Logical Negativism

Bill Moyers is Back! Yay!! Etc.

2012-01-15T13:03:00.000-05:00

It's only been 20 months since Bill Moyers, that voice of reason and the underprivileged, announced his retirement, well-earned and not surprising, from his PBS television show Bill Moyers' Journal, on which he had hosted and rabbleroused for some 4-5 years. This was, as near as I can calculate, his fourth or fifth retirement from American television. His other TV efforts included Bill Moyers on America, NOW with Bill Moyers, In Search of the Constitution, The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis, The Power of Myth, the original Bill Moyers' Journal, and that only takes us back to 1971. He worked in print journalism for 4 or 5 years before that.

So now that I've given you the precis version of Moyers' resume, let me urge you to watch his newest program, Bill Moyers & Company. His first guests are the co-authors of another one of those books that I think everyone should read, Winner-Take-All Politics, by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. In an approximately 40-minute interview, the discussion of how our country ended up in such a place of income and wealth inequality will make you raise an eyebrow or two, but all three participants present their theses so clearly and without undue passion that it is hard to dispute any portion of what they say. I suspect those who will dispute the most will be those very 1%-ers who are discussed at some length in the interview, and who are benefitting the most from the situation.

I have to say, if there is any person in America who does not know that the wealth in America is tipping toward the top severely, that person is probably one of the beneficiaries of the tipping, and is not taking notice so much.

Folks, America is in trouble. The rich are becoming richer, and the poor are becoming poorer. The middle class, of which I s claim membership, is dwindling down to almost nothing, both in influence and in sheer numbers. And the rich are unrepentant, as one might expect them to be, but they are short-sighted! As I have asked several times in the past, perhaps slightly jokingly, but not now, if the rich take EVERYTHING (Winner-take-all), what will happen to the rest of us, and what will the rich do without us to cook for them, clean for them, wipe their noses and their asses?

Do they propose to own us, so that the expense of our services is minimized? Because there is NO way I will believe that these overstuffed bags of shit are simply going to do without. That's the beauty of being obscenely wealthy - you don't have to do without anything, and you don't have to do anything unpleasant for yourself.

It sounds like an unlikely sequence of events, but we're moving toward it even now! I mean, at the current rate of events, we could reach a place where the top 1% of the population will be taking 70-80% of the resources available to the nation. They're already taking over 40% of those resources - that is a stat mentioned in the Moyers program today.

So - as the band Chicago asked in a song of the same name some years ago - Where do we go from here?

Well, I suggest you join the Occupy folks. No telling where that's going, but someone has to speak out against this insufferable greed and theft. And if I am to be perfectly frank, the so-far illogical, but moving toward making perfect sense conclusion to this is - Revolution!

Like the French Revolution - Let them eat cake, indeed!

There is more to say on this topic - I'd like to let you say at least some of it. Send your comments. I promise, all those that are not TOTALLY insane will get published.

Vive la revolution!!!
r

The only answer to the problem

2011-12-25T18:42:00.002-05:00

Well, finally - I mean, fucking finally!!! A guy with a national voice actually says something that I've been saying off and on for YEARS!!

Guy named Jeffrey Sachs, frequent NPR commentator if I am remembering correctly, said in an on-air rant the other day that virtually all Congressdogs, both houses, are owned by their business and industry handlers, and what the voters of this country must do is to make being voted out of office a real fear for these scumbags.

There have been discussions along these lines for decades: term limits for Congress,scaring the bastards with anti-incumbency movements, etc. But nothing ever took hold - and since the Congressdogs themselves were responsible for any legislation that might put the fear of God into them, there was little chance of anything happening on the floor-vote level. This remains true today.

So the only way we can take back control of Congress (as if we ever had control in the past) is to get serious about making moves toward either term limits - vote out any 'Dog who won't support them - or simply organize for anti-incumbency. And we have to be serious about it.

Can we do it? So far, the main move has been for us to say that all Congress is a bunch of thieving bastards EXCEPT our guy - which makes anti-incumbency worth about a half a bucket of warm spit.

I mean, C'MON, people - we have to vote 'em ALL out - even the few that might actually be reasonably decent public servants. Every 4-6 years in the House, and every 12 years in the Senate, there has to be a complete turnover - all new guys.

And if we ever want our country back, and to relieve that simply unfathomable debt, we HAVE to do it. There's no other way.

Is there?

He is the very model of a modern Repug asshole

2011-12-22T20:17:00.000-05:00

UPDATE BELOW

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Dishonorable Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI*)- who just last evening had the indecent and unmitigated gall to comment on the ass of the First Lady of the United States.

That's right, he referred to Michelle Obama's backside as a "large posterior".

Now tell me, is there a ruder or bigger piece of shit anywhere in the United States than James Sensenbrenner?

Just as a point of information, African (not necessarily African AMERICAN, though sometimes it is so) women are prone to a condition known as stertopygia, or large buttocks. It's a racial characteristic, and the closer the woman is generationally to Africa, the more likely she is to suffer this condition. Or so I am told by a medical man who is supposed to know these things.

But A) Michelle Obama does NOT suffer it to a large degree, and B) she is the First Lady of the United States and thus due some greater respect than Assh. Sensenbrenner has afforded her, and C) Jim Sensenbrenner is an unrequited asshole whose momma must not have taught him any manners.

Oh, I'm sorry - Sensenbrenner is a Republican. None of the above, therefore, may or should come as a surprise to anyone. ANYone. I mean it. God, these people make me want to throw up.

And I'd love to see the President call Mr. SenSen out, and thrash the crap out of him for insulting Obama's wife.

Sadly, we don't do things that way anymore. But maybe sometimes we should.

UPDATE : Assh. Sensenbrenner apologized for this incident. Doesn't count. He knew he never
should have said it in the first place. It is the height of arrogant racism that he ever said it in the first place. And yes, racism is what it was. If our First Lady were white, this incident would never - NEVER! - have occurred.
.

Office of Congressional Child Supervision

2011-12-03T17:58:00.000-05:00

by Rich Miles

Man, I'm tellin' ya, the new formatting on Blogger has given me fits!! I've been trying to make some minor alterations to the following article for over 24 hours, and finally had to delete the whole thing and repost it. Where's the instruction sheet for this bitch?

I'm sorry I've been so long between postings - I've been unwell. I'm a little better, but not what I'd call back to normal. After my stroke - NOT Hashimoto's Encephalopathy, as previously diagnosed - I am a little better, but not totally back to normal. Not sure I ever will be, but at least I'm better than I was right after the event.

Anyway, unwell or no, there are a few matters I want to point up, to wit:

Republicans are an entire herd of one-trick ponies, whose only trick is tax cuts. I mean really, when was the last time you heard of a Republican in Congress proposing, pushing and passing anything BUT tax cuts?

Republicans have gotten away with that trick long enough - since the first few months of Shrub's first term, or approximately 10 years - they've pushed almost literally nothing but tax cuts. And we - the American electorate - have let them get away with it. They've shown their wholesale lack of respect for the intelligence of the American people by behaving as if it were just inconceivable that any American would ever vote against a candidate who was instrumental in the creation of a tax cut.

And with few exceptions, until the last couple of election cycles, they've been RIGHT. We have been just that stupid, to let the Republicans dangle the shiny beads of tax cuts in front of us, and we've followed the Republicans over the cliff of tax cuts.

And now the country is in an absolutely inconceivable deficit mess at almost every level, and America is on the verge of bankruptcy. And because we have a Democratic president, the Republicans are getting away with blaming Obama for debt that could not possibly be his fault.

And ya know what? I am almost positive that this entire mess is intentional on the part of the Repugnicans.

The song goes like this: tax cut, deficit, reasoning for cutting social services, more tax cuts, bigger deficits, etc., etc.

And we keep letting the bastards do it!!

What America needs to do is to turn its attitudes toward its legislators around: they're not big important men who should be listened to. They're our employees, who should damn well do what we tell them to do!! How do you think that would play, us telling them that they work for us and that there will be no more perks, no more legislative skullduggery, no more insider trading, no more lack of oversight etc. etc.

Because it's true - they work for us, and they must be forced to do what their bosses want them to do!!!

With computers capable of doing feats of data crunching unheard of as recently as 10 years ago, I would favor a system of national referenda counted by computer, and supervised by a Cabinet-level Office of Supervision of the Children in Congress.

In other words, every time a vote comes up in Congress, Americans would express their opinions via national computer poll. And that way, Congress would know what to do. How to vote, how to speak on the Floor, When to jump and how high. You know, stuff like that. And in order to be hired to the Cabinet-level office that oversees all this, one would have to prove that one is capable of really BEING non-partisan!

So if all this went into action, we'd be at our home computers, voting for legislation, once or twice a day or more. Then we'd know what the will of the people really is!

No more leaving these assholes to their own devices, to get the country into all manner of messes. We'd know what they were doing, maybe even be able to reduce the instances of sexual misconduct and insider trading. And maybe the sort of men and women attracted to run for Congress would improve a bit, as having a seat in the House or Senate ceased to be like one big frat party, with occasional classes to interrupt the nonstop partying.

And the beauty of this plan is that, as I have conceived it, it wouldn't even require a constitutional amendment. Floor votes, certainly, but not an amendment.

Of course, all this is so unlikely to happen, because just as with congressional labor laws, and congressional health coverage, and congressional child labor laws, the foxes are the ones running the hen coop. I'm afraid I can't even offer a hint of a solution to that.

But I say again, it needs to be done. Congress is a bloody mess, and no longer serves the American people in any but the most rudimentary fashion. Think it over. Then write me with any addendum to this solution that occurs to you. Hey, I'm enough of an optimist to believe that this could at least become a topic of discussion in our nation's capital.

2011-10-30T15:29:00.000-04:00

First time I've been here since the reformatting of the page. It's a little easier to operate by and large.Anyway, why am I here today? Well, I'm glad you asked. Got a little housekeeping to take care of, to wit:

Cletis, you have my blanket permission, till rescinded, to reprint anything of mine you wish, as long as you credit me. Use your judgment as to how many pieces you should do this with. This permission does NOT apply to any other site. If you want reprint permission, please ask for it.The reason I've been away for so long, almost 6 months by my count, is that my medical condition has gotten worse. In some regards, however, better. My daily function level is higher, and I am able to remember things better in SOME cases. I have discovered a process in which I must try to "shove" items from short-term memory into long-term memory, where they will be more readily retained. My LTM is pretty much intact - I can remember things that happened 55 years ago - but the STM is in tatters! It's a most unpleasant sensation sometimes.Secondly, my apologies to all the commenters whose comments have sat in the waiting queue for months. I hope I've got them all public now.Thirdly, my diagnosis has changed entirely - I am now suspected of having had a low-level stroke, instead of all that other nonsense like Hashimoto's encephalopathy and fronto-temporal dementia etc. I haven't had a brain scan in over 3 years, and am going to try to get one soon. I just want to know what's going on in there, ya know what I mean?And finally, it's come to my attention that the Republicans have this most disconcerting habit: they WARN us of what they're going to do to the country, but they do it in such a way - so far - that it's hard to tell whether to take them seriously or not.

Tax cuts are not what they seem

2011-04-28T14:05:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

I try, God knows I try to help people think about things in new and different ways. Sometimes I succeed. Most times I don't so much.

But think about this: have you ever wondered why Republicans are so het up for tax cuts?

It's not because they think the average American is overtaxed.

It's not because they believe that government is too big, and too far up on the back of the average man.

And it's not because they think we deserve to have more of our money in our pockets instead of the government's.

No, it's none of these reasons, nor any of the other specious reasons they've tried to stuff down our throats, or shove up the other end of our alimentary canals.

It's quite simple, really: They believe that no electorate at large will ever vote out of office a politician who has reduced their taxes!

And so far, they've been mostly right. George W. Bush's first AND second terms were both the result of this belief structure. Especially the second one. For the first one, he had only promised, he hadn't actually done anything yet. And the stupid voters threw a monkey wrench into the works of Clinton's highly successful deficit reduction by falling for the ol' tax reduction two-step.

And they're going to keep on trying this ploy for as long as it works: No ungrateful wretches are ever going to vote out the people who just cut their taxes.

It's yet another way that Republicans are manipulating our electoral system. It's also yet another way that they're showing how stupid they think we are. They think they can run this okie-doke on 100 million voters over and over.

And like I said above, so far - they're right.

So enjoy your tax cuts, people - while the Repugs take away five times as much as you'll ever get from a tax cut, if you live to be 176.

Oh, shut up!!

2011-04-24T17:21:00.002-04:00

by Rich Miles

I guess my hiatus ends sooner than expected.

Interesting title to this piece, huh?

Anyway, the point of the title, and the point of this article, is that I am SICK TO EFFIN' DEATH of the rich bastards in this country whining about CLASS WAR!!

I mean, it's demonstrable that there is no class war in this country, because there are any rich people left. If there were a genuine class war going on in America, there would be dead rich people strewn all over hell and back.

But there aren't. More's the pity.

So anyway, here's the thing: rich people have been getting a free ride, or perhaps it would be better to call it a net-gaining ride, for decades now, and now that certain pundits are putting some rich people on the spot, and embarrassing the poor little lambs, that term keeps popping up: Class War. Class War. Class War.

But if it ever came to that, we poor people would lose, because we don't have the resources to buy the guns and hire the mercenaries. We'd be at a definite military disadvantage.

But then, we'd be much more pissed off. That counts for something. Doesn't it? We'd be much more motivated to off as many of the bastards as possible. Whereas hired soldiers wouldn't have such motivation, by and large

Anyway, yes - let me be clear on this point: there is indeed a cold class war being conducted in America today. Not a shooting war, of course, but a war nonetheless. Because rich people have been despicable shitbags for long enough. Yuppie scum. Robber barons. And the rest of us are just trying to get by. Literally.

I got nothing else to say here. I used to want to be rich. But not any longer. It would require me to become an asshole. Or more of one than I already am, anyway. I still want to have more money, but I wouldn't want to be rich.

So that's the class war for you in a nutshell. I'm sure books have been written on the topic, but that's the short version. Rich people are the most anti-democratic segment of this alleged democracy, and still they cry in their beer.

Rant over. For the moment.

Buh-bye for now

2011-04-13T19:16:00.003-04:00

Dear friends, I need a break. It's not like I was running a grueling schedule on this blog, but still, I simply need a break. So you will not see any new posts here for an indeterminate amount of time.

Thank you for your patience. I'll be back as soon as I can stand it.

Rich

Feeling kinda S.A.D.

2011-02-22T15:10:00.002-05:00

by Rich Miles

Anyone who reads this blog even remotely regularly will notice that I haven't written much on it lately. There is a good reason for this: it's the weather.

I have been for a number of years now an acute sufferer of S.A.D., or Seasonal Affective Disorder. Which is, in short terms, a deep sense of melancholy that takes place in the worst of the winter. When sunlight is rare, and gray skies are the norm, and temperatures are too cold to allow for much outdoor activity, and generally, the otherwise pleasant activity of going outdoors doesn't help in perking up the spirits in the dead of winter.

It's a recognized and medically-documented syndrome, causing more than the occasional suicide, and while I've never tried to kill myself, there has been more than one occasion when I have been curious as to what it would be like to be dead. But I didn't do it, because if I think it's dark and cold now, I can't even imagine what it would be like to be buried 6 feet under in the dead of winter.

So anyway, cheery as all these thoughts may be, I have had to contend with them for at least the last 40 years or so. And it hasn't been a bundle of fun, I can tell you that for free.

But at any rate, my life has not, so far, turned out the way I hoped it would. I lack any meaningful work. I lack meaningful connections with other people. I feel like I have alienated an awful lot of people, though they've all been inadvertent. I've managed to drive off at least a half-dozen people who were once important to me, but who now want nothing whatever to do with me. All inadvertently. I really didn't mean to drive them off. But nonetheless, I have driven them away. Part of it was my brain disease. But part of it wasn't. Or at least not as far as I can tell.

But anyway, lest I sound even more self-pitying than I already do, I'll see if I can't come to some sort of point in this essay.

I think the point must be that one must have meaningful work in amongst all the other things we need to live. Air, food, a warm place to live out of the elements, friends, lovers perhaps, and -- meaningful work. What 'meaningful' means is a moving target, but -- each person knows what it means most of the time. Working in a plastic bottle-making factory, shifting cartons of empty bottles from one side of the factory to another -- that's not meaningful. Creating the 'Mona Lisa' -- that's probably pretty meaningful.

Doing nothing at all -- that's not even remotely meaningful.

So anyway. I tend to come out of the S.A.D. symptoms when the weather starts being consistently warm. And I am the first to admit that my variety of S.A.D. is by no means the worst there is. People really do kill themselves or others sometimes simply because the sky is overcast yet again today - for the 22nd day in a row.

But just because mine is not the worst variety doesn't mean that it's not bad. It is.

If you've had this happen to you, I recommend a visit to a psychiatrist. Sometimes medications can help the syndrome. Sometimes not, but just because not everyone can be cured doesn't mean you shouldn't seek medical help.

The upside is -- winter doesn't last forever.

Does it?

Teabaggers' Mistakes

2011-02-02T00:14:00.002-05:00

From my friend Trebonska, via email:

Questions for the "Tea Party": What took you so long to get angry?

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Dick Cheney allowed energy company officials to dictate energy policy and push us to invade Iraq.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed for political reasons.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn't get mad when we invaded a country that posed no threat to us and spent over 800 billion (and counting) on said war.

You didn't get mad when Bush borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 Presidents combined.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars in cash just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when Bush embraced trade and outsourcing policies that shipped 6 million American jobs out of the country.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when Bush rang up 10 trillion dollars in combined budget and current account deficits.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

You didn't get mad when we gave people who had more money than they could spend over a trillion dollars in taxbreaks..

You didn't get mad with the worst 8 years of job creation in several decades.

You didn't get mad when over 200,000 US citizens lost their lives because they had no health insurance.

You didn't get mad when lack of oversight and regulations from the Bush Administration caused US citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement and home values.

No . . . You finally got mad when a black man was elected President and decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.. .

Funeral, by Cletis

2011-01-26T18:53:00.004-05:00

As I'm fairly sure I observed recently, there are tons and tons of really fine writers floating about the Internet, blogging for the sheer love of the act, and generally making not a dime for it. I dare to think I've found one of them, and here he is. His name is Jerry Richardson, and he writes more or less under the name of Cletis on a website called The Book of Cletis at thebookofcletis.blogspot.com. I highly recommend that you visit there at your earliest convenience.

At any rate, the following piece by Jerry touched my heart in a number of ways, not least among them that I lost my father just over a year ago, on Nov. 11, 2009, and this spoke to me in very profound ways, though my father was only marginally like Jerry's (they were both cockmen, for instance). I really think you will enjoy this - especially if you love your father, as I did mine, and as Jerry clearly did his.
RM

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Creative Sunday #6 Funeral

I'm pretty sure my father was dead. I mean there we were at the funeral home consoling and being consoled and there he was in the casket looking better than he had in years. Looking back on it though I don't think Dad was exactly dead. I think he was more like partially dead.

My father was Vivian Richardson. He was born in 1910 in Southwestern Virginia and went to work in the coal mines at thirteen after his father was crushed in a rock fall. He retired when he was sixty-two, lived for another seventeen years, and sort of died on February12th, 1990. Like I said though, I'm pretty sure he hung around a few more days getting things the way he wanted them before he headed out.

Dad was handsome and well-built. He was right at six feet tall, slim and quick, with powerful arms. He had strong, patrician features and intense blue eyes which were quick to anger and quicker to laugh. His hair was plentiful and had been silver-grey for years. He told me it changed color after he washed paint out of his hair with a bottle of Clorox. My mother vouched for this story but then again she and Dad were married for almost fifty-five years and worked closely together.

Dad noticed everything and found laughter in almost all of it. He preferred situational humor and if nothing was going on naturally he would take some time to help it along. That’s why I believe he was only partially dead. He wanted one more crack at things.

Religion had not been my father's main interest. I know he went to church when he was a young man because that was the only place to meet girls. He read the bible but I believe that was primarily for the history and adventure. He knew a good deal about the women in the bible and seemed to have a particular fondness for Delilah. Mary Magdalene was also one of his favorites. He said he had known quite a few women like her and they seemed to be, all in all, pretty noble people.

Dad no longer attended church and must have been viewed by the local ministers as a hard man to bring down. He was greatly respected for his honesty and for the way he raised his kids, but I don't think the local churches held out much hope regarding his celestial prospects.

I remember only one occasion when he attended church and this stemmed from an incident involving me. I was hitchhiking from Lynch to Cumberland, Kentucky where I attended Southeast Community College. It was a cold day and I had been passed up by at least thirty people who had known me all my life and who generally attended church on a regular basis.

Finally, a young man I did not know stopped and gave me a lift. He said he was the new minister at the First Baptist Church and also said he was thrilled to be in Lynch. He said the people were wonderfully kind and Christian and he couldn't think of a place he’d rather be.

I told him I’d rather be anywhere else; that the place had more hypocrites per square mile than any place on Earth. I said I didn't think Christians should leave their halos in the church. What they should do is take their good works out into the community. I was freezing and laid it on thick.

That Sunday Reverend Jones tore in to his flock at the Baptist church. According to my sisters, he preached long and hard about what it means to be your brother's keeper. He drew on the parable of "the good Christian who passes up a hitchhiker he has known since birth". He followed that with the parable of "the Christian who leaves his halo in the corner as he leaves the church". Dad said he had never heard of those parables. I told him I had.

Several weeks later Reverend Jones made a visitation and invited me to a revival. Dad said he was impressed and would go with me. Baptist revivals are wonderful events where people dedicate or re-dedicate themselves to Christ. They laugh and cry and in general express their emotions in ways they wouldn't ordinarily do.

When we entered the church, people were still milling around laughing and socializing. The air was one of nervous expectation as the guest minister was a man of considerable reputation. He was noted with some envy by fellow ministers to be a persuasive man who was "...beloved by the Lord and feared by the devil".

I had never seen Dad so polite. He shook hands with astonished parishioners, asked about their families, commented on the beautiful fall weather, and gradually steered us to a pew about halfway back. I looked across the church and saw several of the deacons glancing our way and patting Reverend Jones on the back. You could feel the satisfaction throughout the room.

When the evangelist launched into his sermon, it was obvious he had one target. He preached. He invoked. He cried. He pulled out all stops. He warned that to leave the church unrepentant was to risk damnation. He cited anecdote after anecdote of men who had hardened their hearts, of men who would not allow Jesus into their lives, of men who had been killed by trains as they left the church parking lot.

Members of the church were beside themselves. Some were running to the front crying and proclaiming their faith. Others were being carried out in a swoon. The choir broke into "Bringing in the Sheaves," and that brought in more lambs. My father stood quietly with his head bowed and his hands resting lightly on the pew in front of him.

The minister warmed to the challenge. He threw off his coat and loosened his tie. He took the bible in his hand, took a deep breath, and set out again. This time he was all over the church --- moving, gesturing, making his case. He had a beautiful voice and used it to its full effect. He alternated between thundering and roaring and pleading and urging. He spent three-fourths of his time near my father and the other fourth looking in his direction. He gave all any man could give. Dad's response was to raise his head, smile politely, and look back down.

Finally, the Holy Spirit was worn out and things settled down. The minister made the final call and we filed out. Dad shook the preacher’s hand and praised his good work. He said he enjoyed the sermon and that it had given him plenty to think about. The minister offered a depleted smile.

I don't remember seeing my father in church after that but when he got older and his health failed, he began to realize his mortality and became more receptive to visitation. This is where Brother Hill entered the picture.

Brother Bertrand Hill was a church deacon and a man of faith and good works. He was genuine in his efforts to be Christ-like and my father liked and respected him. Brother Hill specialized in ministering to the ill and elderly and had found the near-death experience to be an invaluable ally.

His friendship with my father had strengthened in recent years and was the reason my mother sent me to ask if he would speak at my father's funeral. Services were held at the Tri-City Funeral Home in Benham, Kentucky and there was a big turnout. My father was well-liked and we had large families on both sides.

My oldest sister, Sue, my oldest brother, Bud, and my sister, Ann, flew in from California. My sister, Betty, drove in from Western Kentucky and I drove in from Maryland. My brother, Robert, who still lived in Lynch, drove down the street.

The day of the funeral arrived and people were filing by:

"Jerry," your dad was crazy as hell. I'm going to miss him."

"Thanks, Mr. Collier. He was a great guy."

"Funniest man I've ever known. Laugh at anything."

"Yes sir, he had a great sense of humor."

"Loved women. Did you know we called him "cockman" when we was young?"

"Yes sir, I know. Better not let my mother hear that."

"No, of course not. Before he knew her anyway. You take care now. I'm going over and speak to your mom."

"Thank you, sir."

"Hey Jerry, sorry about your dad."

"Thanks, Mr. Jamison. He was a great guy."

"You remember that time he got in a fight in the poolroom? Knocked Tom Haynes over the table before Tom knew what hit him. Tom told me later he thought he was fighting Three-Fist Wilson."

"I was little then, Mr. Jamison, but I've heard people talk about it."

"Well, your dad was a load when he got mad but he didn't hold a grudge. Bought Tom a beer ten minutes after the fight.”

"Yes sir, I've heard that."

"Well, take care son. I'm going over and speak to your mom."

"Jerry, it's good to see you. I'm sorry about your dad."

"Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I miss him already."

"He was a good man, Jerry. I worked with him for years. We still talk about that fart he cut over in 37 Mine. We were walking out and he laid in to it. Men were running and hollering. Your dad just kept walking. Best I remember it measured about seventeen feet and nine inches."

"You measured it, sir?"

“Your daddy did. Can't blame him. Hell, you can't let something like that go unrecorded. Jerry, you take care of yourself. I'm going over and speak to your mom.”

"Mr. Johnson?"

"Yes, son?"

"Don't mention the fart."

"No, of course not. That wouldn't be proper."

That was the way it went all morning until finally the service began and Brother Hill got up to speak. Brother Hill was in his seventies, a man of medium height, dignified and serene. He stepped up to the front and waited for quiet. My father was in the casket behind and to the right of Brother Hill. To Brother Hill's left was a young Baptist minister who had also agreed to speak. I couldn't help but notice his wife. She was blonde and very beautiful. I'm sure Dad was pleased.

Our family sat in the immediate front in the first row. I sat between my sister Ann and my youngest sister Betty. Brother Hill cleared his throat and began. He sang two songs in a strong, rich voice. There was no music but his voice carried easily throughout the room breaking occasionally as befitted a man of his age. This only served to make the song more beautiful and heartfelt. When he finished, a lot of people were crying.

"Ladies and gentlemen," Brother Hill said, "I’m here today to talk to you about the Lord Jesus and the wonders he has performed. He has touched my life and I’m sure he has touched yours as well. Many years ago when I was a young man I heard the call and knew I would dedicate myself to spreading the glorious Good News. I have been blessed and am humbled to stand before you today with the knowledge that through the grace of the Lord Jesus I have brought home three thousand two hundred and twenty-seven souls to date."

