| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Horrible Bosses | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Horrible Bosses - Fox News Won't Dumpster Dive | ||||
| ||||
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Stewart Shines His Spotlight on the Murdoch Murk
Jon Stewart puts the focus squarely on what is hypocritcal on the far right political media, and the man who controls the puppets that do his bidding. Like a modern Jonathon Swift, no one does it better, although Colbert does it equally well. I particularly enjoy Stewart recently pointing out the important distinctin in hacking stories between being the victim of hacking, and the perpetrators of it, as Murdoch's empire appears to be.
UPDATED: Totals Recall
From Reuters and the Chicago Tribune:
What else is significant in the Recall Totals for August 19, 2011 is the numbers of voters turning out for primaries. Primaries typically generate a fairly small percentage of the turnout that general elections generate, and general elections in presidential election years tend to have a higher voter participation than those which do not.
Which makes the voter turnout for Hansen recall election, and for the two Republican primaries, all the more significant in understanding how this reflects the prevailing views on Republican policies in 2011 among Wisconsin voters, which in turn seems to be reflecting much of the national trend as well.
Per the excellent website "Ballot News", a project of the non-partisan, non-profit Lucy Burns Institute, the voter turnout was low for Republican primaries, while being unusually high for Senator Hansen.
Continuing from Ballot News:
Unofficial results showed Hansen with 20,639 votes, nearly double the 10,601 garnered by VanderLeest.and
The best is yet to come," Hansen told a raucous crowd of supporters, as around 200 began chanting "This is what democracy looks like."
"This seems bigger than me. The support we got seems bigger than me. It's about the people now. It's about we the people. It's about taking our state back. This is incredible," Hansen later told journalists.
"My main concern is that people stay fired up for the rest of the year," said Steve Robbins, an electrician from Green Bay and a supporter of Hansen. "This should be a wake-up call to Walker, but it won't be. That guy is on another planet."Congratulations to state senator Hansen. Not only his win, but the margin of his win, is a significant commentary on the Republican policies and legislation in Wisconsin.
What else is significant in the Recall Totals for August 19, 2011 is the numbers of voters turning out for primaries. Primaries typically generate a fairly small percentage of the turnout that general elections generate, and general elections in presidential election years tend to have a higher voter participation than those which do not.
Which makes the voter turnout for Hansen recall election, and for the two Republican primaries, all the more significant in understanding how this reflects the prevailing views on Republican policies in 2011 among Wisconsin voters, which in turn seems to be reflecting much of the national trend as well.
Per the excellent website "Ballot News", a project of the non-partisan, non-profit Lucy Burns Institute, the voter turnout was low for Republican primaries, while being unusually high for Senator Hansen.
MADISON, Wisconsin: Heading into the recalls there have been various projections regarding just how many citizens would show up at the polls. With all of the primaries now complete we are able to get a clearer picture. Unofficial vote totals show that turnout for the primaries ranged from a low of 10 percent for the Republican primary in District 22, up to 35.75 percent for the District 32 Democratic primary. Meanwhile, in the 30th District, the first recall between Dave Hansen and David VanderLeest had a total of 33,106 votes,[1] putting turnout at 37.14 percent. The 2008 general election in the same district had 78,176 votes.[2]One of the reasons for the Republican efforts at voter suppression by making voting more difficult through measures like requiring photo ID is that a larger turnout of voters tends to favor Democrats. If that holds true for the recall elections in August, and a planned subsequent recall of Governor Walker, this is indicating a probabe turnover in the control of both the senate and the Governor's office in 2011 and 2012, respectively.
The total number of registered voters in the chart comes from the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board and is accurate as of July 19. Wisconsin has a live database of actively registered voters which is constantly changing and is purged following each general election. Due to this, it is difficult to accurately determine what the voter turnout percentage was in each of the recall districts in 2008, as the total number of registered voters from 2008 is no longer available. In the general election, turnout was about 50 percent, according to the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.[3]
According to a press release from the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board in 2010, voter turnout in the 2010 primaries was 19.6 percent.[4] Thus, turnout in the recall primaries far exceeded typical voter turnout. In the 8 primary elections held, a total of 206,014 votes were cast for turnout of 25.77 percent. The high turnout reflects the massive attention being given to the recalls. In typical special elections, voter turnout is lower than a general election. But here, voters are heading to the polls at higher levels than a normal election.
Continuing from Ballot News:
The lowest voter turnout took place in the two Republican primaries, 10 percent and 19.38 percent. For the six Democratic primaries, where legitimate Democratic candidates each faced “protest” or “spoiler” candidates, turnout ranged from 22.09 percent to 35.75 percent. In all eight primaries, the total number of votes cast surpassed the total votes cast in the 2008 senate primary contests in the same districts.
Since primaries were only held for a single party – Republicans on July 12 and Democrats on July 19 – voters did not have to be registered to a specific party in order to vote. In other words, all voters were eligible to vote in the primary, due to Wisconsin’s use of an open primary system.The next recall elections are scheduled for August 9th and August 16th. Republican policies in and outside of Wisconsin are hugely unpopular, and that disapproval appears to be increasing nationwide. Hansen is perfectly accurate that the Republicans are doing their best to be willfully blind to that disapproval, at the same time they loudly claim they are listening to the will of the people, a promise they made in the 2010 elections and immediately ignored. That disapproval will almost certainly result in Scott Walker's recall in 2012, and is highly likely to result in him being removed from the governor's mansion for his heavy handed failures and hubris.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Un-Presidented, Undefeated, Unattended: Has Palin Peaked?
What is fame? The advantage of being known by people of whom you yourself know nothing, and for whom you care as little. - Lord Byron
The highest form of vanity is love of fame. -George Santayana
Sarah Palin recently debuted her new movie with the improbable and inaccurate title of Undefeated. In her crazy world view, she conveniently ignores that she was quite thoroughly defeated in the 2008 election for vice president. That is like, well, like ignoring the 8 ton bull(shit) GOP elephant in the middle of the room.
What is more significant than any content in the widely panned movie, for which I could not find a single positive review, is that to me it seems as if Palin is winding down in popularity and influence. I think she's 'peaked', and done so far too early.
Palin was very clever in capitalizing on her post 2008 campaign popularity; those who loved her didn't care about looking too closely at her lack of real accomplishment, or her ignorance. They were curious, they were perhaps even charmed. Palin did an excellent job of turning that interest in to self promotion to enrich herself; she made herself a relatively wealthy woman in doing so.
The highest form of vanity is love of fame. -George Santayana
Sarah Palin recently debuted her new movie with the improbable and inaccurate title of Undefeated. In her crazy world view, she conveniently ignores that she was quite thoroughly defeated in the 2008 election for vice president. That is like, well, like ignoring the 8 ton bull(shit) GOP elephant in the middle of the room.
What is more significant than any content in the widely panned movie, for which I could not find a single positive review, is that to me it seems as if Palin is winding down in popularity and influence. I think she's 'peaked', and done so far too early.
Palin was very clever in capitalizing on her post 2008 campaign popularity; those who loved her didn't care about looking too closely at her lack of real accomplishment, or her ignorance. They were curious, they were perhaps even charmed. Palin did an excellent job of turning that interest in to self promotion to enrich herself; she made herself a relatively wealthy woman in doing so.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Reagan-Era HIV Ignorance Still in Place: Homophobia and Blood Donation
When I read this, given the attention that certain segments of the media have focused on the question of Marcus Bachmann's actual sexual orientation, his appearance and mannerisms that seem to many people to suggest his sexual orientation is gay, I found myself wondering if HE would be allowed to give blood, if he presented himself to do so.
(If the following video does not open or play for you, you can see it here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-13-2011/comedy-repression-therapy)
Friday, July 15, 2011
FactCheck.org Checks the Federal Fiscal Data
Fiscal FactCheck
Does Washington have a spending problem or an income problem? We offer some key facts.
July 15, 2011
Summary
Washington's spending has recently been higher as a percentage of the nation's economic output than at any time since World War II. But by the same measure, Washington's revenues are the lowest in more than 60 years.
So does the U.S. have "a spending problem," as Republicans keep repeating in the current debate over how to reduce the nation's record deficits? Or is the problem that taxes are not high enough? Those questions frame a long-running partisan debate, and as usual we won't offer an opinion one way or the other. But for those seeking their own answers, we can offer some fiscal history and factual context.
Some key facts we think are worth considering:
■Federal spending ("outlays" in budget jargon) is expected to equal 24.1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The figure was 25 percent in fiscal year 2009, highest since 1945.
■On the other hand, federal revenues are expected to drop to 14.8 percent of GDP this year, lower even than the 14.9 percent attained in both 2009 and 2010. There has been only one year since World War II when revenues have been as low as in any of these years: 1950, when the figure was 14.4 percent.
Does Washington have a spending problem or an income problem? We offer some key facts.
July 15, 2011
Summary
Washington's spending has recently been higher as a percentage of the nation's economic output than at any time since World War II. But by the same measure, Washington's revenues are the lowest in more than 60 years.
So does the U.S. have "a spending problem," as Republicans keep repeating in the current debate over how to reduce the nation's record deficits? Or is the problem that taxes are not high enough? Those questions frame a long-running partisan debate, and as usual we won't offer an opinion one way or the other. But for those seeking their own answers, we can offer some fiscal history and factual context.
Some key facts we think are worth considering:
■Federal spending ("outlays" in budget jargon) is expected to equal 24.1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The figure was 25 percent in fiscal year 2009, highest since 1945.
■On the other hand, federal revenues are expected to drop to 14.8 percent of GDP this year, lower even than the 14.9 percent attained in both 2009 and 2010. There has been only one year since World War II when revenues have been as low as in any of these years: 1950, when the figure was 14.4 percent.
FactCheck.org Busts Tim Pawlenty........again
What factcheck.org omitted to include is that ol T-Paw didn't really BALANCE the budget; he simply transferred a big chunk of the debt to the next budget cycle, which is why we have had the most recent budget crisis - it's all THANKS TO Tim PAWlenty! (Well, OK; the Republicans screwing around this session with their culture wars and their refusal to have a balanced budget was part of it.)
Pawlenty, Taxes and Budget Crises
July 13, 2011
Tim Pawlenty misled readers in an op-ed by saying he solved Minnesota's budget crisis in 2005 without raising taxes. Pawlenty's 75-cents-per-pack cigarette tax — which he called a "health impact fee" — helped forge a budget deal and end a nine-day partial government shutdown.
In a July 12 op-ed piece for the Des Moines Register, the former Minnesota governor and current Republican candidate for president criticized Democrats for proposing to raise taxes to solve budget problems in Minnesota and Washington, D.C. Instead, Pawlenty called for cutting spending and not raising taxes.
