OK--jobs growth isn't keeping up with population growth.
That's what the pundits are saying, Right and Left.
But who said "population growth" is a given? American citizens aren't reproducing all that fast. Most of our population growth is coming from immigration.
So limit immigration to jobs growth minus citizen population growth.
Duh.
And while we're at it, limit the immigration we do permit to people who can actually contribute to America and dependents those people can support fully. So with an unskilled laborer unemployment rate of 1 in 5, don't admit any unskilled laborers, and use e-Verify to keep unskilled laborers already here without America's permission from taking American jobs.
Why is it that the pundits won't discuss the obvious?
Saturday, August 6, 2011
a couple of thoughts
I've been reading right wing comments on various articles about the debt limit crisis, the compromise that temporarily allayed it, and the S&P downgrade.
I'm far from defending President Obama's every move, but the virulent hatred and delegitimization I see expressed routinely against him and the federal government in general lead me to realize that another name for the average Tea Party guy could be "Johnny Reb."
Right wingers justify this by saying the Left did it to Bush II. Lefties certainly expressed powerful dislike for him, and delegitimization for his victory by Supreme Court fiat in 2000. However the difference is shown in the Left's acceptance of his victory in 2004, in which he certainly won the vote, even if you grant the level of vote suppression that some say went on. Also, no one claimed Bush wasn't an American citizen. That takes it to a whole new level.
-------------------------
Second thought: If you ask an American--Left or Right--whether they'd prefer the government of Iran to be "liberal" or "conservative" without them getting any further description of that government, wouldn't nearly everyone say "liberal?" How about Russia? Burma? China? Zimbabwe? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Iraq?
So why would American conservatives wish that these countries would have a different kind of government than what they wish for us?
-------------------------
Third thought: I get the impression that the average Tea Party type person is terrified. They keep warning us not to do anything that might annoy the richest people in American, for fear that these ultrarich folks might let fewer crumbs dribble off their table onto the ground for us to scramble around trying to pick up.
They seem to worship these ultrarich people the same way that folks in primitive countries might worship the god of the local volcano--less out of love than out of fear, out of a desire to propitiate this cruel and capricious deity.
I wonder if they have the slightest idea what these ultrarich think of them and of what that deserve...how the ultrarich plan to repay their loyal followers for continuing to elect people who will fight to protect the perks of the ultrarich, no matter how much the rest of us have to sacrifice to do so.
Sociological research of the attitudes of the ultrarich indicated that they believe every cent of their wealth is deservedly theirs, just as your relative poverty is deservedly yours. They feel no sense of common purpose with Americans in general. Their children don't fight in our armed forces. And they feel no gratitude for those who do. They are profoundly disconnected from the America of the rest of us.
But their sock puppets in government mimic the appearance and speech patterns of the people you might see in church on Sunday, and if someone looks like someone you trust, well, you should trust them too, right?
---------------------------------------------------------
Fourth thought: Shouldn't "conservative" mean "someone who conserves?" Conservative Supreme Court Justice (and Republican appointee and former Republican legislator) Sandra Day O'Connor said "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
That means she thought we shouldn't interpret it in a way that destroys us.
Yet today's conservative House seems to think that the Constitution is just that. How is that "conservative" in any way--to consider "compromise" a dirty word?
--------------------------------------------
The "supreme ruler" of Iran, Ayatollah Khameni, has said that he will never compromise in the slightest about anything, regardless of pressure or threats. And he has been true to this statement since day 1 of his long reign.
Of all the world's rulers, he's the one who most resembles the Congressional Republicans in this regard.
Think about it.
--------------------------------------
And when you speak with Billionairians, would you ask them how hard it was to give up Christianity for this new religion?
I'm far from defending President Obama's every move, but the virulent hatred and delegitimization I see expressed routinely against him and the federal government in general lead me to realize that another name for the average Tea Party guy could be "Johnny Reb."
Right wingers justify this by saying the Left did it to Bush II. Lefties certainly expressed powerful dislike for him, and delegitimization for his victory by Supreme Court fiat in 2000. However the difference is shown in the Left's acceptance of his victory in 2004, in which he certainly won the vote, even if you grant the level of vote suppression that some say went on. Also, no one claimed Bush wasn't an American citizen. That takes it to a whole new level.
-------------------------
Second thought: If you ask an American--Left or Right--whether they'd prefer the government of Iran to be "liberal" or "conservative" without them getting any further description of that government, wouldn't nearly everyone say "liberal?" How about Russia? Burma? China? Zimbabwe? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Iraq?
So why would American conservatives wish that these countries would have a different kind of government than what they wish for us?
-------------------------
Third thought: I get the impression that the average Tea Party type person is terrified. They keep warning us not to do anything that might annoy the richest people in American, for fear that these ultrarich folks might let fewer crumbs dribble off their table onto the ground for us to scramble around trying to pick up.
They seem to worship these ultrarich people the same way that folks in primitive countries might worship the god of the local volcano--less out of love than out of fear, out of a desire to propitiate this cruel and capricious deity.
I wonder if they have the slightest idea what these ultrarich think of them and of what that deserve...how the ultrarich plan to repay their loyal followers for continuing to elect people who will fight to protect the perks of the ultrarich, no matter how much the rest of us have to sacrifice to do so.
Sociological research of the attitudes of the ultrarich indicated that they believe every cent of their wealth is deservedly theirs, just as your relative poverty is deservedly yours. They feel no sense of common purpose with Americans in general. Their children don't fight in our armed forces. And they feel no gratitude for those who do. They are profoundly disconnected from the America of the rest of us.
But their sock puppets in government mimic the appearance and speech patterns of the people you might see in church on Sunday, and if someone looks like someone you trust, well, you should trust them too, right?
---------------------------------------------------------
Fourth thought: Shouldn't "conservative" mean "someone who conserves?" Conservative Supreme Court Justice (and Republican appointee and former Republican legislator) Sandra Day O'Connor said "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
That means she thought we shouldn't interpret it in a way that destroys us.
Yet today's conservative House seems to think that the Constitution is just that. How is that "conservative" in any way--to consider "compromise" a dirty word?
--------------------------------------------
The "supreme ruler" of Iran, Ayatollah Khameni, has said that he will never compromise in the slightest about anything, regardless of pressure or threats. And he has been true to this statement since day 1 of his long reign.
Of all the world's rulers, he's the one who most resembles the Congressional Republicans in this regard.
Think about it.
--------------------------------------
And when you speak with Billionairians, would you ask them how hard it was to give up Christianity for this new religion?
Friday, August 5, 2011
Leadership
Speaking as a moderate Republican--that is, as a Democrat, since the GOP has declared moderate Republicans like me (and Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr., Abraham Lincoln etc.) personae non grata in the GOP (which now stands for Greed Over Principles I guess)--I agree that President Obama should have shown more leadership.
So I turned to the dozen people running for the GOP presidential nomination to see what sort of leadership they afforded in this national crisis of choice.
Ooops. All but Jon Hunstman were MIA throughout the crisis, weren't they? And Huntsman's chances of nomination are zilch, since he's the closest thing to a moderate who's in the running.
So while President Obama could have shown more leadership, he showed some--and the GOP candidates (other than Huntsman)...none.
And don't tell me Romney did. He was like Russia declaring war on Japan after it was all over except for grabbing Manchuria and the Kurils. Now there's a man of, um, flexible principles, always eager to run to the front of the parade to pretend he's leading it.
The last national poll of hundreds of presidential historians ranked President Obama at #15--well below a number of Republicans as well as Democrats, so you can't accuse them of all being Libruls (Reagan came in at #17 BTW).