At this point, Brother Hill took a small, tattered writing tablet from his pocket and held it up. "In this tablet,” he continued, “are the names, dates, and times those three thousand two hundred and twenty-seven souls came home to the Lord. Many of you assembled here have known me for years and know of my work at Harlan Appalachian Regional Hospital. It has been an abundant seam and I have mined it for the Lord. That's right. I am proud to have been a miner, a miner for the Lord."

This was beautiful stuff and things were going along nicely but we were at least ten minutes into the eulogy and Brother Hill had yet to mention Dad. People were shifting in their seats and you could feel a little uncertainty in the room. He picked it back up.

"I remember as a child knowing I would have a calling among the old and the ill. Other children would shun the elderly --- not me ladies and gentlemen. I gloried in the opportunity. I knew it would be my ministry, my province, the place where I could best serve the Lord Jesus."

He held the tablet up again. "Three thousand two hundred and twenty-seven souls are with the Lord today because of that ministry. Of course, I am only the earthly arm of the Lord Jesus; a humble servant if you will."

He went on for another twenty minutes and we all agreed later that it was an amazing oration. He did not, however, mention Dad or even glance in his direction. The assembly was restless and you could hear people moving around and clearing their throats. Brother Hill finally wrapped it up, looked out over the room, and started up again.

"Ladies and gentlemen," he said, "l am here today to talk to you about the Lord Jesus and the wonders he has performed."

The air went out of the place. Brother Hill had gone senile and picked a heck of a day to show it. My sister Ann’s elbow hit me in the ribs.

"Do something," she said.

I'm not the eldest child. I'm fourth down the line but I did get up and walk to the podium and stand next to Brother Hill. He seemed to come out of his reverie and noticed me beside him. I put my arm around his shoulder.

"Brother Hill," I said, "you were a wonderful friend to my father and on behalf of my family I want to thank you for your kind words. Do you mind if I say a few things?"

"Of course not, Jerry," he said. "Your father was a great man."

He glanced toward the casket then leaned close to me.

"Did you know we called him "cockman" when he was young?"

For all practical purposes, that was the end of the service. I think Dad left about that time. I spoke for awhile and thanked my mom and dad for raising us right. Then, we got into our cars and drove across the mountain to the cemetery and buried Dad.

Funerals are never easy but thanks to Brother Hill we had a pretty good day.

Note from Cletis: "Funeral" was originally published in Now and Then. It is the sole property of the author, Jerry Richardson. We are grateful for the opportunity to publish his work.

Miscellania

2011-01-25T23:09:00.002-05:00

by Rich Miles

I got a question to ask:

Can someone riddle me this: IF a politician needs millions (or billions?) of dollars to run effectively for high office; and IF that pol needs to solicit contributions from wealthy and/or corrupt persons with large amounts of money to contribute; and IF, after contributing to that pol's campaign, the pol wins, and the contributor (wealthy, corrupt) insists on dictating to the pol what policies and beliefs the pol should espouse, and what laws s/he should propose and sponsor;

Then how does that transaction differ materially from bribery?

I've wanted to ask that question for years. In fact, I HAVE asked it to my friends and fellow-travelers in the Democratic party. Because of course, members of both parties do this - no false equivalence here, it's probably spread about evenly between members of both major parties, and nearly as much in minor-party candidates. But it's not against the law, even though the act and its consequences are pretty much precisely the same as the crime.

So what do we do about it, you're wondering? Well, we could adopt some variation on the British model, with vastly reduced time limits on campaigning, and vastly lower limits on campaign fundraising.

Or, we could continue to allow, nay insist on, our politicians and leaders being extremely expensive whores who spend the bulk - that is to say, over 50% - of their time raising money, and demeaning themselves into abjection to get it. And then, those whores are our leaders once they're elected.

Seems like an altogether unsavory system to me. Sorry, maybe I'm not seeing it somehow. It just seems like we need to change this.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

Blood in the Streets

2011-01-22T16:34:00.002-05:00

by Rich Miles

You know, I begin to think these Republicans are serious about destroying America.

I mean, take the article by Pat Garofalo, published on Truthout.org, and entitled "GOP's State of the Union Responder Would Set Higher Taxes on Middle-Class Than Millionaires".

I recommend reading the whole thing , but if you don't want the pee scared out of you, take this precis: The Republican Party thinks that no one but millionaires should have more money than is necessary to put a few cold potatoes on the table, and buy enough gas to get you to your menial, Republican-serving job.

Hell, I don't know about you, but that much alone scares the pee out of me.

Now let me explain something that, as so often with me, should be obvious, but has not to the best of my knowledge been stated by anyone in a position to be heard by more people than his immediate family.

First off, one of the main acts by the Republicans that is going to move America further down the crapper is the taxation of millionaires at a significantly lower rate than middle- and lower-class taxpayers. That is really going to hurt the nation because the federal deficit will GROW, not decline as Republicans claim it will.

So why don't they see this? Why don't Republicans recognize the damage this is going to do to the American economy, and many Americans as well?

The answer is quite simple, really - and I have thought this through, and I really believe it, and don't think there is any other overarching reason for the movement to tax millionaires at lower rates than the rest of us:

It's because so many Republicans, including so many members of Congress, are millionaires.

Yep, that's it: the destruction of America and its economy, and so many of its citizens, is nothing more than unenlightened self-interest.

And the fact that they're pursuing this with such vehemence shows that it's not possible to instill a conscience in a person, when his entire livelihood depends on him NOT having one. (Paraphrase intentional)

So in the absence of any way to get these greedheads to change their behavior in the interest of the country, the only way I can see to keep them from destroying our nation is...civil war.

Yes, I'm afraid that's the only way. And Democrats/liberals/progressives are going to have to learn guerrilla warfare really quickly, and quite covertly.

The only bright spot in all this that I can see is that the plutocrats will seek to hire the war out, while we on the left will try to do it on the cheap. No way of telling who will win in that scenario.

But civil war is the way - we have already slid down the ladder of international prestige so far that we are nowhere near the preeminent nation we once were. We might as well do something totally stupid and prestige-destroying like this. Hell, it almost couldn't hurt outside our borders.

But make me a better offer - how am I wrong? Don't just say I'm wrong - tell me HOW you think I'm wrong. Because I don't think I am. I know I have been wrong before - viz. my theory that George W. Bush would seek to not leave office in January 2009. And I hope I'm wrong this time. But I don't see any other way to save America.

Do you?

Wanna get your liberal juices flowing? Watch this movie

2011-01-22T10:48:00.003-05:00

by Rich Miles

Back in 1976, a lady named Barbara Kopple released a documentary she had made called "Harlan County U.S.A.". It's the story of the struggle of the coal miners against the coal mine operators in, you guessed it, Harlan County KY, and the wonder of this film is how little has changed in the nearly 35 years since the film was made. There are still coal towns today - the only difference is that the miners and their families live in crappy worn-out trailers instead of crappy worn-out shanty shacks. The pay was not much over minimum wage back then - $2 an hour or so - and the pay is not much over minimum wage today - $7.50 or $8.00 an hour to start. And of course, the union leaders are still in the pockets of the operators, no matter what they say to try to get re-elected.

The miners inhale coal dust enough to kill themselves, and smoke like chimneys as well, as they are encouraged to do by advertising and the local store. And altogether, the miners and their families live in miserable abject poverty today, just like back then. And the operators make millions on the backs of those miners, and still resist safety reforms, and pay increases, and so on. The union is somewhat stronger today, but still not what you'd call strong - the cost of a strike to the owners is still just a cost of doing business, and they know they can outwait the miners, who need their piddling salaries far worse than the operators need to sell another carload to another utility company.

And if you can listen to all the songs in this film, most especially "Which side are you on?", and "Black Lung, Black Lung", and "Death, O Death", and not both cry for the poor men digging their own graves in the mines, and get furiously angry at the operators, then I don't know what to tell you about your humanity.

The film is currently playing on IFC, Dish Network Channel 131 and others, and if you're a liberal you need to see it. Even if you've seen it before, you need to see it again. Because it will make your heart beat for freedom and the working man, and unions of all stripes and types. And we need the help today.

And while you're at it, try seeing "O Brother Where Art Thou?". It'll very likely tap the same nerves, but with somewhat less direct purpose. But it's very entertaining nonetheless.

Predicting the same ol' shit

2011-01-20T08:34:00.003-05:00

by Rich Miles

UPDATE: The Democratic representative mentioned in the third graf is Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY).

As I read all the stories today about the House vote to repeal health care reform, my mind is boggled by the realization that, in 2012 if we aren't destroyed by a South American comet or something, the likelihood is very great that the Republican majority in the Congress will become greater.

Because you see, your fellow Americans are just insufferably stupid, and will let the repugnicans hoodwink them over and over and over again! And the repugs are well-armed and well-disposed to do that hoodwinking, as we see in those same stories about the near-repeal.

A Democratic member of the House, I don't know who because it went by on TV so quickly, made a speech on the floor about how dangerous it would be to engage in the old drinking game where you take a drink every time something happens - in this case, every time a Republican says something untrue - and how one should enlist a designated driver if you do. Quite agree, quite agree.

For instance, every single Republican representative voted for repeal of the so-called "Obamacare". All of them, no exceptions.

Now when was the last time you saw that many people agree that thoroughly on ANYthing? Do you really think every single repug representative, and even a few Democratic traitors, had read the health reform bill, and knew what they were voting to repeal?

I kinda doubt it.

But there are voters all over the country who are cheering for the repeal of Obamacare without having any idea what that vote will cost America, and Americans, and THEM. And they will vote in 2012 for those repug representatives who saved America and the budget by voting to repeal health reform without even knowing what they were doing, or to how many people they were doing it. And there will be even more repugs in both houses of Congress, and they might even manage to drive the repeal through, as they claim they will. And all of us will suffer in ways we cannot even imagine now.

As I grow older, I simply goggle at the ongoing and apparently never-ending stupidity of so many Americans. I mean, this is not just my opinion - it's demonstrable that people are voting against themselves, their financial interests, and their children's interests, over and over and over.

And I call that stupid.

It may be 22 months till that election, but I see large numbers of Americans gearing up to exercise their God-given right to be as stupid as they wanna be.

Man, this democracy stuff is rough on the thinking man and woman.

Just wanted to let you know...

2011-01-10T18:13:00.002-05:00

by Rich Miles

I don't really have much to say on this topic. I just wanted to stop by and let you all know, because to me it's very exciting news.

Tom DeLay (yes, THAT Tom DeLay) was sentenced to 3 years in prison today, for, in essence, money laundering.

I don't think there's any way he'll serve the entire sentence, but in any case, he's going to jail. The man described some years back as the most powerful politician in America - is going to prison. He might have to stay one year at least.

I am gleeful that at least this much justice was served.

Now all we need to do is get Shrub in prison. His crimes were not merely diddling about with cash.

He's a murderer and war criminal. Hell, he might end up going to jail for FOUR years. Or maybe for life.

One can only hope.

Happy Holidays, Mr. President

2010-12-30T23:27:00.002-05:00

by Rich Miles

Dear Mr. President:

I've been trying to think of a good gift for you, to offer my thanks for all you do for the American people, and I think I've come up with something you may find useful. Sorry I'm a bit late for Christmas.

At any rate, here's what I think you should say the next time the Republicans get their respective and collective tails in a knot about whatever. In essence, I am volunteering to serve your administration as a speechwriter - for just this one speech. I'm not auditioning for the job. I just want to give you this. It came into my head almost fully-formed, and I want you to have it. I hope you'll use it, but it's a gift, so you'll do with it as you will. At any rate, here it is:
===========================================================
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I have some brief remarks I'd like to make concerning the recent (controversy du jour - insert crisis here.)

I'd like to start by addressing my worthy opponents in the Republican party, by saying that effective today, the rules of the game are changed.

No longer will I or any other members of the Democratic Party be intimidated by the empty threats of Republican leadership or rank and file.

No longer will Democrats seek bipartisan compromise for its own sake. When the business of the American people can be concluded with bipartisan action, that will be a good thing. But this administration will not seek such action in and of itself any longer.

You have accused us of many things, including class warfare, profligacy with the public purse, raising taxes, unpatriotic behavior, and lots more.

And the truth is, most of those accusations applied to YOU rather than us - especially the accusation of lack of patriotism.

Because, you see, the bills you want passed, the laws you want to see on the books, will, if made into law, ruin our country - literally push its face into the dust, and kill many of its citizens. For instance, if you succeed in dismantling Social Security, as you seem so intent on doing now, many people will die - many people will have no family to support them in their later years, when they are too weak or sick, or simply OLD, to support themselves. And they will die for lack of the Social Security benefit that might have given them the facility to save their own lives.

And we will not take the blame for these deaths. For many years now, we have taken the blame for a whole raft of social and political ills, because to defend ourselves against your scurrilous attacks would make US look worse than YOU. So by and large, we let you lie, and defame us, and condescend to us, without so much as a reply.

But no more. From now on, when you lie about any or all of us, we will call you out. We will challenge you to provide proof to substantiate your claims. And if you fail to do so, we will call you what you are: a liar. It will be time-consuming to do so, but it will be consuming of far more resources than time NOT to.

And we will do this on a local, state, regional and national level. In fact, if the opportunity arises, we will do it on an international level.

Because enough is enough. As you Republicans well know, the kind of people who become Democrats are generally gentle people, who value truth and fair play and comity and bipartisanship whenever possible.

And those who tend toward becoming Republicans are generally regimented sorts, rules-followers who value winning at all costs - at ALL costs, even the loss of their integrity, and sometimes the loss of their souls. Who call bipartisanship the political equivalent of date rape. Who will do whatever it takes, regardless of the scurrilousness of the behavior, to defeat and humiliate their opponents - especially humiliate. Who don't really want to compromise on any issue, no matter what they say. Those are Republicans.

It didn't used to be so. There was a time when Republicans truly WERE fiscal conservatives, as they claim to be now. But they were men (and, very occasionally in those days, women) who could be reasoned with, with whom a mutually-acceptable compromise could be reached.

No longer. No longer is there any such thing as mutually-acceptable, and Republicans seem to believe that, IF the compromise IS mutually acceptable, there must be something wrong and weak about it.

That's the Republican Party today. It's undeniable. And we, members of the Democratic party, have let this go on for far too many years, taking the blows and the lies without response, losing elections we should have won, MIGHT have won except for the crooked dealings of our main opponents.

But no more. No longer will we, the Democratic party, allow your crimes and misdemeanors to go unremarked and unpunished. We will stand up, and shout "Liar!!" at the top of our voices. No longer will we simply roll over and take it. And when we do this, and you fight back and say that WE are the liars, we will show the proof. It will take some time, years, likely, to make this strategy - we call it the "truth strategy" - work with the majority of the American people. But it will take eventually. We feel certain of it.

Now, we realize that this change in us will be abrupt for you in the Republican Party. We see that you will be confused sometimes, as the doormats you used to run roughshod over suddenly grow spines and fight back - or refuse to engage at all, which I rather expect will infuriate you even more.

But this, the partisan wars we now live in, can't continue. The people's business - the passage of laws of importance to the daily wellbeing of the American people - is not being tended to. And Americans are suffering, in more ways than one. And it has to stop. Now.

So we will not any longer merely roll our eyes, and try to ignore you, and hope we can get our message out despite your dirty dealings. It will be rough in the beginning, and we may fail at our goal many times before it begins to register with Americans, and indeed our allies and enemies abroad, who are dismayed that it has taken us this long to stand up to our adversaries, and quite literally to take our nation back.

I believe I have made my point, and there is no point in belaboring this issue any further. But today will henceforth and forever more be known as Independence Day II. The day America was liberated from the tyranny of the Republican Party. Or at least, the part of it that seeks to destroy America.

You see, we in the Democratic Party don't think we're always right. We just don't think YOU'RE always right either. And we've been acting as if we do think that for too many years now. No more.

We're not declaring war on you, Republicans. Not unless you make it necessary to do so. We're trying to restore a genuine two-party system in America. Instead of one party who shouts lies, and another party who allows the shouts, and most importantly the lies, to go unchallenged.

We think this is a better way. And after the dust settles, and we all start working together and actually achieving things for the benefit of America and Americans, we think you'll like it better too.

But whether you do or not, this is the way it's going to be from here on out.

Thank you for your time and attention, and God bless America.
===========================================================
That's what I think Americans want. Not all this feuding and fighting and inaction. What do you think, Mr. President?

Guess who opposes the Bush tax cuts?

2010-12-19T16:18:00.002-05:00

By Rich Miles

Much has been said in recent years about how different it is to be a Republican today, compared to what it was like, say, 30 years ago and more. I still hated them back then - Nixon was still a dick as long ago as 1973 or '74, and Reagan managed to cruise through 8 years in the White House without ever setting feet on the ground - but remembering what I do about the era, it really wasn't as bad as it is today. Though it was bad enough.

But there are a few personalities from the Reagan era who remain at least curiosities today. And one of them is....

(drum roll please)

David Stockman. For those who didn't live through it and don't care to look him up, Stockman was the budget director for Pres. Reagan from the beginning in 1981 until the end of the first term in 1985.

The budget director, mind you. Not some minor functionary whose opinion we may safely discount, but the budget director. A guy who knew something about what was going on. Whether we agreed with him or not.

But yesterday, on NPR's Terri Gross-moderated "Fresh Air" program, Stockman said, not for the first time, that leaving the Bush tax cuts in place, especially in the top brackets, would bankrupt the United States.

That's right - bankrupt it. Not just damage the budget process, not just increase the deficit, but BANKRUPT the United States!

And this is the opinion of the alleged creator of Reaganomics, the program that almost bankrupted the U.S. 25 or more years ago. So for the prime mover of that debacle to complain about THIS debacle is just a bit...how shall I put this? frightening!!

Here, read the whole thing for yourself, and don't trust any more Republicans, OK? It'll only come to grief.

I mean seriously, don't these people ever even listen to EACH OTHER?!?

Cletis? That you??

2010-12-13T19:55:00.002-05:00

Let me just take a moment to recommend a newcomer blogger to you - he does a bit of rewriting and reposting, but his original stuff is quite interesting. Head on over and take a look at www.thebookofcletis.blogspot.com

I think you'll find him amusing...

Welcome, Mr. Cletis, to the land of the living here in Left Blogsylvania. We can use all the help we can get these days.

Rich Miles

Elizabeth Edwards R.I.P.

2010-12-10T12:11:00.002-05:00

by Rich Miles

It's an odd thing that so few of the local bloggers have written about the passing of Elizabeth Edwards. She was a woman of distinction, of accomplishment, and a woman who showed the rest of us what it was like to conduct oneself with dignity when circumstances sought to relieve her of any vestige of dignity.

I saw her speak during the pre-primary 2008 election season. She was extolling the virtues of her husband, and as I listened, all I could think of was, I wish I had a woman who had that much faith in me.

As it turned out, I DID have such a woman, but I didn't know it, but that's another story for another time. In any case, Elizabeth spoke eloquently of her husband, and his plans for America, and how all it would take to accomplish these plans was for all of us to vote for her husband, get him the Democratic nomination and then he'd be on his way.

She may have been right, I don't know. None of us will ever know if John Edwards would have been a good president, because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants, but at that point in time, Elizabeth thought so.

And now, she's gone and John is unquestionably mourning her. As well he might. I feel saddest for her little girls.

But in any case, we are all the poorer for the loss of Elizabeth Edwards. We should keep that thought in mind as we move toward 2012. She, even with her by-then unelectable husband, might have taught us some dignity. God knows we can use some of that in America these days.

I admired her. You should have too. God bless her, and may she rest in peace.

War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

2010-12-04T19:49:00.005-05:00

by Rich Miles

If you go back over my essays for the past 6 years or so, one of the things you will find is a relatively frequent use of the expressions "I don't know how..." or "I can't understand how" this or that happened.

And in almost every case, you will find that I will be making that observation about a fine point of human nature. For instance, "I don't know how these people can be so effin' stupid as to" vote for such and such a moron candidate.

But now, I think I may understand, at least a little bit better.

People vote for Republicans because they (the repugs) appear to be able and willing to kick the shit out of the opposition. And deep down in their shrivelled little hearts, that's what the "people" want: politicians who are as close as we can get today to the ancient warriors. Men like Achilles, and Odysseus, and in another context, Geronimo and Chief Joseph. George Patton. George Custer. All our heroes, not just the ones mentioned here but many more, are bloody, murderous men, who were ruthless to their enemies and took no prisoners.

(Why doesn't Hitler make this list, you may wonder. He certainly had the raw skills. It's because he overdid it, and killed too many innocents. And did it too publicly. Too visibly. IMHO. And this we couldn't stand in our relativistic moral universe.)

And these are the men we want our leaders to be like today. But we're too civilized for all that, so we elect Republicans instead - men who do the rhetorical equivalent of killing all the enemies, who at the very least do the modern equivalent of counting coup on their adversaries, an exercise with no other purpose than to humiliate their enemies, and weaken them by that.

Every once in a while, we tire of all the bloodshed, and we elect some Democrats for a while. But sooner or later - usually sooner - our bloodthirstiness catches up with us, and we elect the ones who do the most damage to the enemy, who leave the most mutilated corpses on the field of battle - the Republicans.

We are not so civilized as we think much of the time. We seek leaders to do these things for us, and to keep us in a state of war as close to constantly as possible. (Think about that one for a minute - how long have we NOT been in some war or another in the history of the republic?) And it is our leaders' duty to make it look as if WE are the peaceful ones, who only go to war when provoked. But a closer reading of history will show differently. We were not provoked in very many of our longest conflicts.

For you see, wars are excellent ways for leaders to control the people. It's happening right now. It's been happening in an undeniable way since 9/11. We are being lied to and controlled. I don't need to offer examples of this, because thinking persons will see it with very little prompting.

And the rest don't matter.

How much of our nation's substance has gone for "defense" - how much could we as a race have accomplished if we had not spent so mucn on war?

Impossible to say. But the above is, I believe, the reason why we vote for Republicans, despite clear and unmistakable evidence that it's bad for us to do so. They spend all our money on wars. They kill our children in wars. In short, they keep us in control with wars. And we let them do it, because we WANT war. Macro or micro, World War or political wrangling - we want war. We want the conflict. It makes us feel manly - even though women sometimes feel it too.

And that is why we keep electing Republicans. And it makes me so very sad to see it. Every time it happens. The older I get, the more it simply wears me out to see it. My fellow human beings are so foolish as to yield (without knowing it most of the time, I believe) to their "baser instincts". That of the kiiler. The maimer. The destroyer.

I don't know why human nature is this way. I personally do not conform to this model. But I know why our leaders use it this way. Because they can. Because we let them. We don't put together the cause and effect - haven't done so for 5000 years and more. And the net result has been nearly 5000 years of war and death and destruction.

And as Sean Connery says in the film "The Untouchables": What are you prepared to do about it?

Major government corruption

2010-12-04T13:49:00.002-05:00

by Rich Miles

Geez, I didn't sleep last night with contemplating this Ark Park thing. Our economy is in deep and ongoing shit, and promises to remain so for years to come, and our illustrious goobernator proposes to GIVE AWAY multi-millions of taxpayers' dollars to religious nut-freaks who preach total rubbish!

THIS will rob you of sleep! It did me, anyway. How do politicians think this shit up? How do they twist their powers of rational thought around until it looks like this? I really don't get it.

And there's really not much chance that the lege will put a stop to this, since our Senate prez has recently embraced the nutso-crazoid Tea Party, and the rest of both houses is liberally (get it? LIBERALLY) sprinkled with some of the worst mental cases ever to occupy a public office. Which is saying something in this day and age.

A couple off-hand predictions: you know that 900 jobs they're bandying about? Most of them will be part-time with no benefits, and the merest whiff of unionism will get the perpetrator run off with a shotgun (figuratively, I think.) I'll have more predictions as time goes by, but these two I'd almost bet on. File these away some-where, where you can retrieve them when truth time comes.

GOD, people! Can't you do any better than this? I mean really, must you bury your heads in the sand like this? Must you waste time, effort and money on shit like this? There is so much more we have to achieve, not only in this state but all across our country. Can we do no more than sit around jacking off?

I wasn't kidding about the taxpayer revolt, you know. Bring it on!

OK, so I missed something...

2010-12-03T18:02:00.004-05:00

by Rich Miles

OK, I didn't read about the Ark amusement park before I wrote the piece on Ken Ham and the governor. Sorry about that.

But having said that, the only thing I could find in reference to Steve Beshear's involvement in this massive goatfuck is that the governor "joined" the developers of the park, and that the developers will seek tax breaks - which is where MY tax dollars enter into it.

Because obviously, if the creationists get tax considerations, that's the same as the state supporting this unquestionably religious undertaking.

And that makes me sick to my stomach.

I did not, and as far as I know, neither did any other Kentuckians, vote in favor of giving tax dollars to a bunch of religious nuts. It's estimated that the park will produce some 900 jobs when it opens in spring of 2014, and in the abstract, that's a good thing. Lord knows we can use another 900 jobs in Kentucky, especially in Grant County, where they're trying to put this monstrosity.

But if this is such a winning plan, consider this: the reason most governments give tax breaks is as an incentive for the business receiving the breaks to stay in the jurisdiction that is providing the tax breaks.

But one is tempted to ask: if Kentucky doesn't provide the tax breaks, where are these zealots going to go?

I mean, Ohio and Indiana have been known to go off the deep end in matters religious on occasion, but seriously - do you think either of those states would want this bunch of loonies enough to offer incentives?

I've been surprised before, so I can't say "no" with certainty. But I think not. I hope not.

So why are we in Kentucky paying these fools for the privilege of having them stay here? I mean, they already have their own incentive for staying here, in that they've already put the museum here. So where would they go?

And why has Beshear cozied up to them like this? Inquiring minds want to know.

Is it time for the taxpayers' revolt yet?

Our governor is an idiot!

2010-12-01T18:35:00.003-05:00

by Rich Miles

Steve Beshear is taking bribes from Ken Ham. Not just campaign contributions, but actual bribes.

That's the only explanation I can come up with. Or at least the only one that doesn't require me to come to the conclusion that the governor of my state (Kentucky) is a complete lamebrain, who is sucking up to the republican radical religious right-wingers nearly a year before the 2011 election.

Ken Ham is the moron - and I use the term advisedly - who owns and operates the Creation Museum up in Northern Kentucky. The museum that says that dinosaurs co-existed with humans several thousand years ago. The one that tells this tripe to children, who are intellectually malleable enough to actually believe it.

Yellow Dog at Blue in the Bluegrass calls this intellectual child abuse. I concur. It is very likely that children who are indoctrinated with this mind rot now will hold these beliefs well into their adult years - all efforts to rethread these kids' heads in the intervening years notwithstanding. There is even the possibility that the kids will grow into adults who NEVER recant this shit. After all, there are an awful lot of adults who were taught the pabulum of fundamentalist religion as children, sometimes as infants, and still hold those beliefs today, the evidence of daily living on this planet notwithstanding.

But our governor - our GOVERNOR, the chief executive of our state - accepts this crap. Not only accepts it, but embraces it. And we have to lower our eyes as we walk the streets anywhere away from home, lest anyone recognize us as Kentuckians.

