Donald Trump is P.T. Barnum

The snake-oil Donald Trump really is only one note. 

Trump brings people into his camp by promising that he’s going the help defend “them”, those who have been looked over or disenfranchised by the movement of the nation away from caring about the middle-class.  He says he’s self-funded and so “not for sale.” 

Now of course, he’s taking money from big money donors, so I guess the “not for sale thing” is gone.  He's also trying to separate small money donors from their cash.

Over his entire career, Trump is exactly the type of Wall Street elitist who was raised in opulence; and he has been advocating for the tax changes, trade changes, etc. that made it easy and profitable for the elites to move jobs away.  Even more importantly, his solution to “bring back” jobs it to reduce wages for manufacturing sector workers so that we can be “competitive” with workers in places where the standard of living is both far cheaper and FAR below what the workers in the US, including our parents, worked hard to attain and so enjoyed for decades and expected to pass on to us. 
 
The bottom line of the economics landscape of the past 35 years has been that the rich cut wages but didn’t cut prices and instead pocketed the difference.  Any class on Macro-Economics will tell you that is a recipe for disaster as consumption power will fall over time while the wealth at the top will create an “asset bubble” (e.g. the real estate bubble).  

Those bubbles historically ALWAYS burst, in boom / bust cycles, and the economy suffers disastrous periods of volatile and violent upheaval where jobs are lost by the millions and savings and other asset accumulation is destroyed.  It is a form of calculated wealth extraction, redistributing that wealth to the already-wealthy.

Trump has been all-too-happy to take advantage of those changes. 

He’s employed thousands of meagerly-paid workers in China to make his shirts, ties, and the like.  He seeks to hide behind lawsuits to avoid having it disclosed that he pays nearly nothing in taxes and gives LESS to charity in actual cash out ofhis pocket – in short, he’s been an advocate for the exact changes he now says he opposes and opposed the changes he now says he’d make.   

So, do you believe a guy who only has ever acted to enrich himself, including doing things which were allegedly illegal, when he says he stands for you?   

Even if you do, do you seriously think chasing wages down the rabbit hole and making our workers live on the same meager salaries that are paid in Indonesia is what you think of when you hear him say he will “Making America” great? 

Great for him I guess, but not for you.

Barnum was famously quoted as saying, "There's a sucker born every minute."  The question is, are you a sucker?  Do you buy the crap coming from this man, a man who has made a career of (over)promising solutions in which EVERYONE is going to win, only to have those promises prove hollow and the only one who won was Trump as he pocked his millions, walking away laughing, shielded by our favorable corporate bankruptcy laws.

There is no question the west needs to figure out how to better manage the transition toward a more global economy, there is no question that simply letting the rich keep prices high while slashing jobs and wages is not working and will not work, but there is also no question that slashing wages further (Trump’s solution) is no solution and that Donald Trump is selling disaster and a worse life for you.  

Are you a sucker, or do you understand the bearded lady is a fraud?

Honor, Integrity and Gun-Enabled Violence

There is much to reflect upon whenever a tragedy happens.  What we should focus on is easing the pain to the extent any easing can be done.  We should try to provide some justice so that the tragedy can be avoided if that is even possible. We should for a way to bridge the divide that caused the hate to develop.

When I look at the reaction of various groups to the Orlando massacre, I see most people wanting to do nearly all of this.  A few, like Donald Trump, seek to use it for political advantage, some others seek to use it to make false claims about “gun free zones.”  A number of others, like the NRA, seek to get ahead of any outcry and so make some false claims, using misleading statistics, about crime and gun violence.

I won’t compound the rancor with more of the same.  I will simply say that the NRA and its supporters in Congress are wrong to ONLY offer up that they’ll modify the law to include people on the “No Fly” list as those who can’t buy firearms.  That misses the mark by a long way.  It’s not just access to firearms, it’s the type.

The high capacity magazine and semi-automatic “assault” rifle are really more to blame than any hole in the “No Fly” list.  The gun-show loophole is equally a part of the problem in allowing for straw purchases for reselling firearms to criminals.  The weapon type and magazine point should be what we are discussing, not the political theater of the “No Fly/No Buy” bill.  That bill is pablum and would never have stopped Omar Mateen.  It would never have stopped the shooter at Sandy Hook, or San Bernadino, or Aurora Colorado, or Virginia Tech or Gabby Gifford's shooter. 
That said, it’s not a bad thing to do, but it’s far short of enough, enough to offer the victims justice, their families solace, and the nation some meaningful improvement in safety.

Instead it’s time to admit assault weapons and high capacity magazines are not needed by civilians for home defense.  It’s past time to close the gun-show loophole nationally.  It’s time to require the national database to be universally implemented and enough time for it to be accessed prior to the completion of a sale.

These aren’t even hard measures.   

They will curtail gun sales; so the gun lobby and their mouthpiece, the NRA, will hate it.  But, in response to a tragedy, we have the obligation to the dead and their loved-ones to stop pointing fingers and do that which we’ve known for a long time needed doing. 

We have an obligation to the living, to keep them safe from further mass shootings. 

We have an obligation to our first responders to minimize the number of both mass shootings and the frequency of smaller 'every-day' shootings that put their life and limbs in harm's way.  Other countries do not have the frequency of violent death that is experienced by our law enforcement and first responders, who should be the ultimate 'good guys' of our society, deserving of our protection through regulation. Instead we put them in an on the street weapons race of firepower.

This isn’t knee-jerk legislation, it’s finally pushing aside political resistance we should never have let stop us in the first place.   Honor requires it, decency pleads for it, and the memory of the dead demands it.  Our choice is intelligent pragmatism that addresses facts and uses logic, or foolish ideology that ignores and denies a violent reality.

Conservatism is, LITERALLY, Resulting in the DEATHS of Women and Children

most recent infant mortality rates, 2014

most recent statistics on comparative maternal mortality rates

Last month the Shriver Report, a non-profit that deals with women in the US and feminism (both advances and reversals)did a survey, in part examining the attitudes of men towards a possible female president. It explains a great deal about why conservative men are waging culture and legislative/policy war on women, not only in regards to reproductive issues but rather a broad spectrum of issues.  Worse, those beliefs and the policies and legislation that result from them, are becoming more extreme and more draconian - and deadly.

This part of that survey findings I found to be key in understanding why conservative men, who are opposed to the advances of feminism and are attempting to undo them, perceive a threat to their roles at an emotional level - this is the 'what' and the 'why':

When asked to describe in their own words why it is harder to be a man in their generation compared with their father’s, men are most likely to say this is due to women attaining a stronger position in the workplace, a stronger position financially, and greater gender equality. These men also cite negative assumptions about men, a more competitive job market, greater household responsibilities for men, and greater expectations for men in society today.

There is something deeply and seriously wrong when we could be more scandalized, shocked, or offended by the notion of men experiencing a limited simulation of pregnancy and childbirth than we are aware of or shocked by women and infants dying at an increasing rate, an appalling rate, comparable to other similarly developed first world countries.

I posted this back on May 7, but it does not appear to have been adequately connected to the subsequent posts as part of the theme of why our post-1980 era conservatism, aka the policies and ideology broadly characterized as Reaganism, are massively misogynistic, massively anti-feminist, to such an extreme they constitute a war on women.

Please pay attention to the statistics on infant and maternal mortality in this video from May 5, 2015.



These statistics are shocking, genuinely deeply shocking, deeply disturbing. These statistics require something to push back against these policies, something to undo, or to reverse, this conservative Reaganism thinking at the deepest and most profound level. Because this thinking is an integral part of conservative identity, because it is emotional rather than rational or logical, bringing about that kind of change in a conservative is extremely difficult by reliance on facts and figures, or logic as persuasion.