And the last Republican Prez, Bush II? He polled 6 from the bottom. He was quite the leader, though. However, when strong leadership isn't much good when it's combined with a mediocre intelligence and being proudly ignorant of macroeconomics, world affairs, and judging people (remember him "looking into Putin's soul"?).
You don't have someone like that in the race, but don't worry--Rick Parry, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman might run and provide more of that magic combo of ambition+mediocrity. Until then, you've just got mediocrity free of complications.
Except for Huntsman.
Good luck with getting him nominated by today's GOP.
So I turned to the dozen people running for the GOP presidential nomination to see what sort of leadership they afforded in this national crisis of choice.
Ooops. All but Jon Hunstman were MIA throughout the crisis, weren't they? And Huntsman's chances of nomination are zilch, since he's the closest thing to a moderate who's in the running.
So while President Obama could have shown more leadership, he showed some--and the GOP candidates (other than Huntsman)...none.
And don't tell me Romney did. He was like Russia declaring war on Japan after it was all over except for grabbing Manchuria and the Kurils. Now there's a man of, um, flexible principles, always eager to run to the front of the parade to pretend he's leading it.
The last national poll of hundreds of presidential historians ranked President Obama at #15--well below a number of Republicans as well as Democrats, so you can't accuse them of all being Libruls (Reagan came in at #17 BTW).
And the last Republican Prez, Bush II? He polled 6 from the bottom. He was quite the leader, though. However, when strong leadership isn't much good when it's combined with a mediocre intelligence and being proudly ignorant of macroeconomics, world affairs, and judging people (remember him "looking into Putin's soul"?).
You don't have someone like that in the race, but don't worry--Rick Parry, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman might run and provide more of that magic combo of ambition+mediocrity. Until then, you've just got mediocrity free of complications.
Except for Huntsman.
Good luck with getting him nominated by today's GOP.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The Republicans have proven that a balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea
It would make sense to support a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as long as it had a provision for overriding it in an emergency, except for one thing: the Republican Party of today has proven that its congressmen can't be trusted to recognize an emergency that would require overriding it.
Or they might, but then they'd use the emergency as a hostage to forcing the majority to enact other legislation that a majority of Americans would oppose.
So a balanced-budget amendment is really a minority-rule amendment--especially since Republicans are considerably less inclined to compromise on legislation than Democrats are (as polls show is true of GOP rank and file as well).
Minority rule represents the death of democracy--the overthrow of its most central principle.
But it's easy to understand why Republicans might give up their belief in democracy, because a minority of Americans are Republicans--even when you add in the 45% of Independents who consistently vote Republilcan. A recent Gallup poll has the difference at 74 million people who usually vote GOP vs. 87 million who usually vote Demo. When they vote. More about that later.
So the only way Republicans can win is through the various minority-rule tricks you see them pulling all the time in the U.S. Senate, through whipping its own voters into a frenzy that guarantees turnout...and, less talked about, from doing every single thing in their power to prevent Democrats from voting.
That's why current the GOP is in a vote suppression campaign across all the states it controls, comprising laws ostensibly designed to prevent voter fraud--based on no evidence whatsoever of actual voting fraud going on by more than a single-digit number of people in any given state. They're setting voter ID requirements aimed at preventing college students and poor blacks from voting, along with things like reducing advance voting provisions so people who work long hours won't be able to come in to vote, and even reducing polling places in Democratic areas. But since this campaign isn't going on at a national level, and is being done on the down low, it hasn't captured the attention of the national media, who are busy trying to find out where that lady who got away with murdering her daughter is.
And in general every law and rule that makes it impossible to pass a law unless a supermajority votes for it is a piece of minority rule. California state legislature Republicans have used our 2/3 majority requirement to pass budget bills for decades to get their way.
I'm not arguing that Democrats' idea of spending is good. I'm arguing that majority rule is good, as long as the minority's rights are recognized. The irony is that whenever Republicans get the slightest majority they treat it as a 100% majority with a mandate to ram through everything they want without taking the minority into any consideration at all.
So the Republicans are minoritarian when they're in the minority, majoritarian when they're in the majority. Again, this shows a profound lack of respect for Democratic principles in favor of reverting to raw tribalism.
And for us true independents, the worst thing about Republican obstructionism when they're in the minority is that it enables the Democratic majority to avoid taking responsibility for their actions--they can always blame what goes wrong on Republican obstructionism, thus getting cover for much of what they do wrong.
Parliamentary government is truly majoritarian, able to enact whatever rules/legislation the majority wishes, but with the minority able to force elections whenever the majority goes afoul of the electorate. I'm not advocating abandoning our two party system necessarily--just pointing out that Paliamentary forms tend to place credit and blame more squarely than we can.
The downside of that form is that you often get two major parties that are nearly evenly divided, thus giving small radical parties disproportionate influence--as seen in Israel for example.
So we're probably better off trying to tweak our system.
Meanwhile, though, don't forget to oppose a balanced budget amendment, despite its emotional appeal. It's really a poison pill with a sugar coating.
Or they might, but then they'd use the emergency as a hostage to forcing the majority to enact other legislation that a majority of Americans would oppose.
So a balanced-budget amendment is really a minority-rule amendment--especially since Republicans are considerably less inclined to compromise on legislation than Democrats are (as polls show is true of GOP rank and file as well).
Minority rule represents the death of democracy--the overthrow of its most central principle.
But it's easy to understand why Republicans might give up their belief in democracy, because a minority of Americans are Republicans--even when you add in the 45% of Independents who consistently vote Republilcan. A recent Gallup poll has the difference at 74 million people who usually vote GOP vs. 87 million who usually vote Demo. When they vote. More about that later.
So the only way Republicans can win is through the various minority-rule tricks you see them pulling all the time in the U.S. Senate, through whipping its own voters into a frenzy that guarantees turnout...and, less talked about, from doing every single thing in their power to prevent Democrats from voting.
That's why current the GOP is in a vote suppression campaign across all the states it controls, comprising laws ostensibly designed to prevent voter fraud--based on no evidence whatsoever of actual voting fraud going on by more than a single-digit number of people in any given state. They're setting voter ID requirements aimed at preventing college students and poor blacks from voting, along with things like reducing advance voting provisions so people who work long hours won't be able to come in to vote, and even reducing polling places in Democratic areas. But since this campaign isn't going on at a national level, and is being done on the down low, it hasn't captured the attention of the national media, who are busy trying to find out where that lady who got away with murdering her daughter is.
And in general every law and rule that makes it impossible to pass a law unless a supermajority votes for it is a piece of minority rule. California state legislature Republicans have used our 2/3 majority requirement to pass budget bills for decades to get their way.
I'm not arguing that Democrats' idea of spending is good. I'm arguing that majority rule is good, as long as the minority's rights are recognized. The irony is that whenever Republicans get the slightest majority they treat it as a 100% majority with a mandate to ram through everything they want without taking the minority into any consideration at all.
So the Republicans are minoritarian when they're in the minority, majoritarian when they're in the majority. Again, this shows a profound lack of respect for Democratic principles in favor of reverting to raw tribalism.
And for us true independents, the worst thing about Republican obstructionism when they're in the minority is that it enables the Democratic majority to avoid taking responsibility for their actions--they can always blame what goes wrong on Republican obstructionism, thus getting cover for much of what they do wrong.