Pawlenty, July 12: At every level, governments are facing big deficits as the weak economy diminishes tax revenues at the very same time that the bill is coming due on decades of irresponsible spending increases, entitlement promises and pension promises. As I proved in Minnesota, these problems can be solved without tax increases.
It's true that Pawlenty never signed legislation as governor to raise the state income tax or other broad-based taxes. But the former governor's cigarette tax raised more than $400 million over two years and helped resolve a budget crisis that had resulted in a partial government shutdown.
In 2005, Pawlenty and Minnesota state legislators grappled with how to fund health care and education in the upcoming biennial budget for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. While Democratic lawmakers sought to raise taxes on upper-income residents, Pawlenty and Republican legislators resisted — bringing negotiations to a stalemate. Seeking to find a compromise before the mandated end of the legislative session, Pawlenty unveiled the "health impact fee" during a press conference on May 20, 2005, saying he hoped it would be a "session-ending proposal."
video available here
The proposal did not prevent a partial state government shutdown that July. But it did ultimately help lead to a budget agreement. On July 9, 2005, Pawlenty signed the budget, which included the cigarette proposal. He told the Star Tribune on July 20 that the cigarette proposal "was necessary to 'get us out of the death spiral of the [partial government] shutdown.' "
Pawlenty, who pledged not to raise taxes as governor, called his plan a "user fee" when he first introduced it, although he also acknowledged that "some people are going to say it's a tax."
Pawlenty, Taxes and Budget Crises
July 13, 2011
Tim Pawlenty misled readers in an op-ed by saying he solved Minnesota's budget crisis in 2005 without raising taxes. Pawlenty's 75-cents-per-pack cigarette tax — which he called a "health impact fee" — helped forge a budget deal and end a nine-day partial government shutdown.
In a July 12 op-ed piece for the Des Moines Register, the former Minnesota governor and current Republican candidate for president criticized Democrats for proposing to raise taxes to solve budget problems in Minnesota and Washington, D.C. Instead, Pawlenty called for cutting spending and not raising taxes.
Pawlenty, July 12: At every level, governments are facing big deficits as the weak economy diminishes tax revenues at the very same time that the bill is coming due on decades of irresponsible spending increases, entitlement promises and pension promises. As I proved in Minnesota, these problems can be solved without tax increases.
It's true that Pawlenty never signed legislation as governor to raise the state income tax or other broad-based taxes. But the former governor's cigarette tax raised more than $400 million over two years and helped resolve a budget crisis that had resulted in a partial government shutdown.
In 2005, Pawlenty and Minnesota state legislators grappled with how to fund health care and education in the upcoming biennial budget for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. While Democratic lawmakers sought to raise taxes on upper-income residents, Pawlenty and Republican legislators resisted — bringing negotiations to a stalemate. Seeking to find a compromise before the mandated end of the legislative session, Pawlenty unveiled the "health impact fee" during a press conference on May 20, 2005, saying he hoped it would be a "session-ending proposal."
video available here
The proposal did not prevent a partial state government shutdown that July. But it did ultimately help lead to a budget agreement. On July 9, 2005, Pawlenty signed the budget, which included the cigarette proposal. He told the Star Tribune on July 20 that the cigarette proposal "was necessary to 'get us out of the death spiral of the [partial government] shutdown.' "
Pawlenty, who pledged not to raise taxes as governor, called his plan a "user fee" when he first introduced it, although he also acknowledged that "some people are going to say it's a tax."
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Happy Bastille Day! Musings on Revolutions Past and Present
"Our public monuments are memorials to the Enlightenment."
"Now defined as art, the totem has lost cult, taboo, and custom."
"Your argument defends an ideology; mine defends the truth."
- Mason Cooley,
American Aphorist, Professor Emeritus of English, Speech, and World Literature
1927 - 2002
Today is the French National Day, La Fete Nationale, their equivalent of our Independence Day on the 4th of July. It is a day I enjoy celebrating, for a variety of reasons, including that I am something of a francophile. It celebrates the storming of the Bastille, a fortress turned jail, that sometimes held political prisoners; it was an important turning point in the beginning of the French Revolution, in 1789.
One of the reasons I am a francophile is I hold a deep appreciation for the Age of Enlightenment, which was centered in France and arising from French intellectuals of the period, before spreading to other parts of Europe. In part it was the political and philosophical contribution of the French during the Age of Enlightenment which contributed so intensively, both directly and indirectly, to the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers of our American Revolution which preceded, and in turn influenced, that French Revolution celebrated on July 14th in modern France.
So it particularly pains me to see those who give empty lip service to the ideals of our Founding Fathers, while demonstrating an appalling ignorance of our history and thoe very principles under revisionist history mislabeled as patriotism. The Age of Enlightenment, aka the Age of Reason, promoted the scientific method, it developed the idea of the Social Contract of government, of the Rights of Man and Self Determination, and Natural Law.
The worst instances of this are personified by the right wing-nut GOP theocrat candidate Michele Bachmann, who most recently asserted that our rights come from God, not from government. Although Nut Gingrich runs a close second with his claims that the 2nd Amendment is a right guaranteed in the Bible. Without getting too deeply into a dissertation of the historic contribution of classical liberalism and classical republicanism to our political system, it would be safe to characterize one of the main components of the political philosophy of this era that human rights were universal, that they occurred everywhere innately in all human beings, and was in direct opposition to the premise of the divine right of kings. It was in essence, a philosophical opposition to the belief political and civil rights were divine in origin, in opposition to religious political oppression generally, and in particular in opposition to inequality of rights among human beings. It postulated that our inalienable rights exist among all human beings, across nations, cultures, and yes, religions.
It is misstated by pseudo-patriots like Michele Bachmann that our Founding Fathers believed we were a specifically Christian nation. We are a secular nation and have been from our earliest origins, regardless of whatever personal spiritual beliefs any individual from that era may have practiced privately; there was no consensus of religious belief among our nations founders, nor was conformity to one required or expected. That we are instead supposed to be a theocratic democracy imposing Christianity has somehow become a fundamental (pun intended) tenet of the GOP.
"Now defined as art, the totem has lost cult, taboo, and custom."
"Your argument defends an ideology; mine defends the truth."
- Mason Cooley,
American Aphorist, Professor Emeritus of English, Speech, and World Literature
1927 - 2002
Today is the French National Day, La Fete Nationale, their equivalent of our Independence Day on the 4th of July. It is a day I enjoy celebrating, for a variety of reasons, including that I am something of a francophile. It celebrates the storming of the Bastille, a fortress turned jail, that sometimes held political prisoners; it was an important turning point in the beginning of the French Revolution, in 1789.
One of the reasons I am a francophile is I hold a deep appreciation for the Age of Enlightenment, which was centered in France and arising from French intellectuals of the period, before spreading to other parts of Europe. In part it was the political and philosophical contribution of the French during the Age of Enlightenment which contributed so intensively, both directly and indirectly, to the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers of our American Revolution which preceded, and in turn influenced, that French Revolution celebrated on July 14th in modern France.
So it particularly pains me to see those who give empty lip service to the ideals of our Founding Fathers, while demonstrating an appalling ignorance of our history and thoe very principles under revisionist history mislabeled as patriotism. The Age of Enlightenment, aka the Age of Reason, promoted the scientific method, it developed the idea of the Social Contract of government, of the Rights of Man and Self Determination, and Natural Law.
The worst instances of this are personified by the right wing-nut GOP theocrat candidate Michele Bachmann, who most recently asserted that our rights come from God, not from government. Although Nut Gingrich runs a close second with his claims that the 2nd Amendment is a right guaranteed in the Bible. Without getting too deeply into a dissertation of the historic contribution of classical liberalism and classical republicanism to our political system, it would be safe to characterize one of the main components of the political philosophy of this era that human rights were universal, that they occurred everywhere innately in all human beings, and was in direct opposition to the premise of the divine right of kings. It was in essence, a philosophical opposition to the belief political and civil rights were divine in origin, in opposition to religious political oppression generally, and in particular in opposition to inequality of rights among human beings. It postulated that our inalienable rights exist among all human beings, across nations, cultures, and yes, religions.
It is misstated by pseudo-patriots like Michele Bachmann that our Founding Fathers believed we were a specifically Christian nation. We are a secular nation and have been from our earliest origins, regardless of whatever personal spiritual beliefs any individual from that era may have practiced privately; there was no consensus of religious belief among our nations founders, nor was conformity to one required or expected. That we are instead supposed to be a theocratic democracy imposing Christianity has somehow become a fundamental (pun intended) tenet of the GOP.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
UPDATED - GaGa and T-Paw: Politifact.com Busts Another Right Wing Minnesota Presidential Candidate Talking Point!
From Politifact.com, re Pawlenty, but it applies as much or even more to the Bachmanns, and the right wing position on sexual orientation - being gay or straight - as a 'choice'. The video clip of the TPaw interview follows.
This has additional context in that the right has spent time and energy promoting anti-gay homophobic culture war legislation, that was based on a totally, ludicrously inaccurate ideology-based notion rather than fact-based thinking, INSTEAD of addressing jobs and economic recovery. The position of the right, as expounded by Bachmann, Pawlenty, and the rightwing fraud (in my opinion) Bradlee Dean is untenable, unsupportable. It is no longer the wedge issue that it has been used as in the past by the right (thank you Grover Norquist and Karl Rove).
What underlines the antiquated intolerance is that at the same time, we have more new same-sex relationship households in Minnesota than ever before, per those Census questions that Bachmann didn't want you answering. This gives greater emphasis than ever before to how out of touch the right wing theocrats and culture warriors are with the citizens of Minnesota, and the entire country. From the recent STrib article, "Minnesota sees 50% rise in number of gay couples":
This has additional context in that the right has spent time and energy promoting anti-gay homophobic culture war legislation, that was based on a totally, ludicrously inaccurate ideology-based notion rather than fact-based thinking, INSTEAD of addressing jobs and economic recovery. The position of the right, as expounded by Bachmann, Pawlenty, and the rightwing fraud (in my opinion) Bradlee Dean is untenable, unsupportable. It is no longer the wedge issue that it has been used as in the past by the right (thank you Grover Norquist and Karl Rove).
