Tuesday, September 30, 2008

House Republican Leadership supports sulking

The Republican House leadership couldn't exercise leadership and keep their promise to bring half their caucus to vote for the bailout bill...and somehow, it's Pelosi's fault?

Apparently she's made the first partisan speech in the history of Congress? Frankly....I don't care if Pelosi said bad things about their mamas. You don't punish the entire country (and the whole world economy) just because your feelings are hurt. This has got to be the lamest excuse for a leadership failure I have heard.

Just who is it that is leading the Republican party? Is it Bush? McCain? Apparently not, since they can't get their share of the votes on the bailout bill they support.

You know, I'm not happy about the bailout bill either. The idea that we should fix the results of the unchecked greed and speculation on Wall Street on the backs of the poor, the middle class, and our children really makes me angry.

However....

The market dropped about 777 points yesterday. Now, for me, from a retirement perspective, that's probably not as bad as it seems to be. I have a long time before retirement. Some people, particularly those close to retirement and those already retired, are taking a brutal hit due to inaction. For those people, this isn't a loss on paper. This is a "do I have to start subsisting on cat food?" kind of loss.

From a job market perspective, the market drop yesterday is horrible. Many companies, and in particular, financial services companies, make much of their profits through investments. When their investments aren't making money....they lay off employees in an attempt to reduce expenses to boost their profit margin. Unemployment was already high prior to this mess. The more unemployment there is....the more foreclosures and bankruptcies there will be. The more foreclosures and bankruptcies there are, the more home prices will drop and the credit market will freeze up.

And if you are lucky enough to not lose your job, perhaps you just won't get paid in a timely manner.

This bill, or something like it, needs to pass, and it needs to pass very soon. Sulking is not acceptable.

Coleman's new "don't blame me" ad

Jeff Rosenberg at The Twin Cities Daily Liberal has a hysterical post about Norm Coleman's latest ad. You can see the post, and the ad, here.

I couldn't decide what was funnier - the sappy guitar music in the ad, or the "please don't attempt to assign blame (to me) pleading in Norm's voice.

Palin - not prepared to answer questions - not prepared to lead

I have yet to see a single instance where someone actually defends what Palin has said in an interview, or a response to a question, etc. The litany of excuses is staggering.
  • "Oh, it's the elite liberal mean media's fault."
  • "It's a gotcha question."
  • "McCain's campaign staff aren't letting her be herself."
  • "She isn't a Washington insider."
Whatever.

I'd love to see a Palin apologist actually defend her comments. Tell me why it's okay that she didn't give the same answer about Pakistan that McCain did. Tell me why it's okay that she rambled vaguely and aimlessly about health care reform, tax relief, and job creation when Couric asked her why the bailout wasn't directed at individuals instead of Wall St. firms. Tell me why it's okay that she apparently has no idea what John McCain's record on deregulation is other than one bill he cosponsored in 2005. Tell me why it's okay to have a potential VP who seems astounded by the idea that a democratic election in a Muslim country may result in a government that is anti-democracy and anti-US.

Frankly, it's condescending and sexist not to expect her to be able to answer questions like she's competent. The fact is she's been sent only to handpicked interviewers and she still can't handle it. The fact is that she's answered maybe 10 questions from the press since being nominated, and flubbed most of them.

McCain's judgment in choosing Palin was terrible. He made a gamble that her gender would pull in women voters, and her social conservative bona-fides would pull in the base.

Now McCain is comparing Palin to Clinton and Reagan. He claims she's being underestimated because she's a governor.

Um....I hate to break it to you, John. She's being viewed the way she is because she can't answer questions in a way that is coherent, consistent with her prior positions, and consistent with your positions. She's being viewed the way she is because she's flubbed her interviews and the questions she's actually been allowed to answer. She's being viewed the way she is because the only fully functional sentences that have left her mouth since the day you announced her nomination have been the ones that were written for her convention and stump speeches by other people.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

First Debate - Reactions

If you didn't have the opportunity to watch the debate last night, I highly suggest you do so. You can find the full version of the debate here. Likewise, I'm not going to fact check the debate. You can read factcheck.org's view on the accuracy of the candidates here. As expected, McCain's inaccuracies were more, well, inaccurate, than Obama's.

I would just like to give my initial general impressions of the debate overall.

  • At worst, this debate was a tie. And what that really means is a loss for McCain. According to the McCain campaign, McCain should have wiped the floor with Obama. However, Obama was informed, coherent, measured, and certain throughout the entire debate. Obama only had to prove to be "good enough" on foreign policy. With as much as McCain has been bragging about foreign policy and his credentials, McCain should have been the clear winner and he was not.
  • Initial polling suggests that Obama was viewed as the winner of the debate, both overall, and by uncommitted voters. That is very bad news for McCain.
  • McCain's inability to even look at Obama, coupled with his hunched posture, sighing, and grimacing, may hurt his standing with some voters.

Regulation did not cause the sub-prime crisis

I've recently read a lot of chatter on the blogosphere that implies that, somehow, regulation was the cause of the sub-prime crisis. Usually, the blame is shifted on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which was originally enacted in 1977. The basic goal of the CRA was to require banks to stop the practice of redlining. (Basically the practice of refusing to offer credit to, or increasing the cost of credit to, individuals and businesses located in poor or minority neighborhoods.) The CRA did not require that credit be offered to un-credit-worthy individuals - just that credit be offered to credit-worthy individuals even if they lived in a poor or minority neighborhood.

The idea that the CRA caused the sub-prime crisis is completely false. Robert Gordon wrote an excellent article about this issue on April 7, 2008. It's called "Did Liberals Cause the Sub-Prime Crisis?"