Parliamentary government is truly majoritarian, able to enact whatever rules/legislation the majority wishes, but with the minority able to force elections whenever the majority goes afoul of the electorate. I'm not advocating abandoning our two party system necessarily--just pointing out that Paliamentary forms tend to place credit and blame more squarely than we can.
The downside of that form is that you often get two major parties that are nearly evenly divided, thus giving small radical parties disproportionate influence--as seen in Israel for example.
So we're probably better off trying to tweak our system.
Meanwhile, though, don't forget to oppose a balanced budget amendment, despite its emotional appeal. It's really a poison pill with a sugar coating.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Which Americans hate Amercia?
Many doctrinaire Republicans think Democrats--from Obama on down--hate America. Many doctrinaire Democrats think the same the other way.
In both cases, they're right and they're wrong. Most Americans, Left and Right, say they love their country. The trick is that both identify "their country" as their ideal of this country and those who share that ideal, not this actual country and its actual citizens, warts and all.
In both cases, they're right and they're wrong. Most Americans, Left and Right, say they love their country. The trick is that both identify "their country" as their ideal of this country and those who share that ideal, not this actual country and its actual citizens, warts and all.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
As shown on the Jon Stewart show:
From the December 7, 2010 presidential news conference:
Reporter from the National Journal: How will these negotiations [about extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans] affect negotiations or talks with the Republicans about raising the debt limit? Because it would seem that they have a significant amount of leverage over the White House now, going in.
President: When you say it would seem like they would have a significant amount of leverage over the White House, what do you mean?
National Journal Reporter: In the sense that they'll say essentially we're not gonna not agree with [raising the debt limit] unless the White House is willing to agree to significant spending cuts across the board that will probably go deeper and further than what you're willing to do.
President: Here's my expectation--and I'll take John Boehner at his word--that nobody--Democrat or Republican--is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse.
---------------------------------------------------------
It is irrational to treat the irrational as if they were rational.
From the December 7, 2010 presidential news conference:
Reporter from the National Journal: How will these negotiations [about extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans] affect negotiations or talks with the Republicans about raising the debt limit? Because it would seem that they have a significant amount of leverage over the White House now, going in.
President: When you say it would seem like they would have a significant amount of leverage over the White House, what do you mean?
National Journal Reporter: In the sense that they'll say essentially we're not gonna not agree with [raising the debt limit] unless the White House is willing to agree to significant spending cuts across the board that will probably go deeper and further than what you're willing to do.
President: Here's my expectation--and I'll take John Boehner at his word--that nobody--Democrat or Republican--is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse.
---------------------------------------------------------
It is irrational to treat the irrational as if they were rational.
Monday, August 1, 2011
There is no such thing as the Tea Party
The Tea Party doesn't exist. The next ballot you get, will the Tea Party be on it? It won't. In terms of national elections, for most purposes, there's only the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Each has factions. The "Tea Party" is a faction of the Republican Party, nothing more or less.
So it wasn't some "Tea Party" that held a gun to our nation's head and is now creating wave after wave of uncertainly rippling over the business world here and abroad. It was the Republican Party that abandoned its 2010 commitment to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. It was the Republican Party that damaged our business standing in the world. It's the Republican Party that has adopted economic policies that run counter to what every mainstream economist says. And it's the Republican Party whose populist rhetoric strangely produces actions that line up perfectly with what America's 400 richest individuals--who control more resources than 90% of Americans--want. Isn't that interesting?
Until or unless the Tea Party becomes an actual party, it's just a part of the Republican Party--the part that's running the show.
So it wasn't some "Tea Party" that held a gun to our nation's head and is now creating wave after wave of uncertainly rippling over the business world here and abroad. It was the Republican Party that abandoned its 2010 commitment to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. It was the Republican Party that damaged our business standing in the world. It's the Republican Party that has adopted economic policies that run counter to what every mainstream economist says. And it's the Republican Party whose populist rhetoric strangely produces actions that line up perfectly with what America's 400 richest individuals--who control more resources than 90% of Americans--want. Isn't that interesting?
Until or unless the Tea Party becomes an actual party, it's just a part of the Republican Party--the part that's running the show.
A comment on the debt crisis that the NY Times censored
Here's mine, a response to an op-ed piece by Paul Krugman ("The President Surrenders"), excoriating the Republicans for extortion and President Obama for giving in to it:
I generally agree with Dr. Krugman's analysis of the Republicans, but he rarely acknowleges all the ways the Democratic Party has shoved so many Americans into the eager arms of the GOP. That aspect just seems invisible to him.
Illegal immigration is high on that list--pundits in the Northeast seem to have no idea what the impact has been here in the Southwest. In California, illegal immigrants, their children & grandchildren now comprise a majority of all students in our public school system. They're a majority of Los Angeles residents. This isn't multiculturalism--it's the supplanting of one society with another. For people like Dr. Krugman it's unthinkable to even complain about this--since only \"those sorts\" of people would object to their society being replaced by that of another country.
Especially when American blue collar wages have sunk below the poverty line due to competition from illegals. But Dr. Krugman probably doesn't have any blue collar acquaintances...
Nor does it help that in amongst the flagrant lying of the Republicans, nonpartisan factchecking sources like the CBO and factcheck.org also find Democratic politicians shading the truth.
I hate propaganda apparatchiks like Sean Hannity getting to have even the slightest element of truth in their vicious tirades.
And yet they do have a kernel of truth in some of their accusations.
Plus, I wonder whether Dr. Krugman's central thesis here is correct--that President Obama should have stuck to his guns on the debt ceiling. Viscerally I wanted him to do so, but we had 8 years of a visceral prez and that didn't turn out so well.
It may be best for him not to have let the US default on its debts, even though the Republicans' credible threat to do so was treasonous. It may yet be that the voting public will see through the Democrats' many missteps to the fact that the Republican alternative actually endangers the Republic.
Aaron Burr's starting to get real competition.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
How cults work
I once had a friend who joined a cult. That's when I discovered how cults work on people, up close & personal. I mention it now because the Republican Party--and, to a lesser extent, the Democratic Party--has gained some of the features of a cult:
1. Create an alternate reality--a set of plausible, emotionally persuasive, internally consistent (at some level) narratives. Make it simplistic. All your problems and all your society's problems are due to X (something which isn't your fault). The solution is simple: Y (something which will require no sacrifice from you--or which you can be led to believe requires no sacrifice from you--even if the cult orders you to assign all your worldly possessions to the cult, you'll enjoy shared prosperity of some kind which will amply repay that investment).
2. Isolate cult members from anything and everything that might point out that the emperor has no clothes.
a. Do so by offering alternate information sources that all agree with the cult's alternate reality.
b. Get cult members to reject all information from any other source.
c. If possible, get cult member to only socialize with fellow cult members.
d. If the cult has taken the name of some heterogeneous organization, convince cult members that only the cult's members actually represent that larger organization, and that anyone else is trespassing--and your enemy.
e. Get cult members to believe that the slightest compromise represents total failure--represents letting the camel's nose in the tent--that anyone who urges compromise is an enemy, even if they say they're fellow cult members.
3. Continuously get cult members to believe they're in danger from the cult's enemies---that is, keep them on a permanent war footing. Do this even when real danger looms--either discount that real danger or ascribe it to a plot by the cult's enemies.
Who does this? In the Muslim world, the Salafists do this, to the extent of believing anyone who speaks against their Prophet should be killed on the spot--and "speaking against" means "not totally supporting the Salafists' interpretation of Islam.
And as I said, here in the America the Republicans--and the immensely wealthy handful of individuals who fund them--have managed to create something like a cult.