You know, I was a member of one of the political organizations who endorsed Beshear in '07. Sure wish I could take that vote back. But even as I say that, I realize that there wasn't much else to choose from at the time. Gatewood Galbraith? Steve Henry? Etc.?

When do we get some GOOD candidates for governor? You know, ones with a bit of intellectual acuity about them?

What's that you say? NEVER???? Never as long as we're Kentuckians?

I was afraid you were going to say that.

The Thievery Becomes More and More Transparent

2010-11-26T15:14:00.002-05:00

by Rich Miles

A "boondoggle" is defined as a government program which is claimed to be intended to perform a service for the people of a country, but which in reality is a major waste of government funds with virtually no benefit to the people.

It's also defined as "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security". One of the biggest, if not THE biggest, boondoggle in the history of the world. And I do not exaggerate.

Homeland Security is a conglomeration of some 8 or more Cabinet-level sub-departments which were, before the attacks of 9/11/01, separate departments with their own budgets, staffs, and other levels of autonomy.

However, after the 9/11 attacks, it was decided (by whom, it's hard to trace to this day) that national security, or "homeland" security, would be better served if all or nearly all those who served in that regard were under one legal aegis, rather than 8 separate entities.

One of the ways in which this was supposed to be beneficial to America was supposed to be in the realm of cost savings. Much brouhaha was made of the waste of government resources pre-Homeland Security, and how the combining of all those departments would save billions of dollars each year.

Not very many people believed this, especially Democrats. But those who were old enough to remember, also remember how difficult it was to resist anything the White House was trying to do in this regard. The atmosphere back then gave new meaning to the term "juggernaut".

So, all in all, the Dept. of Homeland Security was destined to be a-borning from the day it was first proposed. There was absolutely no way to stop it once it got underway. And so it was.

I'm sure it was a good idea in fine. But those of us who had any sense of realism about the function of government realized that, far from reducing the costs associated with homeland security, the combined form of the eight agencies were far more likely to cause sharply INCREASED costs.

And so it did.

I had intended to provide some monetary statistics in this piece to demonstrate my premise: what DHS cost last year, what the same departments cost pre-DHS, etc. But despite the supposed savings due to combining the departments, it's very difficult to pull all those numbers together. Almost as if the departments were still separate, and the government is trying to keep it a secret from us dim, dumb taxpayers.

Almost.

My friends, my fellow taxpayers - we are being had in the worst kind of way. Obama has not tried to close the cash spigot, no one has even mentioned the possibility, at least as far as I have seen - and I do try to pay attention to such things.

If we wish to balance our federal budget, a good start would be to "undoggle" the boondoggle that is Homeland Security. But it's going to take a brave president to take on that bag of wildcats. Because the Republicans will put on their shiniest patriot armor, and accuse the Democratic president who makes this move - for it will be a Democrat - of being weak on national defense.

And on and on and blah blah blah. One can almost predict exactly what the debate will consist of - and thus it will take many years and many trillions of wasted dollars.

And why say anything else? God help us, if there is one.

Tom DeLay is GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!

2010-11-25T16:16:00.002-05:00

With apologies and thanks to Gary Trudeau, creator of Doonesbury.

But I am delighted to report that Tom DeLay, disgraced former representative from Texas and Majority Leader of the House, was on Wednesday November 24 found guilty of money-laundering charges in a Texas state court.

I mean, this really makes me happy. He's going to appeal the verdict, but the original conviction seems firm enough that the appeal won't do any good. And if it doesn't - TOM DELAY WILL GO TO PRISON!!!

Or most likely will anyway - the judge in the case has the option to sentence DeLay to probation, but even in Texas that would be a bad idea.

So one of the bastards of the Bush administration is quite likely to eat steel for at least 5 years. And my heart could not be gladder!

The only thing that might make me happier than this, in fact the only thing that could make me die happier than this, would be if this same fate befell the Shrub, El Arbusto, the jerk of the century George W. Bush.

Perhaps DeLay's conviction is a step in that direction. One can only hope!

Palins bedamned

2010-11-21T08:33:00.003-05:00

by Rich Miles

Edit: It's Bristol Palin, not Crystal. Not that I give a shit. And Jack, you really seem to have some serious negative energy on these women! I mean, I do too, but you really kick ass and take names. Good on ya!

This will be a short post, because I don't want to waste bandwidth on these twits (did I spell that right?)

Sarah Palin has hired a really top-notch PR agent. I am so sick to death of seeing her and her daughter all over TV. But if I ever need a PR agent (God forbid!), I'll get that guy, or lady.

But there may be a downside to this blitz. In fact, there may be several downsides.

First off, it's beginning to appear that there's a fix in for Crystal Palin to win DWTS. In fact, it's beginning to appear unquestionable that this is so. Crystal may turn out to be Sarah's biggest albatross by the time it's over. One thing about that phenomenon will be to see how and how fast she will dump her own daughter if it becomes necessary to do so. And where the hell is her husband, fer cryin' out loud? She'd do better not to have one than to have one so marginal in her life.

Second, this is all happening WAAAAAYYYY too far in advance of the 2012 election. With the insufferably short memory of American voters, by May of '12, the main question in the air may be "Sarah who?"

Third, she's in essence making a fool of herself and behaving very UN-presidentially in her activities. I'll leave that to the opinions of the viewers.

And fourth, she is making the mistake of believing that anyone gives even a remote shit what she does and how she lives her life.

Is this the way we want our president to look? I mean her behavior and demeanor, not her actual appearance, which if I have to admit it is kinda hot and milf-ish. But is that how America wants its president to present? I kinda doubt it, on either side of the aisle.

This is all McCain's fault. He made the mistake of giving her something she could read as evidence that she mattered to America or to anyone who doesn't have the same last name as hers. One more mistake from McCain.

Not as short as I thought. Sorry.

My "Salon.com" Opus

2010-11-19T11:56:00.006-05:00

by Rich Miles

I've been meaning to do this for a while now. Below is a link that will take you to the "Other Posts by Rich Miles" section of the archives of Salon magazine online. The dates of the pieces are April 10, 2007 to November 15, 2007 - the latter date being just about the time my brain disorder kicked in and made me stop anything like writing. Or indeed, reading.

I'm putting them up here for several reasons, not least among them that I'm quite proud of some of the posts and don't want them to be lost forever. But also, the posts have attached to them a link that will take you to the Salon article about which I'm writing, so you can, if you wish, figure out exactly what it is I'm commenting about. Most of my essays don't have that info, so you have to remember as well as I do what it is I'm on about with each one.

So - if you really like my writing, here are 68 pieces of varying length from letter to the editor to full essay. Hope you enjoy them!

(I have a similar body of work on The Nation online. I just have to figure out how to access them. Might take a while.)

Letters by Rich Miles

You repugs gotta be kidding!

2010-11-19T10:01:00.004-05:00

by Rich Miles

Awright, this shit has got to stop. There's an editorial in today's New York Times in which it is recounted how the repug leadership of the House AND Senate have refused, or in truth simply ignored, a dinner invitation from the President of the United States at the White House.

From the editorial:

It has been more than two weeks since President Obama issued a postelection invitation for Congressional leaders to join him for dinner on Nov. 18 to discuss “how we can move the American people’s agenda forward.

And all of 'em - all 200+ repug members of the U.S. House and Senate - were just too busy. Couldn't make it. Not even a "Sorry, Mr. President" - just ignored him, and didn't show up for dinner at the White House to discuss the people's business.

I mean, is it me, or is this stuff becoming more and more childish as time goes on? Childish AND disrespectful. I mean, is snubbing the Prez like this supposed to make him look weak, and thus hurt his chances for re-election? Does no one in the electorate even notice this kind of behavior? Are repug voters actually PROUD of their leaders for treating the holder of the highest office in the land like a fiel' hand? I mean, why don't they just come out with it, and say "We ain't sittin' down to eat with no n***er"? That would at least be an honest representation of their feelings.

I've said this about other things since Obama became prez, but think of it: can you just IMAGINE the uproar if the Dem leadership had done something like this to Saint George of Bush? I mean, it's just impossible to fathom.

And why can't we on the left use similar tactics? Yes, they're dirty tactics, and yes, we should, just like the repugs, be ashamed of ourselves for using them, but hey! Our opponents have shown repeatedly that anything goes, any tactic is a proper means to an end - so why shouldn't we do the same?

I'd be ashamed, if I didn't have such shit sonsabitches for opponents. In fact, I'm still ashamed. But I think the Dems should do it.

Raise holy hell, Dems! It would happen to you if the situation were reversed! For once, take the low road like your opponents.

Please! I'm getting tired of seeing my leaders gutted and left to die by the side of the road. Let some blood be let on the other side for a change.

Magical Thinking in High Places

2010-11-15T08:20:00.005-05:00

by Rich Miles

Have you ever had something - anything, any topic - turn into a virtual obsession? Your mind latches onto a thought, an idea, a question, and you just can't let go of it?

It can be really annoying to the normal mind (the abnormal mind takes this in stride - it's the way things always are for lots of mental patients). But quite often, you just turn the issue over and over and over, with no progress on an answer or resolution for the longest kind of time.

But then, when you DO finally reach something like an answer, it's sort of like an orgasm - a great rush and release of anxiety and tension, and a feeling of real accomplishment in the realm of thought.

Well, I just had one of those. Let me elaborate:

Ever since George W. Bush became a national figure back in late '99, into 2000, I have wondered something. In fact, there were lots of things I wondered about him, but there was this one main thing I couldn't come to grips with, to wit:

How could George W. Bush stand in front of a camera, or in front of a crowd of at least putatively intelligent people, and LIE HIS ASS OFF to them, repeatedly, and in great detail sometimes, and just without any apparent shame or embarrassment - just LIE, say things that were, to most normal human beings, obviously not factual. I mean, how could he do that, day in and day out, and never or rarely get caught in his own lies, and never show any contrition for doing so, and on the occasions when he was caught, how could he simply say that the catchor was wrong, that he either didn't say that, or if he did say it then it was true? How could he do that? Most of us can't, at least not for that long and with that much conviction. We may be able to lie, but not many of us can keep it up for that long without either tripping up on our lies, or having our listeners laugh us off the podium etc.

So how does he do it, I asked myself? And just last night, after he's been out of the White House for nearly two years, and after he's written a book that has served as a forum for even more of his lies, it came to me: Bush lies so effectively because he doesn't know he's lying!

And the reason he doesn't know he's lying is that he is a victim - or perhaps practitioner would be more accurate - of a psychological disorder/phenomenon known in the psych biz as magical thinking.

Yup, it's a real phenomenon - though to refer to this particular syndrome as "real" is almost laughably ironic - and despite this rather lengthy intro to the actual thesis of this essay, I encourage, in fact implore you to read this Wikipedia explanation of magical thinking.

OK, ya back from that? Well, I want to offer this shorter layman's definition of magical thinking: It's when you think that a thing is true simply because you think it's true, without any proof or evidence or reason. It's sorta like what the Xtians call "faith" - which, if one reads the Wikipedia piece above, is exactly what is defined.

But back to the original premise: that GWB engages in magical thinking. How else to explain how Shrub could completely ignore all or most of his military advisors, and insist that we invade Iraq? How to explain his insistence that taxes be severely cut in wartime?

How to explain his new book, and the disagreement of several world leaders with the content of the book? How to explain how he could so thoroughly balls up the recovery of New Orleans after the hurricane, yet believe he was doing a good job at it?

The list could go on forever, but the main premise is: Bush thinks things that no one else in the whole world (or at least no one who isn't as deranged as he is) would believe.

And he was the leader of the most powerful nation in the world for 8 years! And as a result, it's my premise that we are no longer the most powerful nation in the world. We are in decline, and although I'm sure many Republicans and some Democrats will disagree, it's my contention that the decline is directly and specifically George W. Bush's fault. Certainly the Dept. of Homeland Security, one of the hugest money-wasters in the history of the WORLD, is Bush's fault. The ineffectiveness of Homeland Security not only could be predicted, it WAS predicted, by several congresspersons including Russ Feingold (his senatorial career R.I.P.)

But Bush thought, magically, that a single bureaucracy encompassing all the OTHER existing bureaucracies would somehow be more efficient and workable. I think evidence since has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that this has not and is not so.

No, folks, America is falling apart, and the bulk of the reason for it is the 8 years of GWB's "reign". Even now that Bush is out of technical power, he still has influence over the management of our nation. The new book is proof of that - some people are claiming it's a guide for the new century, and god forbid if that turns out to be an activated thought.

But anyway - now that you're an expert on magical thinking, re-examine the past 10 years, most especially that 8-year Bush interregnum, and see if it doesn't all make more sense if viewed in that light.

Sadly, if you're a sensible person, I think it will.

Is it possible? Could we get him?

2010-11-12T07:59:00.008-05:00

by Rich Miles

Here's a statement that will cause eyebrows to raise in some quarters of New York City, and perhaps elsewhere:

Jerry Nadler is my hero!

Jerrold (Jerry) Nadler is a short, fat, not terribly handsome little guy originally from Brooklyn, and now the U.S. Representative for, arguably, the most expensive strip of real estate in the United States, and certainly the most expensive in the eastern half of the country: the West Side of Manhattan. His district includes some other areas into Brooklyn and elsewhere, and the 9/11 Ground Zero is in his district.

But that's not why Jerry Nadler is my hero. He's my hero because he is chair of a judiciary subcommittee, and HE WANTS GEORGE W. BUSH PROSECUTED FOR WAR CRIMES!!

And that fact gladdens my heart.

Not that it won't take a lot for this pipe dream ever to come to pass. Not that there isn't a very great chance that it will NEVER come to pass.

No, what makes my endorphins flow in this instance is that a Member of the U.S. Congress WANTS this, and is quite happy to say so in a highly public and highly visible/audible manner.

Way back in February of '06, I wrote a piece called Time to Set a Precedent, in which I propounded that it was time we put the president of the United States in jail, just to prove that we can, so the future sonsabitches in that office are aware that they can't get away with just anything, and that there are very real and personal consequences to their actions. I re-propound that piece today because George W. Bush needs to go to prison, and his own words in his recent book where he admits to ordering waterboarding on a U.S. prisoner, should be used against him.

And to attempt to come full circle, that's what Jerry Nadler wants: to hoist Bush on his own petard, use his own words to prosecute him, and put him in prison.

And despite a number of obstacles to this plan, not least among them the fact that the U.S. Attorney General refuses to do it, I think we ought to go for it. It couldn't happen to a nastier ex-president. And despite my living nowhere near where such a trial would be held, I'd volunteer for jury duty. They wouldn't take me, because I have already made up my mind, but I'd volunteer nonetheless.

And that, in a nutshell, is why Jerry Nadler is my hero!

Remember, they got Al Capone for tax evasion. Maybe we can get Shrub for the unpardonable crime of writing a book.

I'm back, reluctantly

2010-11-06T15:54:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

Hewwo, tonstant weaduh - please pardon my absence since the election. My heart has truly been in pain since then. I haven't been able to collect my thoughts or assemble them on the page since then.

But I'll try now. I guess. I'm so demoralized, not so much at what the repugs will do - it's well-known that they're going to fuck up the country as much as possible. No, what really shatters me is how insufferably stupid my fellow Americans and especially Kentuckians have become in a mere two years. I mean, is it really possible that a) most people don't recognize how badly the 8 years of GWB fucked up the country, and b) they also don't recognize that handing power back to the repugs so soon (or really, ever) is just the perfect way to bend the country over and fuck it bloody?

I mean, how can you people do this? How can a majority of Kentuckians choose the clown Rand Paul over Jack Conway, who at least showed some seriousness about him during the campaign? How can a majority have chosen Paul, because his "religious beliefs" were attacked? I mean, when did it become a given that ANY candidate's stated religious beliefs MUST be believed and not challenged no matter what actions he may take in opposition to those stated beliefs? Why is it not possible for a person to LIE ABOUT HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS? I mean, really. Nobody believes US that automatically. Why should Rand Paul be believed automatically?

SO Jack was supposed to be ashamed of what he said about Paul's religion, JUST BECAUSE RAND PAUL SAID SO!!

I don't think so. And in fact, Paul's actions in the campaign and since suggest, once again for me, that if this is how a born-again Christian behaves in the world, then I want nothing whatever to do with being a born-again Christian.

I rather expect Rand Paul to resign as senator when he discovers how little senators earn relative to self-certified eye doctors. If he doesn't, it's a sure sign that senators are robbing us more than we thought.

Because Rand Paul may love power, but I have the distinct impression that he loves money more.

And I'm absolutely certain that he's an asshole.

Now challenge me on that observation, SENATOR Paul. I am as trustworthy as you are. I am as religious as you are. I am as worthy of having my morals accepted unquestioned as you are.

I am no more a lying m-----f----- than you are. So if I get questioned (and I do), then so do you. So shut the eff up, you little weasel

I wandered on this one a bit. I'll try harder next time.

How to restore the Democratic majority

2010-11-01T00:23:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

“It is absolutely critical that you go out and vote,” Mr. Obama said here in Philadelphia. “This election is not just going to set the stage for the next two years. It’s going to set the stage for the next 10, the next 20.”

Well, lots of political rhetoric can be disputed and turned on its head - but without claiming to be able to see into the future, I think we could reasonably say that the above is a true statement.

I'm grieving already, even though the election isn't for two more days. I mean, I know pundits and prognosticators aren't always right, and they could be dead wrong this time. But if they're right, then the Republicans are going to make major gains in the Congress, and could conceivably take control of both Houses. And for that prospect, or even that of their taking one House, I grieve.

Cuz ya see, I love this country, and its people and its institutions. And seeing the possibility of even one House of Congress falling into the hands of the lunatic fringe just makes me so very sad. Why are our people so ignorant, so oblivious? Why does it appear likely that we'll vote back in the party that nearly destroyed America under George W. Bush? Why does it look like we will be so ignorant that we'll vote for nation-slayers simply because Pres. Obama has been unable to perform the miracle of reversing in two years the damage GWB did in 8 years, while fighting the obstructionism of the opposing party?

I am grieving. Truly.

But I have an idea that might help the Democrats in the future, if not right away. Here's my idea:

If the Repugs win one or both Houses, nothing of President Obama's agenda is going to get done in the next two years, and it's very possible that Mitch McConnell will get his wish and Prosident Obama will be a one-term president. God knows that's what the entire mechanism of the Republican party is aiming for.

BUT! And this could work, folks - think about it: If one or both Houses are lost, then the very next day, November 3rd, the Democrats must start bombarding their respective Houses with every single scintilla of Obama's agenda. I mean everything any of them ever thought of as the Democratic agenda MUST go into the hopper, and it must remain a steady stream for two full years. And each one of those bills must be trumpeted to the skies!!! Every American with a radio, a TV, a computer, or dental fillings that pick up signal must be made aware that the Dems are working for them, and the repugs are obstructing every gahdam thing! For two full years, this must be the message. Most if not all of the bills will die in committee, and never make it to a floor vote. But the repugs will eventually, I'm thinking about July or so of 2011, have to account for themselves. They'll have to tell the American people just WHY they're doing fuck-all to deal with the nation's problems, and WHY they're shitting all over everything the Dems are trying to do in that regard.

And even the most steadfastly stupid and pseudo-conservative among us will have to admit that not a damn thing has gotten done for the American people while the repugs have been in charge. And maybe some of these lunkheaded morons who voted the repugs back in just might change their vote, maybe enough of them will do so to swing things around.

But I mean, it's got to be a constant Niagara Falls of bill submissions, and every single one of them has to be shouted to the rafters. It'll be a lot of work, but hell, the bastards need something to occupy their time for 100-odd thousand dollars a year.

And if this is done with dedication and aplomb, by November 2012, we'll be so effin' sick of the repug bastards and their obstructionism that the Dems will take back both Houses in an unimaginable tidal wave of votes. Even Karl Rove won't be able to steal this one!

And that's what I think the Dems have to do, IF they get their butts kicked as badly as the pundits currently seem to think they will. Of course, if they don't get whupped that badly - well, they need to do damn near exactly the same thing. Only without quite so many trumpets.

Thoughts?

OK, let me explain something here...

2010-10-27T18:47:00.002-04:00

by Rich Miles

Do any of you wonder what this talk is in the TV commercials about a 23% sales tax? I mean, I see this topic getting way out of hand if there isn't some clarity injected into the discussion. So let me give it a try:

First, let me say that I'm not sure if I favor this plan yet or not. There are too many uncertainties to it. I know that if it were laid out the way several countries in Europe do it, then I would be for it, wholeheartedly. But I still have infinite faith in our government to take a perfectly fine idea, and fuck it up miserably. So I'm not going to express an opinion on it until I've seen what, if anything, our lads in Washington are going to do with it. I rather expect it won't be anything like what I'm about to describe, at least in its first incarnation. Assuming there will be a first incarnation.

OK, so here's what is being bandied about, though not with a very high priority at the moment. It's called a value-added tax, or VAT, and it's common in many of the other countries of the civilized world.

But most countries who have a VAT do not apply it to everyday purchases like groceries, toiletries, soft drinks, etc. VAT is intended as a consumption tax. Great Britain has an approximately 17% VAT, in addition to income tax and assorted other taxes - but NOT sales tax. I don't know what other countries charge, though it should be easy enough to ferret them out on the Internet.

So what would be the point of America adopting a VAT, which is the 23% tax that's being talked about? Well, if the income tax remains in effect, there would be little point to it. But if the VAT were to replace the income tax, and were attached to enough commodities, it might end up being a boon to all of us - no income tax, and a refund on a portion of the VAT at the end of the year.

So far, there hasn't been enough (none is not enough) sane discussion of the tax to determine if it's feasible in America. But it's not automatically a rotten idea. There are circumstances under which a VAT could be a good idea.

But you'll never convince a repug of that. It's a tax, and there's nothing else for it but to reject it.

So that's what the tax is about. It will take a lot more talk before it can even be considered in this country.

And if you have a clearer explanation of VAT, please comment here. I'd appreciate it.

Find John Roberts a new job

2010-10-24T12:24:00.005-04:00

by Rich Miles

Yellow Dog, over at Blue in the Bluegrass, has posted on a topic that I think should become near and dear to the hearts of all liberals: the impeachment of Supreme Court justices who do not serve the people. Go read the whole thing.

But here's what I think: This - the impeachment of one or more extremely biased Supreme Court justices - is one of the best ideas I've seen in years. In fact, I had this idea about a year or so ago, but figured it would lead to civil war, so never put it out there.

But ya know, all considered, civil war may not be such a bad thing. At least, not considering the alternative, which is the destruction of the American way of life.

Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and arguably one or two others, need to be gotten rid of (this is NOT a physical threat, but an urging toward the use of law to remove them from office). The Supreme Court must always be seen as the last, FAIREST resort of American government, and now it's like the judges on the courts of some banana republic, where the rulings are pretty much decided in advance.

And the Citizens United ruling is unquestionably the WORST ruling the U.S. Supreme Court has EVER handed down. It literally hands the right to vote to wealthy corporations, to the exclusion of the rest of us.

We're seeing the effect of this now, in the 2010 election cycle. NO ONE thinks this is a good idea except the CEO's of large corporations.

And have you ever parsed out WHY corporations agree with this ruling?

It's because Citizens United allows corporations quite literally to BUY POLITICIANS. It's no longer covert - the pols are for sale, and they're just about price-marked and on the shelves waiting for the highest bidder.

And of course, after those pols are bought and placed in office, they continue to have allegiances, required allegiances, to those whut brung 'em.

Again, to the exclusion of the rest of us. So our Supreme Court is no longer ours. It belongs to the corporations, which according to the courts, are just like human beings and have every right to give as much money as they wish to any candidate they wish.

Now how can anyone view that as anything but permission to buy politicians? Give 'em as much money as you want, and then expect them NOT to do your bidding at every turn? Are we really that stupid, that we think that's NOT what's going to happen? And who gave us this ruling, but Roberts' court?

And how do we get rid of corrupt justices? And what doubt can there be that several of our justices are unquestionably corrupt?

Impeach Roberts. To start with. And then we'll see what happens next.

Bush lets self off hook too easily - again!

2010-10-22T10:27:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

Today, the Huffington Post reports that George W. "I never did anything wrong while in the presidency" Bush finally admits to having done something less than perfectly while he warmed the seat in the Oval Office. Can you believe it?

But he gets this one wrong too - he says that his biggest mistake while president was not privatizing Social Security!

I mean the gall of this guy! First, he really seems to believe that it was all his doing that it failed, and secondly, he seems to think it would have been a GOOD thing if he'd succeeded

Read the whole thing here.

You know, a pattern is beginning to emerge in American history - I'm being hyperbolic, it's already emerged. The pattern is, every time since Reagan inclusive that a Republican president has been in office, the American treasury has taken a major hit, and the Democrats have gotten blamed for it.

I mean, Reagan's tax cuts, and other monetary chicanery, and Bush's additional tax cuts, PLUS the establishment of the Homeland Security department, and the consolidation of all those cabinet departments under its aegis, and other spending and deficit accumulation over 8 years - I mean, people, it's not just cant to say that there was a SURPLUS in the federal budget before Bush hit Washington - there really was a SURPLUS!!! MORE money than we needed to pay the nation's bills! You know...a SURPLUS!

And now, after 8 years of Bush and less than 2 years of Obama, there is a MASSIVE and I mean massive deficit - and it all gets blamed on Obama???

I mean, how stupid can Americans be? Do we really think that just SAYING that Obama is responsible for the deficits of the past 10 years makes it so?

(I mean yeah, Obama and his people have made some decisions that have added to the deficit, but c'mon!!! Let's look at the figures - Obama's additions have been a small percentage of what Bush put there with his people, his Congress, and his executive orders, and so on.)

I'm beginning to despair of Americans' intelligence - do we really have so little ability to remember history, to observe facts, to really figger it out, that we're going to hand over Congress to the very people who put us in this mess, in the hope that they'll pull us out of it this time? Are we really that stupid? That we're going to expect a segment of the population to behave totally against type? That we will expect liars to tell the truth this time?

Will we do this at our own peril? And will we suffer the consequences - among them the loss of Social Security payments as Republicans take the SocSec surplus and apply it to the general fund deficits?

Think it over, people. It's not only the future of our country, and our children. It's our own future too. Believing Republicans is hazardous to our and our country's health.

If the pundits are to be believed, we are. And it just makes me sick in my guts to see it happening.

I mean, I keep praying for what looks like a miracle. And you know how useful that can be.

What's wrong with him?

2010-10-05T16:07:00.003-04:00

OK, I'm stumped: What's the problem with David Brooks?

I mean, the guy spent 8 years being the biggest kind of Bush-lovin' asshole, and completely alienated me, among many others.

And now, at least to a certain degree, Brooks has lately been a perfect, or near-perfect, gentleman!

Today's column (10/5/10) is a positive paean to - of all people on the opposite side of the aisle - Rahm Emanuel! Brooks spends pretty much the entire column talking about how misunderstood and mischaracterized poor Rahm is, and how he's a much nicer guy than everyone thinks he is.

Read the whole thing here.