My co-blogger Penigma has respectfully and constructively criticized me for proposing that conservative men who vote on legislation affecting women and support for families should experience both the simulated labor pains and the discomfort of simulated pregnancy pre-labor with a pregnancy belly appliance. He viewed those suggestions as extremist and as sensationalism. That was never my intent, and I am not so far persuaded that those proposals are either extreme or sensational; rather, given the number of men who try those experiences voluntarily, and given that they are more brief than the actual experience for women, and that men can opt out of them whenever they become too unpleasant for their tolerance threshold, I think the proposal is actually quite benign and positive.  Deaths certainly justify at least considering alternatives when other solutions have been so unsuccessful.


My co-blogger Penigma has also chided me, in his usual very gentlemanly and considerate manner, for focusing too much on pregnancy and labor, and not sufficiently on other aspects related to the war on women, such as the attempts to limit or ban outright access to affordable contraception (as just one example).

I would argue instead that the purpose of proposing those two simulations for conservative male legislators is to provide them a very physical and emotionally visceral, physical understanding of a challenging uniquely female experience as a means to open their hearts and minds to a broader and deeper change of belief about women than only pregnancy and giving birth. I would argue that after experiencing even a brief exposure to simulated childbirth, a conservative legislator would be less likely to find it plausible that poor women become pregnant just to get a free 'Obamaphone'. Of course, there is no such thing as a free Obamaphone; rather a Bush era program continued under Obama where reconditioned phones are provided by corporations with limited minutes on them for the purpose of job hunting, with use monitored and availability strictly means tested, including a requirement for actual job hunting. But those facts are immaterial to the conservative narrative -- as most facts appear to be ignored by conservatives in favor of their ideology narrative against women.

Let me provide you an example from the right - specifically the religious right.  This is a term that has been widely used on right wing media, including (but not limited to) Fox News, via Boingboing back in 2012, although it continues into 2015.  It is not only misogynistic, and anti-sexuality, it is additionally some of the most ugly kind of racism; but this goes a long way towards explaining conservative legislation:

"The Democrats tried to make this election about a single issue: The right to slut. Or more precisely, the right to slut without the responsibility of consequences."
"One thing one has to remember about women, especially slutty ones: They usually don’t make decisions based on reason," he writes, after explaining that sluts want to get abortions so they can be slutty and childless, but that they also want to leech off of welfare to raise welfare babies, which is of course a totally reasoned flow of logic.
"This election cycle shows that the Slut Vote is real, and Republicans lose because they discount the existence of original sin in women," writes B-Skillet. "Abortion is often called the 'third rail of American politics,' but in truth, the third rail is a woman’s right to slut (with cash and prizes)."

The famous “gender gap” isn’t really a gap based on gender. The right overwhelmingly wins older and married women. The “gender gap” should more accurately be called the slut vote.
Women make up about 54% of the electorate. It is very hard to win without winning that segment, or at least losing it only narrowly while winning men big. While the right usually wins married women, the fact is that married women constitute an ever-decreasing share of the female population. Women want to delay marriage as long as possible so they can “have it all,” and usually “have it all” means “have as much hot alpha sex as possible without any consequences.” And thus, less married women and more sluts (not that these two groups are mutually exclusive, per se)
And that’s where the Democrats come in. Contrary to common belief, the primary reason the Democrats own the black vote has nothing to do with civil rights. The Democrats were only partially supportive of civil rights in the 60′s (with southern Democrats advocating “segregation forever”). Lincoln was a Republican, and Republicans in the House and Senate voted for civil rights legislation in the 60s.
Rather, Democrats have won the black vote because the black community is dominated by illegitimacy, and the Democrats are willing to subsidize and support that illegitimacy (as well as provide access to cheap abortions) so as to take away from sluts the consequences of their actions. Consequently, young black people grow up on the dole and not only never realize there might be something wrong with that, but eventually come to believe that’s the way it should be. The Democrats have won the black vote by first “empowering” single black mothers.
This is now beginning to happen in white suburbia, except unlike women in the urban black community, white suburban sluts start from a place of relative wealth and privilege (daddy’s little princess). Thus, food stamps–and increased rewards for having illegitimate kids while on food stamps–don’t (yet) appeal to them.
So instead Obama appealed to rich white sluts by forcing someone else (the Catholic church, in this case) to pay for their birth control, and by scaring them about alleged threats to their ability to take advantage of Planned Parenthood’s services (Planned Parenthood being conveniently located in the minority part of town, of course, so as to provide anonymity to visiting white girls whose white girl friends never go over there–except to visit Planned Parenthood themselves). This created a wedge issue in the suburban community that allowed Obama to play more strongly there than he might have if the election ended up purely about the economy or the national debt.
One thing one has to remember about women, especially slutty ones: They usually don’t make decisions based on reason. So all the Obama administration had to do was scare them that Mitt Romney was going to take away their birth control and their access to abortion. The fear for them is that, without birth control and abortion, they might actually get pregnant and have to give birth. That is scary not simply because of the economic burden of having a child (since, hey, they can get all kinds of cash and prizes if that happens), but because if that happened then everyone would know they’re sluts, and their image as daddy’s pure little snowflake princess goes out the window.
The right loses the female vote primarily because so many of them still operate from a feminist world-view: Women are pure, perfect, kind, and altruistic, and the only reason they “get into trouble” is that some evil, conniving, manipulative man tricked them into sleeping with the entire football team.

Conservatives are broadly anti-abortion, and they have attempted at all levels of government to ban abortion, by claiming it is killing babies. At the same time, they promote policies which actually DO kill babies, not just clusters of cells at the embryonic and fetal level of development which have no established moral, legal or scientific standing as human beings.

This is not exclusively an issue of pregnancy or giving birth however, but part of a larger view of women as the enemy, especially to the degree that women fail to conform to submission to men and conformity to a pre-1950's style of puritanism. This is a worldview of women as a threat, to male dominance and by extension to a rigid social hierarchy which in the view of conservatives equates to order and stability, 'the right(AKA right-wing) way' of doing things.

This is about changing all thinking and beliefs about women, from the minimum wage (which affects women more than men, to pay and pay equality, and as a result affects poverty levels more for women than for men) to health care (including the increased availability of health care through the ACA), to nutritional supplement levels like WIC and SNAP, to the funding of programs like Governor Dayton's pre-K, to the demeaning of single women as a demographic that votes for Democrats more than Republicans being characterized as the 'slut vote', to the belief that women, especially single women, use pregnancy as an ATM card through the social safety network of welfare benefits, to the attitudes about rape which blame the victim not the rapist.

I would ague that it requires a fairly strong, if not drastic solution, when we even see a recurring theme of conservatives figures claiming that women should not have the vote, and when we have a Justice on the Supreme Court who publicly asserts that the U.S. constitution does not prohibit gender discrimination (Scalia, here).

Conservatives do not want to force women back into the bad old days of the 1950s. Conservatives, led by predominantly white males at all levels of governance and politics, want to force women bac to the very bad old days of the 1850s. We need to push back against that -- and push back hard. That I believe requires thinking outside the box of methods we have tried to date, and which have failed. That I believe may require an approach that is not exclusively a logical argument of dry facts which are easily ignored or denied.

As an FYI, since I try to be conscientious about fact checking what I publish, I looked to see if Thom Hartmann had his numbers right -- he did.

From last September, via CBS news and the CDC:

More babies are dying before they turn 1 year old in the United States than in most of Europe and several other developed countries, a new U.S. government report says.
A greater proportion of premature births and deaths of full-term babies are driving the higher rate, which puts the United States below 25 other countries, according to the report, released Sept. 24 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"I think we've known for a long time that the U.S. has a higher preterm birth rate, but this higher infant mortality rate for full-term, big babies who should have really good survival prospects is not what we expected," said lead author Marian MacDorman, a senior statistician and researcher in the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
The infant mortality rate refers to the percentage of babies born alive who die before their first birthday.
The report compares infant mortality rates in the United States to those of European countries plus Australia, Israel, Japan, Korea and New Zealand in 2010, the most recent year for which data is available.