Consider:
1. The President of the United States, Grover Norquist, elected in 2010 in a landslide (from a GOP perspective), and holding written oaths of fealty from a majority of Congressional Republicans, preaches that all of America's problems comprise The Government, which steals our money via taxes and spends it on People-Who-Aren't-Us (Mexicans, Kneegrows, Welfare Queens (mostly Kneegrows and Mexicans), Liberal Slackers, Foreigners (both here and abroad via foreign aid).
2. Fox News Channel provides a 24x7 propaganda outlet for the explanations of everything authorized by President Norquist and the Republican Party's paymasters, along with the vast majority of radio talk shows. Fox provides a wide spectrum of Right wing viewpoints, including Libertarian (John Strossel), Religious Right (Mike Huckabee), Tea Party (Hannity), faux Independent Doctrinaire Catholic (O'Reilly), Senate Republican (Van Sustern), Corporatist (Neil Cavuto), etc., but the best indicator is the putatively mainstream news programs put on Fox News every weekday morning, plus the Shepherd and Baier programs. Those are where the far right tilt can be seen without the distractions of hosts' charismatic personalities and particular concerns.
All of these programs regularly seek to delegitimize all other sources of news that don't hew to the far right line. They speak of "Mainstream News" with contempt, consistently, with particular emphasis on CNN being --according to them--a left wing operation. They also dump on self-declared nonpartisan factchecking organizations (especially factcheck.org and politifact.com), as well as polling organizations other than the reliably right wing one, Rasmussen.
The result is that is you seek to bolster a criticism of any right wing assertion by alluding to any putatively nonpartisan source, the average rank and file Republican will tell you that such sources are highly suspect and require you to "prove" your point otherwise. Or they'll just say "I don't believe you."
Also along these lines, they'll frequently refer to "the American People" and "The Constitution" when they actually mean only American citizens who vote Republican (i.e. including the millions of self-declared Independents who just happen to always vote Republican), and only the parts of the Constitution that they like, and as interpreted by far right wingers (who claim of course that they aren't interpreting it at all)--hence the call for a balanced budget amendment. Calling for an amendment means you don't think the Founding Fathers had all the answers; that the Constitution they wrote wasn't the be-all and the end-all, and may even be wrong in places. So much for revering it as a perfect, sacred document.
"Compromise" means "surrender" in Republispeak. When referring to Republicans it means "shameful, totally unacceptable, abject surrender to the Enemy." Hence statements rejecting any and all compromise. Meanwhile, when Republicans claim the Democrats won't compromise, they mean "the Democrats refuse to surrender to us 100% and want 10% of what they'd asked for." So again "compromise" means "abject surrender" here as well, only in the other direction."
Several other factors contribute to Republican success, down on the process level.
One is the fact that Americans are sorting themselves out, moving to communities of like-minded people more and more, making Red and Blue regions Redder and Bluer.
Another is our winner-take all voting system, in which slight majorities confer total victory, making it unnecessary to build heterogeneous coalitions.
And another is our 24 hour news cycle combined with modern imaging technology, enabling newscasts to instill terror in viewers vastly out of proportion to the actual dangers involved, simultaneously blinding them to worse dangers that can't be imaged as successfully.
Thus you can use ultrasounds to make embryos seem sentient, while overpopulation statistics are dry piles of numbers. Every gory crime from anywhere in the nation can get wall to wall coverage for days, terrorizing people, while the rapid depletion of the porous aquifer is invisible and unnoticed (until it's too late).
The result of all this is that it's becoming harder and harder to have a constructive dialog with a Republican.
Often your only hope is to try to get under their umbrella of paranoia--possibly by arguing within the Republiverse to show how their position on something actually runs contrary to their own principles or is too extreme--by their lights--an extension of those principles.
Good luck with that. Trouble, the Republican Ministry of Propaganda is so well-financed voices of reason get drowned out by their giant bullhorn, which makes you look like an oddball outlier compared to what they believe is not just true but axiomatic, and thus not to be questioned.
1. Create an alternate reality--a set of plausible, emotionally persuasive, internally consistent (at some level) narratives. Make it simplistic. All your problems and all your society's problems are due to X (something which isn't your fault). The solution is simple: Y (something which will require no sacrifice from you--or which you can be led to believe requires no sacrifice from you--even if the cult orders you to assign all your worldly possessions to the cult, you'll enjoy shared prosperity of some kind which will amply repay that investment).
2. Isolate cult members from anything and everything that might point out that the emperor has no clothes.
a. Do so by offering alternate information sources that all agree with the cult's alternate reality.
b. Get cult members to reject all information from any other source.
c. If possible, get cult member to only socialize with fellow cult members.
d. If the cult has taken the name of some heterogeneous organization, convince cult members that only the cult's members actually represent that larger organization, and that anyone else is trespassing--and your enemy.
e. Get cult members to believe that the slightest compromise represents total failure--represents letting the camel's nose in the tent--that anyone who urges compromise is an enemy, even if they say they're fellow cult members.
3. Continuously get cult members to believe they're in danger from the cult's enemies---that is, keep them on a permanent war footing. Do this even when real danger looms--either discount that real danger or ascribe it to a plot by the cult's enemies.
Who does this? In the Muslim world, the Salafists do this, to the extent of believing anyone who speaks against their Prophet should be killed on the spot--and "speaking against" means "not totally supporting the Salafists' interpretation of Islam.
And as I said, here in the America the Republicans--and the immensely wealthy handful of individuals who fund them--have managed to create something like a cult.
Consider:
1. The President of the United States, Grover Norquist, elected in 2010 in a landslide (from a GOP perspective), and holding written oaths of fealty from a majority of Congressional Republicans, preaches that all of America's problems comprise The Government, which steals our money via taxes and spends it on People-Who-Aren't-Us (Mexicans, Kneegrows, Welfare Queens (mostly Kneegrows and Mexicans), Liberal Slackers, Foreigners (both here and abroad via foreign aid).
2. Fox News Channel provides a 24x7 propaganda outlet for the explanations of everything authorized by President Norquist and the Republican Party's paymasters, along with the vast majority of radio talk shows. Fox provides a wide spectrum of Right wing viewpoints, including Libertarian (John Strossel), Religious Right (Mike Huckabee), Tea Party (Hannity), faux Independent Doctrinaire Catholic (O'Reilly), Senate Republican (Van Sustern), Corporatist (Neil Cavuto), etc., but the best indicator is the putatively mainstream news programs put on Fox News every weekday morning, plus the Shepherd and Baier programs. Those are where the far right tilt can be seen without the distractions of hosts' charismatic personalities and particular concerns.
All of these programs regularly seek to delegitimize all other sources of news that don't hew to the far right line. They speak of "Mainstream News" with contempt, consistently, with particular emphasis on CNN being --according to them--a left wing operation. They also dump on self-declared nonpartisan factchecking organizations (especially factcheck.org and politifact.com), as well as polling organizations other than the reliably right wing one, Rasmussen.
The result is that is you seek to bolster a criticism of any right wing assertion by alluding to any putatively nonpartisan source, the average rank and file Republican will tell you that such sources are highly suspect and require you to "prove" your point otherwise. Or they'll just say "I don't believe you."
Also along these lines, they'll frequently refer to "the American People" and "The Constitution" when they actually mean only American citizens who vote Republican (i.e. including the millions of self-declared Independents who just happen to always vote Republican), and only the parts of the Constitution that they like, and as interpreted by far right wingers (who claim of course that they aren't interpreting it at all)--hence the call for a balanced budget amendment. Calling for an amendment means you don't think the Founding Fathers had all the answers; that the Constitution they wrote wasn't the be-all and the end-all, and may even be wrong in places. So much for revering it as a perfect, sacred document.