Now, I have no way of knowing if Rahm Emanuel is a nice guy or not - I've only met him once, and that was at an all-Democrat function where he would be inclined to be on his best behavior. In that instance, he was indeed a gentleman, though one could sense the pent-up power of the man. But of course, pent-up power can move in two directions, so even that doesn't really say anything definitive.

Anyway, I'm out of things to say here. I'd love to have your opinions on Brooks' column, and any further perceptions you may have about Emanuel or about Brooks' recent tone. Thanks!

Too many truths, too many lies

2010-10-01T11:06:00.002-04:00

by Rich Miles

Dear Republicans:

I don't know why I bother with these open letters to Repugs. As a group, you've all made it perfectly clear that you won't listen to anyone except those who say exactly what you want to hear. But I keep thinking if I continue to try to get some truth down to you, eventually a few of you will wake up to something resembling reality. Only time will tell if I'm right or wrong. So far, I'm fairly certain I'm wrong.

Anyway, today's sermon is on the topic of Social Security. In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that I am a recipient of SocSec benefits. But this only serves to make me more careful to get my facts straight when discussing the matter.

Let me start by pointing out that almost everything Republicans have said on this topic has been either wrong or a deliberate lie. Democrats have made a few errors on the matter, but I don't think I've so far seen any direct lies from a Dem.

Anyway, I'd like to ask you all, of either persuasion, to take note of a very salient fact in the discussion: in the portion relating to how long SocSec can survive, the numbers keep getting bigger. For instance, as recently as about 18 months ago, it was being said that benefits could be paid for 25 years, after which 75% of promised benefits could be paid almost into perpetuity.

Now, the estimate is that all promised bennies can be paid through 2039 (29 years out), and that 80% will be paid for almost-ever.

The numbers are getting bigger, see?

Predictions of SocSec insolvency have been made for decades. There was an article in Esquire magazine back when I was still in high school, prior ro 1971, that said the insolvency would ALREADY be here, by 1996 if I remember correctly.

But it's still solvent, and the actuarial estimates for how much longer it will survive are another 29 years out.

I begin to believe that the entire purpose of the Republican party and all its members is to KILL SocSec. Nothing else, just that. They certainly haven't DONE anything else to dispel that belief.

BUT - there is one bit of misinformation that is making the Democratic rounds that I'd like to put a stop to:

Some people seem to think that the way to absolutely ensure solvency is to increase the maximum income level up to which payroll assessments for the system are made, or eliminate any maximum and just keep taking out deductions up to infinity. It's currently at $106,800, which means that if you make more than that, your employer will stop deducting SocSec from your gross pay.

But the suggestion has been made, repeatedly, that deductions should continue to be made no matter how much one makes. That would increase contributions to the fund by a lot, and add to solvency. Well, that's not entirely true, but here's why such a plan would not be fair: because of the maximum amount on which benefits are calculated. That amount is, you guessed it, $106,800. If you make more than that, your benefit when you retire will not increase as a result. So, it's not really fair to ask high income makers to pay more for something that will not benefit them more.

Or so the theory goes. It's up to you whether you agree that it's unfair to continue to take deductions for something that doesn't produce a benefit. I don't really know how I feel about it. I'm tending toward the old leftie position of "Shut the fuck up and pay the money", but I'm not sure yet.

Got an opinion on this?

Held Hostage

2010-09-23T09:16:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

You know, there are lots of people who write blogs and columns who are trying very hard to make noise and get noticed. So when a guy with a national forum just plugs along, telling major truths without shouting about it, it's kinda refreshing.

So it is with Paul Krugman. I know I've spent a lot of time and column inches praising him lately, but he really does seem to be one of the few national voices telling us the unpleasant truths. He's a leftie, that much seems undeniable, and that's probably one of the reasons I like him so much. But he's also revealing some of the deep-level machinations going on in Washington, and we need such revelations.

Like, for instance, that the Republicans in Congress are seeking to blackmail the entire country if they don't get what they want: consider this excerpt from Krugman's column of this date (9/23/10):

“Nice middle class you got here,” said Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader. “It would be a shame if something happened to it.”

O.K., he didn’t actually say that. But he might as well have, because that’s what the current confrontation over taxes amounts to. Mr. McConnell, who was self-righteously denouncing the budget deficit just the other day, now wants to blow that deficit up with big tax cuts for the rich. But he doesn’t have the votes. So he’s trying to get what he wants by pointing a gun at the heads of middle-class families, threatening to force a jump in their taxes unless he gets paid off with hugely expensive tax breaks for the wealthy.

You got that? He's willing to raise taxes on the middle class and poor in America, and if he doesn't get the permanent tax cuts he wants for the TOP 2% of wage-earners, he will hold the remaining 98% of us HOSTAGE by raising our taxes.

Now seriously - what kind of total scumbag would do something like that? Who, other than a repug moron, like oh I don't know, Mitch McConnell, thinks that the richest 2% of our population deserves more consideration that that poorest 98%?

And to go back to the top of the page, my point about Paul Krugman is that he's just quietly revealing this sort of information, very quietly, without fanfare or acrimony. Or name-calling or hatred or childish behavior. He just tells it like it is. Which is pretty damn rare these days.

But back to the point: Mitch McConnell and his party-mates are willing to fuck you in order to score partisan points. They'll harm you, raise your taxes, AND leave the taxes of the wealthy UNraised.

I mean, did all these jerks fail basic arithmetic? Do they not understand that wealthy people have more money than the rest of us? I mean, as surprising as it may seem, I don't, and most liberals don't, want rich people to be taxed punitively. We don't want them taxed so much that they cease to be wealthy.

We just want them to pay their fair share. Like about, oh I don't know, Clinton-era tax levels. No one went bankrupt at those tax rates, and we ended up with a budget surplus (yes, that's right, a SURPLUS) for about a minute and a half, till the repugs lied their way into office in 2000.

Doesn't anyone remember George Bush claiming in the campaign debates, more than once, that his tax cuts would benefit all Americans, and Al Gore replying that the actuarial analysis showed that Bush's proposal for tax cuts overwhelmingly benefitted the top 1-2% of taxpayers, and Bush lying his ass off, even ridiculing Gore by saying that it wasn't true.

But it was. True, I mean. And a few months after the election, when the big-time pundits discovered it was true, they acted soooooooo surpriiiiised! One of the network guys, I wish I could remember which one, even said that there was "no way we could have predicted such an outcome." I remember this much - when I saw the guy say that, I wanted to wring his effin' geeky little neck.

And it remains true. And the entire repug side of the entire U.S. Congress, both houses, are willing to lie through their teeth right to our faces.

And these same repugs want us to give them CONTROL of both houses in November, so they can do stuff to aid the wealthy and big business even more. And by extension, whether intended or not, to screw the rest of us. And I'm pretty sure it's intended.

Man, talk about yer class warfare!

Democrats, stand up and knee these guys in the nuts! Please!

And repug voters, come ON!!! Look at what's going on around you! They're screwing you too, you know. It doesn't take much research to see it.

It's not partisan politics. It's the future of our country. Believe it!

Krugman Scores Again

2010-08-21T12:44:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

Here's the paragraph of the week, from Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Princeton University. I tried to reduce it to one sentence, but I couldn't do it. So, for your reading enjoyment:

It seems almost superfluous, given all that, to mention the final insult: many of the most vocal austerians are, of course, hypocrites. Notice, in particular, how suddenly Republicans lost interest in the budget deficit when they were challenged about the cost of retaining tax cuts for the wealthy. But that won’t stop them from continuing to pose as deficit hawks whenever anyone proposes doing something to help the unemployed.

I mean, ain't that great??? This from a column entitled "Appeasing the Bond Gods", in which Dr. Krugman shows us how Republican operatives are treating the bulk of the American people like human sacrifices whose only function is to appease the gods.

I've probably said this before, but I think based on Krugman's column today and on current circumstances in our country, it bears saying again: What do the repugs plan to do for servants and peons, once they wipe all of us poor and middle-class people out? When I first posed the question, I intended it to be more or less humorous, but as time passes it seems a more and more serious concern for the poor Repugnicans. If all of us Democrats and other lefties are reduced to struggling skeletons fighting each other for scraps of food, or worse if we start dying of starvation, which is the logical extreme of Republican policy, then what will the fat cats do for valets, butlers, cooks, etc.? Surely they won't have to polish their own shoes, prepare their own meals, wipe their own asses, etc., etc., etc?

OK, so it's a long time till that happens - but the process has to start somewhere. And driving the bulk of the middle and lower classes to abject poverty is, as far as I can see, a good first step toward it. And they (the repugs) have been embarked on this mass murder for at least 40 years, since Nixon was president.

Add to this direct effort at impoverishing us, there are wars to kill off our young men, ignoring global warming, and for all I really know a concerted effort to purchase land away from the coasts, so when global warming kicks in, and the ice caps melt, and the coasts close in on us, they'll have some place to go, and we won't.

There is lots more, but I'll leave that to your imagination. I also realize how paranoid this whole article is. I at least acknowledge that there is no organized plot to achieve this - at least, not yet.

But if the gap between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor continues to widen, as it has done for the past 25-40 years, none of this - NONE of it, mind you - is impossible. No matter how unlikely it may seem, it's not impossible.

Read your science fiction. Note how much of what USED to be science fiction is now fact. And consider how much more could become so. Try reading "The Handmaid's Tale", by Margaret Atwood, to see how people can become second, third or lower-class citizens in the service of the wealthy. In Atwood's tale, rented or hired wombs. In The Terminator, men vs. machines, machines created by wealthy men who wanted control of Earth. And of course, Harlan Ellison's I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, among many others he wrote that spoke to the same topic.

Men like Paul Krugman are, whether they know it or not, fighting against these sorts of things. Unfortunately, before most of us will join the battle, we will require proof that amounts to nearly losing the battle. That's called complacency.

In the paragraph of the week above, substitute "the poor and lower classes" for "the unemployed", and it works much better for the right-wing extremists. Or maybe even "the unwashed lower classes". Or worse.

This one is positively criminal!

2010-08-13T13:43:00.002-04:00

by Rich Miles

Well, we've all watched Rand Paul stumble, slash, lie and apologize his way through this campaign, and I don't know about you, but it makes me tired just to watch him. I want the campaign to be over so I don't have to wake up almost daily to his latest faux pas or lie or idiocy or whatever.

But this one - the moronic remark du jour - is just too much. He's crossed over the line from stupidity to genuinely aiding and abetting criminal behavior. My friend Bob over at Blue Bluegrass has detailed for us today (8/13) how stupid Rand has declared that the drug problem in eastern Kentucky is not a pressing issue.

I mean, what kind of total moron would say such a thing? Surely no one who has ever been to Eastern Kentucky for longer than 5 minutes. Surely no one who has any friends or relatives in that part of the state (or indeed, anywhere in the state). Surely no one who has ever read a state-based newspaper with a bureau in the eastern half of the state.

Surely no one with an effing BRAIN IN HIS HEAD.

I mean, fer cryin' out loud, there were 114 overdose deaths in the 21-county area in the first - wait for it - TWO MONTHS of this year!! And Bubblehead Paul thinks that Kentuckians won't miss the Operation UNITE anti-drug task force because most of us haven't even heard of it. And most of the voters in the region will vote for him because he and they are socially and fiscally conservative.

While the high-powered rifle fire is passing through their homes....

I'm serious - this remark from Rand Paul is no less than aiding and abetting criminal enterprise. In order to take a tiny little bit of pressure off the federal budget, we should let an extremely vicious and ruthless criminal element just ply their trade unimpeded. It's hard to interpret this any other way. Except perhaps that Rand doesn't think the loss of an average 57 Kentuckians a month, nearly 2 a DAY, to overdoses is any big deal.

Does this anger you? Does it anger you even a bit worse that the man who said all this now wants your vote in getting him elected to the Federal legislature, where he can actually vote on such actions and perhaps help them get passed?

Is he going to apologize for this one too? And if so, Republicans, are you going to let the apology count?

Or is it time yet to kick this clown to the curb? Hasn't anyone else gotten as sick of this little dweeb as I have?

I simply don't know where else to go with this. I can't imagine an adult saying something like this. But then, we're not really sure Rand Paul is an adult.

Whup his ass, Jack. PLEASE!!!!!

Hey, Babes, Let's Network!!

2010-07-29T15:07:00.002-04:00

I've always envisioned all the bloggers across the country as a force of almost unimaginably massive proportions to be reckoned with - thousands or ever hundreds of thousands of individual writers with their own personal outlets, who can if they want reach almost every human being with a computer all across the country and even around the world. That is, to me, what blogging is all about, or should be.

So now I'm asking you to help me fulfill that dream by reposting the following information. You see, the Republicans have been trying to defeat Social Security ever since it was first created in 1935 - in fact, some of them have made it their life's work to try to do so. But obviously so far, they have failed.

But they're still trying to this day - and for reasons that so far escape me, some of the high-level pundits whose work I usually admire seem to believe that somehow, this time, they may actually have a chance to pull it off.

So spread the word, far and near, spread it loud and permit no bullshit to get in your way: Social Security is NOT going away, and any politician who votes for it to be repealed does so at peril of his career.

PLEASE REPRINT THE FOLLOWING - AND ASK ALL YOUR BLOGGER FRIENDS TO DO SO AS WELL. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST CONCISE AND CLEAR DELINEATIONS OF THE SITUATION I'VE SEEN ANYWHERE, AND I ASK YOU TO HELP ME GET THE WORD OUT TO EVERY AMERICAN, WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A COMPUTER.

I DIDN'T WRITE THIS. BUT I SURE DO WANT IT SPREAD. PLEASE HELP!!!! And you can cut&paste the links at the bottom of the page if you want further information.

I'd love to see this on every blog in America. Except of course the right-wing ones. That's never gonna happen!
=====================================================
Social Security is under attack and we need to fight back against the lies.

Have you heard that Social Security is going bankrupt? Driving up the deficit? In crisis?

Well none of that is true. These are all myths that opponents of Social Security have been spreading to scare people into accepting benefit cuts this fall. But the myths are taking hold—so we have to fight back with the facts.

So we've put together a list of the top five myths about Social Security, along with the real story. Can you check out the list and then share it with your friends, family, and coworkers?

Share the list by going to http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths?id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=1 If you're on Facebook, share it by clicking here. If you're on Twitter, tweet it here.

Top 5 Social Security Myths
Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.8

Defeating these myths is the first step to stopping Social Security cuts. Can you share this list now?

Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Duncan, Daniel, Kat, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security," New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=4

2. "The Straight Facts on Social Security," Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89704&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=5

3. "Social Security and the Age of Retirement," Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89705&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=6

4. "More on raising the retirement age," Washington Post, July 8, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89706&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=7

5. "Social Security is sustainable," Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89707&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=8

6. "Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010," Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240

7. "Trust Fund FAQs," Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

8."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security," New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22136-2474152-_ZUf9Tx&t=9
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to Richard Hauenstein on July 29, 2010. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here.

Paul Krugman copies me

2010-07-23T11:34:00.011-04:00

by Rich Miles

A most remarkable thing happened this morning. I mean really remarkable. I've often had major thoughts about stuff before anyone in the MSM does (I predicted the major gum-up in the intelligence community, and its concomitant huge expense, years ago, for instance), but rarely if ever has there been any proof of this. If I let the thought go by without expressing it, I was screwed - no one knew I'd had this profound thought.

But today, Paul Krugman wrote on the same topic (mostly) that I did yesterday: The attempted rehabilitation of George W. Bush, all the while using that rehab to make Barack Obama into the Great Satan.

Dr. Krugman, Nobel Prize winner, is impressing me more and more, though he's been a brilliant man for a long time now. He recognizes the little stuff inside the big stuff, and tells us about it, all the while informing it with the big picture.

But today's Krugman column tells secrets that the repugs don't want you to know - that they're not only not working with the president to make America better, they're actually working against him, and seeking to bring back the Bush administration, the one that almost broke America completely.

I mean, what the hell is it with these people, and what was it about Bush that made them so keen to get him, or at least his ideologies, back in place in America? I've said before that Reagan was never a charismatic figure, and if Reagan wasn't, then Bush damn sure wasn't. So it isn't that he was such a towering public figure.

Are we as a nation and a people so venal, so self-absorbed, so lacking in perspective that we'll vote for a politician who will destroy the rest of the country, as long as he promises to lower taxes? Is that all that matters to us any more, lower taxes?

Read Dr. Krugman today. See if his premise doesn't scare hell out of you. I think it just might. Karl Rove is speaking publicly again. That alone should make you wee yourself.

And I'm quite sure that there are interests in this country - self-interests, mostly - who would love to see another Bush era. Because it would benefit them. Never mind the deep damage it would do the country. We have become a nation of selfish bastards, and there are those - quite a few of them actually - who are trying to make sure we stay that way.

Questioning Authority

2010-07-20T20:23:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

Let me ask you fuckin' repugs something:

(Hey, I like that - fuckin' repugs. Think I'll use it more often.)

So anyway, let me ask you something: Why are the additions to the federal deficit created by Obama and other Democrats so important and so dire, when 8 YEARS of deficit creation by Bush and his fuckin' repugs were never spoken of with so much as a discouraging word?

Why was Bush allowed not only to spend zillions of dollars, but to KILL OUR CHILDREN, in a cause that had nothing to do with the attacks on our soil of Sept. 11, 2001?

Why was that all right, but Obama's efforts to get the country and its people back on something resembling an even keel are not to be tolerated?

Now don't get me wrong - I don't like the idea of deficit spending any more than the next guy. But why was it all right for the God Bush to do it, including that stinkin' war we're still in today, the longest war in American history, but it's not all right for Obama to spend even more, even though he's making a (so far insufficient) effort to put people back to work, which is our real problem now?

And why is it not as obvious to you as it is to us that the entire Bush the Younger administration was about NOTHING more than robbing America - stealing as much of her substance as possible in 8 years, and doing rather a damned good job of it at that?

Dear fuckin' repugs, don't you know this is what infuriates us about you the most? Your inconsistency, your ability to let the sins of your leaders pass by unremarked, while the sins (or not) of our leaders are just too evil for contemplation. Your hyperbole, your effort to make everyone believe that your people are led by God, while ours are pretty much the instruments of Satan?

Doesn't it ever chafe a little on the inside of your skulls? Don't you ever examine your leaders and their actions enough to recognize that they're not looking out for your best interests? I mean, it's obvious to us - just because they SAY they're on God's side doesn't mean they ARE! Just because they tell you their wishes are those of God doesn't make it so!

I mean, don't you people EVER question anything, or anyone among your leaders?

I can't go on. This gives me a headache, realizing that fellow human beings can be so very very STOOPID!!

I mean really, you fuckin' repugs! Don't you EVER....

Ahhhh, fuck it. No one is going to change their minds because of this. But what I learn from this, the battle of the Democrats and the repugs, is that fuckin' repugs are just crazy. Vehemently, virulently crazy! That is, where they're not stupid beyond redemption.

And THAT is what we really think of you. We'd feel sorry for you, if you weren't so busy taking potshots at our heads - usually figuratively, but occasionally quite literally.

So not that it will do the slightest good, but - would you people get your shit together? I mean seriously - some day you're going to have to be put out of your misery if you don't. At least, I hope you are.

Why can't anyone call it like it is?

2010-07-04T22:40:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

So I'm watching all this shit going down in Congress about "business reform", and in the midst of all that, I suddenly realize that no one, but NO one, is really saying what has happened: the Republicans have fucked up the country beyond all recognition, and we're now faced with the daunting task of UN-fucking it.

No one is saying that in any kind of serious public forum. No one is saying that back in the Reagan administration, when the talk was all about "free markets", and suchlike nonsense, and we actually LET THEM DO IT, let them remove most of the government regulations that controlled the robber barons to a degree, and as might be predicted the robber barons started lunching on all the rest of us, and their greed was so great that twenty-five or thirty years later, there was hardly a one of us who didn't have at least the odd bite mark on our sorry carcasses, and some had been utterly devoured.

And here we are, 30 years after Reagan was elected, and the only honest statement one can make about the business practices of those 30 years is that they DIDN'T WORK for the overwhelming majority of the American people. And as we try to fix the system that ate at least a little of almost all of us, no one is willing to use the one word that describes the actions of those vultures to a T:

Greed.

For that's all it was. It wasn't letting the free markets have their way, it was greed. It wasn't capitalism at its "best", it was greed.

It was people who were already insanely wealthy using the relaxed laws to rob the less wealthy and the poor. It was unregulated big business devouring the small mom and pop businesses that all but don't exist today. It was those same big businesses greasing the palms of government to secure contracts that made them even huger and richer.

In short, it was greed. And those who could not trade in greed perished. Those who had a conscience, and couldn't bring themselves to run roughshod over their fellows were themselves run over and killed. And it continued for years and decades, and now we've finally realized the human and financial costs of such a status quo, and we're trying to put the genie of greed back in the bottle.

But it ain't easy. For one thing, the greedy have received lots of help from the courts, and for another, the greedy are whining about their right to be greedy being infringed upon, or potentially so, by these new laws. Seriously, they're whining!

But the country can't keep up this way. We can't have this kind and degree of greed continuing in the boardrooms and office suites of America. There has to be some sort of regulation of these people. They cause too much pain and damage when left to their own devices. Congress is slow, but they seem to be on it this time, at least to a certain degree. But they have to pass some version of the reforms. It is very possible that America will not survive if they don't. At least, won't survive in its present form. We won't be able to afford her. There'll be about 1000 people with all the money, and none of them will be paying any taxes.

Far-fetched perhaps. But not impossible.

Whatever happened to Jim Webb?

2010-06-18T08:15:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

You know, of all the recently-elected liberal or progressive senators, the one who appeared to have the most solid liberal credentials and the most likely to raise some serious leftie hell in the Senate is Jim Webb of Virginia.

While he was a candidate, ol' Jim in essence told the good ol' boys to go fuck themselves, and made it clear that he was going to be his own man and big-biz interests could just screw off, thank you very much.

But since he's been elected? Not so much.

THe only times I've heard of ol' Jim, who does not represent my state, and therefore is not top of mind for me all the time, have been when he's voted for something extremely RIGHT-wing. Like yesterday.

Ol' Jim got not one but TWO chances to be a traitor to his progressive roots yesterday, and by golly, don't you know he took BOTH of them?

First, the vote was taken for the Jobs bill, already passed in the House, and on the spurious grounds of "deficit reduction", the Senate voted it down, including our trusty Mr. Webb. The final tally was 52-45, with every single slimebag anti-American family repug joined by about a dozen supposedly liberal Democrats, including our boy Jimbo.

Then, so as to make it a full day of work, they voted on an amendment introduced by one of the few remaining REAL progressives, independent Bernie Sanders. Here's what ol' Bernie's pretty straightforward amendment allowed: to "eliminate big oil and gas company tax loopholes, and to use the resulting increase in revenues to reduce the deficit and to invest in energy efficiency and conservation." See? Deficit reduction, just like the rationale for not passing the unemployment bill.

But deficit reduction only matters when it can come out of the pockets of ordinary Americans, not corporate "people".

Remember this, America!!! Remember how we were betrayed even by some of those who we had every reason to expect to be our champions, like Jim Webb.

In the interest of accuracy, the two bills mentioned above were NOT literally voted on on the same day. It was within TWO days, not that that really makes any difference to the traitorous thesis of this article.

But see, as so many have been saying for so long, Democrats don't need the repugs to defeat them, when they do such a good job on themselves. If Democrats can't be counted on to be at least somewhere left of the middle of almost every issue, then where is our beloved two-party system left?

In closing, let me mention that John Kerry voted against the Big Oil amendment, and Russ Feingold voted against the Jobs Bill.

Where o where are our liberal champions? If there are any anymore.

I'm getting old, and I'm not sure I can figger this stuff out any more. Are people really this conservative across the board? Do Americans really want their elected reps to vote this way?

Or are our elected reps not even taking our wishes into consideration before they vote, just like always?

Storm the Bastille. I'm tellin' ya, that's what it's eventually gonna come to.

And I'm not even going to MENTION What's-his-name Barton's apology to BP. That one made me a little ashamed to be an American.

Definition of egregious

2010-06-15T08:01:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

The New York Times today has an editorial that should make your blood boil. It did mine.

I just don't understand the people who not only are able to get away with this, but who actually believe that it's right and proper to do so - who actually believe they are more entitled to these things than the overwhelming majority of the rest of us.

Here's the kicker. Read the whole thing:

"Nonemergency provisions in the (unemployment insurance extension) bill do need to be paid for, including renewal of several generally useful business tax breaks, like the research-and-development tax credit, totaling $32 billion over 10 years. To help cover those costs, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate started out with the sound idea to close an egregious tax loophole that allows wealthy fund managers at private equity firms and other investment partnerships to pay a top tax rate of just 15 percent on much of their earnings — versus a top rate of 35 percent for all other higher-income Americans.
"

Here's my perfectly obvious question: Why do the wealthy get the tax breaks? They've got lots of money. That's why they're known as, you know, the wealthy. They've got a lot of money left over AFTER they pay taxes. Usually more after taxes than the overwhelming majority of us will ever see BEFORE taxes are paid.

So when is this going to stop?

How about a little Bastille-storming? Or the 21st-century equivalent thereof?

A New Political Party

2010-06-11T20:23:00.005-04:00

by "Not Sure Who Wrote This"

Got this in my email today, and thought it was marginally clever. I don't say I agree 100% with everything said here, but it seems that a good deal of it needs to be said one way or the other. See what you think:
===========================================================

*A New Political Party.*

*Not Democrat, Not Republican, Not Independent, and most definitely not Tea.*

*It's called the “PISSED OFF PARTY" (or POP).*

*This party is dedicated to vote every incumbent out of office in the next elections.*

*If you're Democrat, vote Democrat. Just don't vote for the incumbent.*

*If you're Republican, vote Republican. Just don't vote for the incumbent.*

*We need to send a message to all politicians, that we're tired of their B.S.*

*If the country votes out all the incumbents, the new incoming politicians will get the message..*

*It's pretty simple. Nobody needs to change parties and let’s face it, there's plenty of blame to spread around.*

*A few good politicians will lose their job but they probably have better retirement and insurance than 95% of the American public.*

*You've had to struggle for the last 5 years. Some of you have lost your job and may be working in some other sector just to feed your family.*

*I guarantee you, none of them will suffer like this country has.*

*If you like what's going on and think this is a bad idea, delete this.*

*But if you're fed up and think this is a good idea, then pass this E-mail on.*

*If you really think this has legs, then a website and a blog could help get the word out.*

*To All 535 voting members of the US Congress: it is now official: you are ALL corrupt morons.*

Here's how we know:

*a.. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.*

*b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.*

*c.. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.*

*d.. The War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.*

*e.. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.*

*f.. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.*

*g.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.*

*You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.*

*AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM? *

*IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NEED FOR GOOD HEALTH CARE, IT'S ABOUT TRUSTING THE GOVERNMENT TO RUN IT!*

*Folks, keep this circulating.

Unconstitutional

2010-06-09T09:44:00.002-04:00

by Rich Miles

You wanna know something? My constitutional rights are being violated. Regularly and egregiously.