It looks as if Thom Hartmann may have UNDER reported the data for maternal mortality rates.  From the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals:

Maternal Mortality in the United States: A Human Rights Failure

With 99% of maternal deaths occurring in developing countries, it is too often assumed that maternal mortality is not a problem in wealthier countries. Yet, statistics released in September of 2010 by the United Nations place the United States 50th in the world for maternal mortality — with maternal mortality ratios higher than almost all European countries, as well as several countries in Asia and the Middle East.^{1, 2}
Even more troubling, the United Nations data show that between 1990 and 2008, while the vast majority of countries reduced their maternal mortality ratios for a global decrease of 34%, maternal mortality nearly doubled in the United States.¹ For a country that spends more than any other country on health care and more on childbirth-related care than any other area of hospitalization — US$86 billion a year — this is a shockingly poor return on investment.^{3, 4}
Given that at least half of maternal deaths in the United States are preventable,⁵ this is not just a matter of public health, but a human rights failure.⁶ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “every human being has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including medical care and necessary social services”.⁷ This means that the United States health care system must provide health care services that are available, accessible, acceptable and of good quality.⁸ In addition, the health care system must be free from discrimination, must be accountable and must ensure the active participation of women in decision-making. Yet, instead, too many women in the United States face shortages of providers and facilities and inadequate staffing; financial, bureaucratic, transport and language barriers; care that is not culturally appropriate or respectful; a lack of opportunity for informed decision-making and the lack of a system to ensure that all women receive high-quality, evidence-based care.

In this larger context, of actual death and suffering, I don't think demanding our legislators voluntarily expand the horizons of their experience to include an exercise in empathy building and consciousness raising.  I certainly do not think that it is reasonable, in this age of popular novel trilogies like 50 Shades of Gray, and at the other end of the spectrum, actual torture of unwilling victims who have no control over what is done to them, for such a demand to be regarded as advocating the torture of men.  I would argue rather that this is one possibility to consider in reversing policies and ideology that are literally killing women and children in this country, and causing a level of suffering that is not adequately known or acknowledged.

We desperately need greater awareness, greater knowledge, and a helluva  lot greater empathy from conservatives, particularly the male conservatives who are the primary initiators of the destructive and damaging legislation, albeit with some level of support from both men and women in their base.  If it takes a bit of abdominal contraction to expand that empathy, so long as it is within their control and voluntary, then that is not abusive, and it is certainly not advocating torture of anyone., but rather it is advocating for women and infants to live and thrive, and as a result, to benefit the nation, to improve the country for all of us.

If you want to keep your "Market Driven" failure of a healthcare system... well, you lose.

A story in the LA Times today about a study by Rand Research says the enrolment figures for the Affordable Care Act (which conservative frothers know only as Obamacare), will likely be near or even above 9.5 million people by the enrolment deadline (today).  Meaning, of the perhaps 17 million uninsured workers, and 47 million Americans in total without insurance, the ACA will have found a way to cover half of the workers and about 1/5 of all, and that's SO FAR.  Also, it will have ended the practices of pre-existing exclusions and limitations, something tried in 1996 but around which insurance companies found loopholes.

Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people

At least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gotten health insurance since Obamacare started, surveys and reports show.

WASHINGTON — President Obama's healthcare law, despite a rocky rollout and determined opposition from critics, already has spurred the largest expansion in health coverage in America in half a century, national surveys and enrollment data show.

As the law's initial enrollment period closes, at least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gained coverage. Some have done so through marketplaces created by the law, some through other private insurance and others through Medicaid, which has expanded under the law in about half the states.

The tally draws from a review of state and federal enrollment reports, surveys and interviews with insurance executives and government officials nationwide.

The Affordable Care Act still faces major challenges, particularly the risk of premium hikes next year that could drive away newly insured customers. But the increased coverage so far amounts to substantial progress toward one of the law's principal goals and is the most significant expansion since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

The millions of newly insured also create a politically important constituency that may complicate any future Republican repeal efforts.

This also means it will be 2.5 million MORE than the Obama Administration set as an estimate last summer, and about a BAGILLION times more than the nay-saying, just say NO to everything crowd of Republicans said would get enrolled last fall after the initial roll-out had capacity/throughput issues (some of which were directly attributable programming problems which were the outgrowth of the intential lack of funding Republicans created for the program from 2010 on - thereby creating the very failures they pointed out).

On an even funner and funnier side, the number of Americans who may have had their insurance dropped NOT BY THE ADMINISTRATION BUT BY COMPANIES WHO CHOSE TO NOT REPLACE THE PLAN WITH ONE THAT DIDN'T EXCLUDE PRE-EX CONDITIONS, will not be "Millions of Americans" but more likely, "hundreds of thousands", or maybe a 10:1 ratio of those who got insurance vs. those who no longer have piece of sh*T plans offered by lowball companies. And let's be clear about one thing, when Obama said, "If you like your healthplan, you can keep it" he meant the Administration wasn't going to take anything from you.  It/he can't keep unscrupulous companies from doing unscrupulous things.

Even so, that number was (gasp!) greatly exagerated and much poo was flung by those who don't get that spending 26% of our national economy is a recipe for economic stagnation and decline - and it was flung about these "poor Americans" who would lose their craptastical insurance.  Well it seems, not so much.

In the end, what this shows is, America and Americans needed a better choice than the rip-you-off because you will pay anything to save your loved-ones "market driven" solution the US insurance companies and health care providers devised over the past 40 years.  This is a first step, and unlike all of the negative pronouncements, it appears to not only have met, but far exceeded (to the tune of exceeding it by 30%) expectations.  Show me a private company that fought tooth and nail against multi-billion dollar lobbying to launch a nationwide product using multiple vendors, which met and exceeded expectations by 30%.  There are a few, but damned few.  What it shows is that collectively, using economies of scale, the same economies large companies use, we can, if we try, do great and even very good things, despite the hate-mongers. 

So, much like Ronnie RayGun was wrong about Medicare leading the US down the road to becoming a communist nation - go read, he said that very thing, those of you who said the system would fail and it would greatly harm the US, you were wrong. You lose.  The final pilar of a socially concience state has had it's foundation set.  The funny thing is, someday, you'll understand that it was the BEST thing that could happen.  We have to get our businesses out of the business of needing to feed an unending amount of cash into a broken healthcare system if we are to compete on a global stage.  The current model was bankrupting us FAR more than Washington DC ever could.  Someday you may understand it, but I'll not hold my breath.  If I do, though, at least I know I'll not have any charges related to my subsequent treatement denied payment because I held my breath once when I was six.  Maybe you should start holding your breath until they repeal it - and then you too can see how nice it is not to have to worry about whether your insurance is going to screw you, again.

Adults should know better (about Gun Laws)

Every great once in a while, I stroll by my friend's blog.  My friend is an ultra-conservative, hard-right politico for whom nearly nothing is too far right (or so it seems).  As he says, he tries every day to drag the conversation kicking and screaming as far to the right as he can (paraphrase).

I only go every great once in a while because, despite being my friend, I find his musings to be "fact- light" sophistry.  They are intended to distort the facts and often interlaced with ludicrous comments like, "Why do Democrats hate black people" as a launching point for an argument to ignore discrimination or to pretend bigotry doesn't exist in the Republican party.

I made one of my infrequent stops earlier today.  I was wondering what he might have to say about the Ukrainian crisis.  I didn't see anything immediately, but did see a post about the fact that the state of Missouri passed some form of prohibition against enforcing ANY federal regulation, law or policy around gun control whether such policy is/was from the past, present, or future.  My friend quipped that these kinds of prohibitions were what happens "when adults take charge."

In the comment section, one of his commenters asked whether a law like this would withstand federal review, and pointed to the overturning of the major Arizona immigration law under federal supremacy rules as an example that Missouri seemed to have taken an unsustainable stance.

I was going to reply in agreement with the commenter, but long, hard lesson has taught me there's no point in trying to engage with my friend (or those like him) in rational discussion.  The statement like "this is what happens when adults take over" is emblematic of an unwillingness to look rationally at how conduct comports with rhetoric.

So, instead, I'm posting my reply below.  Perhaps some of the "all guns all the time" crowd would care to argue their point here where any discussion will be far more open and likely to come to a point, even if small, of agreement.