What underlines the antiquated intolerance is that at the same time, we have more new same-sex relationship households in Minnesota than ever before, per those Census questions that Bachmann didn't want you answering. This gives greater emphasis than ever before to how out of touch the right wing theocrats and culture warriors are with the citizens of Minnesota, and the entire country. From the recent STrib article, "Minnesota sees 50% rise in number of gay couples":
Minnesota has seen a quiet surge in the number of same-sex households over the past decade, and the trend has moved beyond the core of the Twin Cities into many suburbs.At the same time, in an article posted in the same edition of the STrib, "Pawlenty likes GaGa, but disputes that Gays are born this way", another STrib writer perpetuates trying to deny the science that sexual orientation is something we are born with, even if it is not specifically genetic in origin, that is addressed by Politifact.com., and way down near the bottom of the article:
The U.S. Census Bureau on Thursday released its second-ever count of same-sex partners in Minnesota, and the numbers detailed a dramatic picture of change:
• A 50 percent jump in same-sex households, a rate of growth five times faster than households overall. The census counted 13,718 same-sex couples in 2010, accounting for about 1 percent of all couples statewide.
•A pronounced spreading-out of traditional "gayborhoods." Minneapolis accounts for nearly one in four same-sex couples, towering over the rest of the state in sheer numbers, but its dominance is fading. Neighboring Golden Valley now claims the highest concentration among cities of ample size. A lesbian Realtor who lives there greeted the news in two words: "Not surprised."
•Although other states are also seeing big jumps, the Twin Cities could well retain its 2000 position as the gay mecca between the coasts. Only a sprinkling of state numbers have yet been reported, but it's known that Hennepin County by 2010 was roughly equal in concentration to Sonoma County north of San Francisco, the second-highest-ranking county in California.
"Pressed, Pawlenty wavered on whether being gay is a choice, but clarified that "there's no scientific conclusion that it's genetic."
Republican DINOs (and one just really Old Guy) Lose in WI Democratic Primary
The fake democrats on the ballot lost in their open primary, all of them, by a large margin. The attempt to use a dirty trick to beat the recall process failed for the Republicans in Wisconsin. It wasn't a total loss, it cost them campaign money, and showed their true colors and ethics (lack thereof).
This does not bode well for the Republicans in the upcoming general election, or in 2012.
I believe my favorite paragraph in the ink on the primray this morning so far however was this one:
Governor Walker?
You're next, for recall, after the general election. Start preparing to be a part term governor, a failure.
This does not bode well for the Republicans in the upcoming general election, or in 2012.
I believe my favorite paragraph in the ink on the primray this morning so far however was this one:
Also Tuesday, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin public policy director Chris Taylor emerged from a field of six Democrats to win a primary for a seat in the Assembly representing a portion of Dane County that was vacated by Joe Parisi when he left in April to serve as Dane County executive. Taylor has no opposition in the Aug. 9 general election.That is sort of a victory not only for Chris Taylor, but for Planned Parenthood in WI as well. Congratulations Wisconsin, Congratulations Democrats. Now get busy for that general recall August election!
Governor Walker?
You're next, for recall, after the general election. Start preparing to be a part term governor, a failure.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Fatal Castle Doctrine Results in First Degree Murder Sentence
I leave it to you, our readers, to discuss - was it wrong to shoot someone who no longer posed a threat, and who may not have been armed in the first place? Does the Castle doctrine apply? Was Ersland in the wrong to pursue one of the suspects outside the store, instead of allowing him to retreat?
Have at it! Here is the link to the video, if this doesn't play for you.
From MSNBC:
Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber
Fifty-nine-year-old calls his sentence 'an injustice of a monumental proportion'
An Oklahoma pharmacist has been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for first-degree murder in the shooting death of a teenager who tried to rob the south Oklahoma City pharmacy where he worked.
Fifty-nine-year-old Jerome Ersland was sentenced Monday after Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott rejected a defense motion to suspend the sentence.
Ersland had no reaction and said nothing as the sentence was handed down. As he left the courtroom, he responded to a reporter's shouted question by calling the sentence "an injustice of a monumental proportion."
A jury convicted Ersland and recommended the life with the possibility of parole sentence for the May 2009 shooting of 16-year-old Antwun Parker. Defense attorney Irven Box said the conviction and sentence will be appealed.
Confronted by two holdup men, Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.
At the trial, prosecutors argued that Ersland crossed into the wrong when he shot the unarmed and unconscious Parker five more times.
Ersland contended that he was defending himself and two co-workers from a robber who still posed a threat.
Have at it! Here is the link to the video, if this doesn't play for you.
From MSNBC:
Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber
Fifty-nine-year-old calls his sentence 'an injustice of a monumental proportion'
An Oklahoma pharmacist has been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for first-degree murder in the shooting death of a teenager who tried to rob the south Oklahoma City pharmacy where he worked.
Fifty-nine-year-old Jerome Ersland was sentenced Monday after Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott rejected a defense motion to suspend the sentence.
Ersland had no reaction and said nothing as the sentence was handed down. As he left the courtroom, he responded to a reporter's shouted question by calling the sentence "an injustice of a monumental proportion."
A jury convicted Ersland and recommended the life with the possibility of parole sentence for the May 2009 shooting of 16-year-old Antwun Parker. Defense attorney Irven Box said the conviction and sentence will be appealed.
Confronted by two holdup men, Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.
At the trial, prosecutors argued that Ersland crossed into the wrong when he shot the unarmed and unconscious Parker five more times.
Ersland contended that he was defending himself and two co-workers from a robber who still posed a threat.
FactCheck.org Busts Another Key Republican Talking Point on Revenues
Seems like I'm not the only person who noticed the error in the right wing bullshit that the Bush Tax Cuts didn't hurt revenue. Thank you - AGAIN - to those wonderful people over at Factcheck.org!
But heck, when have the Republicans that are running the party, particularly any of those who are running for office, OR the Tea Party faction for that matter, or a significant majority of their base, given a damn about facts?
For those who would like to watch the senator lie to the public, the video of him doing so precedes the factcheck.org information, specifically his lie about 7 minutes + some seconds into the video clip. There is NO EXCUSE for a sitting senator to be so ill informed, especially the RANKING Republican on the Budget Committee. Not only did revenues decline after the Bush tax cuts, but when they did rise, they failed to rise as much as they should have risen (in the context of economic growth), as the tax cutting Republicans promised. In fact, the Republicans have NEVER delivered on their economic promises relating to job growth, economic growth, or revenue growth through tax cuts or other economic measures. NEVER, NOT ONCE.
Although it shouldn't surprise me that Sessions is so inaccurate and is apparently incapable of researching basic economic facts, given that Alabama has consistently ranked near the bottom for education standards compared to other states, in contrast to Minnesota where we USED to spend more on education and were typically ranked either number 1 or very near the top.
The statements by Senator Sessions and other Republicans who parrot the same fact-free right wing party line is pure bullshit ideology that denies facts and reality, to our peril. Sessions personifies the ignorant, and allegedly racist, extreme right wing positions of conservatives.
But heck, when have the Republicans that are running the party, particularly any of those who are running for office, OR the Tea Party faction for that matter, or a significant majority of their base, given a damn about facts?
For those who would like to watch the senator lie to the public, the video of him doing so precedes the factcheck.org information, specifically his lie about 7 minutes + some seconds into the video clip. There is NO EXCUSE for a sitting senator to be so ill informed, especially the RANKING Republican on the Budget Committee. Not only did revenues decline after the Bush tax cuts, but when they did rise, they failed to rise as much as they should have risen (in the context of economic growth), as the tax cutting Republicans promised. In fact, the Republicans have NEVER delivered on their economic promises relating to job growth, economic growth, or revenue growth through tax cuts or other economic measures. NEVER, NOT ONCE.
Although it shouldn't surprise me that Sessions is so inaccurate and is apparently incapable of researching basic economic facts, given that Alabama has consistently ranked near the bottom for education standards compared to other states, in contrast to Minnesota where we USED to spend more on education and were typically ranked either number 1 or very near the top.
The statements by Senator Sessions and other Republicans who parrot the same fact-free right wing party line is pure bullshit ideology that denies facts and reality, to our peril. Sessions personifies the ignorant, and allegedly racist, extreme right wing positions of conservatives.
Sessions Wrong on Bush Tax Cuts
July 11, 2011
Sen. Jeff Sessions wrongly claimed that federal revenues "went up every single year" after the Bush tax cuts were "put in." Actually, federal revenues declined for three straight years after the first tax cut was signed in 2001.
The Alabama Republican made his statement on "Face the Nation."
Sessions, July 10: "The revenue went up every single year after those tax cuts were put in. The revenue is down now because of the low economy."
The first tax cut — the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 — was signed into law June 7, 2001. It began to affect revenues almost immediately as "advance rebate" checks were mailed to millions of taxpayers starting that July. After the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2001, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that those rebates had already amounted to $35 billion. As a result, CBO said, federal income tax receipts fell that year, rather than posting an increase.
CBO, Nov. 14, 2001: Individual income tax receipts fell by $10 billion, or 1.0 percent, in fiscal year 2001. Those receipts would have increased by roughly 3 percent without the $35 billion in tax rebates and smaller reductions from other tax cuts.
In fact, total federal revenues declined in fiscal year 2001 for the first time since 1983, mainly because of the Bush tax cuts. The CBO said total revenues declined by 1.7 percent, but otherwise would have increased by 1.5 percent.
CBO, Nov. 14, 2001: That decline, the first since 1983, was caused by a combination of factors: the slowing economy, tax reductions, and shifts in the timing of tax payments. Even without the recent tax changes (mainly the tax cuts and timing shifts enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001), revenues would have grown by only about 1.5 percent.
Total federal revenues declined not only in 2001, but also in the following two years, according to CBO historical budget figures. In fiscal 2002, total revenues declined by $138 billion, and in fiscal 2003, they went down for a third year in a row — by nearly $71 billion. Revenues turned up in fiscal 2004, but didn't reach pre-tax-cut levels until fiscal year 2005.
We pointed out these figures to the senator's spokesman, Stephen Miller, who blamed the revenue declines of 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the 2001 recession. But that recession ended in November 2001, and federal revenues continued to go down for the next two years. And, as we noted, CBO determined that both income tax revenues and total overall revenues would have increased in 2001, if not for the tax cuts.
Miller also said Sessions was referring to the period after May 2003, when Bush signed the second, and smaller, of his two major tax reductions. But the fact remains that the largest of Bush's cuts was "put in" starting in 2001, and significantly reduced federal revenues.
– Wendy Zhao Posted by FactCheck.org on Monday, July 11, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Monday, July 11, 2011
The Face of Compromise
Many MANY people I talk to complain about the lack of willingness among politicians to compromise to reach solutions. In Minnesota, for example, we currently have shut down our state government because the Democratic Governor, Mark Dayton, hasn't reached agreement with the Republicans who took over control of the MN House and Senate in 2010.
Now, let's look at what compromise looks like...