Because I am not represented in the US Congress. Not in either House. Nope. My beliefs and wishes are not represented. There are three guys who nominally represent my district - Brett Guthrie, Mitch McConnell, and Jim Bunning. But they don't represent ME.

Because they are idiots, who espouse policies and governmental actions that are abhorrent to me. They are not merely frequently in disagreement with me - they are CONSTANTLY in disagreement with me. I don't remember any of these three guys, or their predecessors, ever doing anything I wanted them to do. It's pretty much 100% when one considers matters of any controversy whatever.

Now, I do understand the concept of democracy - the "majority rules" ideal, and I know that by the very definition of their respective and collective elections, I am in the minority in my congressional district. But geez, don't I EVER get to have a congressional representative who does what *I* think is right?

I can't wait till this November. Maybe a Democrat will slip through the lines, and I'll be at least partly represented. I mean hey, a boy can dream, can't he?

Naaah. This IS Kentucky, after all - the state that competes with Mississippi and Arkansas for the bottom rung of the American economy and educational excellence. I mean, it isn't impossible, but it seems damned unlikely based on history.

So I'll just go on not being represented in Congress. There are several million others like me, after all. And hey, who knows? We could elect a Democrat SOME day. Some how. Can't we?

I mean, can't we?

Why I am a Democrat

2010-06-02T17:39:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

Way back in the old days, when I was about 18 years old or so, and Richard Nixon was you'll pardon the expression president, I learned all I needed to know about my personal politics by watching Nixon and his compadres in action on national television. I learned that, no matter what else you may be able to say about a Republican, the fact remains that they are mean-spirited, selfish, hateful, and just altogether not nice people. And that they are so un-self-aware that they don't even know it.

And I learned that I didn't want to be like them, and that the only logical way to remain an American but NOT be like them - was to become a Democrat. And so I did.

But in all those years, I tried repeatedly, in essays like this, in letters to the editor and in other fora, to come to a statement of WHY I believe as I do, and I always failed - most often I degenerated into babbling, incoherent fury at the assholes, and couldn't make it really clear what I felt. Sometimes I got partway there but couldn't find the words to really nail it. Sometimes I didn't even get that far.

But I write today because someone has found the words for me. Steve M. has this over at No More Mister Nice Blog:

I suppose it's futile to hope for this, but the left response to the Sestak story should be: Republicans, how dare you. Amid job losses, oil spills, terrorist attacks, and all the other problems we have, you want to bring down a government now, over this? Talk about the criminalization of politics.

But then, Republicans simply don't care about what happens to America. They'd burn America to the ground if it meant they'd rule over the ashes.

I thank Steve immensely for breaking my years of inarticulation. And I rather suspect I'll use this quote again. Accredited, I'm sure.

THAT'S what I really meant to say

2010-06-02T16:06:00.001-04:00

When I was about 20 years old, I discovered what I needed to know to solidify my political leanings for (so far) the rest of my life. I discovered that, whatever else one might say about Republicans, they are mean-spirited, lacking in humanity, hateful, and selfish. And don't even know it.

But ever since then, I've been trying to figure out how to say this about Repugs, and how to say in clear, concise terms what it is that so disgusted me about Republicans in general.

And today, after all that searching, and word juggling for all those years (no I will NOT tell you how many), I believe I've found it. Someone else said it, I won't try to claim it as my own, but the following little snippet says what I've meant to say, AS I meant to say it. It's the culmination of a lifetime's search, and Steve M. stated it for me. Here it is:

"

What we should be getting sick of by now.

2010-05-30T14:33:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

You ever wonder why extreme left-wing pols (like, oh I don't know, Barack Obama among many others) get so squirrely and turn hard-right once they get in office? It happens almost every time, if you wanna take a look back at the last 100 or so years of history. Now why is that, ya reckon? I mean, it isn't as if being right-wing is all that productive a personal philosophy to espouse in the long run. So why is it that so many pols who seem to be lefties aren't so eventually?

Well, I'll tell you - it's because they're bought and paid for by elements of the right - who have more money than God, and can spend it on people who are in a position to make their lives even more comfortable and happy and WEALTHY.

That's it in a nutshell, and if you consider long and hard, or maybe not even so long and hard, you'll see it: all, and I mean ALL of our politicians, and most especially those who campaign as leftwingers, are on the take from rightwing forces beyond our ken and in most cases beyond our control. And until we collectively wake up and cop to this rigged system, and try to do something about it, we're going to continue to see this same system of government in our faces.

You think I exaggerate? You think even the righties in this country couldn't afford to buy that many politicians? Or that there couldn't possibly be that much political will to pay off that many pols, or that there couldn't be that many pols who are that corrupt, that willing to be bought?

Well, you're wrong. On all counts, and probably a few more besides, you're wrong.

Because if you give it a bit of thought, nothing, and I mean NOTHING else makes sense with the set of circumstances under which we live today.

Let me clarify one small point: I am not suggesting that all the left-of-center politicians in this country are literally being bribed with cash in hand. In fact, that particular method of bribery is, while not completely obsolete, probably the least common method.

No, the way most pols are on the take these days is, unfortunately, perfectly legal.

It's called campaign contribution. And it is every bit as much bribery as any bagman-delivered, paper sack full of 100's in the night that any thug ever handed over.

I mean, what else can one call it, when a political boss arranges to deliver 100's of thousands of dollars' worth of cash money to a candidate's campaign, in anticipation that the politician will vote in accordance with the contributor's wante and needs? How is it in any way materially different from bribery, except that it's legal?

And all of our so-called leaders, from the Federal to the hyper-local level, are engaged in the practice, and are proud of it!

So that explains why no one, or nearly no one (Russ Feingold comes to mind, but damn few others) keeps their principles intact beyond the first year or so in office. Especially but not exclusively at the Federal level.

And I'm serious - it's all of them. What we're going to do about it, I cannot say. Just getting rid of them all would create a power vacuum, and might even manage to get rid of a few good ones.

But rid of them is what we need to be. I'm talking about nothing less than an overthrow (a PEACEFUL one) of the entire U.S. government. But if we're going to do it, we'd have to have in place some safeguards to ensure that we wouldn't get another batch of the same bunch of corrupt bastards.

SO what do you make of it? Do you think I'm overstating? I mean, you're wrong, but you're welcome to be so.

We have to do something about this. It'll take a long time to effect it, but we gotta do it. If we don't, we'll live under this yoke forever, as we have so far.

Free Speech

2010-05-28T20:00:00.002-04:00

by Rich Miles

I just happened to land on FreeSpeechTV today. It had been rather a long time since I'd looked at it, and I had forgotten how much it quite literally gladdened my heart to watch them and realize that there are still some folks in the world who really honest to gosh DEFEND DEMOCRACY in the world and in the United States.

It sounds like a given, an axiomatic, to defend democracy in the United States. I mean, that's our system of government, our way of life, right? But if you're not already aware that democracy is being kicked in the nuts at every turn, watching this channel will make you so, and will make you want to join them. We have little chance on a day-to-day basis to stand up for genuine democracy, most of us - how often can most of us afford the time and expense of protesting the government's misfeasance and malfeasance? How often can most of us, busy earning our daily bread, go off to parts abroad to make our voices heard on various and sundry topics? And because it's so infrequent that most people can afford the time, it does indeed gladden the heart to see these folks on FSTV really going at it - really digging for the stories and interviews and video that no other station will show us.

Take a look if you haven't before - or even if you have. On Dish Network, it's on Channel 9415. I have no idea where it lies on any other satellite or cable system, but it's abbreviated FSTV, and it's almost certain to be off in that bunch of channels that has the "weird" stuff - in the netherchannels. Which is a statement about how the guardians of our airwaves or cable boxes or satellite systems view the whole concept of free speech - I guess we gotta have it, but let's kinda "hide" it off in a corner somewhere. But if you discover that your TV system doesn't have FSTV, then tell them to get it. Tout de suite.

But in any case, it's worth looking for, and watching once you find it. Get to searchin'.

Opening salvo - almost literally

2010-05-20T18:47:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

Fella named Timothy Egan, does a little writing for the New York Times from time to time, has pointed out a few early hypocrisies among the tea party lot. Here's what he says - it made me laugh, perhaps it will you too. I think the funniest part is the constituency the Tea Partiers are gonna have to ream up the ass in order to carry out their alleged agenda - it's the constituency that is currently their mainstay. Hoo boy - what an all round goat fuck this is going to be:

Sex, lies, and hypocrisy: does an election day get any more entertaining? And that was before Republicans in Kentucky voted against the advice of the top Republican in Kentucky, and voters in Pennsylvania sent a Democrat to Congress who vowed to take on Democrats in Congress.

First, let’s share one last moment with the day’s diversions. Nothing playing at the local octoplex can match that video of Rep. Mark Souder, the evangelical, family-values Republican from Indiana, giving a lecture on sexual restraint — with his then-secret mistress as the interviewer. He announced his resignation on Tuesday, leaving an homage to high school chastity clubs that should be shown at the Smithsonian, in continuous loop.

At the same time, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, called a news conference to explain how he had “misspoken” in claiming fictional service in Vietnam. Most of us have the same problem. I can swear I played third base for the Red Sox, and hit a dinger over the short fence at Fenway. Or was that whiffle ball with the kids?

If we can make it to November without any more distractions from the pious and the fabulists, it could be a fascinating election. I may be dreaming, but the vote of 2010 might be a mashup for the ages, one of those rare referendums on real stuff.

The Tea Party — that is, the talk-radio-grumpy-old-men wing of the Republican Party — now has some things to answer for, and will have to do more than pose as background for a media narrative on 24-hour cable.

In the Kentucky senate race, those pistol-packin’ partisans who think President Obama was born in Kenya and want government to go away are claiming Rand Paul, who routed the party establishment pick, as one of their own. This is a good development. For who makes up the Tea Party? At their rallies, you see a lot of people on Medicare and Social Security.

Now they have Rand Paul, with his libertarian heritage, to carry the banner. Dr. Paul has promised to fight for “liberty and limited government.”

If we take him at his word, he should move against the biggest obstacles to liberty and limited government in the federal budget: Social Security and Medicare. Since 1966, those two mandatory programs for old people have grown from 16 percent of the federal budget to nearly 40 percent. Medicare now covers about 45 million people. Those deficit-contributing citizens, all those people at Dr. Paul’s rallies with spare time on their hands, would be a logical target.

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Tea Party supporters rallied in Sacramento on Tax Day, April 15.
After all, is it not socialism to force younger taxpayers to pay for the shortfall on behalf of an expanding pool of older Americans? Doesn’t Ayn Rand’s philosophy hold that Wall Street should be free to run wild, that a national health care system for the elderly is tyranny and that the only way for people to live freely is with “full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism,” as Rand said?

We need to have this discussion; it is the fundamental disconnect among people who call themselves Tea Partiers. Rand Paul is the perfect person to force the issue. His father, Ron, was dismissed as a gadfly when he took fellow Republicans to task for putting a trillion dollars worth of wars on the credit card. Let’s see if the son also rises to fight.

In Washington state, many in the Tea Party are backing a former professional football player, Clint Didier, in the Republican race for Senate. He rails against taxpayer bailouts and encroaching socialism. But he doesn’t hate Big Government enough to refuse at least $140,000 in farm subsidies he’s taken since 1995, or the taxpayer-financed irrigation water that keeps his patch of eastern Washington from being barren.

Where is the Tea Party anger at these mostly red-county, fat-cat freeloaders who’ve been given nearly $250 billion in handouts over the last 15 years? I wait for the credible conservative candidate to make the case that taxpayers should not be stuffing nearly a quarter-trillion dollars into the pockets of people who keep high-fructose corn syrup in the American diet. With Clint Didier in the Senate race, at least we now have a poster child for corporate agriculture bailouts.

Too often, campaigns are about surface abstractions: liberty versus government control, real Americans versus Hollywood. But this year, large events of tragic and ongoing impact have occurred, prompting what should be a much bigger discussion of Real Stuff.

Those who argue for continuing the deregulatory trend of the last decade need to look at how well that worked for the families who lost their loved ones in the Massey coal mine, run by a company with a history of bucking government oversight while promoting politicians who do their bidding.

Those who think drill, baby, drill should be the national energy policy must consider the mortal blow to a marine ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico, because a global oil company didn’t want to spend the equivalent of a day’s profit on adequate controls.

And those who think the incomprehensible form of toxic capitalism that evolved in the snake pits of Wall Street should be left unfettered — in keeping with the emerging Rand Paul wing of the Republican Party and lobbyist-rolled representatives of both parties — should consider an astonishing figure from the Treasury Department.

The financial meltdown cost Americans $17 trillion in lost household net worth between 2007 and 2009, according to Alan Krueger, the chief economist for the department.

“How’s that hands-offey, non-regulatory thing workin’ for ya?” was the stinging tag of a recent cartoon by Stuart Carlson. It was meant as a punchline, but if this election does turn out to be about Real Stuff, it could also serve as a question every candidate will have to answer.

An Opportunity to Learn about Parliamentary Government

2010-05-07T19:44:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

OK, kiddies - admit it: you've never really understood how the British government worked, and you're not sure you understand it now, either. Well, here's a brief primer, if you care. Now that there are threats of a "hung Parliament", it seems only fitting that we should expand our horizons a bit, and seek to understand how our mother country runs things.

OK - first off, the Brit equivalent of president is the Prime Minister. But here's the trick - the PM is the leader of the party that wins the majority of seats in Parliament. At this point in time, David Cameron of the Conservative Party should technically be PM - but because of this "hung Parliament" thing, he isn't. There's also the fact that the Queen has to ASK the leader of the majority party to form a new government, and so far, Queen Liz has not done so.

No. 10 refers to the Prime Minister's residence, No. 10 Downing Street. When the Queen requests that a party leader form a new government, he immediately moves into No. 10, and starts to make plans for where the government is going. But again, because the Queen has not requested a new government, Gordon Brown, the current prime minister, does not have to move out, and is still technically running things.

Usually, the queen makes her request pretty soon after the election. However, the closeness of this election has apparently slowed her up.

By closeness, we mean Conservatives (Tories) have 306 seats, the Labour party have 258, and the Liberal Democrats ('Lib Dems') have 57. The number needed for an outright majority is 326.

Now here's the rub: because no one party has a majority, the parties have to form a coalition government. But there is no saying what the coalition has to look like. At the moment, the Tories and the Lib Dems are in talks to form a combined majority, or a "coalition", so that there is a majority and something can get done instead of everything getting hung up ('hung') because there is no majority.

But here's the problem: the Labor party is the equivalent, more or less, of our Democratic party, and the Tories are most nearly the same as our Republicans, only without the snottiness most of the time.

So the Lib Dems, who are nearest in philosophy to our far left, liberal-progressive Democrats, are forced to compromise with the Tories, in order to form a majority coalition. They can also form a coalition with Labour, which will ensure a much larger majority.

This is in large part why a new government has not been formed yet.

Now, there is talk that there will be another election later in the year, in order to elect a real majority government, but there's no guarantee that will work either. The longest time between elections is 5 years, and the shortest is apparently just a few months.

In a lot of ways, their system works better than ours, as odd as that may seem right now. But they are only allowed something like 45 days of campaigning, and no TV advertising. Their prime ministers are not glamour boys like our preznits. And No.10 doesn't require as much lawnmowing as the White House.

Anyway, there are lots more differences between the two systems, but these are the main ones. So now you know. Perhaps the news from London will be a bit less confusing now.

Air Piracy

2010-03-28T23:24:00.005-04:00

by Rich Miles

If Congress wants to do something for the American people (and there is no firm assurance that they do), what they should do is pass a law making it illegal for airlines to advertise one price, and then tack on multiple taxes and fees to jack the price way up by the time the whole tariff is revealed.

Example: I go to Scotland every late summer or early fall. I've done this for the past 10 years now. Each year it's gotten a little more expensive, and when it was only a few dollars increase per year, I grumbled about it, but paid the tab and made my trip.

However, this year, the base rates have increased several hundred dollars, and on top of that are all these stinkin' taxes and fees. One flight advertises at $816, but by the time we add on all the add-ons, it's $1358, or $542 in additional charges. Not too many years ago, the entire fare was not much more than the fees are today.

But seriously, that is the worst example I can find easily, but it's routine for the add-ons to be $100 to $175. And that's enough to piss off most flyers who are responsible for their own fares, sted being paid for by their workplaces.

And as near as one can tell, the absolute only reason this is being done by airlines is the same reason a dog licks his balls: because they can. And perhaps the worst part, or the second-worst part, is that they don't REALLY tell you what the fees are for. They say at least part is "taxes", but I suspect that's at least partly made-up, since most passengers will just assume that taxes are unavoidable, and won't complain too awfully much. As for the fees, not quite so much. These fees used to be routinely included without comment in the main advertised fares. Which were MUCH lower across the board in years past. I just checked my records from 2005, and I flew over and back for a TOTAL of $562.

The fact that at least some of these fees are for baggage is, you'll pardon the expression, a fuckin' outrage.

So Congress needs to put a stop to this - because it's a sure bet that the airlines are not going to cut it out voluntarily.

Do you ever have the feeling that you're being screwed by pretty much everyone?

The Sins of the Repugs catalogued

2010-03-24T01:03:00.003-04:00

I don't usually reprint other people's stuff on this blog - link to it sometimes, yes, but not direct reprints. But this one I have to do. The following is what the Internet is for - and I find it a thing of beauty. It was composed by someone named Russell King, whose work I don't know whether I should or not, and here is the original address.

My guess is that there will be no retaliatory repug version of this same piece. Partly because it would be hard to come up with this many counter-claims, but mostly because there is no one on the repug side of the aisle with this kind of intelligence.

There are about a jillion substantiating links with the piece, that wouldn't transfer to this blog. Go see what I'm talking about. It's the creation of a lifetime:

An open letter to conservatives
March 22, 2010, 3:16PM

Dear Conservative Americans,

The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.

First, the invitation: Come back to us.

Now the advice. You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.

Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American political spectrum has become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some expamples -- by no means an exhaustive list -- of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.

If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:

Hypocrisy

You can't flip out -- and threaten impeachment - when Dems use a prlimentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!), that's centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially when your leaders admit it all.

You can't vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it's done in your own district (happily handing out enormous checks representing money that you voted against, is especially ugly) -- 114 of you (at last count) did just that -- and it's even worse when you secretly beg for more.

You can't fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal.

You can't call for a pay-as-you-go policy, and then vote against your own ideas.

Are they "unlawful enemy combatants" or are they "prisoners of war" at Gitmo? You can't have it both ways.

You can't carry on about the evils of government spending when your family has accepted more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts.

You can't refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were invited, and then blame the Dems because they didn't meet with you.

You can't rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly.

You can't rail against the bank bailouts when you supported them as they were happening.

You can't be for immigration reform, then against it .

You can't enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it.

You can't flip out when the black president puts his feet on the presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing the same. Bush. Ford.

You can't complain that the president hasn't closed Gitmo yet when you've campaigned to keep Gitmo open.

You can't flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent when the white presidents did the same. Bush. Nixon. Ike. You didn't even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed (on the mouth) leaders of countries that are not on "kissing terms" with the US.

You can't complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under Bush and you remained silent. (And, no, Newt -- the shoe bomber was not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.)

You can't attack the Dem president for not personally* publicly condemning a terrorist event for 72 hourswhen you said nothing about the Rep president waiting 6 days in an eerily similar incident (and, even then, he didn't issue any condemnation). *Obama administration did the day of the event.

You can't throw a hissy fit, sound alarms and cry that Obama freed Gitmo prisoners who later helped plan the Christmas Day undie bombing, when -- in fact -- only one former Gitmo detainee, released by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, helped to plan the failed attack.

You can't condemn blaming the Republican president for an attempted terror attack on his watch, then blame the Dem president for an attemted terror attack on his.

You can't mount a boycott against singers who say they're ashamed of the president for starting a war, but remain silent when another singer says he's ashamed of the president and falsely calls him a Moaist who makes him want to throw up and says he ought to be in jail.

You can't cry that the health care bill is too long, then cry that it's too short.

You can't support the individual mandate for health insurance, then call it unconstitutional when Dems propose it and campaign against your own ideas.

You can't demand television coverage, then whine about it when you get it. Repeatedly.

You can't praise criminal trials in US courts for terror suspects under a Rep president, then call it "treasonous" under a Dem president.

You can't propose ideas to create jobs, and then work against them when the Dems put your ideas in a bill.

You can't be both pro-choice and anti-choice.

You can't damn someone for failing to pay $900 in taxes when you've paid nearly $20,000 in IRS fines.

You can't condemn critizising the president when US troops are in harms way, then attack the president when US troops are in harms way , the only difference being the president's party affiliation (and, by the way, armed conflict does NOT remove our right and our duty as Americans to speak up).

You can't be both for cap-and-trade policy and against it.

You can't vote to block debate on a bill, then bemoan the lack of 'open debate'.

If you push anti-gay legislation and make anti-gay speeches, you should probably take a pass on having gay sex, regardless of whether it's 2004 or 2010. This is true, too, if you're taking GOP money and giving anti-gay rants on CNN. Taking right-wing money and GOP favors to write anti-gay stories for news sites while working as a gay prostitute, doubles down on both the hypocrisy and the prostitution. This is especially true if you claim your anti-gay stand is God's stand, too.

When you chair the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, you can't send sexy emails to 16-year-old boys (illegal anyway, but you made it hypocritical as well).

You can't criticize Dems for not doing something you didn't do while you held power over the past 16 years, especially when the Dems have done more in one year than you did in 16.

You can't decry "name calling" when you've been the most consistent and outrageous at it. And the most vile.

You can't spend more than 40 years hating, cutting and trying to kill Medicare, and then pretend to be the defenders of Medicare

You can't praise the Congressional Budget Office when it's analysis produces numbers that fit your political agenda, then claim it's unreliable when it comes up with numbers that don't.

You can't vote for X under a Republican president, then vote against X under a Democratic president. Either you support X or you don't. And it makes it worse when you change your position merely for the sake obstructionism.

You can't call a reconcilliation out of bounds when you used it repeatedly.

You can't spend tax-payer money on ads against spending tax-payer money.

You can't condemn individual health insurance mandates in a Dem bill, when the madates were your idea.

You can't demand everyone listen to the generals when they say what fits your agenda, and then ignore them when they don't.

You can't whine that it's unfair when people accuse you of exploiting racism for political gain, when your party's former leader admits you've been doing it for decades.

You can't portray yourself as fighting terrorists when you openly and passionately support terrorists.

You can't complain about a lack of bipartisanship when you've routinely obstructed for the sake of political gain -- threatening to filibuster at least 100 pieces of legislation in one session, far more than any other since the procedural tactic was invented -- and admitted it. Some admissions are unintentional, others are made proudly. This is especially true when the bill is the result of decades of compromise between the two parties and is filled with your own ideas.

You can't question the loyalty of Department of Justice lawyers when you didn't object when your own Republican president appointed them.

You can't preach and try to legislate "Family Values" when you: take nude hot tub dips with teenagers (and pay them hush money); cheat on your wife with a secret lover and lie about it to the world; cheat with a staffer's wife (and pay them off with a new job); pay hookers for sex while wearing a diaper and cheatingon your wife; or just enjoying an old fashioned non-kinky cheating on your wife; try to have gay sex in a public toilet; authorize the rape of children in Iraqi prisons to coherce their parents into providing information; seek, look at or have sex with children; replace a guy who cheats on his wife with a guy who cheats on his pregnant wife with his wife's mother;

Hyperbole

You really need to dissassociate with those among you who:

•assert that people making a quarter-million dollars a year can barely make ends meet or that $1 million "isn't a lot of money";
•say that "Comrade" Obama is a "Bolshevik" who is "taking cues from Lenin";
•ignore the many times your buddies use a term that offends you and complain only when a Dem says it;
•liken political opponents to murderers, rapists, and "this Muslim guy" that "offed his wife's head" or call then "un-American";
•say Obama "wants his plan to fail...so that he can make the case for bank nationalization and vindicate his dream of a socialist economy";
•equate putting the good of the people ahead of your personal fortunes with terrorism;
•smear an entire major religion with the actions of a few fanatics;
•say that the president wants to "annihilate us";
•compare health care reform with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, a Bolshevik plot the attack on 9/11,or reviving the ghosts of communist dictators (update: it's also not Armageddon);
•equate our disease-fighting stem cell research with "what the Nazis did";
•call a bill passed by the majority of both houses of Congress, by members of Congress each elected by a majority in their districts, an unconscionable abuse of power, a violation of the presidential oath or "the end of representative government";
•shout "baby killer" at a member of Congress on the floor of the House, especially one who so fought against abortion rights that he nearly killed health care reform (in fact, a little decorum, a little respect for our national institutions and the people and the values they represent, would be refreshing -- cut out the shouting, the swearing and the obscenities);
•prove your machismo by claiming your going to "crash a party" to which you're officially invited;
•claim that Obama is pushing America's "submission to Shariah";
•question the patriotism of people upholding cherished American values and the rule of law;
•claim the president is making us less safe without a hint of evidence;
•call a majority vote the "tyranny of the minority," even if you meant to call it tyranny of the majority -- it's democracy, not tyranny;
•call the president's support of a criminal trial for a terror suspect "treasonous" (especially when you supported the same thing when the president shared your party);
•call the Pope the anti-Christ;
•assert that the constitutionally mandated census is an attempt to enslave us;
•accuse opponents of being backed by Arab slave-drivers, drunk and suicidal;
•equate family planing with eugenics or Nazism;
•accuse the president of changing the missile defense program's logo to match his campaign logo and reflect what you say is his secret Muslim identity;
•accuse political opponents of being totalitarians, socialists, communists, fascists, Marxists; terrorist sympathizers, McCarthy-like, Nazis or drug pushers; and
•advocate a traitors act like seccession, violent revolution , military coup or civil war (just so we're clear: sedition is a bad thing).
History

If you're going to use words like socialism, communism and fascism, you must have at least a basic understanding of what those words mean (hint: they're NOT synonymous!)

You can't cut a leading Founding Father out the history books because you've decided you don't like his ideas.

You cant repeatedly assert that the president refuses to say the word "terrorism" or say we're at war with terror when we have an awful lot of videotape showing him repeatedly assailing terrorism and using those exact words.

If you're going to invoke the names of historical figures, it does not serve you well to whitewash them. Especially this one.

You can't just pretend historical events didn't happen in an effort to make a political opponent look dishonest or to make your side look better. Especially these events. (And, no, repeating it doesn't make it better.)

You can't say things that are simply and demonstrably false: health care reform will not push people out of their private insurance and into a government-run program ; health care reform (which contains a good many of your ideas and very few from the Left) is a long way from "socialist utopia"; health care reform is not "reparations"; nor does health care reform create "death panels".

