Election Tomorrow...

It's very simple to me... Democrats spend domestically, and Republicans spend in foreign affairs... two basic points... first, domestic expenditures cost less than foreign expenditures... and second, the Democrats will raise taxes, whereas Republicans will cut taxes... so, while both parties will increase spending, the Democrats will increase spending less, and will collect additional federal revenue through higher taxes on the wealthy... and being that the national debt, and the annual budget deficits, are my top concerns, this election is a no brainer... Barack Obama will increase our debt far less than John McCain, which will make it less unmanageable... it's worth mentioning that Ron Paul is still the man I support, and the only candidate to whom I have given any money... but I live in a swing state, and I can't throw away my vote on a person who has no shot to win... as such, I'm voting for Barack, as he is far more fiscally conservative than John McCain... it would make me sick to see another 4 years of irresponsible monetary policy that would further destroy our currency which in turn destroys the financial viability of most Americans... go Barack!!!

Halloween Party

My boss had his annual Halloween Party on Saturday night, and my co-worker and I decided to go as Barack Obama and Joe Biden... we were too cheap to spend money on a costume... and too lazy to think of a creative costume anyway... so, we slapped on some suits and off we went...

We actually did get a little creative by adding handwritten stickers all over our suits (and one each on our forehead)... here's the rundown of the stickers:

Barack

I Love Homos and Terrorists (on the forehead)

Franklin Raines is My Cousin

We People Have Lots of Cousins

I Love Louis Farrakhan

But Not as Much as I Love Karl Marx

Joe

I'm from Scranton (on the forehead... side note... this obvious clue line to achieve instant recognition about who I was supposed to be had little if any effect... I kept getting asked, "Are you Al Gore?" Look, just because I'm liberal, wearing a suit, have a lovely full head of hair, and am horribly overweight doesn't make me Al Gore...)

1929: The Year FDR Invented the Television

Colin Powell: Clearly Not Patriotic

God Hates Liberals

But Not as Much as Jesus Hates Poor People

Well, my boss lives in the fancy part of town (fancy is relative... Easton, PA, and really PA as a whole, don't so much have any fancy parts), so many of his guests from the neighborhood were of the Republican persuasion... so, our costumes sparked a lot of controversy, and some great drunken conversations... I'll share some of the highlights...

First, we talked about socialism and redistribution of wealth... I took their legs out from under them by agreeing completely that the tax rates under Jimmy Carter for top earners were repressive, unfair, and unwise, as a 70% tax rate makes people just want to quit working... but then I asked them if they think the top 1% of earners constitute the "liberal elite" or if they think the top 1% typically votes Republican... needless to say, they eagerly agreed that nearly all of the top 1% are a part of the George Soros "liberal elite" (editor's note: the idea that the top earners vote Democrat is one of the most absurd lies that large amounts of sheep, er, people have ever believed and repeated)... I then asked, if the top earners are the ones who will be affected by this evil commie plot to redistribute wealth, but these same top earners support the liberal platform and seemingly have no problem with returning to the 39.6% rate we had under Slick Willie, then why in the f**k are Republicans who fall outside of the top tax bracket so upset about it? Seriously, this makes no sense... of course, the truth is that a HUGE majority of top earners vote Republican because they want to keep their cash... and these same top earners have done a magnificent job of manipulating stupid people into voting outside of their own interests by pumping up the talking points of "socialism" and "wealth redistribution"...

I'll share my favorite conversation before I sign off... I met a "small" business owner at the party (I say "small" because almost as soon as he claimed that title, he started bragging about all of his multi-million dollar government contracts) who had his panties in a bunch about the small business tax increase... it was a very funny back and forth... for the first 15 minutes I just listened to him rant about how with higher taxes, he'll lose his motivation to work hard, he'll have to lay people off, he'll create tax shelters and move his assets overseas, and eventually be forced to close up shop... he was eloquent, and passionate... I mean, the guy really believed what he was saying... I then asked if he knew about the Laffer Curve, which tries to predict the exact percentage at which taxation will decrease productivity and therefore tax revenue... he was well aware, as the Laffer Curve is the basis for "supply side" or "trickle down" economic theory... so, then I asked him if his business was able to grow and prosper prior to the 2001 tax cuts... and if he had to lay people off or create tax shelters or shut his business down when the tax rate was 39.6%... and then we talked about the overall economic growth when the rate was 39.6%, and how there is absolutely no evidence that 39.6% falls on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve... he looked sick to his stomach when he couldn't disagree with anything I said... my Lord, how the Republicans hate logic, reasoning, and facts...