"Compromise" means "surrender" in Republispeak. When referring to Republicans it means "shameful, totally unacceptable, abject surrender to the Enemy." Hence statements rejecting any and all compromise. Meanwhile, when Republicans claim the Democrats won't compromise, they mean "the Democrats refuse to surrender to us 100% and want 10% of what they'd asked for." So again "compromise" means "abject surrender" here as well, only in the other direction."
Several other factors contribute to Republican success, down on the process level.
One is the fact that Americans are sorting themselves out, moving to communities of like-minded people more and more, making Red and Blue regions Redder and Bluer.
Another is our winner-take all voting system, in which slight majorities confer total victory, making it unnecessary to build heterogeneous coalitions.
And another is our 24 hour news cycle combined with modern imaging technology, enabling newscasts to instill terror in viewers vastly out of proportion to the actual dangers involved, simultaneously blinding them to worse dangers that can't be imaged as successfully.
Thus you can use ultrasounds to make embryos seem sentient, while overpopulation statistics are dry piles of numbers. Every gory crime from anywhere in the nation can get wall to wall coverage for days, terrorizing people, while the rapid depletion of the porous aquifer is invisible and unnoticed (until it's too late).
The result of all this is that it's becoming harder and harder to have a constructive dialog with a Republican.
Often your only hope is to try to get under their umbrella of paranoia--possibly by arguing within the Republiverse to show how their position on something actually runs contrary to their own principles or is too extreme--by their lights--an extension of those principles.
Good luck with that. Trouble, the Republican Ministry of Propaganda is so well-financed voices of reason get drowned out by their giant bullhorn, which makes you look like an oddball outlier compared to what they believe is not just true but axiomatic, and thus not to be questioned.
Starving Somalis
Few show sufficient interest in understanding why a situation exists before they try to "fix" it. In computer science this is called GIGO (Garbage in, garbage out)--that is, when you apply logical processes to a mis-formulated problem, the results will not be useful, no matter how impeccable the logic.
As far as the famine in Somalia goes, pretty much all of the news coverage has failed to show any interest in why so many Somalis are starving, simply attributing it to drought.
Well, "drought" is our name for an area getting less rain than it had gotten previously. Except "previously" gets measured in decades--that is, a human timeframe, not centuries, the real timeframe for most climate cycles.
The plain fact is that Somalia contains more Somalis than Somalia can feed. That's what you get when the world's population quadruples over the last century or so--and even today is increasing by over 140 people EVERY MINUTE, even after deaths are factored in. And since more industrialized nations now have low birthrates, the statistical increase is vastly higher in the third world.
Moreover, the overpopulation itself contributes to climate change, as people chop down every tree for charcoal/firewood/huts, the topsoil washes off, and the herds of cattle and goats eat everything the locals didn't chop down, all resulting in desertification, which makes local climate drier.
No Somalis would be starving if Somalia's population were at a level Somalia could sustain.
But credible estimates now say that for Earth to sustain its current human population, we'd need 1.4 Earths.
So until you can come up with .4 more Earth to accommodate our race's fecundity, Somalia's only real "solution" is war, famine, disease, and starvation. Feeding Somalis with no thought to containing procreation only kicks the can down the road.
Yet humans continue to think at the level of chimpanzees, only reacting to what's under their noses, with no thought to causes or consequences.
Same goes for the conspiracy theorists who attribute the famine to Western sources (manipulating food prices etc.)--if Somalia weren't grotesquely overpopulated it wouldn't be dependent on foreign aid or theorized manipulations.
Now Western countries and NGOs are rushing to try to bring food to starving Somalis. Even if they do get past the paranoid Islamic fanatics who control much of Somalia, all this aid will do is contribute to future starvation and future aid attempts in an endless cycle, unless we address the root causes.
As far as the famine in Somalia goes, pretty much all of the news coverage has failed to show any interest in why so many Somalis are starving, simply attributing it to drought.
Well, "drought" is our name for an area getting less rain than it had gotten previously. Except "previously" gets measured in decades--that is, a human timeframe, not centuries, the real timeframe for most climate cycles.
The plain fact is that Somalia contains more Somalis than Somalia can feed. That's what you get when the world's population quadruples over the last century or so--and even today is increasing by over 140 people EVERY MINUTE, even after deaths are factored in. And since more industrialized nations now have low birthrates, the statistical increase is vastly higher in the third world.
Moreover, the overpopulation itself contributes to climate change, as people chop down every tree for charcoal/firewood/huts, the topsoil washes off, and the herds of cattle and goats eat everything the locals didn't chop down, all resulting in desertification, which makes local climate drier.
No Somalis would be starving if Somalia's population were at a level Somalia could sustain.
But credible estimates now say that for Earth to sustain its current human population, we'd need 1.4 Earths.
So until you can come up with .4 more Earth to accommodate our race's fecundity, Somalia's only real "solution" is war, famine, disease, and starvation. Feeding Somalis with no thought to containing procreation only kicks the can down the road.
Yet humans continue to think at the level of chimpanzees, only reacting to what's under their noses, with no thought to causes or consequences.
Same goes for the conspiracy theorists who attribute the famine to Western sources (manipulating food prices etc.)--if Somalia weren't grotesquely overpopulated it wouldn't be dependent on foreign aid or theorized manipulations.
Now Western countries and NGOs are rushing to try to bring food to starving Somalis. Even if they do get past the paranoid Islamic fanatics who control much of Somalia, all this aid will do is contribute to future starvation and future aid attempts in an endless cycle, unless we address the root causes.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Business needs Predictability
Wait, wasn't it the Republican Party saying every day in every way that the #1 task for government was to provide a stable, predictable environment for business so jobs would be created?
And now the selfsame party has taught businesses here and abroad that America's ascendant party is willing to put welching on our debts on the table? Even if they now agreed to pass a clean debt limit bill good until after the next election, considerable damage has already been done.
In business, what is your word worth? What happens to your business if your customers, suppliers and competitors find out that your word isn't solid?
When your neighbor starts waving a gun around, even if he doesn't shoot it--you're going to treat him very, very differently thereafter.
Especially when this crisis came from the Republicans tying our willingness to pay our bills to our incurring future debts.
But even if we cut up all our national credit cards we still have to pay our debts. Even if you disagree about whether we should have incurred those debts, that has nothing to do with paying our debts.
And if the deficit does matter--unlike what the #2 Republican said from 2000-2008--what the GOP has already done is driving interest rates up on government borrowing, because we're seen as less trustworthy now by foreign lenders.
Which will drive the deficit up as even more government income--i.e. the taxes we all pay--is diverted from actually doing things to debt service.
So the Republicans preach economic stability, then sabotage it; they preach deficit reduction, then raise our deficit wholly unnecessarily; they preach conservatism, then act like whirley-eyed bomb-throwing anarchists.
Should I just assume that when the Republican leadership says anything they actually mean its exact opposite?
And now the selfsame party has taught businesses here and abroad that America's ascendant party is willing to put welching on our debts on the table? Even if they now agreed to pass a clean debt limit bill good until after the next election, considerable damage has already been done.
In business, what is your word worth? What happens to your business if your customers, suppliers and competitors find out that your word isn't solid?
When your neighbor starts waving a gun around, even if he doesn't shoot it--you're going to treat him very, very differently thereafter.