Hatred

You have to condemn those among you who:

•call members of Congress n*gger and f*ggot;
•elected leaders who say "I'm a proud racist";
•state that America has been built by white people;
•say that poor people are poor because they're rotten people, call them "parasitic garbage" or say they shouldn't be allowed to vote;
•call women bitches and prostitutes just because you don't like their politics ( re - pea -ted - ly );
•assert that the women who are serving our nation in uniform are hookers;
•mock and celebrate the death of a grandmother because you disagree with her son's politics;
•declare that those who disagree with you are shown by that disagreement to be not just "Marxist radicals" but also monsters and a deadly disease killing the nation (this would fit in the hyperbole and history categories, too);
•joke about blindness;
•advocate euthanizing the wife of your political opponent;
•taunt people with incurable, life-threatening diseases -- especially if you do it on a syndicated broadcast;
•equate gay love with bestiality -- involving horses or dogs or turtles or ducks -- or polygamy, child molestation, pedophilia;
•casually assume that only white males look "like a real American";
•assert presidential power to authorize torture, torture a child by having his testacles crushed in front of his parents to get them to talk, order the massacre of a civilian village and launch a nuclear attack without the consent of Congress;
•attack children whose mothers have died;
•call people racists without producing a shred of evidence that they've said or done something that would even smell like racism -- same for invoking racially charged "dog whistle" words (repeatedly);
•condemn the one thing that every major religion agrees on;
•complain that we no longer employ the tactics we once used to disenfranchise millions of Americansbecause of their race;
•blame the victims of natural disasters and terrorist attacks for their suffering and losses;
•celebrate violence , joke about violence, prepare for violence or use violent imagery, "fun" politicalviolence, hints of violence, threats of violence (this one is rather explicit), suggestions of violence oractual violence (and, really, suggesting anal rape wth a hot piece of metal is beyond the pale); and
•incite insurrection telling people to get their guns ready for a "bloody battle" with the president of the United States.
Oh, and I'm not alone: One of your most respected and decorated leaders agrees with me.

So, dear conservatives, get to work. Drain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bold-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred. Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America. We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we'll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms. We need you.

(Anticipating your initial response: No there is nothing that even comes close to this level of wingnuttery on the American Left.)

Written by Russell King

Coupla Things

2010-03-11T09:25:00.002-05:00

by Rich Miles

First, when is someone going to call Mitch McConnell's bluff, and tell him that the American people DO want health care reform, and DO agree with much of what is in the existing bill? I mean, for him to say, as he has at least 5 times that I know of, that the American people don't want this bill is a completely fabricated lie, based on no known truth. As near as I can tell, the percentage of Americans who do want this legislation is somewhere around 67-70 percent. So when is someone going to call his bluff, and tell him he's fulla shit to his face? I would happily do it myself, but I don't have Secret Service clearance.

And second, when is anyone going to acknowledge that the ONLY reason, the ONLY EFFIN' REASON why America started a war in Iraq was to get George W. Bush re-elected in 2004. I mean, does it take that much brainpower to figure this out? As far as I could learn from admittedly quick research, NO U.S. president has EVER been beaten in a re-election bid in wartime. Lyndon Johnson quit, didn't stand for re-election. Richard Nixon won by an unprecedented margin. There are numerous other examples. But I think it's true that no president has ever been turned out of office in wartime, and Bush and his planners knew this. I mean, how else to explain the fact that he took the country to war despite massive public opposition to it, and massive logical opposition to it. Pundits may want to offer reason after reason why we went to war, and accuse the Bush admin of lying to us, which they did, but the real reason was to get Bush re-elected. And nothing else.

And third, when is the insanity going to stop? And I'm not talking about dieting. I'm talking about the madness in Washington. To explicate this remark would take reams and reams. But you know what I'm talking about anyway, don't you?

Just had these thoughts floating around in my head, and wanted to express them to you. And by the way, if I have misstated myself, and there WAS a president voted out in wartime, please let me know.

If they destroy the country, what will they do for jobs?

2010-02-22T17:04:00.003-05:00

by Rich Miles

Paul Krugman has a piece in the NY Times today that lines out the problem with Republicans quite clearly: they won't accept tax increases to reduce the deficit, but they won't accept spending cuts either, so in effect, we end up with status quo: huge deficits and no way to significantly reduce them.

Republicans say they want to reduce the size of government, but they keep doing things to make government bigger, and more unruly, and more deficit-laden, and they keep blaming all this on anyone but themselves.

And so, we end up with a government that is bloated beyond all imagining, and getting bigger by the day, and no one, of either party, willing to take the deeply unpopular steps of significantly cutting one or more of the Big 4: SocSec, Medicare, Medicaid, and whatever the new medical plan is going to look like. Whatever it looks like, it's a pretty sure bet that it's going to be damned expensive. But no one wants to cut anything. The closest we've gotten to cutting SocSec is that in 2010, recipients won't get a cost of living increase (COLA). And that, as is so often the case in Washington, is not a cut - it's just a failure to increase.

So we're going to see the cost of our government balloon up and up and UP, until we reach the next threshold of disbelief: a quadrillion dollars. We've been panicked into a blase' attitude toward a trillion dollars, haven't we? And a quadrillion is only a thousand trillions, right? At the rate we're going, we should cross that threshold in less than 10 years.

And still, the Republicans will not advocate for either serious cuts, or serious tax increases. So the numbers keep getting bigger and bigger. And our country goes further and further down the drain, and the 59-41 Senate is as gridlocked as ever it was at 50-50.

And our country continues to die. And all the Republicans can think of to do is obstruct, and seek to regain power. As if that's going to make any difference in a positive direction.

Because as much as the Republicans want to think so, the deficits are not going away until grown-ups take over the Legislatures in Washington, and all the state capitals.

And there are no grown-ups in the Republican Party. By definition.

Dear Republicans: Why are You so Effin' STUPID!!!

2010-02-20T15:35:00.003-05:00

by Rich Miles

The subject line of this post is not likely to win friends and influence people, but I'm just fuckin' FED UP with how very VERY stupidly those who call themselves Republicans are behaving lately - and by lately, I mean the past 10 years or so.

I mean seriously, LOOK at what is going on: Sarah Palin (even whose supporters don't think she'd make a good president, yet still they plump her for it), that moron Scott Brown up in Teddy Kennedy's old seat, who has the charisma of a not-too-bright film star, but is no one's idea of a leader; the alleged filibustering of the health reform bill, when what they're really doing is being whiny-ass titty-babies who won't let ANYthing happen that isn't their idea and to their political liking, the federal money they pretend to abhor but in reality take in with both hands. And on and on - hypocrisy and lies, hatred of Americans, failure to look after the wellbeing of the country and its people, and oh, did I mention hypocrisy and lies?

What's to be done about these people? How do we rid ourselves of this scourge? I have no answer that doesn't require concentration camps. But I do most assuredly see that the differences between Democrats and Republicans are not mere differences of style or direction - the Democrats want to help people, and the Republicans think people are, by and large, merely expendable tools for corporations to use to achieve their goals, which are by and large to suck up ALL the money there is.

The recent Supreme Court decision giving corporations the right to contribute as much money to political campaigns as individuals (or more - we haven't seen how this will play out in the legislature) is just about the stupidest decision we could ever imagine in our democracy - yet Associate Justice Alito actually had the gall to mouth off to the president at the State of the Union message in a way that should have gotten him censured if not fired (can the prez do that? I'm not sure).

And in all honesty, we have to blame the Democrats for a good portion of the Republicans' recalcitrance. We don't slap them down hard enough or fast enough. With ample evidence that the American people support our plans much more than theirs, we still let them get away with shit that we shouldn't. And as long as we let them get away with it, they'll do it!

But all in all, the Republicans are stupid - or at least, they assume that their constituents are stupid, and they can keep running the same old okey-doke on them forever. And so they do, and because no one, not their own people or the Democrats, slap them down, they are allowed to tell lies and get away with hypocrisy, and get away with it.

I was walking in a mall the other day, and I heard a little snippet of a conversation between a young woman and a middle-aged guy she was talking to. She said to him, "It's not like he's God or anything, although he thinks he is." Well, that was enough of an intriguing statement that I had to stop and ask who they were talking about. Turns out they were referring to Pres. Obama, and she went on to say that Obama had created all the debt, and if I had children or grandchildren, I should be against Obama, because my kids and grandkids were going to end up having to pay off those debts over the next X years, etc., etc. etc.

Well, I was sooooo taken aback to find two dyed in the wool Repugnican morons right there, discussing their stupidity in broad daylight, that I was unsure what to say for a moment. But I was finally able to say, in short, that most of the current debt was a result of Bush's actions and policies. Needless to say, I did not convince them. But there they were, two Rush Limbaugh listeners, reinforcing each other's misconceptions, and obviously citizens of the U.S. with just as much right to believe and say what they want as me. Can you imagine? Foolishness, legal and out-front!

Seriously, as long as such people are encouraged to believe such lies, we are going to have the deep and evil divisions in our society that we do now. Until it becomes unmistakably clear that the Republicans are against the people (something I don't know how we will do, and I thought would have been done before now), we're stuck! Our leaders have just barely started to be genuine humanists, and only occasionally, and they're fighting too much fear-mongering, too much genuine hatred, and on and on, to get the real hard-core rightists back on the side of humanity.

But we have to keep trying, right? To fail to do so is to relegate the human race to perpetual conflict, to constant agita, like that that I have almost daily, because of all the anti-human behaviors the Republicans engage in pretty much daily.

I don't know what it's going to take to convince the Republican idiots that their so-called leaders are working against them. It's so clear to me that I can't even formulate an argument to persuade someone who doesn't believe it.

But I do know this: we cannot simply ignore them and wait for them to go away. There is too much money involved - they're not going away! As long as success in electoral politics is reckoned by how much money a candidate raises, not by what his message and intentions for leadership are, we will never rid ourselves of Republicans - because money means too much to them, and so far, not enough to us.

A two-party system is a good thing - but what we have is a one-party, one-bunch of insane asylum inmates. Guess which one I think is which?

How much danger are we really in?

2010-01-31T09:40:00.003-05:00

by Rich Miles

These are parlous times. The fickle American electorate, especially those styling themselves "independents" (or, God forbid, "Teabaggers"), not content with 1 year's worth of progress toward undoing the depredations of the 8 Bush years, threaten to send us back onto our journey to the era and ethos of the Salem witch trials, electing as an early harbinger the telegenic but otherwise pretty much useless Scott Brown to fill the seat formerly occupied by the finest humanist the U.S. government has ever known, Ted Kennedy. Who knows why the same people who elected Kennedy in, most recently, 2006 elected an inexperienced pretty boy who would betray everything Kennedy ever stood for barely three years later? Who knows if his election (Brown's) is the harbinger of Republican re-ascendancy that so many brain-dead, lacking-in-creativity so-called pundits have hailed it as in recent weeks?

One can only hope not. Dear God, please not - not another X years of Talibancy in America. We really might not survive it again. We almost didn't last time. As strong as America can be in its best times, we almost didn't survive 8 years of irresponsible frat-boy pandering to every twitch of the extreme right that was the Bush "administration".

But this is where we're aiming, if cooler heads don't manage somehow to prevail - another indeterminate period of right-wing dictatorship, perhaps actually managing this time to destroy our Constitution and its freedoms as they tried to do last time.

America is strong. Americans make it so. But it is NOT invulnerable. It is most assuredly not invulnerable to its own strengths. We cannot ALL keep calling those who disagree with us un-American. We cannot keep attacking each other's gods, cannot keep making OUR god the ONLY god, and castigating all those who believe otherwise. We cannot simply continue to abandon our strengths in the name of patriotism. Remember the famous Samuel Johnson quote: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". In fact, don't EVER forget that quote. It could save our country some day.

Let me recommend two works of art for your perusal: first is either the film or the novel "A Tale of Two Cities". I recommend this because, in a recent viewing of the film, it occurred to me to wonder, HOW did France go so unrelentingly mad for so long? After all, there were other countries which had lived under tyranny then escaped it. Why did the French go so guillotine-mad? And what sorts of parallels might there be in America today? Do you think it's impossible that we could some day become such a dictatorship, and then fight our way out from under it, and then murder those who put us there? Do you think this could never happen in America? Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no. Not by a long chalk. The events of the past 9 years show us that - we have been at each others' figurative, and sometimes literal, throats for almost all of that time.

And things like the Bush dictatorship, and the election of Scott Brown and others like him, lead us not TO that place, but in the general direction of it. And as we see in Dickens' masterpiece, sometimes TO the place but not IN it is all it takes for formerly good people to adopt evil ways.

Here is the second recommendation I mentioned above: perhaps not technically a work of art, but information we can use, and should: GOP Hits its Stride, But Faces Rifts over Ideology

The one glimmer of hope in all this, the one thing that remains true throughout all the evils of the Republican Party, is that no matter how much power they get, they will ALWAYS overreach eventually. They learn nothing from their mistakes, because they don't see them as mistakes.

And that is the only way America will be saved. Some day. Some day.

Krugman gets right to the point

2010-01-15T13:40:00.002-05:00

by Rich Miles

If I were a woman, I'd try very hard to convince Paul Krugman that I should be the mother of his children.

But I'm not, so all I can do is try to spread the word to the world that Paul Krugman knows what's going on in the world better than almost anyone else on earth. Not just in the realm of economics, his area of special expertise, but in general. In general, he knows how badly things are getting screwed up, and how badly all of us are getting screwed in the process. He realizes that there are larger forces at work in the world. Not conspiracy-theory, tin-hat kind of stuff, but just purely observational stuff about how the wealthy, and the fat cats, and the plutocrats (arguably all three are the same people) are seeking not just to stay rich, but to get ever richer on the backs of the poor and the middle class. Paul Krugman knows this, and tries to tell us about it every chance he gets, because he realizes the danger of it, not only for the poor and the middle class, but for the wealthy as well. They're killing us, but in the process they're killing each other as well. One can only hope they finish each other off before they do us.

Because you see, the world is degenerating into a constant battle between the plutocrats, and the rest of us. The plutes have more resources to bring to bear, but there's a lot more of us poor folks.

Still and yet, the fact that there are people in the world who have waaaay more money and stuff than the average, way more than they really need, but want more and more and more, is very disheartening. I mean, I don't have all I want in the world, but I like to think that the difference between me and the plutes is that I expect to earn whatever more I get, while these plutes I keep talking about expect either to steal it, or have it handed to them. Whut up wid dat?

The world is not as it once was, kiddies. There have always been obnoxiously rich people in the world, but they haven't always been willing to walk over the faces of the rest of us to increase their holdings. There may have been some such people since time immemorial, but generally I think the wealthy didn't find it necessary to drive us poor folks to extinction. At least, that's the way it appears to me as I study history.

But in any case, we're at war these days - with the rich, who don't have the good sense to realize how much they need us peons. And how much they need to pay for the privilege. I don't want ALL of anyone's provender - I just want the part I earn. And I want the rich folks to believe the same way. Whether that will ever happen, I don't know. But I don't want to have to fight a war with anyone for what is mine.

RM

Rush Limbaugh is not only an asshole...

2010-01-14T11:01:00.003-05:00

...he is the biggest asshole in the whole world!!!

by Rich Miles
================================================================================

Now, why do I say this, you may be wondering? Well, I'm glad you asked me that!

It's because of what he (Limbaugh) said, from his vacation locale no less, about President Obama's pledge of assistance to Haiti since the horrible earthquake that took place there on January 12.

Limbaugh said (are you ready for this?) that the President's rescue effort was - I'm not kidding though I wish I were - TOO QUICK!!

That's right - too quick. After his blow buddy George W. Bush allowed a US city, New Orleans, to founder and drown in filthy waters for arguably YEARS now, ol' Rushster thinks that Obama's pledge to Haiti in less than 24 hours of American assistance, and $100 million in aid, and all the rest, is TOO QUICK. That it's pandering to black voters (which of course makes it clear that Bush's response in New Orleans was a big ol' fuck-you to black voters, can't accuse Georgie of pandering to black voters!)

So that's why I think Rush Limpballs is the biggest asshole in the whole world. Care to offer a more cogent opinion? Or another nominee, perhaps?

Sorry, soldier - you have a uterus

2009-12-21T08:02:00.004-05:00

by Rich Miles

Army Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, the head of American forces in Northern Iraq, has banned pregnancy under his command.

That's right - it's now against Army regulations to get pregnant.

Now, this is the very definition of mixed emotions for me - I really don't know which way to look on this one.

I have for years been an advocate for responsible penis and vagina use, and abhor the massive number of inadvertent pregnancies in all segments of our society, including the military. I personally have no biological children ('bio-kids', as I coined them.) That's just how good *I* am.

But according to a story printed in the military newspaper Stars and Stripes, any member of the armed forces who becomes pregnant or impregnates another servicemember, including married couples both in the service, could face a court-martial and jail time.

Note that "or" clause - OR anyone who impregnates another service member. This includes married couples who are both in the service. If one is and the other isn't, I guess only the service member gets busted.

Now, how are we to think about this matter?

On the one hand, it's at least gender-neutral, since both the impregnee and the impregnor are liable for these penalties. Since it's nearly impossible to hide one's paternity these days, both parties will face sanction. That is, IF they are both members of the military. Frankly, not a very frequent occurrence.

But on the other hand, what de fuck BIZNESS is it of the military command structure as to whether a couple choose to conceive? Married or no?

And then on the inevitable third hand, do the armed forces in essence own yo' sorry ass for as long as you're in the service? And do they thus have the right to tell you that you can't get knocked up, or do any knocking up?

Col. David S. Thompson, the inspector general for all soldiers in Iraq, says that this is a legal order. I'm not quite sure of that. I have too much experience of the military SAYING that something is legal etc., and just waiting for it to be proven so or not at a future date - kicking the can down the road, as they say.

So perhaps it remains to be seen. But my initial response to this knowledge is that it's just SOOOOO very illegal, even for the military, to pass down an order like this.

I'd enjoy reading your comments on this. I really need guidance.

What does it take to learn?

2009-12-19T16:25:00.003-05:00

by Rich Miles

So I'm sitting here multitasking, that is, watching TV and reading blogs etc., and all of a sudden, two HUGE (to me) obvious thoughts pop up out of the mire, to wit:

1) Most Americans don't realize why we're at war, and

2) Almost no one has made the obvious connection between the fact that Joe Lieberman is from Connecticut and the fact that he is doing his level best to defeat national health care reform legislation.

Let us address #1 first. It's traditional, after all:

Ever hear the expression "Defense industries"? Ever given any serious thought to what it means?

It means billions of tax dollars flowing from government coffers into the hands of privately owned corporations and private individuals. I mean, in the worst of times for the nation, it's absolutely necessary that things flow that way.

But in the BUSH of times, in which we've been living for 8 of the past 9 years, the money was made to flow in that direction, no matter the need for national security, etc.

And this is what it seems most people don't realize. They can spot when there is government waste in other areas, but for some reason it doesn't occur to them that the treasury can be deliberately drained in time of war.

This seems obvious to me, and perhaps to you as well - but do you remember the last time someone pointed it out in no uncertain terms? That "we're being robbed by being at war"?

I don't think I ever saw that. But it's true nonetheless. The Iraq War, and now the Afghan War, are nothing more - NOTHING more - than ways for unscrupulous war profiteers to appear to be serving the national interest while in reality robbing the country. And American soldiers are dying in service of this venal enterprise.

You see, the Bush administration was all about the money. In fact, it's arguable that every administration since, oh I don't know, Washington was all about the money. But Bush (and his pals) were just that much more obvious in his ways of robbing us. In fact, that was what pissed me off the most about him and his pals: he robbed us, then laughed at us when we noticed our wallets were a little light. Or missing.

See, everyone knew he and his cronies were robbing us. It's just that damn few people knew they were using the armed forces and the federal procurement system to do it.

Which brings us to point 2: Joe Lieberman is from Connecticut. You know - the INSURANCE capital of the nation?

And you remember how he surpassed all expectations for fundraising when he ran against, and almost lost to, Ned Lamont?

Gee, I wonder how all that happened? Don't you?

So there are your two obvious points for the day. Not very elegantly presented, perhaps, but true nonetheless. At least as far as I can tell.

And even without proof, don't the above two points make perfect sense? Doesn't even require too much in the way of paranoia, does it?

How do we stop it? How do we make the corruption in our government stop?

Because it's everywhere, and it's killing us.

What We Can Learn from Movies

2009-11-28T17:05:00.002-05:00

by Rich Miles

Those who know me well know that I am an inveterate film buff. I would rather watch a film from the 1930's than from the 2000's, and Turner Classic Movies is the best thing that ever happened to television, as far as I'm concerned.

Well, anyway - the reason I mention all this now is that I am in the process at this very moment of watching a film that has much to say to us. It's not a terribly well-known film, though it has some quite popular actors in it. James Stewart, Margaret Sullavan, Robert Young, Maria Ouspenskaya, Ward Bond, Frank Morgan, among others whose names and faces most of us would recognize, film buffs or no.

The film is called "The Mortal Storm". It was made in 1939 and released in 1940, even before the full ramifications of its subject matter was known worldwide.

And quite a subject matter it has, too. The film is about the beginnings of Nazism in Germany. ALL the beginnings, most especially the ugly ones.

And in addition to being something of a historical document showing how fascism took root in Germany back then, and the powerlessness of the average man and woman in the face of such psychic and physical violence, it also manages to be something of a precursor to the world as it is today.

I know, I know, everyone always calls his adversaries Nazis. Rush Limbaugh has been doing it for years with his "Feminazis" shtick, among many others on both sides of the political spectrum.

But if ever there were a filmic demonstration of what fascism actually looks like, at ground level and in the daily lives of men and women, this film is it.

An eerie moment, reminiscent of far too many things, takes place early in the movie. Here's a short description of it:

Germans were well known for their fondness for singing - group singing in bars and restaurants especially. Such a group sing takes place with the local Nazi cell leading the song.

And they sing an early Nazi anthem, with their arms raised in the traditional Nazi "Heil Hitler" salute.

And it reminded me for all the world of the way fundamentalist Xtians often raise their hands while they sing supposedly rapturous hymns to the alleged almighty.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it is a spooky reminder, or precursor if you prefer.

Those who seek to control the hearts and minds of others often make the same outward moves and gestures every time it happens.

And now - how did we get to this point? Where supposed "Christians" have become our 21st century Nazis?

And more to the point - what do we do about it now?

As Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan are about to escape over the border into Austria, he gives her one last chance to change her mind: "Shall we go, over the border? Or shall we go back?"

And she says, "Back to what?"

Good question.

The Secret of the North

2009-10-09T09:47:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

There's a dirty little secret being revealed in Massachusetts. You know, that state up north where the former governor, Mitt Romney, rammed through a universal health care bill REQUIRING that all residents of the state have health insurance? The state where they actually FINE residents who don't have the money for health insurance?

And a writer named Wendy Button, a former speechwriter for some of the brightest lights in liberal thought, has written a summary with an admittedly subjective, what-I'm-not-getting-from-it POV. But Ms. Button's description has the advantage of being from the perspective of someone who has gotten her insurance from a reasonably priced (yes, there is such a thing) place like Washington DC to the state with the highest health insurance premiums in the country.

Click on the link and read Wendy Button's description of how she went from insured to can't afford to be insured in one geographical move. It's a cautionary tale not only for NOT moving to Massachusetts, but for our Congress as they seek a path through the maze to universal health care.

This doesn't seem an impossible task. Can we reduce it to its simplest form?

Nah. I mean, this is American politics we're talking about, after all. We have that serious, major fuck-up period to go through, then 20 or so years later it gets fixed. More or less.

I'll never live that long.

Financial Ramifications of Birth Control

2009-09-25T09:21:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

'...in the words of Mike Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel, "The minute sperm enters egg, we have a person. One way birth control pills work is by thinning the womb so if an egg is fertilized, it will not implant. Some Christians consider this an abortion."'

Is it me, or are the religious nuts getting even nuttier with each passing headline?

I mean, read that opening graf again. "Some Christians" consider this an abortion? What the FUCK do I care what "some Christians" think?

In fact, I question the entire premise that "some Christians", or any Christians, think at all. It's my contention that, by the simple act of being Christians, they relinquish all claim to "thought" or "consideration".

But I digress.

The above quote is from an article by Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux called "Birth Control Threatened by Recession", in which several other such ridiculous and sexist ideas are propounded as well (on the con side, I'm pleased to report.)

I recommend you read the entire post. Especially if you live in Florida. Florida is a loony bin in this and other wingnut regards. But then, if you live there, you already knew that.

Seriously, the abject lack of respect for women - not MORE respect than is accorded men, but simply ANY respect at all - is just galling, for lack of a better word. I mean, there is a definitive link between global warming and reproductive rights, and the main stumbling block to the link is that women must not be allowed to decide whether or not they have children. I mean really, WTF?

Read the whole thing, and decide for yourself.

The Jews have the right idea

2009-08-30T13:21:00.005-04:00

by Rich Miles

News reports out of Jerusalem today tell us that former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert has been indicted on charges of public corruption. It was the first ever indictment of a current or former Israeli prime minister, and is an extension of corruption charges that were originally filed during Olmert's tenure as prime minister.

Now, I don't have a clue as to whether Olmert is guilty or not. But I do know this: if guilt by association were an acceptable legal principle in Israel, Olmert would already be fried or at best would be on his way to the frier.

But so far it's only an indictment, so we'll pretend for the time being that Olmert is innocent until proven guilty, though I don't know for certain if THAT is an accepted Israeli legal concept either.

Anyway, here's the point I want to make with this: what if the Israelis, one of our staunchest allies if not best friends in the region, did this in part at least to show us a valuable lesson: that a strong and democratic nation can indeed arrest, indict, try and convict a former leader (prime minister, president, etc.) without the country in question falling apart at the seams?

And what if we, fairly intelligent as a nation, got the clue and indicted our former president for much the same charges and more, and in the process managed to punish the worst criminal we ever elected?

Is it possible? Could we yet punish Shrub? Not commensurate with his sins without resorting to the death penalty, which I personally abhor even for Shrub, but what if we could do that?

What would it do to our international prestige? Would we look like asses in the international community? Or would we, as I personally contend, look better for having acknowledged our mistakes and sought to redress them?

I don't know if Israel is that devious. But I do know that the arrest and indictment of Olmert sets an international precedent that we should not ignore.

I myself would pay a quarter to watch the trial of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney on TV.

What's a few measly popularity points?

2009-08-28T17:53:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

OK, OK, we don't want to pull a George W Bush and deny the facts, but there are extenuating circumstances:

President Obama's job approval ratings have fallen below 50%.

But you see, he's done some pretty profound and brave shit in his first 7 months in office, and it should be expected that a number of people are going to be against him because of that. This whole health care initiative has probably cost him 8-10 points in the polls. No one knows where it's going to go - no one knows if it's going to pass, or tank taking Obama's presidential fortunes with it. And of those who have changed their minds about Obama in the past few months, I'd wager that a good 8-10 points' worth have changed simply because they think Obama is gonna crash and burn, and they don't want to be seen to be supporting a loser.

So I'm not too worried about Obama's loss of some popularity points. I rather doubt he is either, in fact he says in the linked article that he's not. Not in the same arrogant way that GWB wasn't concerned, but nonetheless.

After the health care initiative has made it to the floor, and been voted on, and passed, we'll revisit this issue. And my guess is, if it DOES pass, and I think it will, then Preznit Obama's job approval rating will lodge somewhere in the low to mid-70's.