Abortion...

This is the toughest issue out there... and it's an important enough issue that I find the extent to which far right wing political leaders exploit this issue to manipulate their followers to be absolutely disgraceful...

When does life begin? That's obviously the fundamental question... and the scientific evidence seems to be contradictory and most of the information out there seems to be politically motivated...

I don't believe that life begins at conception... I do realize that once the egg is fertilized, it will grow into a human... I just think that line of thought is dangerous, because it could be extended to include the sperm and the egg before fertilization... after all, sperm that is "wasted" in recreational pursuits rather than in procreational pursuits had the potential to become a human as well... but I don't think we should prosecute men who deliberately ejaculate (this topic is so sensitive that I'm trying to be all proper and sh*t) and therefore waste genetic material that could have produced a child...

I remember an anti-abortion advertisement from my childhood that I found to be very effective... it said simply that "abortion stops a beating heart"... this always made sense to me... and it always seemed wrong to me... after all, a great measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members, and who could be weaker than an unborn child? So, the question becomes in my mind- "When does the heart begin beating?"

According to the one website I could find that seems to be based strictly on science rather than propaganda, the heart begins to beat at 5 weeks after conception:

http://www.wpclinic.org/parenting/fetal-development/first-trimester/

As such, I am totally comfortable with outlawing abortion after the 5 week point, assuming that there's some scientific agreement about this time frame... to me, once the heart begins beating, abortion is wrong... that's my opinion...

Does this mean that I favor overturning Roe v. Wade? I don't know... I haven't even read the ruling... I will say, though, that I would definitely support some measures to try to make abortion less prevalent...

For example, why not have a waiting period? The mother to be must register with the clinic, at which time the clinic presents her with alternatives like adoption and educates her about the specifics of the procedure itself... then, after registration, the mother to be must wait 24 hours after registering before actually having the procedure... considering the stakes, and trying to weigh the mother's rights versus the unborn baby's rights, I don't think the waiting period along with the educational proposals are too much to ask...

I don't know... again, this is an enormously tough issue to me... what do y'all think?

Random Thought...

As a fat person, I think sometimes about the obesity crisis we face in America (like, especially when I accidentally see myself naked in the mirror- sooooo gross), and I wonder what happened... we haven't always been a society of great big fat people... there are a lot of theories, and I think that one of the best ones involves the variety of indoor entertainment options that are available today... when I was a kid, we had TV, but it had rabbit ears with tin foil... as for home video game systems, there was the Atari 2600 and Intellivision, both of which pretty much sucked... these days, however, kids have satellite TV, Nintendo, the internet, DVD's, and a whole lot of other pretty good reasons to avoid exercise... when I drive around neighborhoods, I just don't see very many kids playing football in the front yard, or hoops in the driveway, or tackle the man, or anything... so, I think it's fairly obvious that an indoor entertainment revolution has led to less exercise, and that less exercise has contributed to how fat we are as a country...

But you want to know what? I think that a lack of natural foods are the bigger culprit... and if I could pinpoint just one food that I think is killing us, it's corn syrup... corn syrup has been substituted for sugar nearly universally because it is so much less expensive... and if you trace the beginning of the child obesity epidemic, I'll bet you that the expansion of corn syrup and the reduction of cane sugar coincides almost exactly...

So here's my random idea... outlaw corn syrup, and expand the production of corn-based ethanol... this way, you could bring an alternative fuel to the market right away without overly affecting the price of corn because the ethanol will fill the void in corn consumption that the new law creates... of course, sweet foods would become a little more expensive as sugar cane became more prevalent... but if we can help reduce our dependence on foreign oil while simultaneously helping to fight the obesity epidemic, isn't that easily worth it?

The Left Wing Redneck...

Obviously, I'm a pretty left wing liberal guy in many regards, especially socially... but I'm also an absolute redneck in many regards as well... and when it comes to our prison at Guantanamo Bay, I make Dick Cheney look like Dennis Kucinich...

I keep hearing all this madness about closing down Guantanamo and how evil torture is and all kinds of other sissy bulls**t... I'll tell you my opinion- the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should only be applicable to US citizens... as such, I don't think the prisoners at Guantanamo have a right to Habeas Corpus, or an attorney, or a speedy trial, or a fair trial, or any trial at all... I know, I know... the Geneva Convention provides a framework for the ethical treatment of foreign prisoners... but let me tell you something that should already be obvious if you're paying attention- I don't give a f**k about the f**king Geneva Convention...