Especially when this crisis came from the Republicans tying our willingness to pay our bills to our incurring future debts.
But even if we cut up all our national credit cards we still have to pay our debts. Even if you disagree about whether we should have incurred those debts, that has nothing to do with paying our debts.
And if the deficit does matter--unlike what the #2 Republican said from 2000-2008--what the GOP has already done is driving interest rates up on government borrowing, because we're seen as less trustworthy now by foreign lenders.
Which will drive the deficit up as even more government income--i.e. the taxes we all pay--is diverted from actually doing things to debt service.
So the Republicans preach economic stability, then sabotage it; they preach deficit reduction, then raise our deficit wholly unnecessarily; they preach conservatism, then act like whirley-eyed bomb-throwing anarchists.
Should I just assume that when the Republican leadership says anything they actually mean its exact opposite?
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
taxing for the wealthy
America has a $400B/yr. wealth budget where we give tax breaks for things deemed to be good social policy, including the home mortgage interest deduction; the second is money we don't pay on taxes for retirement money that's been set aside. The top 1% of taxpayers receive 45% of the wealth budget of the USA; the bottom 60% receives 3% of that.
--according to Dr. Thomas Shapiro, professor of law & social policy at
Brandeis University
--according to Dr. Thomas Shapiro, professor of law & social policy at
Brandeis University
If we'd had a balanced budget amendment in the 1860s...
...the South would have won the Civil War. Lincoln went deep into the red to win the war. He also instituted the federal income tax to help pay for the war BTW. So the federal income tax is a Republican idea.
The nation's finances are exactly like your personal finances. Really?
Let's say for the sake of argument that Republicans are right to equate the finances of the United States of America with those of a private citzen's household.
And that's the rationale for trying to amend the Constitution of the United States to force government to balance its budget--because households have to balance their budgets.
If conservatives raise this issue with you, ask them if they're homeowners--and if so, how long it took them to raise enough cash to buy their home for cash.
Because if they bought the home on time, using a mortgage or two, that makes them hypocrites.
Yes, we should generally live within our means. But we also need the leeway to make exceptions--to buy a house, to meet an emergency, to take a second mortgage to finance starting a small business--things like that. To deny the federal government the leeway nearly all of us expect for our own personal finances simply expresses hatred of the government.
That hatred is felt by many white Southerners, still angry over the racial integration forced on them in the 1970s. It's felt by the 5,000 or so American citizens who own the bulk of America's wealth, because as a group they feel entitled to every cent of their income and no obligation to help the poor (this has been shown in polls of the very rich)--and they hate the federal government for trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to regulate their business activities in any way (particularly their penchant for corporate welfare, which is much more lucrative than actually producing and selling goods and services).
And this hatred for the federal government is also felt by many millions of voters who have been successfully propagandized by the Republican Ministry of Propaganda, such that they believe those who prey on them are actually their benefactors, and vice versa. This is easy to do because humans are easy to manipulate about such things. We want to identify with rich people. We don't want to identify with anyone who anyone might think of as a Loser.
So a balanced budget amendment has nothing--zero--to do with forcing government to observe the same rules that your own family or a business has to observe.
It has to do with hating goverment--a hatred the Republican Party leadership has been promoting ever since FDR's New Deal, which gave us Social Security among other things.
Let's call a spade a spade.
And that's the rationale for trying to amend the Constitution of the United States to force government to balance its budget--because households have to balance their budgets.
If conservatives raise this issue with you, ask them if they're homeowners--and if so, how long it took them to raise enough cash to buy their home for cash.
Because if they bought the home on time, using a mortgage or two, that makes them hypocrites.
Yes, we should generally live within our means. But we also need the leeway to make exceptions--to buy a house, to meet an emergency, to take a second mortgage to finance starting a small business--things like that. To deny the federal government the leeway nearly all of us expect for our own personal finances simply expresses hatred of the government.
That hatred is felt by many white Southerners, still angry over the racial integration forced on them in the 1970s. It's felt by the 5,000 or so American citizens who own the bulk of America's wealth, because as a group they feel entitled to every cent of their income and no obligation to help the poor (this has been shown in polls of the very rich)--and they hate the federal government for trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to regulate their business activities in any way (particularly their penchant for corporate welfare, which is much more lucrative than actually producing and selling goods and services).
And this hatred for the federal government is also felt by many millions of voters who have been successfully propagandized by the Republican Ministry of Propaganda, such that they believe those who prey on them are actually their benefactors, and vice versa. This is easy to do because humans are easy to manipulate about such things. We want to identify with rich people. We don't want to identify with anyone who anyone might think of as a Loser.
So a balanced budget amendment has nothing--zero--to do with forcing government to observe the same rules that your own family or a business has to observe.
It has to do with hating goverment--a hatred the Republican Party leadership has been promoting ever since FDR's New Deal, which gave us Social Security among other things.
Let's call a spade a spade.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Abe speaks truth to power/$$$
“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes…. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong it’s reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
– Abraham Lincoln
from a comment on a Krugman column, from
– Abraham Lincoln
from a comment on a Krugman column, from
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
School testing
To be sure, we need testing. I think we should have a voluntary federal high school graduation exam that produces a federal high school diploma--that states your grade level of achievement in English, math, social studies, biology, and so forth. High schools can give diplomas based on attendance and grades. Then the graduate would be providing two diplomas to colleges and prospective employers. If there's a big disparity between them, and that disparity is statistically significant--that is, across lots of students--it will certainly draw attention to the teacher/school/district that has such a disparity.
Schools that don't buy into the voluntary federal test would be marked, even without financial sanctions from the feds.
That is, what really bothers me is former students with high school diplomas who can't really read or do arithmetic, or figure out a contract or a ballot. This cheats both the student and the college/employer.
Suppose the federal and state government do nothing about teachers/schools/districts where there is a big disparity. I bet the voters in that district will--especially when colleges and employers start telling them their kids' high school diplomas are worthless. That is, the world will revoke those schools' credentials even if the credentialing authorities don't.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
At the same time, a given teacher's students could do well or poorly for reasons outside the teacher's control. The real solution is principals who can and will get rid of poor teachers, based on the teacher's in-person knowledge--and holding principals responsible for their teachers' performance, since, unlike the teachers, they would be able to choose their teachers, while teachers can't choose their students.
This would mean treating schools by business standards--no tenure for anyone, and using the personal knowledge of your managers onsite to determine who's doing a good job. Teachers are not managers of their students, so the analogy applies to principals where you don't have tenure, but not to teachers.
With or without abolishing tenure, though, my federal voluntary system has the advantages of being relatively cheap and relatively doable. State and local rights are in no way infringed, especially since the testing wouldn't be tied to federal aid.
Schools that don't buy into the voluntary federal test would be marked, even without financial sanctions from the feds.
That is, what really bothers me is former students with high school diplomas who can't really read or do arithmetic, or figure out a contract or a ballot. This cheats both the student and the college/employer.
Suppose the federal and state government do nothing about teachers/schools/districts where there is a big disparity. I bet the voters in that district will--especially when colleges and employers start telling them their kids' high school diplomas are worthless. That is, the world will revoke those schools' credentials even if the credentialing authorities don't.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
At the same time, a given teacher's students could do well or poorly for reasons outside the teacher's control. The real solution is principals who can and will get rid of poor teachers, based on the teacher's in-person knowledge--and holding principals responsible for their teachers' performance, since, unlike the teachers, they would be able to choose their teachers, while teachers can't choose their students.