Some key points from the article:
  • About 50% of the sub-prime loans made were made by independent mortgage companies that are not required to follow CRA guidelines.
  • Another 25-30% of the sub-prime loans made came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, and they do not have to fully follow CRA guidelines.
  • Institutions that do not have to comply with CRA made sub-prime loans at twice the rate of CRA-compliant institutions.
Conservatives need to recognize that deregulation is what got us into this mess. CRA has been around since 1977, and in fact, a study published in January of this year suggests that
  • CRA deterred irresponsible lending,
  • CRA institutions sold fewer of the sub-prime loans they did make onto the secondary market,
  • Sub-prime loans made by CRA institutions were not as damaging (i.e., had lower interest rates) as sub-primes loans made by non-CRA institutions, and
  • Foreclosure rates were lower in metropolitan areas with higher concentrations of CRA lenders.
Quite frankly, conservatives need to QUIT BLAMING THE POOR AND MINORITIES for the results of the greed of the wealthy. They need to take a little of the "culture of personal responsibility" for themselves.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Putin's head rearing into Alaskan airspace

A snippet from Palin's latest disaster of an interview with Katie Couric.

Couric: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It’s funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don’t know, you know … reporters.

Couric: Mocked?

Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.

Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: We don’t have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That’s not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.


Seriously. She sounds like she's high. This is who is supposed to be ready, day one, to step into the role of the presidency.

The more I see of Palin, the more I understand why they pretty much don't let her answer any questions from the media, and why they have been severely restricting her appearances on talk shows, and why they're trying to move tonight's debate to the VP debate date and "delay" the VP debate. This woman is an embarrassment every time she opens her mouth.

I shock myself by agreeing with the Taxpayers League

For any readers not from Minnesota, I will provide a little background. The Taxpayers League of Minnesota is a conservative group that wields a great deal of influence over Republicans, in particular, in Minnesota. Their basic philosophy is that taxes are bad. Tax increases of any sort, for any reason, are down right evil. Tax cuts are always good. Spending cuts are always good, and government should not be providing most services they provide. Their talking heads like to use words like "socialist" and "liberal" when describing Democrats. They push candidates for office to take "no new taxes" pledges.

There will be a proposed amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution this November on the ballot. The amendment proposes an increase in the state sales tax by 3/8 of a percent. The money will be dedicated to projects for "helping the outdoors" and "the arts."

This has got to be one of the silliest things I have heard. Why on earth would we want to dedicate, by way of constitutional amendment, revenue to specific areas? And why that particular combination?

In addition, I think sales taxes are a particularly punitive tax for the poor and middle class. The poor, and much of the middle class, must spend most or all of their income just to provide for basic living expenses. Sales taxes are regressive. And unfortunately, Minnesota has recently had several sales tax increases - .25% for transit, .15% to buy a new baseball stadium for a billionaire, plus some additional sales taxes imposed only in certain cities.

I think flexibility is a great thing in a budget. This proposal makes no sense to me, and I will be voting no on the proposal.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Rant on the bailout

For weeks, I've been seeing blogs and posts about how

* "all those deadbeats don't pay their bills" and how
* "no one forced people to take out those mortgages" and
* "you have to be stupid to think you can afford X on an income of Y" and
* "what happened to personal responsibility" and so on.

Well, the investment banker/Wall Street types were SUPPOSEDLY the most savvy people out there, but now we're all supposed to bail them out because it's the middle class' fault for defaulting on sub-prime mortgages?

No way.

This truly is class warfare - more of the same. The savvy and wealthy get the middle class to bear the burden. The top 20% own 84% of the wealth and pay only 64% of the total tax burden. Then they get middle class nuts (who continually vote against their own interests) to repeat their talking points that they pay so much more of the income tax burden than they earn in income. (Of course, they don't earn income. They earn capital gains, etc. Or, I mean, their shell corps. in the Caymans earn that money. Don't tax them! That would be socialist!)

Then, when the wealthy get what they want (deregulation), they rev up the system for short- term gain, loot the system via their annual bonuses and options, and then, when it comes crashing down, you and me, and worse yet, our kids and grandkids, will get to pay for it.

And if we complain, we're just "jealous" or "class warfare-mongers." Darn right I'm jealous. I work and pay my bills and my taxes. I don't get the government to pay my bills, and I don't get to shelter my money from taxes with all kinds of schemes. And I'm going to end up paying for their greed. So yeah, I'm jealous. And it's pretty rich (pun intended) to accuse the middle class of tax warfare when you've been lobbing grenades since the Reagan years.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Protect reproductive health services

Please - go to the link below and send in your petition. This is ridiculous. If your religious beliefs preclude you for doing your basic job functions, you need to seek other employment. (And for the record, I believe this is true whether you are an anti-abortion Christian working in health care, or a Muslim working as a taxi driver, or a Muslim working in a food service company, etc.)



George W. Bush has launched a new assault on birth control and reproductive freedom.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently proposed regulations that could seriously undermine access to basic reproductive health services -- including birth control and abortion.

Instead of striking a careful balance between individual religious liberty and patients’ access to reproductive health care, the Bush administration has taken patients’ rights and their health care needs out of the equation.

This far-reaching proposal doesn’t need congressional approval. But, it can’t go forward without allowing for public comment. That’s where you come in.

The deadline for public comments is fast approaching -- September 25 -- and we have to generate intense opposition to these dangerous regulations.

I just sent HHS my comment urging them to stop efforts to block women's access to basic reproductive health services. You can do the same here:

http://action.aclu.org/hhs_comment

Saturday, September 20, 2008

McCain and Healthcare

Just a snippet:

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

John McCain -- in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries.

You know what I say?

Thanks, but no thanks.

Friday, September 19, 2008

McCain lies again - this time on Obama and nuclear energy

Does this man stop lying for even 1 day? Seriously. 1 day.

McCain says Obama is opposed to nuclear energy. Obama is not. The only real difference between Obama and McCain on nuclear energy is that Obama says we need to figure out how to store the waste before we start willy-nilly building more power plants. McCain says we can reprocess and store nuclear waste. Um...store where? No one wants that crap anywhere near them.

You know a lie is pretty bad when CNN, which bends over backwards to give the benefit of the fact-check doubt (lest it be accused of being biased toward liberals) says McCain's claim is flat out false. No cutesy hedging language like "misleading" or "incomplete." Just "Verdict: False"

McCain lies again - this time about campaign contributions

McCain has been running around today (sadly, even here in Minnesota) blaming Obama for the housing crisis. I am not sure whether to be more astonished or amused.