Well, let me back up... if we're fighting an enemy that abides by the Geneva Convention, then we should too... but I think we need our enemies to understand that if they torture one single American boy, then we will torture the ever living sh*t out of every single f**king surrogate we possibly can until you knock that sh*t off... I want our enemies to know that we're always happy to take the gloves off if that's what they want... to quote the great Mike Singletary, I want our enemies to know that "we like them kind of parties."

As for the perception that this policy would cost us our moral authority, I would argue that our enemies apparently aren't too impressed with our high horse in the first place... and besides, I'm a pragmatist and an Old Testament guy anyway... seriously, when they cut people's heads off and broadcast it on the internet, I literally have no problem with doing the exact same thing...

And if you think that's extreme/insane, you'll love this... here would be my policy on civilian casualties... the first time you indiscriminately kill a US civilian, I would order the random death by bombing of 10 times the number of your innocent civilians... the second time, I would order the death of 100 times the number of your innocent civilians... the third time, it would be 1000 times, and the fourth time, it would be 10,000 times, and so on... and if you kept killing US civilians, I would eventually wipe your entire population off the face of the planet...

I told you I was a redneck... I do want to point out, though, that I look at military deaths quite differently... whether people want to admit it or not, we are at war, and the people we're fighting don't hate us without reason... like it or not, we helped start this war through our aggressive foreign policy/meddling/nation building and our support for Israel... as such, I would never unfairly retaliate and kill your innocents for attacks on our military targets... the bombings of the USS Cole, the Pentagon, or arguably even the US Embassy in Somalia were in my opinion the legitimate cost of waging war... the US has provoked the Islamic extremists in many ways, so of course they're going to fight back... but the bombing of the World Trade Center, on the other hand, was a calculated act of violence against a non-military target... as such, within hours of the attack that left around 3000 civilians dead, I would have ordered the random death by bombing of 30,000 civilians in the no man's land between Afghanistan and Pakistan... and when they retaliated, which they definitely would have, our next strike would carry 100 times the civilian casualties, and so on...

We arguably started this war, which we clearly shouldn't have... but I can promise you 2 things if King Pete were in charge... one, we'd let our enemy set the rules and then we would damn sure play by them... and two, regardless of who started the war, we would damn sure finish it... I can almost hear Lee Greenwood singing right now... man, this post makes me feel patriotic!!!!

Debate Strategy...

I know this will never happen, but here's what Barack should say if McCain wants to bring up Ayers, Reverend Wright, etc...

"I'm happy to talk about any alleged association in my political career. But I want to point something out first. John McCain is friendly with Senator Larry Craig. We have many pictures of them smiling and shaking hands. They are old compatriots and allies from their years together in the Senate. Does this mean that John McCain likes to suck d*ck in airport rest rooms? Of course not. The association game is a ridiculous, unfair, and never-ending two way street. I'm not surprised that Senator McCain's campaign advisers encouraged him to employ these small minded tactics, but I am surprised and disappointed that he acquiesced to their lowest common denominator inclinations. John, you're so much better than this, and it's a shame that you let your political team drag you down with them."

After that point, he should be candid about any association that McCain or the moderator asks about... I do also think he should point out that Republican operatives and Fox News researchers (is there a difference here?) likely reviewed thousands of hours of Reverend Wright's sermons, and they apparently only found 3 sound bites that were inflammatory (presumably, if they found more than 3, they would have used them too)... so, when Barack says he never heard anything outrageous come out of Reverend Wright's mouth, it's not as unbelievable as it sounds at first... unless there is proof that Barack was in attendance at one of the 3 sermons where Reverend Wright made objectionable comments, then what's the big deal? I mean, I do realize that Republicans are desperate to make Barack look like a militant black demagogue... but still... whatever...

Health Care...

