm trying to keep in mind that it was written in the middle of the 19th century.
It was a time of early industrialism and international trade. It was marked by slave trading, child exploitation, racism, sexism, pollution, dangerous working conditions and near feudal politics in much of Europe. Given that context, it was entirely sensible to make labor vs capital the central antagonism is his economic model.
The pages of the copy are thin and fragile. There is at least one section of pages that are missing. Some of the print is spotty, maybe due to age or poor quality of printing in the first place. I feel like I have something beautiful and original in my hands and am eagerly trying to take it into my brain. All this made more fun by the idea that nearly 150 years after it was written, this book is a bit naughty. Marx is a man who is especially vilified by the American right wing; so much so that the left can barely speak his name.
This is some early, crude economic thought and sophisticated political thought that was (like every intellectual pursuit) a product of the time it was conceived and written. Lifting the ideas and placing them into a different historical context twists the beauty of its originality. This is especially true of Marx. I'm trying to keep in mind that it was written in the middle of the 19th century.
It was a time of early industrialism and international trade. It was marked by slave trading, child exploitation, racism, sexism, pollution, dangerous working conditions and near feudal politics in much of Europe. Given that context, it was entirely sensible to make labor vs capital the central antagonism is his economic model.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
God supports abortion
Let's assume for a minute that God really did create all that surrounds us. That would mean God created the scheme that women carry babies inside their bodies during the nine months from conception to delivery. God is effectively giving the control of that supposed person (also called children and life by pro-lifers) over to the woman who is carrying them. That implies a tacit approval of abortion (the choice made to end that "life"). Hence, God's scheme of creation is an approval of abortion.
Maybe God didn't create the system I've described and a fundamentalist reading of the manmade scriptures in his supposedly holy books should override the natural laws implied in said creations.
Or maybe we are just a bunch of imperfect human beings with no special insights into God's plans or the ultimate black and white ideas of right and wrong that we often espouse. This being the case, we should allow the Mom to make the decisions her heart tells her to make and not judge her when she does so.
Maybe God didn't create the system I've described and a fundamentalist reading of the manmade scriptures in his supposedly holy books should override the natural laws implied in said creations.
Or maybe we are just a bunch of imperfect human beings with no special insights into God's plans or the ultimate black and white ideas of right and wrong that we often espouse. This being the case, we should allow the Mom to make the decisions her heart tells her to make and not judge her when she does so.
Friday, July 03, 2009
July 4 Semantics
This was the day that the elites in Congress declared themselves independent of The King of England. It was a political step toward the violent means they used to found my country. The word 'freedom' was not the preferred sound bite at the time: 'liberty' was.
Today, 'freedom' is the word that is most often used in connection with 'patriotism' and the July4th-iness of this holiday. It is a word used in politically-minded rhetoric to claim self-righteousness, innocence, and moral superiority. Unfortunately, the general American usage of this word has rendered it nearly meaningless. For a word to be useful, there must be universally (or at least commonly) accepted definition. No such definition currently exists.
All is not lost, however. I like to keep in mind that 'freedom' is just a word. There are many others. I will try to use them in the future.
Today, 'freedom' is the word that is most often used in connection with 'patriotism' and the July4th-iness of this holiday. It is a word used in politically-minded rhetoric to claim self-righteousness, innocence, and moral superiority. Unfortunately, the general American usage of this word has rendered it nearly meaningless. For a word to be useful, there must be universally (or at least commonly) accepted definition. No such definition currently exists.
All is not lost, however. I like to keep in mind that 'freedom' is just a word. There are many others. I will try to use them in the future.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Milton Friedman's supporters
Milton Friedman is dead, but his ideology is very much alive. This is from Stephen Moore, a right-wing economic writer for the Wall Street Journal late last week:
That was an easy refutation because it does not defend against the best finger pointed from left to right. My left finger does not point to the fiscal habits or the personality of GW Bush. The finger points to lack of regulation of financial markets. Something that Friedman LOVED with all his cold, 'enlighted self interest'ed heart. I have seen no refutation of this finger by any of the Friedman/Reagan/Jack Kemp lovers of the world.
I have seen some of these defenders attempt a defense by pointing at de-regulators like Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and Jimmy Carter. That's a lame defense because the named Democrats were wrong as well. Friedman's ideas were still bad, and worst of all they harmed the world. Another lame right wing defense of their principles is the claim that the real culprit is Bush's "liberal" spending binge. I cry 'bullshit' to both these arguments.
And yeah, I mentioned Jack Kemp who was the last of these three to pass into the great beyond of freedom, God and selfishness. Friedmanite Alan Greenspan has come out and admitted that capital markets were under-regulated, I like to imagine that Friedman would be genius enough to see that the facts now refute some of his principles. I'm certain that the vast majority of his followers are not genius enough. They will hold onto his ideas, wait for the next opportunity to put them into action, damage the world economy again, and blame others in turn.
The myth that the stock-market collapse was due to a failure of Friedman's principles could hardly be more easily refuted. No one was more critical of the Bush spending and debt binge than Friedman. The massive run up in money and easy credit that facilitated the housing and credit bubbles was precisely the foolishness that Friedman spent a lifetime warning against.
That was an easy refutation because it does not defend against the best finger pointed from left to right. My left finger does not point to the fiscal habits or the personality of GW Bush. The finger points to lack of regulation of financial markets. Something that Friedman LOVED with all his cold, 'enlighted self interest'ed heart. I have seen no refutation of this finger by any of the Friedman/Reagan/Jack Kemp lovers of the world.
I have seen some of these defenders attempt a defense by pointing at de-regulators like Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and Jimmy Carter. That's a lame defense because the named Democrats were wrong as well. Friedman's ideas were still bad, and worst of all they harmed the world. Another lame right wing defense of their principles is the claim that the real culprit is Bush's "liberal" spending binge. I cry 'bullshit' to both these arguments.
And yeah, I mentioned Jack Kemp who was the last of these three to pass into the great beyond of freedom, God and selfishness. Friedmanite Alan Greenspan has come out and admitted that capital markets were under-regulated, I like to imagine that Friedman would be genius enough to see that the facts now refute some of his principles. I'm certain that the vast majority of his followers are not genius enough. They will hold onto his ideas, wait for the next opportunity to put them into action, damage the world economy again, and blame others in turn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