This would mean treating schools by business standards--no tenure for anyone, and using the personal knowledge of your managers onsite to determine who's doing a good job. Teachers are not managers of their students, so the analogy applies to principals where you don't have tenure, but not to teachers.
With or without abolishing tenure, though, my federal voluntary system has the advantages of being relatively cheap and relatively doable. State and local rights are in no way infringed, especially since the testing wouldn't be tied to federal aid.
sealed fate
Clever cult leaders' first priority is to isolate their followers from anyone and anything that might contradict what the cult leader says.
This goes beyond neutralizing active foes of your cult. It must include neutral parties as well, and even friends who don't toe the line 100%. "If you aren't for us you're against us."
Thus the GOP's efforts to rid itself of anyone who's a "RINO"--that is, any Republican who talks to a Democrat, cooperates with a Democrat, compromises with a Democrat, or advocates raising any taxes under any circumstances--especially including tax loopholes for the rich.
And thus the GOP's efforts to smear fact-checking sites like Factcheck.org and Politifact.org.
Ironic, since both sites frequently ding Democrats from Congressmen to the President. But that doesn't count because they also ding Republicans.
The lesson for GOP rank and file is you must get all your news and analysis from approved sources--anyone outside the circled wagons is suspect..probably a spy.
On the subliminal level the GOP propaganda machine cultivates personal animosity towards anyone who might contradict the party line, so that GOP tribesmen simply can't stand to hear the targeted person's voice. Paul Krugman & Rachel Maddow come to mind.This animosity then prevents them from taking in anything they say.
As part of this tribalism it cultivates black & white thinking. Thus, since Paul Krugman isn't factually correct 100% of the time there's no reason to listen to him any time.
Which brings me back to Factcheck.org. I've studied immigration issues for a long time and I believe factcheck.org doesn't always deal from the top of the deck on this issue. Yet elsewhere they seem to be solid, and they certainly criticize both Democrats and Republicans.
Yet I've seen GOP rank and file simply dismiss Factcheck.org out of hand because of some gotcha.
At the same time the national propaganda machine--and many conservative sites--quote Factcheck.org when it suits them. It's as if they put a filter over the site's output that clears away anything criticizing Republicans while delivering everything that criticizes Democrats.
That's consistent with tribalism, where tribal emotions wrap around every factual or logical consideration like a strangler fig around a giant rainforest tree.
Of course there is a Democratic propaganda machine and it does shade the truth, demonize the opposition, and try to encourage tribalism. They're just kind of half-hearted about it, while the GOP hasn't the slightest qualms.
And there is a reality out there. Thus the Lefties hated on Bush, the Righties hate on Obama. But the last nationwide survey of presidential historians showed a solid consensus putting Obama in 15th place among US presidents--and Bush II 6th from the bottom (above more than one crummy Democratic prez, to be sure).
My point is that despising one of the worst presidents in the nation's history--who needlessly sent thousands of servicemen to their deaths--is a very different kettle of fish from despising a president who, while not in the top bracket, shares a respectable high-middle ground (a few places higher than Reagan).
One represents a response to reality; the other a response to tribal dancing around a bonfire. Those are not equivalent.
This goes beyond neutralizing active foes of your cult. It must include neutral parties as well, and even friends who don't toe the line 100%. "If you aren't for us you're against us."
Thus the GOP's efforts to rid itself of anyone who's a "RINO"--that is, any Republican who talks to a Democrat, cooperates with a Democrat, compromises with a Democrat, or advocates raising any taxes under any circumstances--especially including tax loopholes for the rich.
And thus the GOP's efforts to smear fact-checking sites like Factcheck.org and Politifact.org.
Ironic, since both sites frequently ding Democrats from Congressmen to the President. But that doesn't count because they also ding Republicans.
The lesson for GOP rank and file is you must get all your news and analysis from approved sources--anyone outside the circled wagons is suspect..probably a spy.
On the subliminal level the GOP propaganda machine cultivates personal animosity towards anyone who might contradict the party line, so that GOP tribesmen simply can't stand to hear the targeted person's voice. Paul Krugman & Rachel Maddow come to mind.This animosity then prevents them from taking in anything they say.
As part of this tribalism it cultivates black & white thinking. Thus, since Paul Krugman isn't factually correct 100% of the time there's no reason to listen to him any time.
Which brings me back to Factcheck.org. I've studied immigration issues for a long time and I believe factcheck.org doesn't always deal from the top of the deck on this issue. Yet elsewhere they seem to be solid, and they certainly criticize both Democrats and Republicans.
Yet I've seen GOP rank and file simply dismiss Factcheck.org out of hand because of some gotcha.
At the same time the national propaganda machine--and many conservative sites--quote Factcheck.org when it suits them. It's as if they put a filter over the site's output that clears away anything criticizing Republicans while delivering everything that criticizes Democrats.
That's consistent with tribalism, where tribal emotions wrap around every factual or logical consideration like a strangler fig around a giant rainforest tree.
Of course there is a Democratic propaganda machine and it does shade the truth, demonize the opposition, and try to encourage tribalism. They're just kind of half-hearted about it, while the GOP hasn't the slightest qualms.
And there is a reality out there. Thus the Lefties hated on Bush, the Righties hate on Obama. But the last nationwide survey of presidential historians showed a solid consensus putting Obama in 15th place among US presidents--and Bush II 6th from the bottom (above more than one crummy Democratic prez, to be sure).
My point is that despising one of the worst presidents in the nation's history--who needlessly sent thousands of servicemen to their deaths--is a very different kettle of fish from despising a president who, while not in the top bracket, shares a respectable high-middle ground (a few places higher than Reagan).
One represents a response to reality; the other a response to tribal dancing around a bonfire. Those are not equivalent.
Friday, July 15, 2011
"Tax hikes destroy jobs" --Speaker of the House John Boehner
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the richest 10% of Americans pay half of all taxes.
Republicans cite this all the time.
They don't add this fact from the same source:
The richest 10% of Americans get 40% of all American income.
Which means that they only pay a little more on their income than do the other 90%. So we have nearly a flat tax, in effect.
And it means the constant harping on that 10% pay 50% is true but it's a lie when you say it and imply that everyone else is getting a free ride. We aren't. We're just getting soaked by the unquenchable greed of the richest.
Oh, and if "tax hikes destroy jobs," then tax cuts create jobs, right? One can't be true without the other.
Well, the Bush Era was historically lousy in jobs creation as corporate America closed our plants and shipped the jobs to China etc., even as taxes on the rich sank to historic lows.
But watch the face of a self-styled conservative when you tell them this. Momentary consternation, followed by challenging your facts, then discounting the source, whatever it is--even, as in this case, the nonpartisan CBO that Republicans cite constantly when a report favors their side--or can be cherrypicked to seem so.
Their commitment is to their ideology, not the truth.
I should add that Democrats have their sacred cows too of course. They just aren't trying to wreck our country quite as vigorously as the GOP is right now.
Republicans cite this all the time.
They don't add this fact from the same source:
The richest 10% of Americans get 40% of all American income.
Which means that they only pay a little more on their income than do the other 90%. So we have nearly a flat tax, in effect.
And it means the constant harping on that 10% pay 50% is true but it's a lie when you say it and imply that everyone else is getting a free ride. We aren't. We're just getting soaked by the unquenchable greed of the richest.
Oh, and if "tax hikes destroy jobs," then tax cuts create jobs, right? One can't be true without the other.
Well, the Bush Era was historically lousy in jobs creation as corporate America closed our plants and shipped the jobs to China etc., even as taxes on the rich sank to historic lows.