Boy, this is another topic that the Democrats are completely butchering... I think I know what Barack is trying to say, but boy is he ever saying it poorly... by being vague about his plan- all I have really heard him say is that he wants congress to provide the same coverage to every American that it provides for itself... the problem with this plan is that it sounds like a massive new government bureaucracy with increased spending and government control... by doing such a lousy job of articulating his plan, he has opened the door for and even legitimized Republican attacks of "big government liberal" and "socialized medicine..." here's what he should say:

"The far right Neo-Conservative propaganda machine loves to deliberately misrepresent my health care plan as 'Socialized Medicine.' They hope you don't pay attention to reality and they hope you'll ignore even the very definition of their invalid accusation. You see, under a socialist health care system, hospitals are state owned, doctors are government employees, and you have no choice whatsoever regarding your health care coverage. I have never and will never advocate anything even remotely related to a socialist health care agenda because America's market-based philosophy has created the best health care system in the world. And I understand completely that by definition, a socialist platform removes profits from the equation. As such, going away from a free market approach would attract fewer and less talented doctors and would reduce if not eliminate the motive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in life saving research and development. It is crystal clear in my mind that this would be an utter disaster for America.

At the same time, though, we must have the courage to confront the crisis of the uninsured, because even if you disagree about the moral imperative of universal health care, we must all agree that uninsured Americans place a tremendous but avoidable burden on our great country. My plan is simple and straight forward, and I'll use an analogy to illustrate my point. If you want to send a package to a friend, and you have excellent personal or corporate resources, you'll probably use Fed Ex or UPS because the free market is able to deliver better service but at a premium. On the other hand, if you need to send the same package, but you lack financial resources, you'll probably choose the US Postal Service, as they provide a similar service but at a much more affordable price. The US Postal Service is a great example of how public competition in the private sector can keep costs low without destroying the free market. In spite of the Postal Service, Fed Ex and UPS are able to sustain enormous annual profits. But because of the Postal Service, everyday Americans are able to send and receive mail, and Fed Ex and UPS are forced to keep their rates reasonable.

All I have ever advocated is to establish a degree of public non-profit competition in the private insurance sector. And just like the US Postal Service, you will only pay for the public insurance option if you choose to use it. We're not at all talking about new spending or new taxes or any sort of redistribution of wealth. If you like the health coverage you have, you keep it. But if you aren't happy with your coverage, or if your coverage is too expensive, or if you don't have any coverage at all, then you can purchase health insurance from the open plan. Because of free market principles, the open plan will be able to negotiate lower prices for health insurance. Just as Wal Mart buys cases of coffee at a much cheaper price than the local market, the open plan will be able to provide health care coverage "in bulk" so to speak, thereby furnishing basic coverage at an affordable price. And just as the non-profit US Postal Service forces Fed Ex and UPS to keep their prices competitive, so will the open insurance plan force private insurance companies to lower their premiums.

This plan will not affect doctor salaries or profits for hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, nor will it increase government control or demand new and higher taxes. The only profits that will suffer are the windfall profits of the insurance giants, which will infuriate their CEO's and their lobbyists. But considering the stakes and the alternatives, that's a fight I'm willing to conduct and able to win."

Race Relations...

Let's start here... when black people blame systematic racism for their troubles, it's counter-productive... you can't drive an excuse, you can't live in a crutch, and lowered expectations that come along with a persecution complex are neither helpful nor healthy... additionally, this perceived excuse-making plays right into the hands of the massive counter surge against political correctness and white guilt... right now, many white Americans are pissed off about affirmative action, and any other government program that seems to give preferential treatment to people of color... so, when black leaders "play the race card" so to speak, it pours kerosene an a growing racist bonfire that threatens to engulf the recent progress we've made as a country regarding race relations...

That having been said, we need to also agree as white people that the two-fold common place arguments of "slavery was a long time ago" and "get over it" are equal parts highly insensitive, historically ignorant, and morally shameful...

As for the "slavery was a long time ago" thing, I'll stipulate that slavery is in fact several generations in the past, if the white population in general will stipulate that the end of slavery did not mean the end of discrimination... most fair-minded educated white people are aware of poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, lynchings, and segregation as common examples that make the case against the "slavery was a long time ago" excuse for racist white people to continue their hateful ideology... but some lesser known examples involve low interest but large scale federal lending programs for home ownership and college education... the federal government basically created a generation of college educated home owners but excluded American black people from participating in any of these federal programs... not until Richard Nixon's presidency were American black people eligible for federal loans to buy their first home or send their children to college... as absolutely any sociologist can tell you, all empirical evidence suggests that if your parents graduated from college and own their own home, your chances of doing the same increase tangibly and dramatically... in other words, the federal government manufactured a huge percentage of the American middle class, but did not allow American black people to participate... so again, I agree that slavery was a long time ago... but the rest of white America has to begin realizing that methodical and legalized discrimination didn't end until the 1970's... and the 1970's was not "a long time ago..."