If you've been paying attention to the campaign, you know that up until today, McCain has been saying that Obama doesn't have enough experience. He hasn't been in politics long enough.

Now, apparently Obama is to blame for the entire housing mess. McCain said: "We've heard a lot of words from Sen. Obama over the course of this campaign. But maybe just this once he could spare us the lectures and admit to his own poor judgment in contributing to these problems. The crisis on Wall Street started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling, and he was square in the middle of it."

Whereas, John McCain has never been involved with lobbyists. Oh, wait, that's not true.

McCain's argument is that Obama has received the 2nd most campaign contributions from employees of Fannie and Freddie. No, wait, that's the truth. Here's what McCain actually said:

Amid "corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Sen. Barack Obama "profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairman of the committee that oversees them."
So, what's the difference? First let's take a simple example. I work for a company. I have given political contributions to Senator Obama's presidential campaign. If my company is doing something unethical, my contributions have nothing to do with that. These contributions came from me - not my employer. If anyone is expecting "influence" from these contributions, it would be me. I doubt my employer even knows I've made a contribution. I certainly have never asked the Obama campaign to consider doing something for my employer. I contributed to the Obama campaign because I believe in his positions on the issues that face our country.

Obama has received $126,349 in campaign contributions from employees of Fannie and Freddie. (This is out of $390 million dollars his campaign has raised, and it includes contributions back to 1989 - so it includes the campaign for Senate too.)

What McCain won't ever say is that McCain has received far more money than Obama from directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie and Freddie Mac for the 2008 presidential campaign. McCain has received $169,000 and Obama has received only $16,000, based on figures from the Federal Election Commission.

Who do you think is more likely to be an "influence peddler?" I'm betting on the lobbyist/director/officer over the average employee.

McCain has a lot of nerve. But I suppose at this point, it should be no surprise that he's lying...again. What is surprising to me is that people are still cheering when he lies to their face.

Today's Hoovervilles


Apparently we can afford to spend $1 trillion on bailing out the financial markets.

And yet, there are modern-day Hoovervilles popping up across the United States.

These tent cities are popping up in cities across the country in increasing numbers due to the foreclosure crisis and the rise in unemployment.

The AP is reporting that "homeless advocacy groups and city agencies are reporting the most visible rise in homeless encampments in a generation."

And yet, official government statistics shown that homelessness has decreased by 12%. How can that be?

Because the government has redefined homelessness. Now, if you lose your home, and you are lucky enough to have friends that are willing to allow you to stay temporarily with them, you are not homeless. If you live in a motel for more than a week, you are not homeless. If you live in a RV, you are not homeless. If you live in a campground for more than a week, you are not homeless. According to the government.

It is immoral for the government to use taxpayers' money to bail out institutions that are "too big to fail" but leave citizens in dusty tent cities. It is immoral for the government to use taxpayers money to buy up bad debt from banks and other financial institutions, but leave bad debt weighing on the shoulders of its citizens.

And please - don't give me that tired old line about how the government is benefiting us all with this bailout. Some people are actually going to argue that "Well, this will protect retirement savings in 401ks, etc. for citizens."

Do you really think the people in those tent cities have 401ks? Do you think the people that are one missed paycheck away from a tent city have 401ks? What about the people that used to contribute to 401ks, but they have now had to stop those contributions (or even cash out their 401ks) to cover increasing costs from increasing regressive property taxes, higher gas prices, higher food prices, and higher prices in general for the cost of necessary goods?

This is what 8 years of the Bush Administration has given us. Tent cities, while the government assures us homelessness is decreasing. Wealth transfers from the middle class and from the taxpayers of the future to the wealthy of today.

This is sick. This is wrong. And this is what we will get more of with a McCain Administration.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

What happens when they allow Palin to talk

Palin said today in a rally in Iowa: "We’re going to do a few new things also. For instance, as Alaska’s governor, I put the government’s checkbook online so that people can see where their money’s going. We’ll bring that kind of transparency, that responsibility, and accountability back. We’re going to bring that back to D.C.”

Problem: Obama has already done that. In a bipartisan bill, Senators Obama, Coburn (R), Carper (D), and McCain (R) introduced the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act - which does exactly that. (see USASpending.gov) It eventually passed the Senate unanimously.

In June 2008, the same group of senators introduced legislation to add additional information to the website, including earmarks.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

The Fundamentals of the Economy are Strong

John McCain's boneheaded remark - and then his attempt to backtrack and say that what he meant was that American workers are the most productive, hardest working, best workers in the world.



Unfortunately, McCain hasn't always believed that American workers are the most productive, hardest working, best workers in the world.



"Because you can't do it, my friend."

I'm guessing there are somewhere around 9.4 million unemployed American workers that would be happy to earn $50 an hour. For full-time work, that would be $104,000 a year.

McCain could give less than a rat's ass about the American worker. McCain supports business - but he knows he can't win on that message this year. I hope no one falls for his utter crap.

Isn't my "Donate to the Obama Campaign" widget nifty?

Doesn't it make you want to click it, and then go donate $5 or $10? Maybe even more.....

PS - you can add this widget to your blog too. Click on "get widget" at the bottom of the widget.

Progressive taxation, continued

Let's explore some arguments against progressive taxation.

One of the arguments against progressive taxation is that when taxes increase on the wealthy, and in particular, on businesses, job growth is stifled.

Bunk.

Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post explored this issue in 2004. You can read a copy of his article here. What the article makes clear is that while Republican economists continue to insist that higher marginal tax rates stifle job growth and create unemployment, historical analysis proves that claim to be false. The best claim on this issue made by Republicans, (expressed in the article by Eric Engen, a Republican economist), is that higher marginal tax rates would stifle job growth "if you could hold everything else constant."

Pesky reality. You can't hold everything else constant. And some of those things that are not constant impact how a progressive tax policy, with higher marginal rates, impact employment and the economy as a whole.