"Mitch,

Mr. Hanson is right.  This will be struck down in one form or another (I'll bet my house).  States don't get to supersede federal statute as the AZ case clearly illustrated.  Further, on the 2nd Amendment question you raise Mr. Hanson, the Heller AND the McDonald decisions pretty clearly stipulated that reasonable limits on ownership are permissible.  Is Missouri arguing that people can own nuclear or biological weapons, cannons, or bombs, all of which are banned by federal law?  Those are certainly arms used by military and militia (world wide) and could be, if owned broadly, "of the type in common use" as defined by Kruikshanks (again iirc).  Clearly decisions like Kruikshanks and many others show that limits can be placed.  So, limits are lawful and federal law supersedes state law.  Only an ostrich thinks it doesn't.

It's curious to me that Republicans, who once were the "Party of Lincoln", yes, that Mr. Lincoln who articulated the reality of federal supremacy, now are arguing for states' rights.  Well, not that surprising in truth since they've also adopted the pro-atristocratic/anti-bellum South views on wealth and excess, and of course the old south attitudes toward minorities.  In fact, it is only the appointment of ultra-reactionary jurists like Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, as well as flip-flopping Clarence Thomas, that has even allowed these questions about federal supremacy to be raised at all without well-deserved mockery, but even THEY (Scotus) will not support making state law trump federal (as the AZ case showed).  Missourians are seemingly behaving foolishly if they think they (SCOTUS) will do so, and as far as "adult" thinking goes, adults don't waste their time on laws that cannot stand review because they are blatantly, bafoonishly unconstitutional, nor do they advocate for challenges which would undo prohibitions on Jim Crowe/poll-taxes and the like, as well as seemingly undoing things like the incorporation of the 1st, 5th, 6th, 13th, 15th, and 22nd Amendments.  For if states may pass laws superseding the federal, why could not a state simply pass a law prohibiting certain classes from voting, barring certain forms of speech, and so on?  The people who argue for THOSE kinds of challenges (to federal supremacy), it seems to me, are being myopic rather than erudite or mature. 

What happens when adults take over in truth, is that these kinds of silly laws get thrown out exactly as they should be.  It's too bad though, that small government Republicans (now I don't actually KNOW any of those, but they think they exist), prefer to waste everyone's time AND money with this form of sophistry and foolishness.

Why do so many modern Republicans hate the Constitution so much? (jk), what I really mean to ask is, why do so many Republicans so poorly understand the Constitution and how our government works?  Rather than recognize federal supremacy they shun it when they want and embrace it when it's convenient.  They do so because they simply want their guns (to shoot people if they play rap music or "run their mouth"), and they want lower taxes because they think somehow that will make them wealthy.  They say just about anything to ensure they have their guns, even though the Heller/McDonald decisions have put to bed the central issue around gun control by establishing gun ownership as an individual right and, ironically, incorporating that right onto the states.  They (seemingly) KNOW that the McDonald decision did this, trumping states' laws, yet then applaud a law which would try to assert state law could possibly trump federal statue and then.  In short, these "adults" are showing the maturity by advocating undoing our federal democracy and hard won outcomes of the Civil War, 150 years later.  I suppose that's adult in some corner.

I suppose, on Mars, in another universe, where truth is lies and up is down, through the looking-glass.

The truth is, I should know better than to stop by, but I keep hoping (against hope) my friend, who is a loyal member of the flat-earth society (I mean the global climate change denier cult), will change.  I ought to know better, but so should he.

Shame on you Minnesota (Senate)

On Friday, the Minnesota Senate pushed through a bill requiring a specified photo-ID be presented to vote. 
This bill is a big-government solution without a problem. In 2010, after a Republican temper tantrum over their candidate losing the Senatorial race to Al Franken, they launched pointless extensive, epensive investigation into alleged cases of fraud.  After spending a lot of money,  the cases they claimed demonstrated fraud were dismissed with only a couple of cases that were caught by the checks and balances in place, and a few cases of felons who voted with chaotic corrections department paperwork that was ambiguous as to their status.  The number of cases of actual voter fraud in any decade, but particularly as tracked since 2000 doesn't support the conservative belief that they are losing elections because of fraud.  In some cases, counties to conduct the investigation sought by the conservatives who were absolutely convinced they were robbed required the hiring of one or two additional full time people, just to satisfy their paranoia.  Minnesota has long been studied as the example among specialists in electoral law for our clean elections.  Only the low information paranoiacs on the far right believed otherwise, but they disrupted more important activities that better used tax dollars for their unsupported IDEA, a fantasy.
They were and are simply being poor losers who can't accept they didn't persuade the electorate fair and square. 
This is the same party that didn't accept the governor's race recount despite being down by nearly 9,000 votes, and that disregarded the costs of their side of the recount, stiffing counties with unpaid bills.  That hand recount only served to show the insistence in spite of all the objective evidence to the contrary that our election system works, and works well.  That is the same party that could not find enough people to participate for their side in the previus hand recounts of 2008 and 2010, and who consistently cannot field enough people to serve as election judges - the people they want to do all the extra checking that will slow down voting, and make it more inefficient.  If people were discouraged under our model system from voting, if we make it take longer and be harder, there will be fewer people of any political persuasion willing to do their civic duty - either voting or serving as an election judge - not more.
This should concern the Republicans who are facing a disastisfied and apathetic base of voters, as demonstrated by the low number of people turning out for primaries across the country, not just in Minnesota. The number of Republicans participating is lower than 2010 AND lower than 2008; lower by a LOT of people.  So this is the wrong time for Republicans, even acting in their own self interest, to  be proposing this legislation.
They love the idea, they love spending tax payers money, but they don't care enough to show up and participate in actually conducting an election as an election judge.  That reality wouldn't fit with their FEAR about how voting really works.

So much for the small fiscally responsible government party.

So much for less intrusive government.

So much for participatory democracy.

The ACTUAL findings of the state-wide investigation for the 2008 election were that there were 47 cases of voting fraud, 43 of which were committed by felons who, mostly, didn't know they weren't allowed to vote.  Hennepin County District Attorney Mike Freeman stated, regarding these cases,

" the voter fraud cases represent a tiny fraction of all ballots cast in the 2008 general election, which is when President Barack Obama was elected. He also said that despite the charges, investigators didn't find evidence of people working together to commit voter fraud. 

There was no organized or coordinated effort to induce improper voting. There was no involvement of any campaign or any candidate. And there were no cases charged of non-citizens improperly voting," Freeman said.    

In Minnesota, the county attorneys are responsible for prosecuting voter fraud in their jurisdiction.  County Attorneys are elected, and the Minnesota County Attorneys Association (MCAA) is bi-partisan, reflecting that cross section of elected officials.  In a 2010 report, in response to the Republican unfounded hysteria, this report was generated by the bi-partisan MCAA:
The Minnesota County Attorneys Association’s (MCAA) executive director John Kingrey says Minnesota Majority’s reports of massive voter fraud in the 2008 election were “widely overstated” and “frivolous,” adding that the conservative group’s demands of those investigating suspected voter fraud were draining county public safety resources.
MCAA was at a press conference last week where a report was released that showed voter fraud in Minnesota is extremely rare. The report’s authors, Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota and the Minnesota Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Alliance (MUUSJA), said the report demonstrates that government-issued voter identification is unnecessary.
MCAA’s Kingrey said that Minnesota Majority sent county attorneys’ offices information last year alleging widespread fraud in the 2008 election. He said the “the drumbeat continued” when the Republican Party of Minnesota backed up Minnesota Majority’s claims and then counties were served with an order by KSTP-TV to retain absentee ballots from the 2008 election.
“County attorneys take voter fraud very seriously; there is no discretion for county attorneys in this manner,” Kingrey said. Minnesota Majority produced a list of more than 1,000 names of Minnesotans that they suspected of illegal voting.

“The list generated wildly overstated the number of felons that voted,” said Kingrey. “Many actually were legal voters; they were allowed to vote under Minnesota statute.”

He continued, “This matter has taken up considerable prosecutor and law enforcement involvement and resources at a time of dwindling budgets. It also impacts the strapped budgets of our public defenders and the courts as well.”