At least, that's what *I* think...

When did making sense become optional?

2009-08-26T17:28:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

You know what I don't understand about conservatives?

Well, there are a lot of things I don't understand about them, like for instance why they even exist, but here's the main thing, and while I haven't articulated this before now, it's been true for quite a while:

What I don't understand is, why do conservatives believe - and believe as if Gospel - the words and thoughts of idiots like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck (less and less as time goes on), and others of their lying, self-deceiving and hate-filled ilk, but they DO NOT believe the President of the United States.

Now, these are the same people, in large part, who got their knickers in a major twist ANY TIME anyone even so much as questioned the slightest judgment of their beloved George W. Bush.

And never, or hardly ever, do ANY of these people even question whether the heinous crap they're laying on Pres. Obama even makes SENSE!

I mean, does the concept of "death panels" make any sense? Does anyone really believe the government could even get away with instituting such a horrible concept?

Surely, if it's thought through, the answer to the above MUST be "no".

And so it is with any number of other points of objection maintained by the righties. They just don't make sense. And yet, the right-wingers believe them. And WILL NOT believe the standard authority figures, not that they should be believed out of hand, but that they are at least a first point of departure.

For sensible people, anyway.

But au fin, the Marching Morons continue to live in fear, and continue to refer NOT to people who might reasonably be able to allay their fears, but to those who play to them, and who increase their fears.

I don't get it. And it's my guess that even the people who DO it don't understand why they do it either.

They're just like Pavlov's dogs. Only dumber.

Teddy's passing

2009-08-26T17:07:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

Update: What about Kennedy's widow? I'm not kidding, she's one sharp cookie, and has the same or nearly the same politics that Teddy had. What about Vickie Kennedy, no joke!

Ted Kennedy is dead.

It's a strange thing, but I feel a personal sense of loss at his passing. Just as I did when his brother Jack died in 1963, when I was 10 years old, and when his brother Bobby died in 1968. Only a little bit worse, because I'm now an old man, or oldish anyway, who has some understanding now of mortality.

But enough about me, let's talk about the country. How are we going to replace Ted? Doesn't matter whether the governor of Massachusetts does it, or there is a special election, how are we going to find a new Ted Kennedy? There is a reason he was known as the Lion of the Senate, and not just any old fool can replace him.

Barney Frank might be a good choice, but then the people of Mass. will be faced with the problem of replacing Barney in the House. No mean feat in itself.

Other than that, I have no idea. But I know this: we - all Americans, and perhaps even all the world - are the poorer for the passing of this fine, humane and brilliant man.

Requiescat in pace, Edward M. Kennedy. We will miss you in ways that we cannot even anticipate today.

Obiter Obit

2009-08-19T13:59:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

OK, so I don't speak Latin:

Don Hewitt is dead. What a shame. Would that we had 20 more like him only younger.

Robert Novak is dead. I have absolutely nothing else to say on this topic, or at least nothing that's decent.

Riots in the Streets

2009-08-16T20:45:00.002-04:00

by Rich Miles

A small factoid has slipped by us all in recent months, and as 2009 draws to a close, we draw ever closer to this factoid coming to pass:

There is not going to be a Social Security COLA in early 2010.

Now, needless to say, the SocSec Administration has not trumpeted this information too terribly far and wee, so a lot of old folks don't know this yet. But when they do learn it, there is going to be blood in the streets.

Perhaps literally. But figuratively in any case.

You see, the older generation, the folks who are fully retired and vested in SocSec, Medicare, pensions, and all that, have come to view all those benefits as not just governmental entitlements but MORAL entitlements as well - in other words, they think they deserve these emoluments. And now that we're in the middle of health care reform, and may still be at the end of the year, the old folks will bitch and moan a blue streak if anyone tries to deny them one thin dime of their due as they see it.

If you don't think this is true, you just hide and watch about Dec. 15, when the government finally can't hide this any longer, and has to tell people about it (again, since the news has already been put out, if quietly.) The Democrats will be held responsible for it, and AARP and all the other advocacy groups for the elderly will behave as if the 8 years of GWB never happened, and it seems likely that the only way out of the mess will be for the COLA to be reinstated after all, costing the government several billions more than it anticipated.

There'll be no mention of mutual sacrifice, or if there is it will be ignored by the Auld Folks, and the deficit will get bigger and bigger (even more so because the numbers were crunched without the COLA), and even if the COLA is reinstated, the Dems will suffer for it at the ballot box next November. Perhaps enough to turn one or more houses of Congress over to the forces of evil, AKA the repugs.

Which brings me to another point: the American people in general have become a bunch of selfish pig bastards. 60 or 70 years ago, Americans really were a generous nation. We really did care about the rest of the world, and from thence came our reputation worldwide that so many of us still believe we merit today. There are many Americans who do indeed care about others - but as a nation, we have become insufferable. And the rest of the world knows it. And regrets it as much as we do, or should.

Nuff said. Comment if you dare.

The Big Lie is now American

2009-07-31T10:11:00.005-04:00

by Rich Miles

I keep making the mistake of thinking the Republicans have been as big assholes as they possibly can be about health care (or anything and everything else), and then they do something like THIS stupid shit, and I'm once again proven wrong, and see that they really can sink below the bottom.

This article, and numerous others recently, are getting to the nitty-gritty of the repug method for spreading manure - just repeat the lie over and over and over again, regardless of any relation or lack thereof to the truth - and that's a semi-good thing, I guess. A few people are "getting it" that didn't before.

But the gist of the lie, that Pres. Obama is proposing a law that would force old people into euthanasia, is just so ludicrous, so incredible, so over the top, that I can't imagine anyone believing it.

But apparently some do. Apparently.

You should read the comments attached to this and other articles on the topic of repug perfidy. It shows why repugs think they can get away with this kind of unbelievable lying. Because the repugs who write the comments, and the moronic and indeed evil ideas they espouse, are taking up the majority of space in most blogs, and would lead the casual and uninformed (and BIASED) reader to believe that the repug point of view is the majority view.

(Which brings me to point out the fact that there have been numerous headlines in print and online lately, mentioning the fact that Pres. Obama's approval ratings are in decline. What they DON'T mention is that his numbers are STILL higher than Bush's ever were, except for the period immediately after 9/11, and are STILL well over 50%. The majority of Americans actually rather like Obama and his policies. Wonder what's in it for these publications to present the president in decline like this? They never did it to Bush, at least as far as I can remember. In fact, quite the opposite. If Bush's numbers went up a tenth of a percent, the headlines would often trumpet it to the skies, even though they were still below 50%.)

So anyway - I guess we let the insane repugs go on being insane, as if there were anything we could do to alter it. The only thing I can think of to do here is to write more comments on these posts. That will at least alter the appearance of where the majority lies. If you have any better ideas, please post them in the comments of this post.

Mandatory euthanasia. Pah!!!

One more Xtian scumbag does little girls

2009-07-24T16:17:00.001-04:00

Ya know, I'm beginning to espouse the idea that those who call themselves Xtian honchos should all just be rounded up and thrown into cells with each other so they can have sex with each other and leave the rest of us the hell out of it.

A guy named Bernie Lazar Hoffman, known publicly as Tony Alamo, was convicted - convicted, mind you, not just arrested or indicted - on charges of transporting girls as young as 9 across state lines for sexual purposes. In addition to guilt for the sexual activities, he was also convicted under the century-old Mann Act for the crossing of state lines for this purpose.

Hoffman-Alamo was known as a preacher who had helped numerous adults recover from various social and emotional collapses, and had created a multi-million dollar empire on the back of this reputation.

Why do these bastards so often fuck little girls? Or boys? Why can't they just content themselves with adults? There must be enough stupid adults to get them off. Right?

As he was being led into the courthouse, he shouted to the waiting crowd, "I'm just another one of the prophets that went to jail for the Gospel."

Could someone write to me and tell me where fucking little girls is found in the Gospel?

I hope this fuckin' Shorteyes ends up dead in prison. I hate to say that about another human being. But I'm not sure this guy IS another human being.

D'You Know What That Fool Has Done??

2009-07-19T23:03:00.007-04:00

by Rich Miles

This is my 100th post in 4 1/2 years of posting. Of course, that's nothing compared to the 817 posts in a mere 2 1/2 years of my friend Yellow Dog, but it feels like a milestone to me. Esp. considering that I posted virtually not at all for almost a year and a half due to illness.

Anyway, to the matter at hand:

Oh. My. God.

Gov. Steve Beshear (D-KY) is up for re-election a mere 17 months from now (my, how time flies), and guess what he's done?

I mean really, think up the most outrageous thing you can imagine, and then multiply by 100.

Give up? OK, I'll tell you.

He's switched running mates. But not just that, he's selected for his Lootenant Goobner a guy who is geographically challenged - a man who can't lose in Louisville, and who can't win anywhere else in Kentucky.

Yep, you guessed it - he's selected Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson as his running mate.

(Update: It's 29 months till the election in 2011, not 17 - which brings up a whole bunch more questions about this move - like why is Beshear dumping Mongiardo so soon. I have an answer, but I'd sure like to hear what Beshear's answer is.)

Now, never mind for a minute why Beshear chose Jerry. Let's ask ourselves why Jerry accepted.

Jerry Abramson has been Mayor in Louisville for about a hunnert years. He's run for the office I think 5 times, and is known in Louisville as Mayor-for-Life Abramson. He has not, to my knowledge, ever lost an election for any office, cuz he's pretty much only run for one office. He is as well thought of in Louisville as any politician in the country is in his home constituency.

But he is virtually UNKNOWN, in the parts of the state where he's not roundly hated, outside of Jefferson County. And that's why he's not really a good choice for statewide office.

So why would he accept a Lt.-gov. bid at this stage in his life? After 20 years in office, he probably will qualify for a full pension as mayor by the end of his term. In any case, due to his low profile outside of Louisville in the rest of the state, he's probably going to taste his first defeat for political office in this race.

And for that, I feel sorry for him. I know Jerry - interviewed him a couple times on my radio program back in the 90's. He's a smart guy, and until this debacle, I would have called him the consummate municipal politician.

But I just can't imagine, other than a need for a wider power base for some damn reason or another, why at this time of his life he would want to put himself in the path of this political truck. Beshear is poorly regarded throughout the state, in addition to being the textbook definition of a Blue Dog Democrat. And Jerry is not. Neither poorly regarded, nor a Blue Dog.

But in any case, it's very difficult not to view this as anything other than Beshear blowing himself up.

I mean, I don't like Dan Mongiardo - he's such a blue dog he's practically a Republican, and in general he's one of the most obvious liars it's ever been my misfortune to observe in public life. But he's already there - he's the Lite-gov, and Jerry is not, so why change him? It's a pretty much useless job, after all. Unless Beshear and everyone in Democratic party circles are trying to make this look like an optimistic move, on the assumption that Dan is going to win the Senator's race against Little Jimmy Bunning. I mean, he may win, but he may not, in fact probably won't since Jack Conway probably will, and to put the cart that far before the horse is a bit unseemly.

At any rate, it seems a rather hamfisted way to go about this entire campaign. But then, isn't that what we've come to expect from our Democrats in Kentucky?

Socialized bullshit

2009-07-16T20:15:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

Yellow Dog's post today, generally on the topic of socialized medicine, put me in mind again of a public encounter I had a week or so ago.

I was in the Rite-Aid on Midland Trail, picking up a prescription (that, coincidentally, costs me $60 a month, even WITH insurance), and in the interest of being sociable, asked an older gentleman who was in the store how he was doing.

His reply, testy in the extreme, was that he might have been all right, were it not for Obama and his socialized medicine.

I, having a lifelong inability to keep my effin' mouth shut, said, "What the hell are you talking about? Do you use Medicare? What the hell you think Medicare is but socialized medicine?"

The old man said something rude, and left the store.

So anyway, here's the thing: most of the people who use the expression "socialized medicine" haven't the first fuckin' clue what that expression means! They think that anything with the word "socialized" in it refers to something communistic. Something the Soviets would have thought up, or perhaps did think up, back in the 50's or 60's.

Not that that would have made it a bad thing in any case. Some of that Soviet stuff worked pretty well.

But I'm gettin' pretty tired of listening to the right-wing fearmongers trying to drag us back into the 50's "Communists scare me" bullshit about healthcare.

How much fear can these fuckers mong? If that's the right word, and it's probably not.

We're supposed to be afraid of damn near everything. So the bad guys in our government can keep control over us. And most of them are Republicans.

You wanna be afraid of something? Be afraid of Republicans. And don't ever stop.

Let's go living in the past

2009-07-13T09:44:00.006-04:00

by Rich Miles

Remember back before the election of 08, when I was saying that I thought Bush was going to try to trump up some reason to stay in office beyond 1/20/09? Remember I said I thought one of the reasons (if you can call them "reasons") why Bush et al. would do this was that they couldn't possibly allow a new, probably Democratic, administration to get their hands on all the evidence of malfeasance, misfeasance, and just all-around fucking up that were going to be lying around for the taking after a new president took office?

Well, I was wrong. The Bushies were so very stupid that they didn't even clear their desks properly before they left town, but leave town they did, as scheduled. And as you will know, Preznit Obama has resisted every opportunity to pursue, or even suggest he MIGHT pursue, the criminals of the Bush administration for various reasons, ranging from a desire not to appear vengeful in victory, to "political reasons" probably having much to do with not wanting to stir up the hornet's nest that is the Republican Party Hate Machine.

BUT!!!! (and you knew there was going to be a "but") events are overtaking the Obama administration, in such a way that there might not be any way to avoid going after all the miscreants - and I mean ALL of them, including the Big Kahuna and his sidekick Cheney-chan (Perhaps most especially Cheney).

And the hornet's nest bedamned.

So much new evidence is surfacing that Bush, Cheney, and most of their minions were in it up to their eyeballs that Obama is going to have the devil's own time soon in denying that crimes were committed and must be punished.

I confess to wondering what it REALLY is that's keeping Obama off Bush's case - is Obama afraid that, if Bush-Cheney bite the big one, some of his guys will get caught up in the hurricane?
Because the excuses he's given so far don't wash: It will make America look bad? Nah. Clearing up the mess that was Bush-Cheney will actually make America look BETTER worldwide.

Americans don't want it? No, strike 2. Americans, or at least the 60% or so who will work hardest to re-elect Obama in 2012, want it desperately. And of the rest of us, there are an accountable percentage who want it simply because it represents justice for America.

Do not tell us, Mr. President, that we don't want this. Because an awful lot of us DO want it - we want to see George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, mass murderers, in prison. Or worse. We want to see that awfully badly.

Don't make the mistake so many politicians make. LISTEN to your constituents. We are talking to you. We are telling you what we want.

Don't ignore us. We get real cranky around election time when we're ignored.

Ummm...thanks, but no thanks

2009-07-13T08:37:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

Remember the old joke about the lottery drawing: first prize, a week's vacation in Scranton. Second prize, a TWO weeks' vacation in Scranton?

I think I may have discovered the political equivalent of that joke.

Sarah Palin, she should only go to the smallest of the Aleutians and STFU, has now promised - or perhaps threatened is the right word - to stump for Democrats (as long as they're the right KIND of Democrats) in upcoming election years.

First prize, a campaign appearance by Sarah Palin. Second prize, TWO campaign appearances by Sarah Palin.

I can't imagine even the deepest royal-blue Blue Dog asking for this boon to be granted him or her.

I mean, is there no one on the national political scene, of either party, who is willing to say to this woman, "Sarah, sweetheart, baby, darling - who the fuck ASKED you? Sit down and shut UP!"

I'll just close this with a final vow: I will not vote for ANY Democratic candidate who has this moron campaign for him or her. This might even be enough to get me to vote for the repug opponent.

Naaaahhhh....but you get my point.

John Barker Gray R.I.P.

2009-07-09T11:16:00.005-04:00

by Rich Miles

Not very many of you will have even heard of my friend John Barker Gray. He was not a celebrity even in his own circle of friends, but he was - though I think he would have denied this - a very good friend. Not because of what he did, or what he gave to people, but because of who he was, and what he gave of himself. He never had much in the way of wealth, and toward the end of his life, had virtually nothing - lived with his elderly mom, had little money, etc., etc., but nonetheless if you went out to lunch with him, he always tried to grab the check. Sometimes I'd even let him get it.

John was a former actor, but never really worked at it much. He was, by his own admission, one who liked the trappings of the theater more than the actual work of it. So he hung out with actors, rather than worked with them.

And a few weeks ago, he told me that all he had ever wanted was someone to love him, someone to spend time with and care for. He never had that, as far as I knew. He was always alone, though he had lots of friends.

John requested that he not have a viewing or a funeral. He's going to be cremated, and we will have a memorial service at a later date.

I think John would have been surprised at how many people will note his passing. He never had a lover, but he had quite a few friends, as far as I could tell. At the memorial service, we'll see how many.

Rest in peace, Johnny me boy. Whether you think so or not, you will be missed. You will be sorely missed.

John Barker Gray was 57 years old. I think. Or maybe he was 56. We hardly ever talked about it.

Your friend,
Rich

Iranian Clerics: God is wrong

2009-07-05T14:23:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

Now this is news: large numbers of Iranian clerics have gone against the status quo, and have declared that the Ayatollah Khamenei and the Guardian Council, the government organization that regulates elections are...simply...wrong.

Think about this for a minute: Khamenei is the Iranian equivalent of the Pope. He is considered infallible, and to even question his decisions and pronouncements is blasphemy, literally. It can get you jailed, or even executed.

But now, over a month after the Iranian election, and over a week after Khamenei made his pronouncement that it's all over, nothing to see here, the election is final and Ahmadinejad is the winner, no discussion or further examination - a large group of lower-level Iranian clergymen are questioning - questioning!!! - the Ayatollah's decision, and indeed disputing it, saying that the evidence is there that says the election was rigged.

Now, consider this for a moment: Iranian clergymen (there are no clergywomen, at least none whose opinions are this important in Iran) are doubting their god-on-earth.

Could this be the beginning of the end of the Islamic Revolution?

But more to the point, could this be the beginning of the end of infallibility cults in religions all across the globe? The pope, the Dalai Lama (a good infallibility figure, but still...), the wingnut leaders in America, etc., etc. Could we start viewing these people as just people, just like us, instead of godheads in earth?

We could only be so lucky.

Regardless of your own religiosity quotient, have you ever thought about what the world would be like without gods? Have you ever imagined what we as the human race could do with all the resources that are diverted to religious causes, if we only had them to distribute to the truly needy all across the globe?

"Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky.
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace.
You may say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one.
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one."
- John Lennon

Almost 30 years after his death at the hands of a murderous madman, could it be that John Lennon's dream is starting, on a very small scale, to come true?

I know, pie in the sky, dreaming, crazy nuts, etc. etc.

But I'm not the only one.

PETA goes completely off the deep end

2009-06-23T09:17:00.002-04:00

by Rich Miles

Do you remember the little human interest piece last week, about Pres. Obama managing to kill an annoying housefly that was buzzing about while he was doing an interview?

PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - has lodged a complaint about the prez's treatment of that poor little creature.

WTF?

I mean really, folks. Is it me, or is this the most fuckin' ridiculous abuse of a public forum that EVER was?

I'd be interested in seeing comments defending PETA in this. If you can.

A short thought on Iranian and American politics

2009-06-21T11:07:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

I don't have much to say here. Just this:

What we should be learning from the Iranians re: the recent elections there is simply this:

We should have done the same.

In 2000 and 2004, we should have had the courage of our convictions, we should have marched in the streets to protest OUR stolen elections. For it remains true that those two presidential elections were indeed stolen. Rigged. Faked.

Stolen.

But we as Americans did NOT protest our stolen elections. There are as many reasons for this as there are people who believe that the elections were stolen. And there are a LOT of those people.

But it is arguable that the Iranian authorities, learning from the experience of America, stole their election too. Seeing how easy it was, they did the same more or less, and are going to install a phony incumbent into the office of president. Just like we did in '04.

One wonders what the Iranian powers-that-be fear about Moussavi. It's probably just that he has an unfortunate tendency to tell the truth, even when it disagrees with the party line of Khamanei and the theocracy under which they live. Perhaps especially when it disagrees.

In short, we have to learn that America is not always the exceptionalist nation we all want to believe it is.

Sometimes, we're just a bunch of pussies.

(And I say that with no intention to insult pussies.)

Teacher Obama

2009-06-13T16:48:00.004-04:00

Note: For reasons unknown, my cut and paste function is not working. It will make this piece somewhat less than complete, but you can find the links if you want to badly enough. At any rate, on with the business at hand:

by Rich Miles

I wonder what the mean-ass rightie weenies will do with this one...

Last night, June 12th, Pres. Obama did something so warm, so human, and yet so totally unexpected that, even though it was a small gesture, it was something his opponents, among others, will take notice of.

In short, Pres. Obama, in response to a youngster's concern over missing class in order to see the president, wrote an excuse note so the child would not be penalized.

Now, it's been almost 24 hours since this event took place, and so far I've seen no evidence that any rightie asshole has had anything significantly negative to say about it.

But there have been several other events to which the repugs have had almost inexplicably negative responses, to the point that they made themselves look foolish in their criticism.

For instance, remember the night the Prez and VP Biden sneaked out for burgers? Of course they were accompanied by Secret Service agents, and the repugs accused them of wasting government resources. (No mention of how wasted they as government resources might have been without the Secret Service along.)

Or the night the Prez and Mrs. Obama went on a dinner-and-a-play "date"? Ditto the wasted resources accusation.

Or how much shit Michelle caught for her sleeveless dress?

There were one or two more such displays of humanity that received some negativity from the wings. The right wings, to be precise.

But to make a long point short, can you envision the Bushmaster doing ANY of the things listed above?

I can't. Not that he was too good for such hobnobbing with the hoi polloi, but that he seemed to know, or at least his advisors did, that he was not well enough liked to try something like that. And as for Cheney accompanying him, fuhgeddaboudit.

Anyway, to conclude a long story: it's a wonder Preznit Obama doesn't just tell us all to go fuck ourselves. It's a tribute to his presidency that he hasn't. Yet.

Human Nature, vol. 189

2009-05-31T11:02:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

Today, Sunday May 31, my friend Yellow Dog over at Blue in the Bluegrass got his teeth into this week's Frank Rich column ahead of me (he gets up earlier than I do most days). I was in the process of writing a comment to his take on Rich's column when I realized I had a bit more to say about it than that. So here I am, over here on my side of the 'Net, and here's what I have to say. Frank Rich is to be found at Who is to Blame for the Next Attack?, Yellow Dog is at Blue in the Bluegrass, and my take on all of that is...ummm...right here.
=====================================================================================

Ya know, though I agree with the main thrust of your argument in this piece, I want to point out a truism that, I think, relates to it:

A crowd is a dicey critter. You never know what it's going to do, what's going to appease it, what's going to set it off.

And when you have a crowd of 300 million, you have a whole new set of imperatives to deal with when addressing that beast.

This concept is, in my opinion, the genius of the Obama approach so far: Obama knows this, and is so far handling the crowd pretty well. Or so I think.

(I think I'm going to pop over to my blog and discuss this topic a bit further. See you at LogicalNegativism.blogspot.com )

OK, now, as I was saying:

It's my opinion, based on observation of Preznit Obama in action and in speeches, that he knows that, when addressing the self-same issues, you say different things to a crowd of 100 than you do to the nation at large on national TV. You don't say things that diametrically oppose each other, so that you end up lying to one or the other or both groups. But you do temper your message to the size of the group.

F'rinstance: let's say it's 1942, you're president, and you tell the nation, on a national radio hookup, that "the only thing we need to fear is fear itself."

And then you go speak to the combined houses of Congress, and you say much the same thing, except that you alter the words slightly to make it clear that you know you're addressing a room full of more or less adults. Some of whom actually know what the Japanese and Germans are capable of, and apparently bent on.

And then you speak to the leadership of both houses - the smallest crowd so far - and you tell them what's REALLY up - all that stuff about how the Germans and Japanese are determined to kick our asses and eventually rule the world. And that we have to go to war with them to prevent this.

See how it works? Nothing really dishonest in any of the three levels of discourse. It's just that the larger the group, the less detail one offers.

And Obama knows this. Whereas Bush simply bullshitted us all, no matter what level he was speaking to. And even the most obdurately stupid and oblivious of us - well, not THE most etc., those are the hardcore Republicans - but nearly the most, started after a time to notice that Bush was talking down to them, and trying to scare them into line. And the one thing you must NEVER do with stupid people is let them KNOW you're talking down to them. So he, and his fellow repugnicans, fell out of favor in large part. And the opposition filled the vacuum. Which brings us up to November of 2008, and thence to today.

To wrap up this little exercise in human nature, let me relate something that Mitt Romney had to say on Chris Wallace's Sunday morning program today, the name of which program escapes me because usually I'd rather have my nipples ripped off than watch such a program: Ol' Mitt said, and I paraphrase since I can't remember the precise words, that when a political party has reached too high a level of power, and has been in power too long, they start to "think too highly of themselves", and they start to take things for granted, and to - in essence - screw up on a regular basis. And that, he thought, was what had happened to the Republicans in recent years.

This little piece of unintentional honesty - for I am convinced that Mitt had no idea how honest he was being - is an object lesson for the repugs, but more than that, it is a warning to the Dems. If only they will heed it. That's why we've heard so much in recent years about the political power cycle - First repugs have power, then Dems, then repugs, and etc. etc. etc. But is there any way to stop the swing of the cycle? If anyone (or any party) ever discovers it, we will have 200-year political power cycles, instead of about 20 or so as we do now.

That's all for today. Except this one final thought: political parties will never take real power until they learn to serve the needs of the people. Thoroughly, and consistently, conscientiously and well. When they stop treating us like obstacles to be gotten around on their ways to power and wealth, and start realizing that, if they treat us well and serve us well, the power and wealth will come, THEN and only then will we have leaders who follow us. The people.

Boy, that went on far longer than I thought it would. Comments?

Why the healthcare system is sick (and you don't look so great either)

2009-05-12T08:07:00.010-04:00

by Rich Miles

(Sigh)

OK, morons. Pay attention. I'm only gonna say this once. I get so TIRED of having to clue you people in to the most obvious shit sometimes.

Here's why the repugnicans are against health care reform. It really is this simple:

If the government insists that every American is covered under a (at least) government-ADMINISTERED plan, if not a totally government-RUN plan, the major profit centers of the medical-health care industry will lose money. Perhaps large amounts of money.

And repugnicans always, and I mean ALWAYS, are supportive of the wealthy taking money away from the not so wealthy by fair means or foul, preferably foul if it can be managed. This is how they maintain their class system: Upper class, upper upper class, and the rest of us, who can, in the opinion of the wealthy, go fuck ourselves.

It's just that simple - as in so many things in life, one must follow the money.

It's nothing to do with you, as an American or a legal resident of America, receiving adequate health care at an affordable price - though that is unquestionably how the Enemy will frame their resistance to the reforms.