When the government takes in more tax revenues, it can use those revenues to do things that fuel the economy and create jobs.
  • It can reduce the national debt, thus reducing the amount of our annual budget we pay to service the debt. This means that long term, the government has even more revenues to utilize.
  • It can stimulate job growth by funding things like infrastructure projects. Someone has to be hired to build roads, bridges, etc. When the government isn't paying for road construction....people that work in road construction are unemployed, or displacing people in other industries.
  • It can stimulate economic demand by reducing the tax rates on the majority of the population. This provides them with additional disposable income, which they tend to use to purchase non-essential goods and services, that they otherwise could not afford and therefore would not buy. Again, someone has to be employed to make those lattes and televisions and knickknacks. In turn, the baristas and television engineers, etc., have money to go out and spend on meals out and new cars. Then the chefs and servers and car salespeople can go out and buy books and sneakers, etc. And the best part is that their employers are benefiting too. If a restaurant can serve 200 customers a night, the owner of that small business stands to make more money, even if their taxes are higher. If there is no one who has the money to go out to eat, tax rates could be 0 and that restaurant owner would still go out of business.
  • It can provide a social safety net that also serves to stimulate the economy. As an example, let's look at the issue of subsidizing low income housing. A person who cannot afford housing on their own lives on the street. He or she is unlikely to be able to maintain employment. He or she contributes no money into the economy in the form or rent or a mortgage payment, thus, no profits for a landlord/mortgage holder. If the government subsidizes the cost of housing so that the person can afford a place to live, they provide profit to the landlord/mortgage holder. They are more likely to be able to maintain employment, and thus, pay taxes. They are more likely to be able to send their children to school, which in the short term creates teaching jobs, and in the long term, produces a contributing member to society.
In addition, a reality check on jobs is needed. Let's take the example of the restaurant. If a restaurant doing brisk business needs a total of 50 employees, that is how many will be hired. If the restaurant owner has the 50 employees they need, a decrease in marginal tax rates will not induce them to hire any more employees just because they have higher profits. They will only hire the number they need.

The restaurant owner is also not going to base decisions on whether to expand (by opening another location, for example) based on tax rates alone. If the economy cannot support expansion (i.e., there is not a suitable location, or there aren't enough potential customers, or the market is over saturated with that product/service) then the owner will not expand. If the economy can support expansion, the owner will expand.

Another argument is that progressive taxes decrease savings rates. However, this too is not borne out by historical analysis. Our savings rate in 2006 was the lowest in 73 years (yes, that's since 1933). Yet, marginal tax rates were decreased in 2001 and 2003. How could this be? Again, it's a matter of the "all other things remaining constant," i.e., pesky reality. The combination of deregulation of the markets and the consumption bubble fueled by deceptively cheap credit served to create an environment of negative savings, even in the midst of lower marginal tax rates.

Another argument is that progressive taxes lower the incentive to work and gain wealth. Again, I cry bunk. When higher marginal tax rates existed under Clinton, the wealthy did not suddenly say "Oh, forget it. I'm not investing anything." They enjoyed the prosperity fueled by the stock market just like everyone else. When we all do better, we all do better. The wealthiest 5% fared better under Clinton than Bush. So did the rest of the country. If that's the result of the wealthy having no incentive to work and invest, well, that's fine with me.

The final argument I will address is that the rich pay more in taxes, as a percentage of total tax revenues, than the middle class or the poor.

Well, yes. Under a progressive tax system, that's kind of the point.

But is it fair?

Well, the top 20% of the US owns 84% of the wealth in this country. Meanwhile, they shoulder 63.5% of the total tax burden in the country. So no, it's not fair. They should be paying more.

When Republicans make the argument that the wealthy pay more than their share in taxes, they talk about federal income taxes. Federal income taxes are the most progressive tax we have in the U.S. They conveniently forget to mention property taxes, state taxes, gas taxes, sin taxes, sales taxes, and governmental "fees." Why? Not because they don't exist. It's because those taxes are regressive, and therefore, damage their argument.

Republicans also rarely discuss another dirty little secret of the wealthy - tax avoidance through diversion of income. The wealthy have access to tax shelters (legal or illegal) that are not available to or practical for the middle class or the poor. Some examples: off shoring, complex trust agreements, and phony business transactions. Thus, the income reported by the wealthy is very often much less than they actually received. This makes it seem like the percentage of taxes they pay on their income is higher than it actually is.

Now, of course, there are limits. If the government took 100% of income in the form of taxes, sure, that would decrease job growth, and discourage innovation, and stifle the economy. Good thing that no one actually proposes that. It is reasonable to argue about what the ideal level of taxation is. It is not reasonable to suggest that every tax increase, or indeed, any tax at all, is socialist, marxist, communist, etc.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Socialism - oh my!

It drives me absolutely up the wall when people say that Obama, or Democrats in general, or progressive economic policies, are socialist. I can only guess that people say this because of one of the following three reasons:

1) They don't know what the actual policies of Obama/Dems, etc. are.
2) They don't know what socialism actually is.
3) They know socialism is a dirty word, just like liberal has been made into a dirty word, and they are attempting to discredit a policy/philosophy they disagree with via ad hominem attack because they are either lazy or they know mud-slinging is really effective.

Socialism is a "social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources." What does that mean? Let's take an example.

In our economy (a mixed economy), I can open a small business. For the sake of example, let's say it's a convenience store. Most likely, I would take out a loan, rent a store, buy inventory, hire staff, sell goods, pay taxes, and hopefully, have some profit to enjoy. I would need to comply with government regulations on things like minimum wages, anti-discrimination, obtaining sales licenses, etc.

In a socialist economy, convenience stores (and everything else) are owned by the state. I may work at a convenience store, but I could not own one. The state would decide what inventory I should buy, at what price I should buy it, exactly how much staff are to be paid, and how much the goods would sell for.

As a little extra bonus in the example, in a communist economy, the convenience store would be owned by all the people. Decisions on inventory, pricing, wages, etc., would be made by the population at large.

At this point, I think it's important to note that the examples are simplified. That's what happens when you're trying to describe an economic system in a few sentences.

Anyhow, now let's look examine progressive policies, and see if they are socialist. In order for progressive policies to be socialist, the state would need to own the means of production.