Governor Dayton, in offering his initial budget, offered a budget of 36 Billion dollars for the two year period covering 2011 and 2012. To keep all current state programs fully funded, without adding one cent of new spending, would have required the spending $39 Billion. Consequently, Dayton's budget cut 3 Billion from baseline. However, tax receipts project to about 34 Billion and Minnesota, like most states, is constitutionally required to not run a deficit.
A further point to know, MN had a Republican Governor and Democratic state house prior to 2010, and had one for 8 years (Tim Pawlenty). During the Pawlenty period, no additional tax revenues were passed other than a "use fee" on cigarettes. No increase in income or sales taxes, nothing AND during 2000 and then again in 2003, taxes were in fact cut, under pressure from MN House minority leader (Tim Pawlenty) in 2000 and Governor Pawlenty in 2003. During his tenure, MN fell from the 8th highest average tax burden to 26th. MN's performance in national standard testing also fell, but that's another complaint, this is about taxes. Long and short, MN cut taxes or held them level for 8 years prior to the economic collapse of 2008-2009. Tax receipts fell in 2009 and 2010 due to loss of jobs and thus income. Pawlenty "balanced" the budget in 2009 by deferring paying large bills (to the tune of 2 Billion) for the NEXT Governor to solve (Dayton).
So, Mark Dayton proposed spending 3 Billion below holding level, he cut spending. But that wasn't enough for Republicans, who, like Pawlenty REFUSE under ANY circumstances, crumbling economies, depression/recession, for ANY reason to EVER raise revenues. Dayton then proposed cutting another 1.9 Billion, leaving the two sides 1.6 Billion apart. The Republican "compromise" was to pass "racino" bills to raise 200M. So the moved 10% as far as Dayton. Had they moved as far as Dayton, oh, by say passing a tax increase of 1.6 Billion, we would have no shut down. Now they've even pulled back from the 200 Million. In addition, to get the $200M they wanted an absolute ban on ANY funding of Planned Parenthood. In short, they tied passing a tax increase to banning any spending for family planning in any form.
Further, as someone noted, Tim Pawlenty only vetoed 2 bills in his first 8 months as Governor, while Dayton has vetoed 23. Dayton hasn't been more bellicose, less easy to get along with. No, the Democrats during Pawlenty's tenure rarely sent spending bills to his desk they knew were DOA. Republicans send bill after bill to Dayton's desk, bills to allow you to shoot someone who enters your tent while camping without beings sure they mean you harm, bills to ban all funding for any form of stem cell research (another "no compromise stance" on something ridiculous) but because they know the public doesn't oppose stem cell research they called it a ban on human "cloning" (something already totally illegal) as a means to disguise their conduct. They sent Dayton a bill to call for voter ID requirements when no meaningful fraud goes on in the state (47 total bad votes, 44 of which were by felons who didn't know they couldn't) and so on, bill after frivolous, time wasting bill, rather than doing the work they needed to do.
Instead, compromise to them means NEVER agreeing to increase revenue, meeting a governor not halfway, but 10% of the way he moved even after he already cut 3 Billion (or 8% from necessary outlays). It means putting no taxes on the rich ahead of anything, never compromising. After the 2010 election I said the first order of business, the ONLY thing Republicans nationally ACTUALLY cared about was extending the Bush tax cuts, specifically the inheritance tax, and.. that was exactly what they demanded from Obama first thing, before anything else happened, any cuts to spending, anything at all. You can be sure it will be the first requirement the next time they are set to expire. The supposed desire to limit spending in Minnesota the Republicans care about, they (clandestinely) put aside recently in one of the proposals, they were willing to SPEND more so long as the revenue came from pushing the funding for schools FURTHER out in the future (the 2B Pawlenty pushed out and is now due) or came from a smoking lawsuit award intended to be used to stop smoking. So they didn't care about spending, just taxes, always taxes, forever taxes, and not taxes on the middle class, they've not fixed the alternative minimum tax though Obama pledged to sign it, in Minnesota they didn't do anything to try to offset hikes in property taxes as revenues fell under Pawlenty. The ONLY tax they really oppose, the only thing they care about, and thus, the reason why they will NEVER compromise, is they will never allow taxes on the wealthy to go up.
So, when someone moans about a lack of civility, about a lack of compromise in Washington. Give them Minnesota as an example, where the Governor cut 1.9 Billion and the Republicans either would SPEND more if it could be effectively borrowed or would only agree to 200M more, 1/10th Dayton's part, and only IF it was tied to a ban on any stem cell research (which they relate to abortion funding) but dishonestly label as banning human cloning, a new tax base which will hit only the poor and middle class because the rich pretty damned infrequently visit casinos.
This country has a vast problem, but it isn't taxes, it isn't spending, it IS was and will be, a refusal to expect profits to equate to jobs or revenue.
As long as we are slaves to the rich, we will have shrinking wages, shrinking services and a shrinking chance of a good future for our children. The Republicans in Minnesota are owned, lock stock and barrel by the ultra-rich who are waging class warfare on the middle class, complaining about paying too much to union workers, complaining about paying too much to keep up services and infrastructure which are the bulwark on which their fortunes were built. The next time someone says spending is out of control, remind them that spending is barely 10% higher, at this time of great crisis, than during Reagan's Presidency (as a percent of GDP), that 8 of the top 13 highest deficit years have been under Republican Presidents, and the other 5, under Democrats occured either during a World War or during an eoncomic collapse. The ONLY consistent promise Republicans have kept over the past 30 years is not reducing spending or government (as if that's the cause of our trouble), but instead, much like the only promise made to native Americans which was kept (to take their lands), has been to cut taxes on the rich. If you do not live in the upper 1%, your taxes have "on book" remained flat, but your debt to your children has grown by many tens of thousands of dollars. ALL of it would have been avoided had we kept taxes at/near what they were in 1998 or better yet, 1981. There would be no debt, and we would be no worse off. Our national treasuries have been given to the rich to build factories in China, where taxes are generally higher. The difference in that isn't about revenue either, it's about the fact that without slashing taxes on the rich, they'd never have been given or had the incentives to move so many jobs overseas, nor would they have had the power to control our national debate so completely
Now, let's look at what compromise looks like...
Governor Dayton, in offering his initial budget, offered a budget of 36 Billion dollars for the two year period covering 2011 and 2012. To keep all current state programs fully funded, without adding one cent of new spending, would have required the spending $39 Billion. Consequently, Dayton's budget cut 3 Billion from baseline. However, tax receipts project to about 34 Billion and Minnesota, like most states, is constitutionally required to not run a deficit.
A further point to know, MN had a Republican Governor and Democratic state house prior to 2010, and had one for 8 years (Tim Pawlenty). During the Pawlenty period, no additional tax revenues were passed other than a "use fee" on cigarettes. No increase in income or sales taxes, nothing AND during 2000 and then again in 2003, taxes were in fact cut, under pressure from MN House minority leader (Tim Pawlenty) in 2000 and Governor Pawlenty in 2003. During his tenure, MN fell from the 8th highest average tax burden to 26th. MN's performance in national standard testing also fell, but that's another complaint, this is about taxes. Long and short, MN cut taxes or held them level for 8 years prior to the economic collapse of 2008-2009. Tax receipts fell in 2009 and 2010 due to loss of jobs and thus income. Pawlenty "balanced" the budget in 2009 by deferring paying large bills (to the tune of 2 Billion) for the NEXT Governor to solve (Dayton).
So, Mark Dayton proposed spending 3 Billion below holding level, he cut spending. But that wasn't enough for Republicans, who, like Pawlenty REFUSE under ANY circumstances, crumbling economies, depression/recession, for ANY reason to EVER raise revenues. Dayton then proposed cutting another 1.9 Billion, leaving the two sides 1.6 Billion apart. The Republican "compromise" was to pass "racino" bills to raise 200M. So the moved 10% as far as Dayton. Had they moved as far as Dayton, oh, by say passing a tax increase of 1.6 Billion, we would have no shut down. Now they've even pulled back from the 200 Million. In addition, to get the $200M they wanted an absolute ban on ANY funding of Planned Parenthood. In short, they tied passing a tax increase to banning any spending for family planning in any form.
Further, as someone noted, Tim Pawlenty only vetoed 2 bills in his first 8 months as Governor, while Dayton has vetoed 23. Dayton hasn't been more bellicose, less easy to get along with. No, the Democrats during Pawlenty's tenure rarely sent spending bills to his desk they knew were DOA. Republicans send bill after bill to Dayton's desk, bills to allow you to shoot someone who enters your tent while camping without beings sure they mean you harm, bills to ban all funding for any form of stem cell research (another "no compromise stance" on something ridiculous) but because they know the public doesn't oppose stem cell research they called it a ban on human "cloning" (something already totally illegal) as a means to disguise their conduct. They sent Dayton a bill to call for voter ID requirements when no meaningful fraud goes on in the state (47 total bad votes, 44 of which were by felons who didn't know they couldn't) and so on, bill after frivolous, time wasting bill, rather than doing the work they needed to do.
Instead, compromise to them means NEVER agreeing to increase revenue, meeting a governor not halfway, but 10% of the way he moved even after he already cut 3 Billion (or 8% from necessary outlays). It means putting no taxes on the rich ahead of anything, never compromising. After the 2010 election I said the first order of business, the ONLY thing Republicans nationally ACTUALLY cared about was extending the Bush tax cuts, specifically the inheritance tax, and.. that was exactly what they demanded from Obama first thing, before anything else happened, any cuts to spending, anything at all. You can be sure it will be the first requirement the next time they are set to expire. The supposed desire to limit spending in Minnesota the Republicans care about, they (clandestinely) put aside recently in one of the proposals, they were willing to SPEND more so long as the revenue came from pushing the funding for schools FURTHER out in the future (the 2B Pawlenty pushed out and is now due) or came from a smoking lawsuit award intended to be used to stop smoking. So they didn't care about spending, just taxes, always taxes, forever taxes, and not taxes on the middle class, they've not fixed the alternative minimum tax though Obama pledged to sign it, in Minnesota they didn't do anything to try to offset hikes in property taxes as revenues fell under Pawlenty. The ONLY tax they really oppose, the only thing they care about, and thus, the reason why they will NEVER compromise, is they will never allow taxes on the wealthy to go up.
So, when someone moans about a lack of civility, about a lack of compromise in Washington. Give them Minnesota as an example, where the Governor cut 1.9 Billion and the Republicans either would SPEND more if it could be effectively borrowed or would only agree to 200M more, 1/10th Dayton's part, and only IF it was tied to a ban on any stem cell research (which they relate to abortion funding) but dishonestly label as banning human cloning, a new tax base which will hit only the poor and middle class because the rich pretty damned infrequently visit casinos.