As for the "get over it" argument, I want to share a quick story from the family history of one of my dear friends... his mother and her parents stopped for gasoline on a road trip to visit relatives... my friend's mother had to use the restroom, but the attendant told her they had no colored restroom... that story really personalized our racial history in my mind, and it really got me thinking about why many black people are pissed off at America... I mean, if I lived in a country that wouldn't let my mother use a public restroom when she was a little girl, I'd be pissed off too... and nearly every American black person between the ages of 25 and 45 had parents who lived through segregation... really try to walk in those shoes for a few seconds... really think about it... your MOTHER spent her childhood in a country where her legal status was as a second class citizen, and where many white people treated her with hate and mean spiritedness... your MOTHER... and then some c*cksu**er in a suit on Fox News verbalizes or at the very least insinuates that you should suck it up and "get over it?" Get the f**k out of my face with that bu**sh*t...

I really think that if American black people would collectively stipulate that using historical prejudice as a weapon to fight modern race-based injustice is counter-productive, and if American white people would collectively stipulate that historical prejudice has a legitimate lasting effect on modern race-based inequality, it would go a long way toward building an America that affords equal opportunities and makes us all equally proud...

Those Damn Shiftless Ni**ers!!!

Holy sh*t... I'm sitting here with my kinfolk Big Worms, and we're watching George Snuffalupakis... George Will just said that the reason we're in this financial mess is that government regulations created an environment where lenders were accused of being racists if they didn't lend to unqualified irresponsible minority voters... aha, we have DVR... I'll quote him exactly...

"Much of the crisis we're in today is because the government set out to fiddle the market. That is. We had regulation in effect, legislation that would criminalize as racism and discrimination if you didn't lend to non-productive borrowers. We had, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac existed to, well, to rig the housing market because the market would not have put people into homes they couldn't afford."

Seriously, I have acknowledged that many poor people took on debt that they couldn't really afford... and I realize that when a lot of people default on loans at the same time, that plays a role in tightening credit markets... but all kinds of people bit off more than they could chew... poor people of all colors, middle class people of all colors, etc...

But what's most irritating is that far right closet racists point to irresponsible poor black people as the primary culprit... I mean, the federal government took on an additional $6 trillion in debt during the last 7 years that they couldn't pay back without creating additional dollars out of thin air, which has collapsed our currency... again, of course poor people, some of whom are black, took on loans they shouldn't have... but does anyone really believe that the poor black people who have defaulted on loans collectively approach anywhere even fu**ing close to $6 trillion?

The Neo-Conservative scapegoating of poor black people is eerily reminiscent of a certain Austrian artist with only one testicle and a very silly mustache... let it be known that if you find yourself getting really worked up about the damn shiftless irresponsible poor people (read: ni**ers), you're a racist... and if you get really worked up about being accused of being a racist, then you're a gutless, two-faced hypocrite who fails miserably in the admittedly difficult task of honest self evaluation... seriously, it's OK to be a racist... I really mean that... we live in a free country, and you have a right to think and express yourself in any fashion you see fit... just don't be a fu**ing pu**y and try to deny who you are... and if you're ashamed of who you are, then feel free to change who you are, as America can't have too many citizens who make an earnest effort to be fair minded and judge each person "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character..."

I'm not drunk, you're drunk!!!

My favorite race-baiting Neo-Con talking point is that the economic catastrophe we're facing is largely attributable to shiftless, irresponsible American citizens (read: ni***rs) who borrowed money they couldn't pay back...  I agree that Economics 101 advises "don't spend more than you make".... expenses must not exceed revenues... of course, the biggest culprit of this self-defeating philosophy is the current Republican administration... (I don't have specifics, but it's my understanding that the debt has expanded from roughly 4 trillion in 2001 to roughly 10 trillion today)

The Neo-Cons basically operate a non-stop irony fest... 

Crazy Ron Paul...

God, how I love this man... this entry doesn't come from me... but Congressman Crazy Ron Paul (again, the only politician to whom I have ever given a dime) said it much better than I could... also, I am going back to Texas in a day and a half, and I have so much s**t to do before I go that there's no way I can write a legit entry right now anyway... not to mention, I am nearly as lazy as I am sexless... without further adieu...

Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

The Evil ACLU...

As I listen to right wing demogogues complain about the ACLU, I want to vomit... if you look at the Republican platform, they will pay lip service to the importance of liberty and the bill of rights... theoretically, liberals are the party of big government intervention... and theoretically, conservatives appreciate and cherish the Bill of Rights and the Constitution...