Does anyone think that the Democrats are trying to nationalize all industry? Has anyone heard a proposal to end private ownership of businesses? No. Has anyone heard a single call from a Democrat, and in particular, Obama, that says everyone should make exactly the same amount of money? That no one should be wealthy? That regardless of personal merit, everyone should have the same standard of living?

No.

Believing in progressive taxation is NOT the same as socialism. Progressive taxation is the idea that the more you make, the more in taxes you should pay. It is not the same as the idea that you should not make any more than anyone else. It is not an attempt to enforce income equality through taxation.

There are many reasons that progressives favor the idea of progressive taxation. In my view, some of the benefits of progressive taxation are:

1) After a certain level of income, the propensity to consume decreases. No matter how rich you are, there is some limit to how much you can eat, how much gas you can burn, how many purses or cars or whatever you are likely to buy. Lower tax rates on lower-income families allow those families to buy more, which stimulates demand, and thus, stimulates the economy. Lower tax rates for the wealthy do not tend to stimulate demand in the same way, because whether their tax rates are low or high, they pretty much have enough money to buy whatever they want to anyway.

2) Higher income people tend to have more disposable income, and therefore, can afford a higher tax burden. Is this fair? I guess it depends on what your definition of fair is. I say that if someone is earning just enough to eat and pay for basic housing, it is less fair to tax them (driving them into starvation or the poorhouse) than it is to tax someone who's basic survival will not be imperiled by the tax.

3) The wealthy benefit more from societal goods, and therefore, should pay more. For example - the police investigate robberies. A low income person may lose $500 of goods due to a robbery. A wealthy person may lose $50,000 of goods due to a robbery. The wealthy person has more to lose, and thus, more to gain by paying taxes for police. The same idea can be applied to infrastructure. Fed Ex makes more based on the roadways than I do. If there are no roads, I lose my salary of $X. If there are no roads, Fed Ex loses its profits of $Y (which is far greater than my $X). It makes sense that Fed Ex should pay more for roads.

Now, you may or may not agree with these reasons. For example, some people feel that progressive taxation discourages work and innovation. (The old "why should I work harder to earn money if it's going to be taxed away?" argument. I say this is bunk - if I had the opportunity to make $100,000 more this year than last year, I would do it in a heartbeat. Yes, my tax rate would go up. So? I'd still be ahead. ) But in any event, let's say you disagree with progressive taxation.

Still doesn't make it socialism. Or communism. And if you keep calling it that, you're either ignorant, lazy, or deliberately deceptive.

How will Obama or McCain's tax plan affect your family?

There is a very interesting calculator available that can provide an estimate for you. The figures are based on the assessment of the candidates' tax proposals done by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

Granted, you do need to keep in mind that the calculator provides an estimate, and not an exact figure. But the results are very interesting.

Incidentally, on the Tax Policy Center's website, you can find all kinds of detailed analysis of the candidates' tax plans.

McCain v. Obama on regulation

Apparently someone recently mentioned to McCain that the rest of the country is having this teensy little economic meltdown and he maybe ought to say something to address it. Oh, and it's apparently caused, in large part, by deregulation.

So today, McCain says: "The McCain-Palin administration will replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington and bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street."

Really? I was under the impression that McCain was "always for less regulation." As he said in the Wall Street Journal on March 3, 2008.

McCain proposed, unsuccessfully, a moratorium on regulations in 1995.

He also gave a speech on the housing crisis in March of 2008. In that speech, he said, “Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.”

McCain's campaign co-chairman and economic adviser (until recently), Phil Gramm, has been a massive champion of the deregulation cause. Gramm attached the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into an omnibus spending bill in 2000, just after the Bush v. Gore case was decided (i.e., no one was paying attention). The Commodity Futures Modernization Act contains the Enron loophole.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (catch his name) was passed in 1999, on pretty much a party line vote. McCain, like most Republicans, voted for it. This act created significant deregulation of the financial market. Many economists indicate this act as a significant contributor to the housing crisis.

Of course, Gramm is no longer officially with the McCain campaign, since his boneheaded "mental recession/nation of whiners" remark earned the McCain campaign a lot of very well-deserved flak.

McCain's record on regulation is clear. He supports deregulation. He supports those that support deregulation. Changing his mind after the financial crisis has begun is too little, too late.

In contrast, Obama said in March of this year: “Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices,” Senator Obama said. “We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.”

In the same speech, Obama also offered a detailed six point plan for creating the appropriate regulation needed to prevent this from happening again.

McCain's lobbyist ties

Would it surprise you to know that John McCain says he and Sarah Palin are going to reform Washington? It should.

It should surprise you that he has the sheer audacity to look into a camera, or at a crowd, and say that with a straight face.

Why do I say this?

John McCain has 134 lobbyists currently working for him. The companies they've lobbied for include such favorites as AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch, and Lehman Brothers. Sound familiar? These are the latest business entities to crash and burn due to deregulation coupled with warm, gooey greed.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

The Top 10 reasons I keep harping on Sarah Palin

You may be wondering why I keep harping on Sarah Palin. Could it be, like some in the McCain campaign suggest, that those that dislike Palin are sexist? Jealous? Bitter?

No.

Here are the Top 10 reasons I keep harping on Palin.

Reason #1: She lies, and lies poorly, and lies repeatedly, and it really annoys me. Sorry, but I've had to endure Bush & Co. lying to us for the last 8 years. I'm really tired of it.

Reason #2: It really annoys me that she's willing to pimp her family out for political gain. See earlier posts if you're not sure what I mean by this.

Reason #3: She claims that one of her qualifications is that "she's just a normal mom - just like you!" First of all - no. She's not like me. I am not a politician. I don't agree with her views. Second of all - I don't want a "normal mom" or a "hockey mom" or a "Wal-Mart mom", etc., as VP or President. I don't want an average person as President. I expect the President to be above average. Exceptional even.

Reason #4: She is snide about things I value. Like community organizing, for example.