This country has a vast problem, but it isn't taxes, it isn't spending, it IS was and will be, a refusal to expect profits to equate to jobs or revenue.
As long as we are slaves to the rich, we will have shrinking wages, shrinking services and a shrinking chance of a good future for our children. The Republicans in Minnesota are owned, lock stock and barrel by the ultra-rich who are waging class warfare on the middle class, complaining about paying too much to union workers, complaining about paying too much to keep up services and infrastructure which are the bulwark on which their fortunes were built. The next time someone says spending is out of control, remind them that spending is barely 10% higher, at this time of great crisis, than during Reagan's Presidency (as a percent of GDP), that 8 of the top 13 highest deficit years have been under Republican Presidents, and the other 5, under Democrats occured either during a World War or during an eoncomic collapse. The ONLY consistent promise Republicans have kept over the past 30 years is not reducing spending or government (as if that's the cause of our trouble), but instead, much like the only promise made to native Americans which was kept (to take their lands), has been to cut taxes on the rich. If you do not live in the upper 1%, your taxes have "on book" remained flat, but your debt to your children has grown by many tens of thousands of dollars. ALL of it would have been avoided had we kept taxes at/near what they were in 1998 or better yet, 1981. There would be no debt, and we would be no worse off. Our national treasuries have been given to the rich to build factories in China, where taxes are generally higher. The difference in that isn't about revenue either, it's about the fact that without slashing taxes on the rich, they'd never have been given or had the incentives to move so many jobs overseas, nor would they have had the power to control our national debate so completely
Republican Revenue Lies
The Republicans claim we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. That is a lie. We have a revenue problem. Sessions makes the misstatement, the LIE, about the revenue side of the problem, some 7 minutes + several seconds into the video clip.
Don't take my word for it; the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office says so, by way of Bruce Bartlett; (bold face, my emphasis added - DG).
GOP's Fuzzy Math Misstates CBO Revenue Projections
By BRUCE BARTLETT, The Fiscal Times June 3, 2011We can't afford to live in a Right Wing fantasy world - a scary place, dominated by conspiracy theories, out of touch with reality. It is not only a very ugly place, a bad place, it is dishonest. We need to balance our budgets realistically, including increasing revenues and decreasing tax expenditures such as the bad subsidies, like those to big oil, and ethanol and other Big Ag, and to big finance such as billionaire hedge fund managers.
Debt Ceiling: Complete Coverage
With the House voting 318 to 97 earlier this week against raising the Treasury’s borrowing authority, every Republican and some Democrats were digging in their heels on the idea that trillions of dollars of spending cuts must accompany any rise in the debt limit. Although they repeatedly say that “everything is one the table,” Republicans quickly add that this does not include higher taxes.
Simple arithmetic, however, tells us that a budget deficit and the concomitant increase in debt can result from either higher spending or lower revenues. And indeed, lower revenues are responsible for about half the increase in debt since 2001, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Since 2001, the national debt has increased $11.8 trillion. This resulted from a $6.2 trillion decline in revenues and a $5.7 trillion increase in spending. Of the revenue decline, $2.8 trillion resulted from legislated tax cuts and $3.4 trillion from economic and technical factors. On the spending side, almost all of the increase was legislated, with $2.4 trillion of it coming between 2001 and 2008.
Despite the significant contribution of tax cuts to the national debt, Republicans argue that higher revenues are off the table in the debt limit negotiations. In a May 16 floor speech, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the assistant Senate minority leader, made this fact clear in no uncertain terms. Said Kyl, “When we are talking about how to get the budget better balanced, how to reduce our deficits, we should not be looking at the revenue side or the taxing side; we should be looking at the spending side.”
A key argument Kyl made is that it is unnecessary to raise revenues because they are already projected to rise substantially in coming years to their historical level of between 18 percent and 20 percent of the gross domestic product. As he explained:
“CBO figures demonstrate that under any of the budgets offered…we will be back to historic average levels of tax collections in just the next few years – something on the order of 20 percent of our gross domestic product. Revenues are not the problem. They are going to be back where they have always been.”Indeed, if one looks at the latest CBO projections, Kyl is right. They show revenues rising from 14.8 percent of GDP this year – the lowest level since 1950 – to 16.3 percent next year, 18.8 percent in 2013 and about 20 percent of GDP thereafter.
What Kyl neglected to mention is that the CBO is required to assume that all laws presently on the books will be followed to the letter. Therefore, it assumes in its projections that all of the tax cuts set to expire at the end of 2011 and 2012 will lapse permanently and on schedule – no matter how obvious it is that they will be extended. For example, the research and experimentation tax credit will expire at the end of this year. But it has expired many times in the past and always been renewed. Although there is no doubt that it will be renewed again because it has strong bipartisan support, CBO’s baseline projections presume that the research tax credit will cease to exist for good after Dec. 31.
More importantly, the CBO assumes that all of the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of next year. By 2014, the end of all expiring tax provisions will raise revenues by 3.8 percent of GDP. Therefore, virtually all of the revenue increase Sen. Kyl says will take place is the result of allowing current tax cuts to expire.
This would be okay if Kyl and the rest of his party were committed to allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012 and not press for their extension or for additional tax cuts. But everyone knows that this will never happen. It is a 100 percent certainty that Republicans will demand that the Bush tax cuts be extended, just as they did when they were previously scheduled to expire at the end of 2010.
We have a revenue problem, and it is the result, in large part, of the Bush era tax cuts and the subsequent tax cuts forced on the country by the right, the ones which primarily benefit the wealthiest over the interests of the majority. The decline in revenue occurred BEFORE the financial crisis that began in 2007, which only exacerbated the problem. The right as always, pushes their Republican Math, which doesn't add up, pursuing the Grover Norquist ideology and right wing 'Ickonomics". The facts be damned, if you're one of these Republicans, the greedy, corrupt kind.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Rupert Murdoch's Scandal
There has been enormous coverage in some of the media recently about the phone hacking done by Rupert Murdoch's news organization in the UK. The phone hacking is leading to arrests, amid tremendous upheavals of public opinion against Murdoch's organization and methods.
There has been equally excessive coverage of the Casey Anthony case in Florida, leading up to and continuing after the recent acquital of the charge of murdering a lovely young child.
The Rupert Murdoch scandal has resulted in the closing of a very profitable although tacky tabloid (think UK version of the National Enquirer). More likely it will simply be reopened and rebranded, with business as usual.
I find the outrage a joke. Not that Murdoch and his organizatoin haven't behaved badly - they have. But whether it be the Casey Anthony Trial or the stories chased bymeans fair and foul, the driving force behind the stories is not ONLY the greed of people like Murdoch for power and proift, it is power and profit that is the result of a sick, intrusive curiosity on the part of the tabloid consuming public.
We can recognize that the media is contributing to a sick intrusive curiosity on the part of the public.
If the public is outraged at Murdoch, a share of the blame for the scandal resides, ultimately, with that same public that demands juicy, scandalous, personal details. So long as that demand exists, there will be those, like Murdoch, who thrive and profit on other people's misery.
For myself, I choose not to indulge in that curiosity about the misery of celebrities, public figures, or tragic crime figures. I wish everyone would consider how preoccupied they are with other people's misery, with celebrity. Pay attention instead to serious issues, to discerning facts, to understanding not leering over the details of other people's private lives.
There has been equally excessive coverage of the Casey Anthony case in Florida, leading up to and continuing after the recent acquital of the charge of murdering a lovely young child.
The Rupert Murdoch scandal has resulted in the closing of a very profitable although tacky tabloid (think UK version of the National Enquirer). More likely it will simply be reopened and rebranded, with business as usual.
I find the outrage a joke. Not that Murdoch and his organizatoin haven't behaved badly - they have. But whether it be the Casey Anthony Trial or the stories chased bymeans fair and foul, the driving force behind the stories is not ONLY the greed of people like Murdoch for power and proift, it is power and profit that is the result of a sick, intrusive curiosity on the part of the tabloid consuming public.
We can recognize that the media is contributing to a sick intrusive curiosity on the part of the public.
If the public is outraged at Murdoch, a share of the blame for the scandal resides, ultimately, with that same public that demands juicy, scandalous, personal details. So long as that demand exists, there will be those, like Murdoch, who thrive and profit on other people's misery.
For myself, I choose not to indulge in that curiosity about the misery of celebrities, public figures, or tragic crime figures. I wish everyone would consider how preoccupied they are with other people's misery, with celebrity. Pay attention instead to serious issues, to discerning facts, to understanding not leering over the details of other people's private lives.
Rest in Peace, Betty Ford
First Lady of the United States 1974 - 1977
Mrs. Ford demonstrated tremendous grace, courage and independence during the time she served as First Lady to President Gerald Ford. She demonstrated that a conservative woman could be a feminist, and supported the Equal Rights Amendment and equal pay for women. She was a supporter of the freedom of choice and the Roe V. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, recognizing the dangers to women in back-alley abortions. She did not reflect the current anti-sex, pro-ignorance attitude that defines the extreme right of 2011. Mrs. Ford also spoke out in favor of gun control.
Betty Ford was a principled conservative.woman who did not fall into lock step, and who was not dictated to by party purists, just one of the many ways in which she demonstrated her courage.
She began her time in residence at the White House by facing the diagnosis of breast cancer, undergoing a radical mastectomy. It was unprecedented at the time for a woman to speak as publicly about such a medical problem; Betty Ford used it as an occasion to raise awareness, in an effort to help other women be diagnosed and treated. Her efforts saved women's lives.
She will perhaps be best remembered for her courage in facing drug addiction to pain medication for a pinched nerve, and a dependency on alcohol, founding the Betty Ford Center to help others who faced the same challenge.
I admired Betty Ford, who was married to President Ford for 58 years, when he died. They had four children, three sons and a daughter.
She will be missed, and never more than when women on the right need an example in 2011 like the one she set.
God bless you Betty Ford, and Thank You for your service, for your life.
First Lady of the United States 1974 - 1977
Mrs. Ford demonstrated tremendous grace, courage and independence during the time she served as First Lady to President Gerald Ford. She demonstrated that a conservative woman could be a feminist, and supported the Equal Rights Amendment and equal pay for women. She was a supporter of the freedom of choice and the Roe V. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, recognizing the dangers to women in back-alley abortions. She did not reflect the current anti-sex, pro-ignorance attitude that defines the extreme right of 2011. Mrs. Ford also spoke out in favor of gun control.
Betty Ford was a principled conservative.woman who did not fall into lock step, and who was not dictated to by party purists, just one of the many ways in which she demonstrated her courage.
She began her time in residence at the White House by facing the diagnosis of breast cancer, undergoing a radical mastectomy. It was unprecedented at the time for a woman to speak as publicly about such a medical problem; Betty Ford used it as an occasion to raise awareness, in an effort to help other women be diagnosed and treated. Her efforts saved women's lives.