He added, “Our priority must remain public safety. The diversion of resources to investigate frivolous reports of voter fraud causes nothing to protect public safety.”

He said that several counties in the Twin Cities area had to hire new staff to deal with Minnesota Majority’s lists.

That is the reality, contrary to the extremist right winger's fantasy that is not factually substantiated, an ugly disenfranchising fantasy on which they would try to enact a constitutional amendment.
One case of abuse of absentee ballot voting was found, in Anoka, from 2008, and that was caught and prosecuted by the system already in place, not voter ID.  That case was not about a candidate or a party conspiring to rig an election, much less a case of democrats "stealing" an election; it was about an overactive 'helicopter' mom going too far on behalf of her daughter:

In a statement, Nyhammer said she was the mother of the 19-year-old woman and allegedly admitted that she had completed the absentee ballot for her daughter and voted absentee on her daughter’s behalf because Nyhammer did not think her daughter would be voting in Mankato.

None of these rare cases of voter fraud would have been prevented by Voter ID.  Over-eager mom had to pay $200 in court costs, and was placed on probation for a year because she is not a threat to either the security or the purity of the electoral process in Minnesota.
Secretary of State Ritchie has made a counterproposal that would be more effective and less costly for voter identification, and which would not disadvantage certain groups the conservatives expect to vote for democratic candidates, but they reject that proposal even though it is significantly better and non-partisan.  Better voting and cleaner more secure elections is NOT their goal.  From the PiPress:

Dayton, Ritchie offer 'poll book' as voter-ID alternative By Doug Belden
dbelden@pioneerpress.comtwincities.com Posted: 03/08/2012 12:01:00 AM CST March 9, 2012 5:5 AM GMT Updated: 03/08/2012 11:05:43 PM CST

As a bill asking Minnesotans to amend the state constitution so voters would be required to show a photo ID began its way through the House on Thursday, Gov. Mark Dayton and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie unveiled an alternative they say would be faster, cheaper and less likely to disenfranchise voters.

With an electronic "poll book," eligible voters who have lost an ID or no longer carry one could come to the polling place and have their electronic information pulled up from state records, Ritchie said.

He said about 84,000 Minnesota voters don't carry photo ID, but in many cases, they would have photos in the state drivers' database. For those who don't, another ID could be scanned in or a photo could be taken at the polling place. "We would not be disenfranchising anybody and we would not be breaking the bank," Ritchie said.

The rare  number of cases of voter fraud, and the kinds of cases, aligns well with studies from other states, Ohio in 2004, and Oregon in 2000, where independent studies found voting fraud incidence at .006% and .0009% of the electorate. Essentially, the incidence of fraud was rare enough to be effectively non-existent. The number for Minnesota was 47 out of 2,107021 votes cast (for Governor), or .002% of all votes. So, the evidence, the ACTUAL facts, that which you are asked to provide in court, that which you must explain in the scientific method, simply does not support that the US, nor any state within it, has some sort of rampant, election changing, problem with voting.  There is no evidence to show there is a problem and there is no logic or evidence to show that this solution would fix the tiny problem of felons voting that were discovered.  Those were not a problem with people pretending to vote as someone else, they were a problem with corrections records.
The reason they aren't seen as necessary, as opined by the Brennan Center for Justice, among others, is that voting fraud is an illogical act unless it can be highly coordinated AND assured to be effective. In short, why risk 10 years in prison to miscast 1 (or 10) vote(s) among 2 million? It isn't logical, and therefore, isn't done. To create a larger pool of fraudulent votes would require the assistance of dozens if not hundreds of people, and doing so would risk any of those people being caught, or simply coming forward to tell the truth, then or at any point in time later. Again, there simply is no evidence that such activity has gone on, not in any great number - again there were 3 votes fraudulently cast in 2010 by people whom we can be pretty certain meant to do so. Consequently, it has been long held as well established that it isn't necessary to restrict access to the poles quite simply because there is no interest or compelling reason to try to abuse them. Our system of checks of registration needs updating, but people aren't off creating busloads of people to go fake registrations - it's just too risky.
The flip-side though, e.g. making voting easier, IS part of the core of democracy. For tens, if not hundreds, of years, we Americans, we shining beacon on the hill, grasped that being inclusive in allowing everyone to vote who was of the appropriate age, and who had been in the country long enough to have an opinion, was a grand, supreme ideal. If a handful of nefarious people abused that system, they'd be drowned out by the vast chorus of the overwhelming voice of the people who would stand in opposition to their position OR, if the people backed the same position, then their nefarious acts would be purposeless, merely adding a few votes to a huge number.
We believed that voting was such a fundamental right that we overturned Jim Crowe laws, poll taxes, and the like because free and unfettered access to self-determination quite simply trumped worries about cheating. The only cheating we actually saw, in fact, was when the wealthy paid people who would otherwise not have voted, to vote for their (the rich and powerful's) platform. We DID pass laws against paying people for votes, but that wasn't curtailing access, it was to ensure people voted with their hearts, for that which THEY wanted, rather than what someone gave them money to support. In the end, we appeared to have decided that we'd far prefer to have 100,000 MORE people vote, and have a few slugs cheat, than stop or impare those 100,000 from voting much like we say we'd rather have 100 guilty men go free than jail one innocent man. We didn't want to "jail" the rights of 100,000 innocent people, to catch 47 guilty.
Or, so it was. Until now... So, some more facts..The Brennan Center for Justice, the law review of the prestigious NY University Law School, estimates requiring voters to go get photo ID's, requiring them to ensure they have it on them when they vote, and the validation requirements these bills bring along with them, will disenfranchise (stop from voting) about 5% of the entire electorate. In Minnesota in 2010, roughly 2 Million people voted. This bill, if the Brennan Center is right, will stop 100,000 Minnesotans who would have otherwise voted, from voting. Even if The Brennan Center is off by a factor of 10, and only 1/10 that number are dissuaded from voting, it will still stop 10,000 people from voting. It will stop them because people already find voting to be something of a chore, it's on a Tuesday (no good reason other than we started there), they have to take time away from work or find someone to watch the kids, and so on, if you put another obstacle out there, then the attitude for some will be, "why bother", as so many already believe. Our goal shouldn't be to create further ambivalence toward being involved in our country's future, it should be to breathe fire and life into their desires to be self-determined, if not, we might as well turn the keys over to a king or queen, or more correctly in our case, to the plutocrats who already control much of our government with their vast campaign cash.
The Brennan Center has also offered opinion by various experts that in fact the 5% of the people who won't bother to vote, or who will be turned away will be disproportionately poor and/or elderly. The poor because they may not chose to spend their scant dollars on new Id's, the elderly because finding decades old documents to get an ID, when they've let their driver's license expire, may be well nigh impossible. And this, ladies and gents, in the end is the aim of the authors.
The Republicans claim they think there is rampant fraud, but clearly they can see the evidence isn't their. So, either they believe something despite a virtually total lack of proof, a fool's belief at best, or their aim is to discourage voters, and not just voters, but a certain block of voters. Why would they do that? Why would these self-appointed small government, low regulation champions (HA!!!) seek to enact sweeping, restrictive laws making it more challenging for some people to vote, and thus reduce the likelihood they'd vote?
Well, I suspect you can guess, but here's the opinion of experts, they are doing so quite frankly because it will benefit them. Those who will be less likely to vote are MORE likely to vote Democratic (and NO, I'm not saying all poor vote for Democrats or all elderly do, but that the percentages of those least likely to be able to afford the ID or to find paperwork, generally tip toward Democrats).
So the irony is that these Republicans, these champions of our constitutional ideals, intend, in order to "protect the integrity" of a system which is not questioned as being highly reliable, they intend to suppress votes. They not only want to stop fraudulent voting, but in bill after bill across the country have also proposed doing away with early voting, something which has propelled states like Oregon to the highest levels of voter participation in the country. They want to do away with same day registration, they want to limit absentee voting. This isn't about fraud, it's about suppressing votes.
For many years I've heard complaints, from the left and the right, about what a shame it is that so few people vote, especially in off-year elections. They complain about the ambivalence of voters. We, as a nation and as a government, spend money encouraging people to exercise their rights, and this, this would do exactly the opposite, it would and will discourage people, will make them MORE ambivalent, not less, will make it more likely, not less, that they will not vote. If for no other reason than that, we should not do this. But worse, it will block at least many hundreds who TRY to vote, from voting, maybe many tens of thousands, all to stop 47.
There is shame here on the Minnesota Senators who voted for this ineffective, ham-handed sham. There frankly is no greater threat to democracy than to begin restricting the right of the people to vote and thus be self-determined. Well, except for the other threat, that threat being the ambivalence of those who sit idly by and watch it happen. In truth, those who should be most ashamed aren't the Senators, but instead all of us rank-and-file Minnesotans who put these snake-oil salesmen (and women) into office in 2010. We over-reacted when President Obama and the Democrats couldn't undo in 2 years what Bush and the 'caveat emptor'-no regulation Republicans allowed to transpire in the preceding eight. We foolishly put those same snake-oil salesman back in office and what we've gotten is "Stand Your Ground" legislation allowing anyone with a gun to shoot first and claim self-defense later, and proposed amendment to our constitution after amendment when Republicans can't get past Dayton's veto. They want to side-step the process, make irrelevant the governor's office when they can't win fair and square, and rule by tyranny of the majority, preventing gays from having equal rights under the law, and worst of all, to try to fool the electorate into believing that this bill will actually stop fraud and won't harm the ideal of allowing nearly everyone to vote.
It's ultimately up to you, the voter to decide what you want. Do you want to make it more difficult to vote, probably causing 100,000 to stay away or be prevented from voting in order to stop 47 cases of fraud? Or do you want to stand up against the rich and powerful who sponsor these kinds of bills, knowing they are bad policy, and protect the basic rights of Americans and with it, the wholly American ideal that we protect the rights of the innocent first and against any worries about the acts of the guilty? Will you let hope and belief in the goodness of the average American rule your view, or will you succumb to unproven, unwarranted fear?