But watch the face of a self-styled conservative when you tell them this. Momentary consternation, followed by challenging your facts, then discounting the source, whatever it is--even, as in this case, the nonpartisan CBO that Republicans cite constantly when a report favors their side--or can be cherrypicked to seem so.
Their commitment is to their ideology, not the truth.
I should add that Democrats have their sacred cows too of course. They just aren't trying to wreck our country quite as vigorously as the GOP is right now.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
NPR should register as a foreign agent
Right now I'm listening to a segment on NPR narrated by the legal daughter of illegal immigrants. She starts crying as she talks about her parents being "undocumented." 16 year old Alicia Martinez is the narrator.
When you listen to it you want to give her parents citizenship. She sounds like a great kid. They sound like great parents.
But this is argument by anecdote, and NPR does it constantly, along with our local PBS TV station.
My problem with this is that it's lying with the truth.
Because they never, ever run anything about illegal immigration that presents them as anything but saints walking on this Earth.
So each anecdote is true, but the accumulated weight of all these anecdotal accounts is wildly distorted.
Not one American has ever had a love one killed by an illegal immigration, or had their car totaled by an illegal immigrant drunk driver, or been unable to get unskilled work because it had been given to illegals, or discovered that the teenaged girls being trafficked had illegal alien pimps.
Either none of those things happen--and there an no illegal immigrants in the prison system--or NPR and PBS is lying with truth, using their repertorial chops to manufacture one-sided propaganda.
This is because Liberal America believes that if anyone's "rights" aren't honored, a police state will ensue, leading to Nazi death camps. This is so powerful a belief that it overrides any concerns about the consequences of such indiscriminate tub-thumping on behalf of anyone--anyone--who really, really, wants American citizenship.
Hello, at least two billion of Earth's population want American citizenship. And most of them would excite your sympathy if you looked at their individual case.
But we are different from Chimpanzees in that we're capable of thinking about long-term consequence; of understanding arithmatic; of realizing that short-term kindness can lead to long-term evil.
The fact that racists oppose illegal immigration of non-Anglos does mean that everyone who opposes illegal immigration is a racist. This is guilt by association, something liberals abhor--except when they do it....
When you listen to it you want to give her parents citizenship. She sounds like a great kid. They sound like great parents.
But this is argument by anecdote, and NPR does it constantly, along with our local PBS TV station.
My problem with this is that it's lying with the truth.
Because they never, ever run anything about illegal immigration that presents them as anything but saints walking on this Earth.
So each anecdote is true, but the accumulated weight of all these anecdotal accounts is wildly distorted.
Not one American has ever had a love one killed by an illegal immigration, or had their car totaled by an illegal immigrant drunk driver, or been unable to get unskilled work because it had been given to illegals, or discovered that the teenaged girls being trafficked had illegal alien pimps.
Either none of those things happen--and there an no illegal immigrants in the prison system--or NPR and PBS is lying with truth, using their repertorial chops to manufacture one-sided propaganda.
This is because Liberal America believes that if anyone's "rights" aren't honored, a police state will ensue, leading to Nazi death camps. This is so powerful a belief that it overrides any concerns about the consequences of such indiscriminate tub-thumping on behalf of anyone--anyone--who really, really, wants American citizenship.
Hello, at least two billion of Earth's population want American citizenship. And most of them would excite your sympathy if you looked at their individual case.
But we are different from Chimpanzees in that we're capable of thinking about long-term consequence; of understanding arithmatic; of realizing that short-term kindness can lead to long-term evil.
The fact that racists oppose illegal immigration of non-Anglos does mean that everyone who opposes illegal immigration is a racist. This is guilt by association, something liberals abhor--except when they do it....
Turns out corporate CEOs don't make 431 times the average worker's pay
Politifact.com assessed a Leftie bumper sticker making that claim. In their article they determined that it was an exaggeration. They said it was the product of a liberal think tank comparing S&P 500 CEO wages with average American workers' wages--not average S&P 500 peons' wages. So it's comparing apples and oranges.
I did some back-of-envelope calculations and came up with 100--corporate CEOs make about 100 times what their own peons make. Which means that these CEOs get in less than four days what their grunt workers get in a year.
What is undisputed is the between WWII and the Reagan Revolution, CEOs made about 20 times what their peons made. Which is still what CEOs make in other industrialized countries. Our current ration has diverged so much from other industrialized countries that it now resembles that of Russia and Mexico.
Put another way, these CEOs have appropriated virtually all the rise in America's GDP over the past 40 years.
But as per my last entry, Republicans treat this as simply the Hand of Fate at work. Especially since this is the answer to the "fact" right wing commentators state hourly over Republican Radio and Republican Television: the statistic that a few percent of Americans pay the bulk of the taxes, and half of Americans pay no taxes.
First, that's a lie. Half of Americans pay plenty of taxes--just not income taxes. So many regressive taxes are built into our overall tax structure that they get soaked disproportionately. Second, the hyper-rich pay more taxes because they're appropriated virtually all of America's increase in GDP for forty years.
So when your conservative friends mention this trope about the rich paying most taxes, ask them what explanation do they have for the fact that they now get 100 times what their peons make instead of 20. Making 20 times as much isn't sufficient incentive? It is in other countries. It was in the 50s, 60s and 70s, which were full of economic increase and job creation.
Even at 20 times what the average worker makes, it means that CEO gets a year's worth of peon salary every 18 days.
Hard to believe that at such a ratio these CEO types would be just too depressed about their poverty to build companies and "create jobs."
One last thing: I was comparing CEO pay to American worker pay at comparable companies. But the average American S&P 500 companies has many of its employees abroad, mostly in third world countries.
So if you add that to figuring the ratio of CEO pay....you may find that the original figure of 431 is way too modest. It may be more like 1,000 times or more.
I did some back-of-envelope calculations and came up with 100--corporate CEOs make about 100 times what their own peons make. Which means that these CEOs get in less than four days what their grunt workers get in a year.
What is undisputed is the between WWII and the Reagan Revolution, CEOs made about 20 times what their peons made. Which is still what CEOs make in other industrialized countries. Our current ration has diverged so much from other industrialized countries that it now resembles that of Russia and Mexico.
Put another way, these CEOs have appropriated virtually all the rise in America's GDP over the past 40 years.
But as per my last entry, Republicans treat this as simply the Hand of Fate at work. Especially since this is the answer to the "fact" right wing commentators state hourly over Republican Radio and Republican Television: the statistic that a few percent of Americans pay the bulk of the taxes, and half of Americans pay no taxes.
First, that's a lie. Half of Americans pay plenty of taxes--just not income taxes. So many regressive taxes are built into our overall tax structure that they get soaked disproportionately. Second, the hyper-rich pay more taxes because they're appropriated virtually all of America's increase in GDP for forty years.
So when your conservative friends mention this trope about the rich paying most taxes, ask them what explanation do they have for the fact that they now get 100 times what their peons make instead of 20. Making 20 times as much isn't sufficient incentive? It is in other countries. It was in the 50s, 60s and 70s, which were full of economic increase and job creation.
Even at 20 times what the average worker makes, it means that CEO gets a year's worth of peon salary every 18 days.
Hard to believe that at such a ratio these CEO types would be just too depressed about their poverty to build companies and "create jobs."
One last thing: I was comparing CEO pay to American worker pay at comparable companies. But the average American S&P 500 companies has many of its employees abroad, mostly in third world countries.
So if you add that to figuring the ratio of CEO pay....you may find that the original figure of 431 is way too modest. It may be more like 1,000 times or more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)