Reason #5: She is the worst thing to happen to the cause for true feminism/equality in a while. Why do I say this? She is the most high-profile example of a token women. The only other qualification she has (in McCain's eyes) is that she is appealing to the fundamentalist religious right. Palin has no qualifications that some other potential VP choice wouldn't have had more of. McCain needed a hard-line anti-abortion/anti-gay/pro-fundie pick (eliminating people like Lieberman, or Kay Bailey Hutchison). The fact that McCain had only met her once prior to her selection is additional proof that she's a token. Everything about her that was important to McCain could be summed up in that one visit.

Reason #6: She ought to know she's a token, and feel ashamed of being used. If the McCain campaign thought she was truly experienced and ready, they wouldn't be insisting that she only do limited soft-ball interviews with friendly hosts. They wouldn't have her repeating the very same speech she gave at the RNC Convention day after day on the stump. They don't trust her. To add insult to injury, they're using her to cry "sexism" every time anyone says anything critical of her.

Reason #7: Her religious views scare me. It's not that she is religious. That's fine. It's that she seems to think that God's will is manifested in her policy decisions, such as the natural gas pipeline. That's really scary to me because if you think that it is God's will that you do x, y, and z, you are probably very likely to be willing to do anything to get that accomplished.

Reason #8: Her attitude toward the Troopergate investigation is very troubling. Her administration is saying they will only cooperate with the expected subpoenas if the Alaska legislature says that she did nothing wrong - BEFORE doing the investigation. She's also refusing to turn over her emails as requested.

Reason #9: She supports censorship in public libraries.

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON OF ALL:

Reason #10: Her selection as the VP nominee is further proof to me that McCain is willing to do anything at all to win. It tells me he doesn't care what happens to this country if he should die in office. It's a cynical choice made for political reasons, and I think it is disrespectful of this country. And the choice tells me that McCain does not have the judgement to be president.

Palin can't describe the Bush doctrine (aka the pre-emption doctrine)

The Bush Doctrine is a 2 part doctrine that says:
1) we have the right to attack/invade any country that harbors or aids terrorists (therefore, we can invade Afghanistan), and
2) we have the right to pre-emptively attack any country that may, at some point in the future, pose a threat to the security of the US.

This is not hard. Palin could have found this out on Wikipedia if she was just too busy to watch the news in 2001, 2002, and 2003, when this doctrine was being discussed by the Bush Administration in preparation for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I mean....I was watching the news then. I know...I know....I've never been mayor of a small town. Or on the PTA. Or a hockey mom. Or shot a moose. Or in a beauty pagent. But I can describe the Bush doctrine.

Which, frankly, from a national security aspect, makes me more qualified than Sarah Palin.

When asked about the Bush doctrine by Charlie Gibson of ABC, she first needed Gibson to explain what it was to her. Gibson said "The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a pre-emptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"

Palin responded "Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty, to defend."

Now....that sounds fairly reasonable, right? Here's the trouble....the Bush doctrine does not require that the strike to be pre-empted is imminent. What Palin is describing and/or endorsing is the doctrine of self-defense.

Bush, in an attempt to justify his doctrine of unchecked military aggression (which, yes, is MY name for it) said in a speech at West Point in 2002:

"We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."

In order for a threat to be imminent, it must be fully materialized. Sarah Palin doesn't even understand the Bush doctrine, which is the justification for the wars her Presidential candidate insists we must continue until we "win with honor" or "obtain victory" or something nice and vague and undefined like that. If she cannot even explain the justification for the original invasion (whether or not she agrees with it) she isn't even nearly qualified to run the country.

The "Straight Talker" is a crooked, crooked man

I honestly don't know what happened to McCain between 2000 and now. I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but seriously, it's like he made a deal with the devil (Rove?) to win this election.

This week has been filled with lie after lie after lie. And here's the thing: a lot of times, when someone says that a politician told a lie, what they're really saying is that they disagree with someone's position. That is NOT what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about saying the opposite of a verifiable fact. Like saying "water is dry" or "most dogs are 60 feet tall." Saying things that ought to make average Americans look at you and wonder which med you forgot to take this morning.

McCain keeps saying that Palin killed the Bridge to Nowhere. This is 100% not true, and that's an independently verified fact.

(There is an excellent NPR story on this here: NPR story on Bridge to Nowhere )

On April 11, 2004, McCain railed against the Bridge to Nowhere on Meet the Press. McCain later said that a 2005 story about the Bridge to Nowhere was a primary reason Republicans lost so many seats in the 2006. As late as September 2006, during her campaign for governor, Palin supported the bridge, holding up a "Nowhere Alaska" t-shirt. In October 2006, Palin said she supported continuing funding for the bridge "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." She did not change her mind until the project was mocked and trashed by pretty much the entire nation. Even then, she kept the money and used it for other projects. That is not saying "thanks but no thanks." And that makes McCain and Palin liars.

McCain and his campaign staff are now saying that Obama is sexist and that Obama called Palin a pig this week. This, too, is a verifiable lie. There are numerous stories on this, and you can also go to You Tube to see Obama's remarks. Obama was equating McCain's current positions on, well, pretty much everything, with the Bush Administration, and saying that there's no change there. He did not say that Palin was a pig. He wasn't even talking about Palin - he was talking about McCain's positions. Now, this is on camera. You can't make it up. He said what he said. And yet McCain and his campaign keep insisting that this was somehow about Palin.

Here's just one video showing Obama's actual words.
"You Tube pig in lipstick"

McCain keeps insisting Obama would raise everyone's taxes. This is simply not true. FactCheck.org has written a piece ( A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern ) explaining McCain's lies and Obama's actual tax plan. FactCheck.org relied on the analysis provided by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which is nonpartisan. McCain keeps on saying "Obama will raise your taxes" because it's worked for Republicans in the past. How many of you can hear the phrase "tax and spend liberal" in your minds right now? It doesn't seem to matter that it's a lie. It works, so McCain says it anyway.

I just don't understand how anyone can stand to vote for someone that is so disrespectful of the American electorate that he not only lies repeatedly, but badly.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Some other community organizers Sarah Palin may want to apologize to

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony, among others. Without these community organizers, Sarah Palin, as well as all other women, wouldn't be allowed to vote, much less run for office.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Another excellent video response to Palin's mockery of community organizing

This video is longer than the last one, and it's not just Obama speaking. It's worth the 5:26 running time.