Annoucing the not-so-big Move to Word Press.com

Please find future posts for Penigma on Penigma.wordpress.com.


Today (Saturday, November 19th 2011) is moving day!  We hope you will like the features available there. Please be patient while the new site is still undergoing some construction.

Sophistry - a.k.a. Conservatism

This morning I woke to find Jason Lewis again published in my local paper. Jason is a conservative chattering head/radio commentator hired by a local radio station when it decided to go to an "all conservative" format about four years ago. He previously had been a successful conservative commentator here in Minnesota who "fled" to North Carolina in the early 2000's for the promise of a higher-paying, higher profile job, but that opportunity in a warmer clime seemed to have not played out as he had hoped (it appears). Either way, Jason came back to Minnesota to begin (again) trowelling out his own brand of disinformation.

A couple of weeks ago he attempted to assert the Earth isn't warming (or at least, it's not certain) - while caging his arguments in the idea that he was actually talking about whether it was caused by humans. He (again) brought up the East Anglia memos, memos which were unflattering about global climate change doubters, and which "smoothed in" or blended one very tiny part of their study. This study measured the change in temperatures at various sites throughout the world over a series of decades, in short it measured whether the earth was warming at all not whether it was caused by man. That one bit of data was one reading which showed the Earth cooling in one site for one decade (among a couple dozen sites over several decades). That "dishonest" study blended that data with other data because trying to explain why one site among dozens showed cooling for 10 years, when EVERY OTHER SITE during that decade (the 1950's) AND ALL SITES over every decade otherwise showed warming, well frankly, it seemed irrelevant and stupid to waste time on it. It is a common practice to do so.

Or, if you are Jason Lewis and the Global Climate Change Denier Cult, it showed purposeful dishonesty and proved, in fact was the "smoking gun" that scientists were "conspiring" to manufacture the entire global climate change theory. (Talk about your Oliver Stone level consiracy theory crap!) Here's the thing, no scientist who studies global climate change believes that the Earth isn't warming. Not one - the arguments are about whether human causation can be proved/has been proved because some of the supporting study has been done ONLY in a controlled environment - gosh, what a shock, I mean it's not like it's really REALLY hard to control the entire atmosphere of the Earth... The evidence of ACTUAL warming is myriad and indisputable. There are thousands of records from hundreds of sites recording temperatures over the past 150 (or so) years. To claim the blending of one site's data for one decade during what what observably one of the warmest decades in history (when measured by core samples dating back 400,000 years) is akin to "manufacturing" data is to put on a tin-foil hat. There isn't any doubt the Earth has warmed (on average) 1.7 degrees, there isn't any doubt it has been most rapid in the past 50-60 years and there isn't any doubt it is accelerating. Yet, Lewis uses this non-fact as supposed evidence of .... what exactly, that the Earth ISN'T warming when he knows it is? It doesn't talk/speak to human causation, not in the least, yet he claims it was hiding facts which dispute human causation, when it doesn't - unless you think this ONE act, blending data - which is commonly done - shows a PATTERN of misconduct - something Lewis neither claimed and certainly didn't prove.

Put to the test (i.e. asked a direct question), most (but not all) "conservatives" will say they aren't talking about whether the Earth is warming, but rather, whether humans cause it - yet, like Lewis, who titled his article "The Earth is warming..err cooling", and argued facts which dispute the very idea of warming at all, most conservatives will take any opportunity to mock the idea of warming itself. Just like Lewis, who used the East Anglia study (and conduct) as "proof" many other conservatives do the same - arguing facts which appear to be relevant, but normally aren't. Using East Anglia as a case-study of "manufatured" data is arguing that something ISN'T happening which you know full well, is.

The dictionary (on-line) defines the word Sophistry as: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.

No word more aptly describes the exceedingly simplistic and poorly-reasoned arguments of folks like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or Jason Lewis (or some other folks I know). One of them recently quipped that he couldn't remember the last time the US was "half in or was it half out" of a war. Apparently he can't remember Afghanistan, where George Bush failed to commit anything like the troops required, or gosh! Iraq, where Bush and Rumsfeld sent less than half the troops requested by military commanders and something like 20% of the military police requested (the same sort of military police that might be, GOSH!, asked to secure an occupied nation and teach it's police force). Apparently he doesn't remember Somalia, where George HW Bush sent troops to seemingly help stabilize Mogadishu and stave off slaughter. Apparently not I guess.

So, imagine my disappointment this morning to read Mr. Lewis (again) in the paper, quoting statistics about how much of our federal income tax the wealthiest pay. His statistics were correct, they do pay a very large percentage, and roughly double what was paid by the same percentage of people in 1980. His article is titled, "The Rich pay the taxes, and that's a fact." In it he quotes the following table -

(2008 Data - MN Dept of Revenue)
Share of taxpayers Income taxes paid Total Taxes paid
Top 1% 24.5% 13.7%
Top 5% 43.2% 27.1%
Top 10% 56% 37.8%
Bottom 50% 4.1% 17.3%
Bottom 20% 0.% 4.6%

Before and citing this table (which reports MN taxes), he makes a claim about the reasons for the progressive tax burden being higher on the wealthy than the poor as "The left cites the study's findings on taxes as a percent of income as a measure or tax fairness. Thus, should your income go up, so should your taxes lest the burden of government fall disproportionately on the poor." Yet nowhere does Mr. Lewis present those percentages, nowhere does he show levels of income. Of course not, that might undermine his argument for people to see that tax rates are nearly equal (when measured as a percentage of income).

Further, this statement by Lewis is (at best) a twisted form of the purpose for progressive taxes and barely brushes the truth. The "left" (certainly me) feels that the poor should not be asked to pay taxes at anything close to the rate the very wealthy would pay (as a percentage of income) - because to ask that would be to ask them to not eat, or not clothe their children, or not have a home. It has little to nothing to do with their "burden" of paying for government except in that taking more from them is asking them to go without food, shelter or clothing. Their disposable (after tax and after paying for clothing, food and shelter) income is virtually non-existent. Whatever portion they could possibly pay if you raised their taxes would mean they would starve, go without shelter, or go without warm clothing (things which they often do without anyway).