She will perhaps be best remembered for her courage in facing drug addiction to pain medication for a pinched nerve, and a dependency on alcohol, founding the Betty Ford Center to help others who faced the same challenge.
I admired Betty Ford, who was married to President Ford for 58 years, when he died. They had four children, three sons and a daughter.
She will be missed, and never more than when women on the right need an example in 2011 like the one she set.
God bless you Betty Ford, and Thank You for your service, for your life.
In Praise of Porn and Freedom
"Lust's passion will be served; it demands, it militates, it tyrannizes."
- Marquis de Sade
"Are not laws dangerous which inhibit the passions? Compare the centuries of anarchy with those of the strongest legalism in any country you like and you will see that it is only when the laws are silent that the greatest actions appear. "
- Marquis de Sade
"Happiness lies neither in vice nor in virtue; but in the manner we appreciate the one and the other, and the choice we make pursuant to our individual organization."
-Marquis de Sade
"Religions are the cradles of despotism."
-Marquis de Sade
"Social order at the expense of liberty is hardly a bargain."
-Marquis de Sade
"To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell."
-Marquis de Sade
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."
-Marquis de Sade
Michele Bachmann, and apparently our former governor Tim Pawlenty, have signed a pledge in order to seduce Iowa voters into giving them their primary support. In addition to truly hateful statements about homosexuals, slavery, and Islamophobic sections wailing against the non-existent threat of Sharia law, there is a section against 'Pornography'.
I oppose the exploitation, including the sexual exploitation, of women. I oppose the exploitation of men, too, including sexually. I oppose the exchange of sex for money, as demeaning to the participants, and demeaning to what sex can be at its best, when it is about connecting to another person in the most intimate way as an expression of love.
But this pledge isn't about that; this pledge is about prudery, it is about ignorance, it is about intolerance, it about censorship, and it is about forcing right wing religion on others instead of respecting the individual right to make religious decisions for oneself. It is anti-business; in the U.S. alone, it is upwards of $10 billion industry, just in video.
There are plenty of instances of right wing politicians who are involved in the sex industry. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana had a long history of scandals associated with prostitution, where apparently he sought sexual gratification through the fetish of wearing a diaper. Yet the Republican establishment, including the tea partiers, including members of Congress, have no problem with supporting him through all kinds of fund raising.
In the tradition of Rush Limbaugh, caught with someone else's boner pills after a trip to a Caribbean country famous for its sex tourism (much of it with underaged girls), we have married 'family values' Ohio state Representative Micklenborg, arrested for a DUI in Indiana, with Viagra and a stripper in his car. Just speculation, but I'd bet Micklenborg has perused his share of porn.
So, perhaps I might be excused for thinking this is great political theater for seducing the right wing religious base, while believing that the right is neither sexually more respectable or pure than anyone else. In that light it should be understandable why I oppose ill educated lying bimbo theocrats presuming to tell me what is moral, given that Bachmann has such a bad record with the truth, and that she has been exploiting the foster children that were placed, apparently too briefly for any accuracy in the claim she 'raised' them, in her care. I can think of few things as disgusting and offensive as trying to exploit children who were in a position of desperation and/or extreme in order for them to be placed in foster care. This is not a person who has a right to claim any moral high ground.
What I find most unforgivable about the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the right is their insistence on ignorance only sex education, which they promote as abstinence only sex ed. The content is factually inaccurate, and does not accomplish the goal of keeping anyone from having sex except for within the narrow confines of what right wingers find acceptable.
These are not the people I want to allow to be in charge of censoring
what I can see or read. They are not sufficiently culturally literate to address topics such as what is erotic, and what is pornographic. The depiction of human beings, including as sexual beings, goes back to the earliest known figural art, the prehistoric 'venus' figures like those found in the Neanderthal valley of Germany. It includes some extremely graphic depictions of sex from the classic period, not only of the goddess Venus, but of ordinary people engaging in sex.
![]()
Beyond that is the sub genre of 'sacred erotica', like the famous Bernini Ecstasy of St. Theresa of Avila, in Rome, which is just one instance where there is a use of the concept of sexual pleasure to represent spiritual ecstacy, our Christian version of the heavenly virgins for martyrs in Islam. Or there is the controversial modern art, created by artists recognized by their impressive addition in many galleries and museums, like the Made in Heaven Series, by Jeff Koons. Warning - the art in this link is extremely sexually explicit, you want to view it, if you view it at all, in privacy, and it is not suitable for children. Some consider Koon's Made in Heaven art, some consider it pornography; it may be both.
I don't want the Republicans dictating to me whether or not I can read any of the works of the Marquis de Sade (which I have, in the original french). De Sade, while definitely a libertine was also an avowed libertarian by modern standards, and much of his writing dealt with other subjects than repellent and painful sex, including extensive sections on religion, philosophy and politics. The late 20th century was an era reviving interest in de Sade among artists, philosophers and scholars.
The point is, I don't want narrow minded bigots like Bachmann, or Gingrich, or Pawlenty, or any of the other potential Republican candidates spending government money to prosecute it, censor it, or to prevent me from making up my own mind about it. That is an overreach of government, it is intrusive, it is 'big brother' (or big sister, in Bachmann's case) trying to legislate morality from a smug, self-congratulatory position that presumes a superiority which they lack.
Porn is a better alternative than their prudery, ignorance, corrupt politicking, intolerance or repression. For all the lip service the right gives to Freedom(s), they embrace FreeDUMB, they embrace repression, intolerance, and ignorance. If it means praising porn, in response to the polarization by the right, the division of America, then that is the better alternative to the right wing's oppression and hypocrisy.
I want to especially dedicated this post to my very roman catholic high school french teacher, for having made me aware that there was more to the writing of the Marquis de Sade than just sex. Merci, Monsieur, encore. And a special thank you for my inspiration to a fellow blogger - you know who you are - for having introduced me to Koon's "Made in America" collection.
- Marquis de Sade
"Are not laws dangerous which inhibit the passions? Compare the centuries of anarchy with those of the strongest legalism in any country you like and you will see that it is only when the laws are silent that the greatest actions appear. "
- Marquis de Sade
"Happiness lies neither in vice nor in virtue; but in the manner we appreciate the one and the other, and the choice we make pursuant to our individual organization."
-Marquis de Sade
"Religions are the cradles of despotism."
-Marquis de Sade
"Social order at the expense of liberty is hardly a bargain."
-Marquis de Sade
"To judge from the notions expounded by theologians, one must conclude that God created most men simply with a view to crowding hell."
-Marquis de Sade
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."
-Marquis de Sade
Michele Bachmann, and apparently our former governor Tim Pawlenty, have signed a pledge in order to seduce Iowa voters into giving them their primary support. In addition to truly hateful statements about homosexuals, slavery, and Islamophobic sections wailing against the non-existent threat of Sharia law, there is a section against 'Pornography'.
I oppose the exploitation, including the sexual exploitation, of women. I oppose the exploitation of men, too, including sexually. I oppose the exchange of sex for money, as demeaning to the participants, and demeaning to what sex can be at its best, when it is about connecting to another person in the most intimate way as an expression of love.
But this pledge isn't about that; this pledge is about prudery, it is about ignorance, it is about intolerance, it about censorship, and it is about forcing right wing religion on others instead of respecting the individual right to make religious decisions for oneself. It is anti-business; in the U.S. alone, it is upwards of $10 billion industry, just in video.
There are plenty of instances of right wing politicians who are involved in the sex industry. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana had a long history of scandals associated with prostitution, where apparently he sought sexual gratification through the fetish of wearing a diaper. Yet the Republican establishment, including the tea partiers, including members of Congress, have no problem with supporting him through all kinds of fund raising.
Below are the three latest fundraising events for David Vitter.Now personally, I think there is a certain amount of pay to play 'prostitution' going on, looking at the campaign contributions to holier than thou right wing hypocrites like Vitter (from the same site) the first figure is from individuals, the second from PACs, the third is the total:
When: July 19, 2011
What: Fundraising Dinner
Where: Finemondo Restaurant
Host(s): Mark Valente III, Chris Jones, Harmony Allen
Beneficiaries: David Vitter
Contributions: $2,500 Host; $1,000 Person/PAC
When: June 30, 2011
What: Fundraising Dinner
Where: Finemondo Restaurant
Host(s): Mark Valente III, Chris Jones, Harmony Allen
Beneficiaries: David Vitter
Contributions: $2,500 Host; $1,000 Person/PAC
When: June 08, 2011
What: Dinner
Where: Rupli Townhouse
Host(s): Tim Rupli, Doyle Bartlett, Camden Fine
Beneficiaries: David Vitter
Contributions: $5,000 PAC; $2,500 Individual
Make Checks Payable To: David Vitter for Senate
Campaign Contributions
This is a list of the top 10 industries giving campaign contributions to David Vitter in 2009-2010, the most recent fundraising cycle for which we have campaign contribution data.*
Industry Individual PAC Total
Employer Listed/Category Unknown $824,100 $0 $824,100
Oil & Gas $154,100 $96,000 $250,100
Health Professionals $198,651 $49,000 $247,651
Retired $196,615 $0 $196,615
Lawyers/Law Firms $130,350 $30,749 $161,099
Leadership PACs $0 $157,872 $157,872
No Employer Listed or Found $137,401 $0 $137,401
Real Estate $113,700 $14,500 $128,200
Sea Transport $72,450 $39,000 $111,450
Securities & Investment $69,890 $35,500 $105,390
This is a list of the top 10 interest groups giving campaign contributions to David Vitter in 2009-2010.*
Interest Group Individual PAC Total
Employer listed but category unknown
(Employer Listed/Category Unknown) $824,100 $0 $824,100
Retired
(Retired) $196,615 $0 $196,615
Attorneys & law firms
(Lawyers/Law Firms) $128,850 $30,749 $159,599
No employer listed or discovered
(No Employer Listed or Found) $137,401 $0 $137,401
Republican leadership PAC
(Leadership PACs) $0 $133,500 $133,500
Physicians
(Health Professionals) $114,001 $2,000 $116,001
Republican/Conservative
(Republican/Conservative) $98,319 $1,000 $99,319
Homemakers, students & other non-income earners
(Homemakers/Non-income earners) $97,400 $0 $97,400
Other physician specialists
(Health Professionals) $59,950 $34,000 $93,950
Lobbyists & Public Relations
(Lobbyists) $75,050 $6,000 $81,050
Pro-Israel
(Pro-Israel) $40,369 $40,500 $80,869
Oilfield service, equipment & exploration
(Oil & Gas) $66,250 $13,000 $79,250
Construction, unclassified
(General Contractors) $67,000 $0 $67,000
Sea freight & passenger services
(Sea Transport) $25,200 $34,000 $59,200
Major (multinational) oil & gas producers
(Oil & Gas) $26,450 $32,500 $58,950
General commerce
(Misc Business) $58,000 $0 $58,000
Investors
(Misc Finance) $55,700 $0 $55,700
Accountants
(Accountants) $16,350 $33,000 $49,350
Security brokers & investment companies
(Securities & Investment) $25,200 $18,500 $43,700
Insurance companies, brokers & agents
(Insurance) $26,000 $17,000 $43,000
Liquor wholesalers
(Beer, Wine & Liquor) $25,900 $17,000 $42,900
Republican Party Committees
(Party Committees) $0 $42,600 $42,600
Banks & lending institutions
(Commercial Banks) $35,150 $6,000 $41,150
Real estate agents
(Real Estate) $35,650 $2,000 $37,650
Independent oil & gas producers
(Oil & Gas) $22,600 $14,000 $36,600
In the tradition of Rush Limbaugh, caught with someone else's boner pills after a trip to a Caribbean country famous for its sex tourism (much of it with underaged girls), we have married 'family values' Ohio state Representative Micklenborg, arrested for a DUI in Indiana, with Viagra and a stripper in his car. Just speculation, but I'd bet Micklenborg has perused his share of porn.