Barack Obama's Response to Palin, Et Al's Mockery of Community Organizing

I was going to write a long post on this issue, but Obama's response is pretty much what I was going to say anyway.

I will add one thing - only an elitist snob would mock community organizers.

Why do the Palins hate America?

Here's a quote from the founder of the AIP, Joe Vogel. Vogel was the chair of the AIP until his death in 1993.

"You get to think why the hell do I owe them anything and then you get mad; and you say to hell with them; and you renounce allegiance; and you pledge your efforts, your effects, your honor, your life, to Alaska; that is how I do it; I am an Alaskan; they know it; I've told them to go to hell in every way I can in a nice way; I took a case to the Supreme Court believing in the Supreme Court, but I'd rather be tried in a whorehouse with the madam as the Judge; there is more Justice in a whorehouse than in the Supreme Court; and if they don't like they know where they can go; ..... and if you think I am ever going to forget that, the fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American Government, and I won't be buried under their damn flag; I'll be buried in Dawson and when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones back to Alaska, back to my country."

Remember how the Republicans went around saying the Michelle Obama hates America? She "wasn't proud" of America. And so on. And for some reason, criticism of family was totally fair game back then.

Well, Sarah Palin's husband was a member of the Alaska Independence Party. Question for you: why does he hate America? Sarah Palin married him, stayed married to him, attended an AIP convention, and has maintained a very cordial relationship with the AIP. Why would an America-loving patriot associate with the AIP?

The AIP wants to have a vote to possibly secede from the USA. That's patriotic, right? A good group for a patriot to associate with in any way?

Verbatim from the AIP website FAQ page

[C]onsidering the moral, educational, and economic decay of the U.S., Alaskans' who hold themselves to a higher standard might very well decide to at least maintain an arm's length distance from a country in decline.

Oh, and one more thing: Sarah Palin wasn't wearing a American flag pin last night during her convention speech. A sure sign she's not a true patriot. ::snort::

So, given this, I'm sure we can expect to see Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Hannity, et al, denouncing the Palins for their YEARs of anti-American associations. Right? Right?

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Interesting blog

I haven't vetted this yet, but I thought I'd post it and folks can feel free to see it as they wish.

http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/about-sarah-palin-a-letter-from-anne-kilkenny/741/#comment-1086

Oh wow, Palin is a liar!

I cannot believe how many times I watched her lie tonight. I think I need a shower.

Palin said "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

The truth is that Mayor Palin hired one of Ted Steven's lobbyists and sent him to D.C., where he sent back $27 million federal dollars to her podunk hamlet of Wasilla. The truth is that Govenor Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere until it was being mocked on a national level. The truth is that while Palin has been govenor, Alaska has requested more per capita federal earmarks than any other state in the nation.

Palin said that Obama hasn't authored any bills.

I suppose that for her, working with Richard Lugar to stop illegal shipments of WMDs isn't important. I suppose to Palin, working in the state senate to stop racial profiling and working to ensure that interrogations are videotaped (so there's no question as to what happened) is not important. I suppose the ethics reform legislation Obama introduced with Sen. Feingold just doesn't exist for Palin.

Actually, I take that back. I suppose that Palin is actually just a liar.

Palin said that Obama would raise taxes. Then she went on to list a boring and exhaustive litany of every kind of tax there is, and claimed Obama wants to raise it.

I'm not going to both to list this all out right now. I'll remind you that
a) Palin is a liar,
b) you can go to http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_new_stitch_in_a_bad_pattern.html and see just what Obama's tax plan is and how much the McCain campaign lies about it, and
c) you can go to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html if you want a very brief comparison of the McCain and Obama tax plans.

Palin said she would tell us "exactly what a Mayor does." But all she could tell us was that "unlike a community organizer, she had actual responsibilties." As a community organizer, Obama was responsible for organizing a public housing project with a population comparable to Mayor Palin's hamlet, and working with them on job training, community infrastructure needs (like road maintenance, asbestos removal, etc.)

Since Palin couldn't be bothered to keep her commitment and tell us the duties of the Wasilla mayor, perhaps I can help. See, it's amazing what you can find on google. http://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Wasilla/Wasilla02/Wasilla0216.html#2.16

Hmmm...she attended meetings. She was the ceremonial head of the city. She enforced city law and proposed budgets, but didn't actually get to make city law or pass the budgets. She was an an administrator with figurehead duties.

How many lies do we really need to hear this woman say?

Lazy blogging day

I was going to write a post on John McCain's many flip flops. However, I'm not feeling particularly perky today, and this is much easier and more amusing.

McCain thinks it's funny when a rabid right-winger calls Hillary a bitch




So you PUMAs are standing up for Hillary...how?

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Jesus Obama the Messiah

Why is it that there are a certain group of right-wing nutsos that insist on calling Obama "The Messiah" or "Jesus Obama"? Isn't that blasphemy if you're a believer?

Does Palin want to have her cake, or eat it?

So, Bristol Palin is keeping her baby. In the words of Madonna, "uh, I'm gonna keep ma bay-bay!"

Please forgive the strange channeling of Madonna. I can only assure you that it happens infrequently.

The Republicans would like us to ignore this story. After all, it's a private family matter, right? No one else's business, right?

But wait.....did anyone mention this whole "private family business" line to Sarah Palin?

I mean....why is her knocked-up teen private family business that has no bearing on Palin's character/values/judgement, but the fact that her teen is keeping the baby proof of her supposedly superior character/values/judgement?

Why is Palin's decision to give birth to her most recent child somehow proof of her character/values/judgement, and not "personal family business that is strictly off-limits.?" Isn't exploiting your newborn's disability for political gain kind of disgusting? I think it is. She's essentially saying "Look at how messed up my kid is and I still kept him. That's how you can tell I'm a hard-core conservative." And that's sick - to use your child to burnish your political credentials.

Look - if it's private, then Palin should have said nothing at all. "No comment - my family's business is their business only." Once she agrees to discuss it, and then uses it to make herself look even better to the fundies, it ceases to be private. Which is a real shame for her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend.