Mr. Lewis (in his table) doesn't bring up taxes as a percent of income, but rather total taxes paid, a point not at issue, and in fact, a fact which points out just how unfair society has become. He argues against one point by using facts (of his choosing) which neither speak to the point (percent of income), nor speak to the impact of the burden AND he misstates the argument in the first place. He invents a strawman, and proceeds to use different (and nearly useless) facts to make his own argument. Why are his facts useless? Because he fails to present WHY the rich are paying the rates of income they pay. In 1980, the wealthiest 5% paid 19% of all federal income taxes. At that time, the highest marginal rate was 70% and the capital gains rate was 25%. In 2008, they paid 36% of federal income taxes.

How is it possible their tax contribution doubled??????? As well, how is it possible that in Minnesota they are paying 43% of the total taxes??????????? It is simple, when the product (of a multiplication) doubles (say Z in X * Y=Z) despite one of the multipliers being cut in half (i.e. Y is now .5), it means the original factor X, quadrupled. In 1970, top CEO pay was roughly 45 times that of an average worker, in 2007, it was (depending on who you listen to) between 350 times and 420 times that of an average worker. By contrast, the "vast prosperity" the right used to claim had broken out all over (prior to 2008), saw average incomes when adjusted for age (and measured per hour worked), fell 7%. The rising tide of extreme affluence hasn't "lifted all boats" as my (former) Senator Norm Coleman used to love to claim. Further, the "prosperity" which supposedly broke out was fueled by the middle-class taking out loans against their home equity, not increases in income.

In what was a planful attempt by investment banks to acquire that equity by luring/encouraging home-owners to spend that equity in life-style maintaining loans written out to them (source Michael Lewis - "The Big Short") - the big-bank leaders, those who pilory the middle-class as stupid for "living too high on the hog", don't like to admit it, but they know full well that they encouraged this behavior and profited greatly from it. In fact, in 2005, 40% of all corporate income in the US was made through financial services companies, and I can assure you from experience, MOST of that was from the mortgage bond market and associated derivatives. So the middle-class was "stupid" for doing EXACTLY what the wealthiest wanted them to do.

The facts of a new "super-rich" class are indisputable (just like the TRUTH that the Earth IS warming is indisputable). Most of us see it, read about it, every day. The fact that they pay more, in Minnesota and across the country, than the poorest 50% is neither surprising nor is it proper, but not for the reasons Lewis claims, but rather because it reflects just how extraordinarily unfair our nation has become. We have crumbling schools, roads and support networks for the poor. Our "christian charity" seems to have lost it's way as we cut and cut some more programs designed to act as safety nets for our increasingly larger population of poor. We hear complaints about the pay of public sector workers, but NEVER a complaint about the extravagant incomes (and lifestyles) of the uber-rich.

Yet, Mr. Lewis wants to focus only a myopic set of facts which merely reinforce the level of increasing unfairness. I'm not sure if he'd rather the poorest 50% pay 50% of the taxes (perhaps that's how it should be done, we all pay an equal amount in a society where the upper 1% have VASTLY more than the poorest 1% and benefit from the infrastructure created by those taxes VASTLY more) - I mean, if you oppose having the wealthiest pay according to their level of free income, then seemingly you support having it be equal across the board or lowering it (at least) for the most wealthy - thereby increasing the burden on the rest... No, he didn't make that argument, but it sure seems he thinks he's pointing out that it's unfair as it is NOW. No, wait, he's just saying they already pay a disproportionate share, but the word dispropotionate implies at least an idea that it is out of proportion and therefore seemingly unfair.

In fact many on the right have argued how unfair it is that the poorest 50% pay nearly nothing in income taxes while the rich pay so much and yet, according them AND Lewis, get little in return. He fails to mention the airports, the highways, the sewers, the public works, the pollution controls, etc.. which make it possible for industry to thrive (and them to be wealthy)..hmmm....and he uses tables which purport to reflect an disproportionate burden of tax..hmmm, no he's surely not arguing it's already unfair without saying it.. hmmm. No, much like his use of East Anglia, and deceitfully titled article, I'm sure he wouldn't be arguing a point subtely which he knows full well is poppey-cock and so won't say directly.

Even if he isn't claiming the tax rates are unfair, he failed to include data which shows the TOTAL tax burden (federal, state and local) on the wealthy as a percentage of income is nearly identical to that on the poor, each group pays roughly 16-17%, as do all quintiles. So I guess we already DO have a flat tax despite the fact that the rich have doubled their incomes. He also fails to point out tax rates (nationally) were cut in half, he also fails to point out that we've gone from 13 Billionaires in 1967 (as measured by wealth equal to 20,000 average worker's pay) to 142 in 2002. He also fails to address capital appreciation, e.g. the value of owned assets, which is not accounted for in income tax measurements until/unless it is sold and even in that can be masked, and which is the BEST measure of actual wealth. As previous posts have pointed out, when measuring true net worth (the net worth of someone after their personal dwelling is factored out) the wealthy OWN about 90% of this country, so that's why they are asked to pay for the majority of the taxes, and when measured that way, they pay LESS than their percentage of ownership - in fact, substantially less when considering all taxes paid.

The United States is a land which vastly favors the rich, not the poor, if it were otherwise, we'd see declining wealth at the top, not skyrocketting increases. In 2010, CEO pay went up 27%! over 2009 alone, did you get a 27% raise? Me neither. As well, we're asking the public sector workers to pay thousands of dollars more in health care premiums which used to be paid for by state governments - when is a tax increase not a tax increase, when it's disguised as a cut to benefits, for that increase in premiums from those workers most assuredly takes disposable income out of their hands and is done in lieu of having the rich contribute that portion (after all, according to Lewis, the rich PAID the taxes used to cover those premiums in the past).

So, we cut benefits causing the middle-class to pay more, so the rich can pay less..no, we don't have any problems with our tax rationale, nope. If having the rich pay more in taxes isn't fair and will kill jobs, how fair is it to have the middle-class pay more out of pocket, how many fewer jobs will that lead to? Attacking those (the poor) who can least defend themselves rather than addressing your problems (you've let the rich take-over your country and your income) is the mark of a nation in steep decline.

Mouth-pieces like Lewis know that the crap they trowel out is crap, but they just don't care - they get a nice, fat paycheck for doing it and they also hope to someday join that uber-rich club - which is the same reason many in the middle-class fail to seek fairness in our tax code, they don't want to face that fairness. (As side-note; What they (and he) don't get is that their chances of joining that super-elite club are less than their chances of winning the lottery.) Regardless, Lewis created a strawman (we don't tax the poor because we don't want too large a burden placed on them for government) combined with arguing about tax burdens and percents of incomes, then presented facts which spoke to neither point (he failed to cite the percentage of taxes paid against income), he pointed out that the 40 Million dollars paid in tax credits to the poorest 20% of Minnesotans (the bottom 20% or about 900,000 people in MN) represented disproportionate, seeming to try to create an impression that the whopping $45 in tax credits per person somehow reflected an unfair/unequal benefit to those who pay little/nothing. He didn't bother to talk about ACTUAL rates, the changes over the past 30 years, net worth, capital gain, or ANYTHING else which points out what we all understand, namely that the wealthy are getting far wealthier while the nation stagnates.

That jobs have vanished, while corporate profits skyrocket is widely documented. That the uber-rich bemoaning the "high living" lifestyles of public sector workers or the middle-class is the height of irony, considering that complaint is coming from those who are standing on the deck of their 150' multi-million dollar yacht. The wealthy seek to repeal the estate tax, not because its unfair to the dead (though they'll claim it is), after all, they're dead and the tax is paid by the survivors, not the dead. They seek to repeal it because if left unchanged, it will affect something like 40 TRILLION dollars in estates over the next 20 or so years and they don't want to lose their vast net worth.