So, perhaps I might be excused for thinking this is great political theater for seducing the right wing religious base, while believing that the right is neither sexually more respectable or pure than anyone else. In that light it should be understandable why I oppose ill educated lying bimbo theocrats presuming to tell me what is moral, given that Bachmann has such a bad record with the truth, and that she has been exploiting the foster children that were placed, apparently too briefly for any accuracy in the claim she 'raised' them, in her care. I can think of few things as disgusting and offensive as trying to exploit children who were in a position of desperation and/or extreme in order for them to be placed in foster care. This is not a person who has a right to claim any moral high ground.
 |
| Classical mosaic Venus with Eros |
These are not the people I want to allow to be in charge of censoring
what I can see or read. They are not sufficiently culturally literate to address topics such as what is erotic, and what is pornographic. The depiction of human beings, including as sexual beings, goes back to the earliest known figural art, the prehistoric 'venus' figures like those found in the Neanderthal valley of Germany. It includes some extremely graphic depictions of sex from the classic period, not only of the goddess Venus, but of ordinary people engaging in sex.
I don't want the Republicans dictating to me whether or not I can read any of the works of the Marquis de Sade (which I have, in the original french). De Sade, while definitely a libertine was also an avowed libertarian by modern standards, and much of his writing dealt with other subjects than repellent and painful sex, including extensive sections on religion, philosophy and politics. The late 20th century was an era reviving interest in de Sade among artists, philosophers and scholars.
The point is, I don't want narrow minded bigots like Bachmann, or Gingrich, or Pawlenty, or any of the other potential Republican candidates spending government money to prosecute it, censor it, or to prevent me from making up my own mind about it. That is an overreach of government, it is intrusive, it is 'big brother' (or big sister, in Bachmann's case) trying to legislate morality from a smug, self-congratulatory position that presumes a superiority which they lack.
Porn is a better alternative than their prudery, ignorance, corrupt politicking, intolerance or repression. For all the lip service the right gives to Freedom(s), they embrace FreeDUMB, they embrace repression, intolerance, and ignorance. If it means praising porn, in response to the polarization by the right, the division of America, then that is the better alternative to the right wing's oppression and hypocrisy.
I want to especially dedicated this post to my very roman catholic high school french teacher, for having made me aware that there was more to the writing of the Marquis de Sade than just sex. Merci, Monsieur, encore. And a special thank you for my inspiration to a fellow blogger - you know who you are - for having introduced me to Koon's "Made in America" collection.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Republican "Cuts Only" Is an Unpopular, Out of Touch, Arrogant and Corrupt Over Reach, NOT the Will of 'We the People'
From the insight of wonderful local talent, STrib cartoonist Steve Sack:
![]()
This seems to be a parallel to the Republican intransigence at the state level, where there seems to be an equivalent disregard for the consequences of the shutdown of the state of Minnesota on the right.
Since they only really care about 0.03%, the 7,700 who are more likely to put money in the Republican Party pockets, we seem to have not so much an ethical crisis of pay to play, as pay to give a damn.
We are being treated to the inevitable Republican over reach. AGAIN. The one that ignores the will of the people, while claiming to be populist. There have been nearly two dozen polls showing the overwhelming desire for a budget that increases revenue, not all-cuts. Those polls show the overwhelming support for Dayton's proposal to tax the indulged, tax-protected upper 2%, who would not be adversely impacted.
That is not job killing, regardless of how often the right repeats their false characterization. It is not class warfare; class warfare is favoring unfairly the wealthy few and special interests over everyone else.
EVERYONE else.
From Bruce Bartlett's blog, by way of Jason Easly at PolitcusUSA.com (disclaimer - both Pen and I have written for politicususa.com a couple of years ago).
January 2011 - 60 Minutes / Vanity Fair Poll - 61% would raise taxes on the rich rather than cut defense, social security or medicare
- CBS News / New York Times - 66% would raise taxes rather than cut social security or Medicare;
February 2011 - CBS News - 49% believe that reducing the deficit will require cuts in programs which affect them; 41% do not; 37% believe that reducing the deficit will require higher taxes on them; 59% do not.
March 2011 - NBC News/ Wall Street Journal - 81% support surtax on millionaires to reduce the deficit; 68% support repeal of the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000
- NBC News / Washington Post - 64% support higher taxes to reduce deficit rather than cuts-only solutions
April 2011 - Tulchin Research Poll - Californians overwhelmingly support raising taxes on the rich to solve the state's budget crisis.
- Gallop Poll - 67% believe that corporations do not pay their fair share, 59% believe the rich do not pay their fair share
- McClatchey / Marist Poll - 2 to 1, voters support higher taxes on the rich, including 45% of self-identified Tea Partiers!
- Public Religion Research Institute - 2-1 margin, people believe the rich should pay more taxes than the poor or middle class; 62% believe that growing wealth inequality is a serious concern.
- Washington Post / ABC News - 2-1 margin people favor higher taxes AND spending cuts over cuts alone solution to the deficit; 72% favor raising taxes on the wealthy, the single most popular deficit reduction solution
- New York Times / CBS - 72% favor raising taxes on the rich for deficit reduction; 66% believe that tax increases will be necessary to solve the deficit problem, only 19% believed cuts only proposals were an adequate solution.
- USC / Los Angeles Times - 2 -1 favor raising taxes, not cuts alone, to solve the CA budget crisis
- Gallop Poll - 20% favor cuts only to solve the deficit; 76% favor higher taxes as part of the solution
May 2011 - Quinnipiac Poll - 69% favor raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000, with 28 percent disagreeing.
- Ipsos / Reuters Poll - 3/5ths of people support higher taxes to reduce the deficit
- Bloomberg Poll - 2/3rds believe higher taxes are necessary to reduce the deficit.
- Lake Research Poll - 44% of Colorado residents support higher taxes on the rich to shore up Social Security finances, while 25% do not
June 2011 - Pew Poll - strong support for tax increases to reduce the deficit; 67% favor raising the wage cap for Social Security Taxes;66% favor raising the income tax on those earning > $250,000; 62% want to limit corporate tax deductions; a plurality would limit mortgage interest deductions.
- Washington Post / ABC News Poll - 61% believe higher taxes are necessary to reduce the deficit.
Here is Bruce Bartlett's bio, for those not familiar with him - and for those who claim that only liberal sources support taxation of the rich:
Public Policy Polling went further in polling the swing states of Ohio, Missouri, Minnesota and Montana, which showed that not only was there overwhelming support for taxing the wealthy, but that there was also
overwhelming support for keeping the current versions of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
AND - TAKE NOTE REPUBLICANS! - creating JOBS was more important than solving the deficit. Whether at the state level or the national level, quit screwing around, and raise those upper income taxes, and quit trying to choke us on your backward culture wars. Before you try that stupid mantra that tax cuts to the wealthy create jobs - PUT UP OR SHUT UP! PROVE IT.
The Evidence is NOT on your side (again):
![]()
Per Michael Linden, Center for American Progress, commenting on the above Bureau of Labor Statistics and Tax Policy Center numbers:
This seems to be a parallel to the Republican intransigence at the state level, where there seems to be an equivalent disregard for the consequences of the shutdown of the state of Minnesota on the right.
Since they only really care about 0.03%, the 7,700 who are more likely to put money in the Republican Party pockets, we seem to have not so much an ethical crisis of pay to play, as pay to give a damn.
We are being treated to the inevitable Republican over reach. AGAIN. The one that ignores the will of the people, while claiming to be populist. There have been nearly two dozen polls showing the overwhelming desire for a budget that increases revenue, not all-cuts. Those polls show the overwhelming support for Dayton's proposal to tax the indulged, tax-protected upper 2%, who would not be adversely impacted.
That is not job killing, regardless of how often the right repeats their false characterization. It is not class warfare; class warfare is favoring unfairly the wealthy few and special interests over everyone else.
EVERYONE else.
From Bruce Bartlett's blog, by way of Jason Easly at PolitcusUSA.com (disclaimer - both Pen and I have written for politicususa.com a couple of years ago).
January 2011 - 60 Minutes / Vanity Fair Poll - 61% would raise taxes on the rich rather than cut defense, social security or medicare
- CBS News / New York Times - 66% would raise taxes rather than cut social security or Medicare;
February 2011 - CBS News - 49% believe that reducing the deficit will require cuts in programs which affect them; 41% do not; 37% believe that reducing the deficit will require higher taxes on them; 59% do not.
March 2011 - NBC News/ Wall Street Journal - 81% support surtax on millionaires to reduce the deficit; 68% support repeal of the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000
- NBC News / Washington Post - 64% support higher taxes to reduce deficit rather than cuts-only solutions
April 2011 - Tulchin Research Poll - Californians overwhelmingly support raising taxes on the rich to solve the state's budget crisis.
- Gallop Poll - 67% believe that corporations do not pay their fair share, 59% believe the rich do not pay their fair share
- McClatchey / Marist Poll - 2 to 1, voters support higher taxes on the rich, including 45% of self-identified Tea Partiers!
- Public Religion Research Institute - 2-1 margin, people believe the rich should pay more taxes than the poor or middle class; 62% believe that growing wealth inequality is a serious concern.