For those over the age of about 45 or so, you will probably be old enough to remember a time when health care was NOT something that routinely bankrupted average people. But at some point between your childhood and now, certain segments of society decided to apply the Law of Supply and Demand to the area of personal health, and the result was that health care costs rose DRAMATICALLY and OBSCENELY every single year thereafter, until today we have a health care system that costs, on average, more than 2600% of what it cost in 1970. That's an increase of about 66% a year across the board. NOTHING else in the world, neither service nor product (with the possible exception of French wine), rose at a comparable rate in that same period. Not even gold and diamonds rose in price so much and so fast.

But see, the bean counters and paper pushers of the medical profession came to realize, as arguably they should have done years earlier, that everyone needs health care at some time or other in life, and therefore everyone will pay whatever it costs to receive that health care when they need it.

In other words, greed drove the market. Drove it fast and well, and left the horses snorting and sweating in the dooryard. Nowt to do with the actual COST of providing health care, though that rose, too - it was greed, pure and simple, and in the main, it was not the doctors and nurses who were demonstrating the greed, but the administrators and accountants and OWNERS of hospitals and clinics and so on.

OWNERS. By and large, not medical practitioners but administrators of health care. The profession of health care administrator, the degree programs, the professional associations, popped up all over America, and lots and lots of money became necessary to sustain them all.

And where was that money coming from? Regardless of whether it was filtered through the kidneys of health insurance companies or not, it was coming from people like you and me.

And that, in a nutshell, is how the average cost of healthcare rose 2600% in a mere 39 years. People like you and me allowed it to happen on our backs. And now, here we are with a health care "system" that is, at best, bloated beyond any recognition, with profit more important - FAR more important - than healing.

And to conclude the history lesson, here we are today with the same - the SAME, mind you - demand for health care - the same percentage of the population, approximately, get sick and need health care, but it's a much larger number of actual people because the size of the population is greater. More money flows out of our pockets and into those of the health care industry. And more and more of us are financially gutted by the phenomenon (while our Congress passes new laws making it harder for those of us who are gripped by this monster to get out from under it, but that's a story for another time.)

And the realization of all this - specifically, the realization of how much money can be made from sick people - has led us to where we are today, which is to say in a situation where it is far more likely than not that, if we become seriously ill, we are going to find ourselves in an extremely difficult financial situation. At best.

So this is why the Swift Boaters of health care are going to try to defeat the forces of health care reform - because to allow it, to permit the government to administer the national health care system, is to allow the diversion of huuuuuuge amounts of cash to some other locale.

And we can't have THAT, now can we?

Seriously, kids - we're getting fucked here, and if there were ever a political cause one might take part in or advocate for, this one is IT.

Trust me.

And I'm sorry I called you names at the beginning of this essay. It's just that I get afraid sometimes that you haven't logicked this out, that you think that those who oppose nationalized health care really ARE doing it for your benefit. To keep you from suffering the depredations of "socialized medicine".

(Seriously, if you were dying of a curable disease, do you think you'd really give a shit if the cure were provided by "socialized medicine" or not? I'll leave the answer open for you.)

Anyway, when you hear, as you will, the opponents of health-care reform tell you all the reasons why you should oppose it yourself, just remember this one relevant fact:

They're lying.

A Little Hippie Music For Ya

2009-04-29T18:03:00.005-04:00

by Rich Miles

Here's a musical moment for you from, quite literally, all over the world. Listen to the music, but also watch the names and locales as they go by on the screen. Bono, lead singer of Ireland's U-2, is included, but I'm bound to say tnat I haven't heard of any of the other players on the video.

Note, too, the truth in the lyrics. War has GOT to stop. It's not human. In fact, it's anti-human. We don't need no more trouble.

And while America is not alone in the warlike business, why is it that we are the most warlike of all nations? Why are we the bullies on the block? Why don't we take care of our people, instead of getting them killed on foreign shores?

Listen to the music. Maybe some ideas will occur to you.

"We do not f__king torture"

2009-04-24T19:21:00.002-04:00

by Rich Miles

Update at bottom of piece: I found it.

I don't know how it happened exactly, but the comment by Jack Jodell that's attached to this post was actually created BEFORE the post was written. All I saved was the title, and Jack popped up with his remarks. I guess that's because the topic of this post is pretty obvious.

On April 24th, Fox News golden boy Shepard Smith had a bit of a hissy-fit on the air. He slammed his hand down on the countertop in front of him, and declared in no uncertain terms, "Goddammit, we're America! We do not fucking torture!"

He did this live on the air, in the presence of two of his colleagues, one of them female. Not that her femaleness should matter, but to rightwing fanatics such as Smith, it presumably does. One must always be a gentleman, after all!

At any rate,no matter what your political leanings, I ask you to consider what your response to such an action would have been if the "sinner" had been a leftie - a Democratic-leaning commentator. The Fox pundits would be climbing the walls, going off on how the very nature of being a liberal lent itself to such indecency, such obscenity, and so on and so forth. Somewhere in the rattling would almost certainly be something about the end of Western civilization as we know it, or some such drivel.

But because the miscreant is from the right wing, the incident first off, disappears, and the few comments one can find on the incident - well, I can't find any comments on it. A rather serious breach of etiquette, not to mention FCC rules, just simply - disappears. From the annals of broadcasting. It's gone! I did about 10 web searches, looking for Shepard Smith, the quote, the quote in quotes, etc., etc., and nothing came up. I saw it right after it happened on You Tube, but now, a day or more after the fact, it's not to be found.

If you want to see/hear this piece, try your own search. If you find the piece, drop back by here and leave a link for it in the comments. You'll be doing me and your fellow readers a favor. And if you don't find it, leave a comment saying so. I'd like to know if Fox News has "disappeared" this little mistake.

In the next few days, I'm going to discuss why it's so important to foxites to convince themselves and us that what our people did on our behalf is both necessary, and NOT torture.

From preliminary research, the reasons for this are pretty scary psychological stuff. Denial is not just a river in Africa...

Update: Operator error - I don't know why I couldn't find it before, but this time I got 296,000 hits in a search. Here's one randomly chosen one for your perusal.

Gail Collins has a valid question

2009-04-19T18:04:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

Gail Collins is one of the most famous people you never heard of. She's a columnist for the New York Times, and I don't even know if she has a regular column or not, cuz normally she is so mild that I can't remember what she said last time or when.

But she's a good writer, and often says things that no one else has thought of. So it is today, when she asks the following very important question: How...can you stand at a rally waving the American flag while yelling “Secede”?

It's a valid question: the equivalent of asking, "how can one be a patriot while seeking to dismantle the very government that makes your country so unique?"

So what nutball has so thoroughly screwed this particular pooch as to be on record doing these two mutually exclusive activities?

The person in question, the one who made that ridiculous public picture, is that old GWB protege, Rick Perry, governor of Texas.

So my question in return is, "What the fuck?" Why is it, since November of last year, that so many right-wing "patriots" are so keen to leave the country? And I don't just mean travel abroad, I mean start another civil war, unless of course the administration in Washington just says, "Fuck 'em. Goodbye and good riddance, let 'em leave."

Unlikely, but it would serve them right.

In fine, I am getting so effin' tired of Repug posturing. I keep hoping Pres. Obama will too, and will call them on their bullshit in a national forum. I don't really get why that happens so infrequently.

I've had enough of loudmouth demagogues. I want some of them publicly and unmistakably embarrassed.

What about you?

Why We Hate the Rich

2009-04-14T10:13:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

OK, let me get away from that title a bit here - I don't hate the rich. Hell, I don't know enough of them (zero = not enough) to hate them. But I wanted to comment on an article in today's New York Times in which the mayor of New York City feels the need to defend the poor rich people who are currently under attack in the press and the public forum (AIG bonuses, among other issues.)

Now we mustn't overlook the fact that the mayor of NYC is himself a billionaire - yes, that "b" is correct - several times over, and that therefore he has a personal stake in rehabbing the public image of the wealthy man. But let's think this concept through a little: Why are the rich so vilified these days?

I maintain that it's because those of us firmly entrenched in the middle class or below for the past 8 years have seen a lot of this trouble coming - redistribution of wealth upward, overvaluing of stock shares, the total corruption of our unregulated financial systems, and more. I personally saw it coming that unregulated greed was much more powerful than unregulated human generosity. I'm not sure I understand why everyone didn't see it. I mean, has there ever been a period in human history when people could be counted on to conduct themselves with kindness and generosity, without some governmental body forcing them to do so? Haven't there been several somewhat lengthy periods of our history in which exactly the opposite has happened? The Gilded Age, the period just prior to the Great Depression, other less prominent eras?

It's far too obvious to dispute: rich people cannot be counted on to conduct themselves in a way that will not harm other people and the financial systems in which they operate. It simply cannot be done. Greed always - and I mean always - wins out.

And the net result, then, is that rich people must be regulated - history has shown us this, and for us - any of us - to maintain that government regulation is unnecessary or optional is - has been proven to be - foolish and risky.

And the rich, or even the moderately well-off, disagree with this premise, not because they've thought it through and have reasons for it, but because it's to their personal benefit to disagree. Because it's their perception that if they're left alone, with no government interference, they can get ALL the money.

And that kind of attitude - we want it all and we don't want the government telling us we can't have it - is why we hate the rich.

Conscience Clause, my Ass!

2009-04-13T15:47:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

Back in college, back during the last Ice Age, we used to sit around in someone's dorm room discussing the most arcane shit - deep-level discussions, or so we thought, on stuff that no one else had ever thought of, or so we thought. We actually used to do this without the aid of intoxicants most of the time. It was kinda fun to reduce shit to its lowest possible intellectual common denominator. Or at least it was back then. Or at least, we thought so. Back then.

Apparently, somebody still likes to do this sort of thing, except that they do it in ways that have the potential to harm or even kill other people. The method they use to do this is the executive order now commonly referred to as the "Conscience Clause".

It's one of those messes we knew we'd have to clean up after Shrub left office. He put it in place with one foot out the door, within the last weeks of his term, and quietly so no one would know about it till he was well and truly gone. What it means is this:

If a doctor or other medical practitioner is asked to perform a procedure or provide medical care or medicine, and that practitioner believes it would offend his/her moral precepts to perform the procedure, the doc may refuse to involve him/herself in the procedure, and the executive order in essence lets the medico off the hook for any consequences of the refusal - like, if the patient dies or something. You know - consequences.

I think this concept sucks.

Y'see, I didn't become a doctor because I didn't want to be confronted with such moral dilemmas. (Among other reasons - like, I'm skeeved out by the sight of blood and guts). But my objection to MY participating in such behaviors is not moral in nature, nor is it a function of my conscience. No, it's a choice I made many years ago - not to be a doctor.

And it's my belief that those who DO make the choice to be a medical practitioner make in that same breath a choice to do ANYTHING that's required to be a medical practitioner. Not just the parts of it that are fun, or easy, or don't cause one moral qualms. ALL of it.

And if one does choose to be a doctor (or more to the point, a pharmacist) and then at some future point refuses to do some part of his/her legitimate practice, then that person should lose his/her license to practice medicine. Lose one's RIGHT to be a doctor or other practitioner.

That's my opinion - what's yours? How many patients have to die or suffer other serious consequences of such a refusal before this stops even being an issue? Before one may not accept a state-granted license to practice medicine at any level, and then refuse to provide this care?

The short answer to this quandary is, if you have such strong moral beliefs that you could actually do that, refuse to provide any measure of medical care including the rendering of pharmaceuticals to a person whose illness you are unlikely to know with certainty, to anyone, then you should not go into the business of providing medical care of any kind to anyone.

That's my opinion - what's yours?

Come Home, America

2009-04-08T12:01:00.002-04:00

by Rich Miles

I don't usually recommend books on this site, mainly because my reading tastes tend toward ancient history (pre-1700), but also because reading choices are such personal things, and I don't wish to impinge on what you like with what I like.

(Also, I don't often find books I like well enough to suggest that you read them.)

But today, I've come across a book that I AM going to recommend to you, even though I myself haven't read it. My only contact with this book is a lengthy interview on NPR's "Diane Rehm Show" today, in which the author, without even trying, managed to convince me that he thinks just like me! Or nearly so, at any rate.

He says the things I try to say here - the obvious stuff about why America is falling apart in spots, and what should be done to stop the decline and get our country's international pre-eminence back on track for reasons that apply today and are not holdovers from our "imperial era", over a hundred years ago. Which is a long time for a country that's not much over 200 years old.

So at any rate, here's the book I want to call to your attention today:

"Come Home America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) Of Our Country" by William Greider.

It's available on Amazon.com, and if you Google it, you can get several reviews of the book and reader discussions as well.

If Greider's on-air discussion of his beliefs is anything like what the book has to say, we should all have a copy.

I'm not going to try to review the book - there are professional examples of this available all over the Web.

But I recommend you take a look at this book, because it's not just flag-waving and "Rah, rah America" kind of stuff. It's the author's ideas of what we've done wrong, and how we might benefit from doing those things a different way.

What the 'estate' tax really does

2009-04-06T07:52:00.005-04:00

by Rich Miles

Sometimes a blogger experiences that bane of our existence, the comment that explains the thesis better than the original post did. Or really, it's not a bane, it's just mildly embarrassing - if we're so smart, why didn't we say it that well to begin with?

Hilzoy over at Washington Monthly has had this happen to him/her, though at this writing, I'm not sure he knows it yet, unless he's an early riser. He offers a quite cogent, yet rather technical explanation of the ins and outs of the estate tax, and then, a person calling herself Jennifer comes along, and in essence says, "This is what Hilzoy really meant." She's not snarky about it - she just says it a little better and a whole lot funnier than Hilzoy did. Here's Jennifer's comment, in its entirety because I laughed out loud at the observation in the last sentence:

The estate tax was imposed in the first place because there was a recognition that over-concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands is ultimately detrimental to the economy. The estate tax is one means the government has to put the brakes on over-concentration of wealth; progressive income taxes and capital gains taxes are the others. All of those have been slashed to the bone and guess what? The utterly predictable thing happened - too few people now control too much of the money, the rest of us have had to borrow from them just to stay afloat the past 10 years, and a lot of people can't pay it back - leading to the credit crisis.

The "death tax" tripe has always irritated me no end. Dead people don't write checks - they're dead, and they could care fuck-all about anything at that point. They use this terminology to boost their ridiculous argument that it's somehow "unfair" that the money "gets taxed twice". Uh, no, it doesn't - it's treated like every other dollar in the economy - it's taxed when it changes hands. Such as when rich dude dies and the money goes to his heirs. At base, the argument is that Paris Hilton shouldn't have to pay any taxes, even though she's very wealthy without ever having worked, but you and I should pay full freight on every dollar we earn doing actual useful work. Paris' daddy or granddaddy isn't being "taxed twice" because it's not his money anymore. Paris isn't taxed twice because the money belonged to someone else when it was taxed before. Just like I pay income taxes on my earnings, then spend some of my money at the grocery store, where I pay sales taxes, then when the cashier at the store gets a paycheck in part underwritten by money I spent at the store, she pays taxes on her income as well.

In short, the Republican argument (and make no mistake, Miz Blank IS a Republican in all but name) is one that only makes sense to stupid people who have no idea how the estate tax works. Since stupid people are the natural constituency of the Republican Party, expect this moronic argument about the "unfairness" of "death taxes" to continue ad infinitum.

Since stupid people are the natural constituency of the Republican Party...Wow. I wish I'd said that. It is precisely le mot juste (or is it les mots justes?)

It's particularly important in both Hilzoy's and Jennifer's words to note this fact: the "inheritance tax" was first imposed to keep the rich from becoming richer to an obscene degree, and they (the rich) have never gotten over it. It is amazing how entitled one thinks oneself to be when one has money, and ONLY money, never having contributed to anything by the sweat of one's brow or the work of one's hands or mind.

Seriously, this redistribution of wealth upward MUST be curtailed, and soon. I mean, the question I've always had about the concept is, if the rich people get all the money, and the rest of us starve, what are the rich people going to do for servants?

I'm kidding, of course. It will come to an American storming of the Bastille long before that.

And remember, rich bastards: to most of us, the guy who makes $500K a year is just as much a plutocrat as the guy who makes $250 million. And will be dealt with just as harshly when the Revolution comes.

Limbaugh propaganda kills 3 cops

2009-04-04T18:35:00.008-04:00

by Rich Miles

Update below: Corrects my remarks about Pres. Obama's statements on guns and gun control, and also adds information about the deaths of 4 policemen in California several weeks ago.

In Pittsburgh today (April 4th), 3 police officers were killed by a gun nut who claimed he heard President Obama was going to take away everyone's guns. (Unlike most such nuts, the guy didn't kill himself, and survived the firefight he started with only wounds to his legs. He was wearing a bulletproof vest.)

Do you wonder where he got that idea, that the president was going to take away everyone's guns? I do, since Pres. Obama has at NO time I'm aware of EVER made any statement about what he was going to do concerning private ownership of firearms. He's never said he wanted to take everyone's guns away from them. In fact, he's never said ANYthing about them, pro, con, or neutral.**

Do you want to know who has been saying that Pres. Obama plans to take away everyone's guns?

Right-wing talk radio nuts. Like Limbaugh. Michael Savage. Any number of other fanatical nimrods of their ilk, whose names escape me because I don't listen to that kind of tripe. In fact, the only reason I know that these morons say these things is that I have read about them doing so in various and sundry national and local publications, and heard it mentioned on some LEFT-wing broadcasts.

They (the right wing propagandists) have frightened weak-minded people. They have made up a supposed position of Pres. Obama's, and preached that position to their weak-minded followers, and this is the result: three dead cops.

Rush Limbaugh is just as responsible for the deaths of those three cops as the guy who pulled the trigger. All those nutcases on the radio and TV are responsible.

But will they ever be brought to task for their crime? No, I rather assume not.

If they had any conscience at all, any honor at all, they'd take responsibility for their actions without prompting. I rather assume that won't happen either.

My deepest sympathies to the family and colleagues of those three dead cops. Look to your supposed "friends" in right-wing radio for the reason behind this horrific event.

**Update: Revised Article

The cockroaches are crawling out of the woodwork

2009-03-24T21:43:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

I have to confess that I'm surprised we haven't seen more of this:

An idiot on the radio named Tammy Bruce has embarrassed all white people, all broadcasters, and all racists (yes, I meant that too) with an on-air tirade in which she repeatedly referred to the Obama family as trash in the White House. There is much to be said for not giving Ms. Bruce the publicity that comes with making her actions known, but here it is. This hurts my heart even to present it to you, but I think it needs to be done:

Tammy Bruce Acts Out Like Total Racist Slag She Is

I sometimes despair of my country. This is one of those times.

If you can stomach it, read some of the comments.

My poor, bleeding nation.

Bad habit overcome - for the moment

2009-03-17T19:30:00.003-04:00

by Rich Miles

I have had a very bad habit in my life - failing to see and take note of significant events in the news, etc.

The best, or one might say the worst, example of this happened when the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was taken over by militant students in 1979 - an event that almost certainly toppled a U.S. regime, and had many other far-reaching ramifications to it over its 444 days' duration, and far into the future after it was over.

I didn't understand it.

Or rather, it might be more accurate to say that I didn't realize how important it was.

I remember thinking, when I first heard of the seizing of the embassy, "Well, there goes another U.S. embassy - not the first, certainly not the last, but no big deal."

It's pretty clear today how wrong I was back then.

I've done this many times before and since - just simply failed to notice how important an event was, and thus failed to learn anything from it, among other things.

But today, I am here to announce that I actually got out in front of one: I was a day ahead of the national outrage over the bonuses at AIG, and I am very proud of myself for having done so. Frankly, when I wrote that piece on the 13th, I thought it might just cause a little flameout, and then would disappear, as do so many such stories in recent months. In fact, AIG was at the center of another story about the payment of bonuses late last year, and that one did fizzle and die after a few days.

I don't think this one is going away so fast, and I'm glad of it. And glad for any little part I may have had in the story growing legs. I'm under no illusion I am responsible for it, but if I've been able to prop up the legs a little from my little corner of the world, that's great.

So AIG is getting a bit of its own back - that's great, too. I sincerely hope the bigwigs at AIG keep trying to make excuses for themselves. It will only make them look worse and worse. And then, I want to see a bunch of the ol' boys working behind the counter at Arby's or some such. All of 'em - 6 bucks an hour or so. I want these morons who've been making 6 figures or better since 4th grade to learn what it's like to have to sweat a bit to make ends meet.

I don't really expect that to happen - but I'd sure love it. As someone important said, payback's a bitch!

Ain't it?

Idle Threats

2009-03-15T10:56:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

There's an article in today's New York Times that, in essence, makes it clear that, come Hell or high water, AIG is going to pay $165 million in bonuses to executives of its financial services division, despite the obvious truth that these morons drove the company into the ground, and have had, so far, to be bailed out by the government to the tune of about $170 BILLION.

The basic premise of the article is that AIG HAS to pay these bonuses, because of contractual obligations entered into before the company's collapse. Well, that all sounds right and honorable, until you read the part about this money being "retention bonuses", to get the executives to stay at the company. Which brings to my mind at least the two following questions:

1) Why would you want to retain executives that killed your company, and damn near took the entire national economy down the toilet as well? Let 'em go, fer cryin' out loud, and

2) Where are these mugs going to go? If you refuse to pay their "retention bonuses", and they quit in a fit of pique, WHERE ELSE CAN THEY GO in this market atmosphere to do any better? Who's going to hire the architects of one of the greatest financial collapses in the history of the WORLD, much less America? I mean, can you imagine their resumes? "I took down one of the biggest companies in America. Let me do the same for your company!"

So obviously, as usual I'm missing something here. What *I* think I'm missing is the "old boy network camaraderie", that will cause these guys to take care of each other no matter how big fuckups they are.

Yeah, you can't let a former classmate at Yale or Harvard or whatnot fall by the wayside just because he's an incompetent boob. I mean, that would ultimately harm ALL incompetent boobs. And might even lead to the imprisonment of one or two of them. Like, for instance, GWB II. He was/is the ultimate incompetent boob raised to a level far above his competence. Can't have HIM called to task for his mistakes. God knows what that will mean to the rest of them.

The average American taxpayer (whatever "average" means in that context) is being reamed up the ass with a hot poker, and all these idiots can think about is "retention bonuses".

What can we do about this? I'm open to suggestion. But I'm just sick about this. And you should be too.

The Wholesale Theft Begins in Earnest

2009-03-13T18:39:00.004-04:00

by Rich Miles

There's an article on the front page of today's (March 13th) Courier-Journal that lays out the numbers for how Kentucky's first installment on the Obama stimulus package will be spent.

In essence, David Williams is, as we might have expected, going to get a lion's share of the money. Of the $442 million appropriated, Williams' district is going to get over $80 million - nearly 20%, in a corner of the state where are ensconced something like 3% of the people, and only about 8 percent of the roads - many of which have been recently paved. In fact, in one portion of Clinton county, part of Williams' district, they had so much money for roads and so few roads needing the work that they paved the SHOULDERS of the roads, rather than leave them in gravel as is usually the case. This was BEFORE the recent federal appropriation.

And Jefferson County, the largest and most populous region of the state, got about $36 million. About 7-8%. Less than David Williams' district. Less than the second-largest allocation of funds, $59.5 million to Ed Worley, D-Richmond.

Let me just close by suggesting this: get used to it. Every time the federal government allocates a portion of the stimulus package to our state, just assume that the fat cats will get the biggest piece, regardless of who or where needs it, and the rest of us will get the crumbs.

I suppose that's how it's always been. I just guess I hoped that this huge chunk of change would somehow be allocated a little more honestly.

But as I have mentioned in previous posts, I believe in the Easter Bunny, too.

La-di-da, La-di-da

2009-02-16T11:35:00.007-05:00

by Rich Miles

Hey, I'm getting better! It's only been 6 1/2 months since I last posted this time. But enough of that, on with the business at hand:

Since I last posted, Barack Obama has been elected and inaugurated. George Bush proved me wrong by not trying to stay in office on some trumped-up emergency basis (and I've never been happier to be wrong), and the Republickin' party has remained its old, steadfast self by engaging in the same treasonous behavior it did before the election, continuing to obstruct the business of the people and do all they can to keep anyone - Democrats, mostly - from doing anything to serve the needs of the American people. And then, they blame everything on the Democrats.

But the really heinous part of this equation is that, with the exception of the President, the Democrats are doing remarkably little to thwart these efforts on the part of the Repugs.

I mean, do you understand it? I don't. All the Repugs seem to have to do is say "boo", and the Democrats will just back down. It was most evident in the recent negotiations for the Big Bailout plan, when people like Lindsay Graham and others made all sorts of accusations of being left out of the process, and instead of Harry Reid telling them what was true, which was in essence "go fuck yourselves", he bent over and greased up again, and gave the Repugs what they wanted. Or more or less so.

See, here's how it goes: the Repug leadership tells its guys when to jump and how high, and those ol' boys just DO IT!!! That's why NOT ONE House Repug voted for the recovery plan, and then they had the nerve to complain about being left out of the process! And don't you know Middle America (gor bless their little pointed heads) hears that, and says, "Yeah well our good ol' Repug boys put down them smartass Demmiecrat boys up in Washington, and didn't yield to them one time ever!"

But while not many middle Americans gave this much thought, the fact is, every single Repug who voted against the bill WAS TOLD TO DO SO BY THEIR PARTY LEADERSHIP!!None of them, not ONE, read the bill, and after careful consideration decided that it was a flawed bill, and their conscience would not let them vote "Aye". Lindsay Graham said that the bill "stinks the place out". Others said similarly over-the-top things. I mean, is this the behavior of an adult, a member of one of the supposed greatest deliberative bodies on the planet? Daddy tells you what to do, and you do it without question, without actually DOING any of that deliberating you're supposed to be famous for, just because to do so will defeat the evil Democratic president, will start him on the road to un-reelectability in 4 years. All they have to do is make him politically impotent for four years, and he won't be reelected, and we (the Repugs) will have another go at fucking up the country again!!! Isn't that exciting?
And no one - not even Pres. Obama, who was starting to look like he was not going to allow this kind of nonsense with his "are these people kidding?" remark a while back, called them on such ludicrous remarks.

When are we going to call these fools on their shitty behavior? When are we going to stand up in their faces, and say, "You're morons. Among other moronic behavior, you're accusing us of the exact same bad behavior that YOU committed for 8 years under Bush, and called it logic and party loyalty and probity. And it resulted in the country being more fucked up than it hsa been since the Depression!"

People are FED UP with this crap. I can only hope that the general intelligence of the American people has risen a bit, and more Americans are seeing this for what it is: obstructionism, pure and simple. Not obstructing for a reason, just - obstructing.

But frankly, I have little faith in the intelligence of the American people. It was a little better when they elected Obama by such a hefty margin, but now we're right back where we started from on 9/11 - scared little rabbits who will let the Repugs frighten us into doing their bidding.

Except that Obama is whuppin' them this time. He's just doing it so subtly and quietly that they don't see it for the ass-whuppin' it is. God grant that he remains able to pull the wool over their eyes for another 8 years.

Thanks for your time and attention. As always, I'll try to get back here a little sooner next time. I mean, you'd think I'd have plenty to say these days, wouldn't you?