They seek to claim that tax rates are either "just fine" or unfairly squash "job creators", both notions are nonsense, jobs have fled, not been created and we don't have enough revenue to cover expenses in tough economic times quite simply because we no longer ask those who benefit from the system and can afford to pay for it, to pay a fair share of their disposable income or net worth. Worse, our changes in tax code in the 1980's seem to have strongly encouraged and rewarded the rich to move jobs out of the country and to seek to cut worker pay quite simply because they now could keep much more of corporate income for themselves personally. Those effects have been rampant and replete over the past 30 years. We have created (or allowed to be created) a nation of a very small number of "super haves" and a very large number of "have almost nothings" and complaining that those who have nearly nothing aren't paying enough or a fair share is nothing less than blaming the victims.

Mr. Lewis, you are a deceiver, you are a corrupt enabler, you blame the powerless. You know better and you profit from the misery of others. I don't blame you personally (I suppose) for their have always been snake-oil salesmen, I wish my paper wouldn't give you heed, there are after all much better and more honest conservatives - but make no mistake, your "facts" are cherry-picked and present a fiction, in short, you are a sophist, and your arguments, like your "movement" is spelled S - O - P - H - I - S - T - R - Y.

Travel Lightly or Lighten Up

UPDATE, 11/25/'10:  The much ballyhooed protests predicted in the media for Wednesday, November 24th at airports around the nation failed to materialize.  While air travel was up 11% from last year on the same day before Thanksgiving, the actual numbers of protesters of the TSA policy were minute, tiny, nearly non-existent at less than 1%.  The response to that disastisfaction should be proportional, not over-responsive; and it should be constructive, not reactive or appeasing.

A few figures noting scanner opt-outs possibly in protest (although not specifically), in no particular order, listing available data:
Boston: 300 out of 56,000
Los Angeles: 113 out of 50,000
Detroit: 57 out of 25,000
Atlanta: 39, out of 47,000 air travelers
Charlotte: 1, out of 18,000
Cincinnati: 15
St. Louis:  7
New Orleans: 6
Memphis: 5
Dallas/Fort Worth: 1
 

Cold Political Calculation

George Bush recently made the rounds promoting his new book, "Decision Points." In this book he (apparently) talks about his second-thoughts and moral tugs-of-war over things like the invasion of Iraq, water-boarding, and the financial collapse of 2007-2008 (and on into 2009).

On water-boarding, he says he approved the decision, responding "Damn right" to the question of whether he approved it directly. Ironically, it's the same line fictional Colonel Nathan R Jessup used in "A Few Good Men." discussing whether he approved a "code red" to beat a soldier (unintionally causing his death).

On the question of the financial collapse, Mr. Bush replied that he was "totally blindsided." He went on to suggest that if Congress had passed his reforms for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the problems might have been avoided.

In both cases, I am reminded why this man was so manifestly and absolutely repudiated in 2006 and 2008. I am also reminded why eight years of colossal mismanagement and political deceit isn't easily undone in twenty months. Bush came across as he always has, saccharin, fake and clearly politically calculated in every reply.

Bucking a Trend (and trying not to get kicked)

Last night Minnesota didn't follow the national trend. It re-elected and elected a straight Democratic slate at state-wide offices (Governer, SecState, Auditor, AG). This includes (seemingly, and by a narrow margin) the election of a Democratic Governor for the first time in 20 years. Mark Dayton holds about a 9200 vote lead, and barring a pretty unprecedented turn-around in a recount, is likely to hold that lead through the recount and be confirmed as Governor-Elect Dayton.

I didn't like Mark Dayton as a candidate, wasn't enamored of him as a Senator, but compared to the neo-con, slash and burn alternative offered by the Republicans (Tom Emmer), I guess I'm glad he won - ok, I'm really glad, we've had an obstructionist Governor (Tim Pawlenty) for eight years, and during that time the budget was a catastrophe. Pawlenty pushed debt off to future generations and future administrations, used shell-games to hide his debt, took advantage of inflation-based growth in revenue while holding flat (in real dollars) the outlays for programs which cared for the most vulnerable. He was a disaster as a Governor for the state's finances, and likely has no hope in his bid for the Presidency.

Don't Worry, We'll Do Nothing (REALLY!)

In what is likely to be a Republican landslide, the GOP is set to take-over control of the U.S. House of Representatives and probably draw to near parity in the U.S. Senate later today when election results are announced.

When Barack Obama took the Oath of Office a little more than a year and a half ago, the Republicans were terrified. Here was a President elected on a platform of potentially radical change, threatening to reign in the financial sector, manifestly remake health care, and to institute a movement toward renewable energy which would at the same time directly attack the death-grip the oil industry has on the US domestic energy markets. They hoped, at that time, to forestall Obama until the 2010 elections to hopefully then have the votes to keep Obama from moving ahead with his plans. As Rush Limbaugh, the most influential spokesman for the GOP famously said, "I hope you fail!" in one of his radio shows, the goal of the GOP was to delay and stall the Democrats, both to keep the changes they desired from being passed and to paint them as incompetent and incapable of getting anything done. Even though, Hank Paulsen said that without the bail-out and subsequent stimulus, unemployment would have topped 25% - that' s Hank Paulsen, a financial conservative and appointee to deal with collapse in the waining days of 2008.

On Behalf of Mark Ritchie

In the summer of 2006, I was invited to a fund-raiser at the Kaplan's (Sam and...), both big-time power-players in the Democratic Party in Minnesota. This was at the Kaplan's condominium in downtown Minneapolis near the river in a gentrified section of the old warehouse district. I had been invited as a guest to accompany a friend of mine who happens to know several prominent politicians in Minnesota. The fund-raiser was for Keith Ellison, the Democratic nominee for MN's 5th Congressional District. Given that the district nearly completely covers Minneapolis, Ellison was a virtual shoe-in, but it was still really cool to go to a swank party.

When I arrived, I got introduced to lots of folks intimately involved in party activities. Larry Pogemiller was there, as was R.T. Rybak (MN Senate Majority Leader and Mayor of Minneapolis, respectively). As well, and very much to my great pleasure, Walter Mondale was there. I even got five minutes of Vice President Mondale's undivided time. I was awestruck and humbled by his decency. When I criticized Norm Coleman personally, he drew me up short and said, "I think we can focus on Norm Coleman's public stance without needing to discuss his personal conduct." It was a very clear that Mondale prefers civil discourse and keeping things about policy. I had just seen this man read the Gettysburg address the preceding Sunday at Minnesota's Orchestra Hall. His reading was terrific, and here I was telling him how much I enjoyed it, and when I tried to engage in a discussion of my frustration with Coleman, a man who had personally disparaged him, he defended Coleman's right to privacy.

Another person I met, and spent much of the evening talking to, was a man named Mark Ritchie.

Dear Tom Emmer, It Simply Hasn't Worked

Tom Emmer, Republican candidate for Governor in Minnesota, is now running advertisements about how he'll "attract jobs to Minnesota by lowering taxes" and that "he's the only one with a plan to balance the budget and the only one who won't raise taxes, but he'll be sure priorities like our schools are fully funded."

Sounds great, sounds painless, after all, more jobs, lower tax bills, better funded schools that aren't cutting teachers (either pay or numbers). Yep, sounds terrific - no pain except...

Tom Emmer seems to have not lived in Minnesota in the past 8 years.

BLEEP My Dad Says

There is a new television show starring William Shatner titled "$#@! My Dad Says." As you might expect, it is a show about the tensions and situations between a Dad (Shatner) and his sons. I watched one episode.  It was not nearly as clever as the last Shatner vehicle, "Boston Legal".

It brings back memories of my upbringing. My father is an impeccably honest and decent man. I've had my rocky times with him; he is like Shatner, he says things which are harsh and critical, but meant to teach,  said always in love. He is very bright, and has made a number of observations which I carry to this day that I've heard no where else. One he made a long time ago, I still use as an ethical yardstick.:

The difference between a true conservative and others is that when asked for food (or money for food) by a starving man, if the conservative feels the man could otherwise work, they will say "no."