- Washington Post / ABC News - 2-1 margin people favor higher taxes AND spending cuts over cuts alone solution to the deficit; 72% favor raising taxes on the wealthy, the single most popular deficit reduction solution
- New York Times / CBS - 72% favor raising taxes on the rich for deficit reduction; 66% believe that tax increases will be necessary to solve the deficit problem, only 19% believed cuts only proposals were an adequate solution.
- USC / Los Angeles Times - 2 -1 favor raising taxes, not cuts alone, to solve the CA budget crisis
- Gallop Poll - 20% favor cuts only to solve the deficit; 76% favor higher taxes as part of the solution
May 2011 - Quinnipiac Poll - 69% favor raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000, with 28 percent disagreeing.
- Ipsos / Reuters Poll - 3/5ths of people support higher taxes to reduce the deficit
- Bloomberg Poll - 2/3rds believe higher taxes are necessary to reduce the deficit.
- Lake Research Poll - 44% of Colorado residents support higher taxes on the rich to shore up Social Security finances, while 25% do not
June 2011 - Pew Poll - strong support for tax increases to reduce the deficit; 67% favor raising the wage cap for Social Security Taxes;66% favor raising the income tax on those earning > $250,000; 62% want to limit corporate tax deductions; a plurality would limit mortgage interest deductions.
- Washington Post / ABC News Poll - 61% believe higher taxes are necessary to reduce the deficit.
Here is Bruce Bartlett's bio, for those not familiar with him - and for those who claim that only liberal sources support taxation of the rich:
Bruce Bartlett is a columnist for The Fiscal Times, an online newspaper covering the economy, business and personal finance; and for Tax Notes, a weekly magazine for tax policymakers and practitioners. He was previously a columnist for Forbes Magazine and Creators Syndicate. His writing often focuses on the intersection between politics and economics and attempts to inform politicians about economics and economists about the current nature of politics.
Bartlett’s work is informed by many years in government, including service on the staffs of Congressmen Ron Paul and Jack Kemp and Senator Roger Jepsen; as staff director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress; senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House; and deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department during the George H.W. Bush administration.
Bruce is the author of seven books including the New York Times best-seller, Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy (Doubleday, 2006). His latest book is The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).
Public Policy Polling went further in polling the swing states of Ohio, Missouri, Minnesota and Montana, which showed that not only was there overwhelming support for taxing the wealthy, but that there was also
overwhelming support for keeping the current versions of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
AND - TAKE NOTE REPUBLICANS! - creating JOBS was more important than solving the deficit. Whether at the state level or the national level, quit screwing around, and raise those upper income taxes, and quit trying to choke us on your backward culture wars. Before you try that stupid mantra that tax cuts to the wealthy create jobs - PUT UP OR SHUT UP! PROVE IT.
The Evidence is NOT on your side (again):
In the past 60 years, job growth has actually been greater in years when the top income tax rate was much higher than it is now.
For instance, in years when the top marginal rate was more than 90 percent, the average annual growth in total payroll employment was 2 percent. In years when the top marginal rate was 35 percent or less—which it is now—employment grew by an average of just 0.4 percent.
And there’s no cherry-picking here. Pick any threshold. When the marginal tax rate was 50 percent or above, annual employment growth averaged 2.3 percent, and when the rate was under 50, growth was half that.
In fact, if you ranked each year since 1950 by overall job growth, the top five years would all boast marginal tax rates at 70 percent or higher. The top 10 years would share marginal tax rates at 50 percent or higher. The two worst years, on the other hand, were 2008 and 2009, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent. In the 13 years that the top marginal tax rate has been at its current level or lower, only one year even cracks the top 20 in overall job creation.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Inc. versus Ink: Another Witty Ed Stein 'Ed' Cartoon
from the web site Ed Stein Ink:
![]()
We are approaching more money talks both state and federal, with the state of MN in shut down due to the failure of the GOP to compromise, as they wage their class warfare on behalf of 7,700 people who earn over 1 million a year. While literally taking the bread out of the mouths of disabled people, children, and the elderly, and actively seek to cut jobs instead of growing our economy and using government to help create jobs, the GOP is protecting the richest from sharing in any costs.
Ed Stein beautifully skewers the GOP and adds a nice swipe at the Religious Right in the analogy to the "GOD is my copilot" motto to those flying in their private jets, be the jets corporate, or the expensive ride of politicians like Palin. The position of the right in protecting every last dime of their largest donors personifies their corruption and their dishonesty in the guise of ideology, of politics as a religion of greed. Another cartoon spot on Ed!
We are approaching more money talks both state and federal, with the state of MN in shut down due to the failure of the GOP to compromise, as they wage their class warfare on behalf of 7,700 people who earn over 1 million a year. While literally taking the bread out of the mouths of disabled people, children, and the elderly, and actively seek to cut jobs instead of growing our economy and using government to help create jobs, the GOP is protecting the richest from sharing in any costs.
Ed Stein beautifully skewers the GOP and adds a nice swipe at the Religious Right in the analogy to the "GOD is my copilot" motto to those flying in their private jets, be the jets corporate, or the expensive ride of politicians like Palin. The position of the right in protecting every last dime of their largest donors personifies their corruption and their dishonesty in the guise of ideology, of politics as a religion of greed. Another cartoon spot on Ed!
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
This Is the Funniest Thing I've Seen in Ages
On the one hand, it is terribly sad, and humiliating that Michele Bachmann is a national joke, and a Congresswoman who has been elected more than once to represent Minnesota. We lose all credibility as a state with good education and responsible, reasonable citizens every time Bachmann opens her mouth.
But this IS funny, and pretty well addresses the reality of what passes for history among the tea partiers, be it Bachmann or the dumber bunny, popsie Palin.
If you are having trouble playing this video, try this link, to play it on the colbert report web site:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/388583/june-06-2011/paul-revere-s-famous-ride?xrs=share_copy
Monday, July 4, 2011
Happy Independence Day to all our Penigma readers and contributors.
Due to storm damage and power outages, posting has been a bit light, including the intended posts in celebration of the holiday. I look forward to our usual level of content returning soon, and we thank you for your patience.
In the interim, we wish you all a safe and happy 4th of July with family and friends, wherever you are, and however you celebrate the founding of our country. Enjoy your lives, liberty, and pursue your happiness!
Due to storm damage and power outages, posting has been a bit light, including the intended posts in celebration of the holiday. I look forward to our usual level of content returning soon, and we thank you for your patience.
In the interim, we wish you all a safe and happy 4th of July with family and friends, wherever you are, and however you celebrate the founding of our country. Enjoy your lives, liberty, and pursue your happiness!
Friday, July 1, 2011
Michele Bachmann FAILS Yet Another Fact Check, this one by Factcheck.org
Some of this reflects Bachmann's factual errors, and some of it she appears to just straight up deliberate lies (which is disconcerting, coming from a religious right wing theocrat). I wonder where Congresswoman Bachmann got the idea that it was acceptable to simply make up facts to suit her ideology - did THAT come from the GOP, or was it from FAUX NOT-the-News? You have to give Bachmann credit for one thing though - she is an amazingly, appallingly consistent fibber.
Bachmann’s Waterloo
The GOP lawmaker's presidential campaign starts with a slew of off-base claims.
June 28, 2011
Summary
Rep. Michele Bachmann officially joined the presidential campaign trail, but made a flurry of false and misleading claims along the way.
The Minnesota Republican appeared on two Sunday talk shows the day before giving her formal announcement speech in Waterloo, Iowa. On the shows, she made false statements about income from her family farm and government subsidies to her husband's business. She also made misstatements regarding earmarks, federal pay, government-owned "limousines" and health care:
■Bachmann falsely claimed that she and her husband "have never gotten a penny" from a family farm that received federal subsidies. But she reported income from the farm in 2006, 2008 and 2009 — the most recent year available — on her congressional financial disclosure statements.
■She claimed she had been "faithful" to her pledge not to request federal earmarks. But she requested $40 million in transportation earmarks in the 2009 fiscal year budget after taking the pledge, later claiming such projects should not be subjected to her promise. She withdrew her requests after the House Republicans took a party position in 2010 not to seek earmarks.
■Bachmann wrongly blamed President Obama for increasing the number of federal transportation workers who earn more than $170,000 from one to 1,690 during the recession. At least two-thirds of those employees were receiving more than $170,000 before Obama took office.
■She criticized the president for a 73 percent increase in government "limousines." But one department accounted for the increase, and it had a long-term plan, pre-dating Obama, to add armored vehicles. The term "limousine" includes armored vehicles and sedans, not just actual limos.
■She claimed government money received by her husband's counseling clinics did not benefit the business, because the funds paid for employee training. It's true the clinics received $24,041 for training, but the business received thousands more in government funds, including money for treating crime victims.
■The three-term congresswoman repeated — on two Sunday shows — the false claim that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the federal health care law will "cost the economy 800,000 jobs." The CBO never said that. It said there will be a "small" impact on jobs.
Bachmann’s Waterloo
The GOP lawmaker's presidential campaign starts with a slew of off-base claims.
June 28, 2011
Summary
Rep. Michele Bachmann officially joined the presidential campaign trail, but made a flurry of false and misleading claims along the way.
The Minnesota Republican appeared on two Sunday talk shows the day before giving her formal announcement speech in Waterloo, Iowa. On the shows, she made false statements about income from her family farm and government subsidies to her husband's business. She also made misstatements regarding earmarks, federal pay, government-owned "limousines" and health care:
■Bachmann falsely claimed that she and her husband "have never gotten a penny" from a family farm that received federal subsidies. But she reported income from the farm in 2006, 2008 and 2009 — the most recent year available — on her congressional financial disclosure statements.
■She claimed she had been "faithful" to her pledge not to request federal earmarks. But she requested $40 million in transportation earmarks in the 2009 fiscal year budget after taking the pledge, later claiming such projects should not be subjected to her promise. She withdrew her requests after the House Republicans took a party position in 2010 not to seek earmarks.
■Bachmann wrongly blamed President Obama for increasing the number of federal transportation workers who earn more than $170,000 from one to 1,690 during the recession. At least two-thirds of those employees were receiving more than $170,000 before Obama took office.
■She criticized the president for a 73 percent increase in government "limousines." But one department accounted for the increase, and it had a long-term plan, pre-dating Obama, to add armored vehicles. The term "limousine" includes armored vehicles and sedans, not just actual limos.
■She claimed government money received by her husband's counseling clinics did not benefit the business, because the funds paid for employee training. It's true the clinics received $24,041 for training, but the business received thousands more in government funds, including money for treating crime victims.
■The three-term congresswoman repeated — on two Sunday shows — the false claim that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the federal health care law will "cost the economy 800,000 jobs." The CBO never said that. It said there will be a "small" impact on jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)