One other thing - apparently Sarah Palin is proud of her daughter's decision, and proud that she's about to become a grandmother. And good for her. But does she realize that it's nothing but dumb luck that her daughter is carrying around a baby and not HIV? Or a nice case of syphilis? Unprotected sex sometimes doesn't result in babies. It can result in death, or severe illness. Would she be crowing about her values in action (abstinence only education, for example) if her daughter brought home a virus instead of a pregnancy?



I'd like to offer a few additional observations here:

1) I think it's really interesting that Palin has indicated that she and her family will be providing her daughter and her-presumably-soon-to-be son-in-law with support. And it's great that they are both willing and able to do so. I wonder if Palin and her family are against providing support for girls in similar situations who do not have such a supportive family? Because when that support is organized and universal....it's called welfare. If you're truly pro-life, put your god dammed money where your mouth is. Quit bitching about welfare queens. Quit telling lies about how all the welfare mothers are "living large" while all the responsible people have to work to pay for their ignorant and immoral lifestyles.

And if that support is not organized and universal, why on earth should a ban on abortion be organized and universal? Again, put your money where your mouth is. It's somehow moral for you to force a woman to use her body to give life to a potential person, but immoral for someone to force you to give less than one cent out of each tax dollar you pay to the federal government for the TANF program? Why are your tax dollars private but every woman's body is public?

2) If Obama has a pregnant, unwed, teen-age daughter....there is no way he'd have the nomination. If somehow he managed to obtain the nomination, the Republicans would be all over him. "Look, there's the result of liberal values at work. Kids having kids. There's no way his daughter can support herself. If he wasn't rich his daughter would be sucking off the government teat. I wonder if she's going on Maury to find out who the baby's daddy is. " And so on.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Why the PUMAs need to grow up

As a woman, I am flabbergasted by all of the media attention given to the PUMA group that supposedly supports Hillary Clinton. In all of their shrill vows to never support Obama (they promise to either stay home on Election Day or vote for McCain), you rarely hear any sort of coherent reasoning. I suppose that if this election is close, their refusal to support the won-100%-by-the-rules Democratic candidate may be responsible for a McCain win.

Of course, I wonder if they understand that not only would they be virtually guaranteeing complete takeover of the Supreme Court by the right-wing nutsos in this country, but they would be pretty much responsible for the deaths of additional American men and women in Iraq, plus where ever else McCain decides that we ought to invade. Let's see - he's already expressed quite belligerent rhetoric toward Iran and Russia. Oh yes, North Korea too.

In the ramblings of PUMAs, sometimes you hear the assertion that the way in which the Democratic party conducted the primary contests was unfair. Of course, there wasn't a murmur about it being unfair specifically toward Senator Clinton until after it was obvious to ummm....EVERYONE (excepting apparently the PUMAs) that she was not going to be able to catch up to Senator Obama's delegate leads. The fact is, both campaigns fully knew about and agreed to the rules beforehand. Senator Clinton is an experienced politician, but Senator Obama's campaign staff just schooled Senator Clinton's staff. Obama's campaign was smart and strategic, and was able to exploit the fact that Senator Clinton and her supporters felt her nomination was inevitable. Senator Clinton ignored caucus states. President Clinton's mouth could not be controlled. Senator Clinton's staff bickered with each other and they became more interested in their own careers than Senator Clinton's success. Her vote in support of the Iraq war didn't help. Neither did her insistence on siding with McCain on the gas tax holiday gimmick or her "tough-guy" stance on foreign policy.

I, too, think that the idea that New Hampshire and Iowa are somehow entitled to vote first is completely bunk. Some also think that caucuses are bunk, and would prefer only primaries. I actually agree with that too, mostly because bringing a 2-year old to a caucus on a weeknight is not particularly fun.

For the record, I also happen to think that the Electoral College is bunk. I think the 21-year-old drinking age law is bunk. I'm sure I could come up with plenty of laws/rules that are unfair. However, in a civil society, you cannot violate the law/rules without expecting some sort of consequence. Michigan and Florida violated the rules. There was a consequence imposed on them. (Well, sort of. Kind of more like when your parents ground you for a month and then let you out after two weeks.) In any event, the appropriate way to deal with these issues is to petition for change. Become a delegate. Push for change in the party platform. Do something relevant. Working to overturn Roe v. Wade or bomb Iran (which is exactly what you do when you vote for McCain) is not going to help.

Sometimes you hear the "but women deserve it" argument. AKA "but it's our time". First of all, women do NOT deserve it. Neither do men. Neither do blacks. The idea that some group in history deserves the presidency due to a history of oppression is stupid beyond belief.

Face it folks. There are EVIL men, EVIL women, EVIL minorities, EVIL homosexuals, etc. in this world. The merit of an individual does not follow from victimization of a group.

Gender or race or sexual orientation alone are not good reasons to vote for someone. I wouldn't vote for Elizabeth Dole. I wouldn't vote for Sarah Palin. I wouldn't vote for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. I'm not saying these are evil people by the way. Just that I do not consider them worthy of my vote.

But "Hillary should have been the VP." Um, no. Senator Clinton's insistence on continuing the primary fight to the very bitter end virtually ensured she could not be selected as the VP. In order to do well in the last few contests, Senator Clinton (and her campaign, and her husband) said some very nasty things about Obama. She ensured that Senator Obama would look like the world's biggest wuss if he picked her. She ensured that the campaign "story" would be all about her and the drama between her and Obama if she was picked.

If Obama loses in a close election this fall, and the blame is attributed to PUMAs, the Democrats will probably not win another election for a really, really long time. There will be too much bitterness and spite to coalesce the party again around one candidate. There will be too much talk of "oh, too many racists in the Democratic party" on one side. Too much talk about sexism on another side. The media will feed the frenzy every election, running around and asking if anyone is pissed off about anything.

Abstinence-only oopsie

So Sarah Palin's 17-year old daughter, a senior in high school, is apparently 5-months pregnant. Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only education. Let's hope for her soon-to-be grandchild's sake that anything she taught her kids about child-rearing sticks better than the "don't have sex until you're married" message did.