And yet, for some reason I can not fathom, the Republican talking heads/propaganda machine can not stand the ACLU... on paper, the ACLU is the most conservative organization in the country... defending, for example, the American Nazi Party's right to assemble is VERY conservative... you see, if you're a conservative, the Bill of Rights is important enough to look past your personal preferences and see the big picture... if you're a conservative, the fact that you may find the American Nazi Party offensive is in no way relevant to the main idea of protecting our First Amendment rights... I really don't understand...

On second thought, I do understand... to return to a theme from an earlier post, the Republicans are dead... the Neo-Cons are unfortunately alive and well... and one of the things the Neo-Cons value most is control... to a Neo-Con, the Bill of Rights is an archaic road block to their goal of doing whatever the f**k they want to do... I wish more people realized that the Neo-Cons are not conservatives...

Take the Patriot Act, as an example... we have a little thing in America called the 4th Amendment... among the guarantees of that brilliant passage is that American citizens are not subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, and that a warrant must be obtained prior to a search or seizure... and yet, the Patriot Act expanded the role of National Security Letters, which allow the FBI to run wire taps and conduct searches of American citizens without any type of warrant whatsoever... naturally, the ACLU has been fighting this infringement on our rights... many Americans believe that the Patriot Act has helped to keep us safe, and as such are willing to look the other way as our government strips us of our rights... but as Ben Franklin once said- "Those who would sacrifice liberty for the sake of temporary security deserve neither."


Here's the point, though... if you're a conservative, you should be appalled by the Patriot Act's infringement on our rights... and yet, the extreme partisanship of people who claim to be conservatives prevents them from honestly evaluating themselves or their party... to me, the ACLU is literally the most conservative group in the country... a conservative is supposed to fight the government tooth and nail over any federal attempt at suppressing our rights... I can't for the life of me figure out why more people don't realize that... if you look at some of our historical conservative heroes like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln (yes, I realize that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, but he did so only for citizens of the Confederacy, and the Bill of Rights legally applies only to US citizens), and Teddy Roosevelt, I think that all 3 of them would be card carrying members of the ACLU... what do you think, John, Mere, Josh, and Josh (I'm realizing that I have 4 readers, not just 1)? Does this kind of bulls**t drive anyone else crazy?

My Cousin...

T. Boone Pickens is not actually my cousin, though if he gets old enough to develop dementia, I will most definitely do my best to use my middle name to trick him into writing me into his will... but I do really like his energy plan... and in thinking about it from a political perspective, I wonder why neither politician has rushed to embrace the plan... I really haven't spoken with anybody who disagrees aggressively with his plan... I think the mere fact that someone, anyone, actually has a plan is incredibly encouraging... and I think that if either candidate cozied up to T. Boone and even acquired an endorsement, it could make a tangible difference in November...

Speaking of things that might make a difference, I wonder why candidates never announce cabinet positions ahead of time... I do realize that doing so would make the other side go crazy, and you would get called presumptuous, arrogant, etc... but especially if you're Barack, you've been getting called all of those things anyway, so who cares? I really think that the benefits outweigh the negatives...

For example, imagine if John McCain announced that Meg Whitman would be his Secretary of Commerce... people feel that McCain may be weak on the economy, but Meg Whitman is arguably the foremost authority on internet commerce in the world, and played a role in creating literally millions of jobs (by the way, I don't know why McCain didn't pick her as his VP... is she a pro-choice atheist or something?)... or how about Ron Paul as his Secretary of the Treasury? I also think that Secretary Gates has done a great job, and that it would only help McCain to announce that he will be retained...

How about Barack? Here's a Lone Star Lunatic dream team... either retain Secretary Gates or convince Colin Powell to come out of retirement as Secretary of Defense (by the way, I think we should take notice that the title of that position is Secretary of DEFENSE, not Secretary of Aggression and Empire Maintenance)... tell me that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a great choice as Secretary of State (I actually think he should try to get Hillary and Bill as Secretaries of State- in fact, I think that all presidents should choose Secretaries of State as it would allow you to get so much more face to face diplomacy done without making people feel slighted for meeting with assistant secretaries)... and how about Warren Buffet as Secretary of the Treasury? Tell me that wouldn't f**k up the Republicans... and like I said, I'd make my cousin the Secretary of Energy... I think Barack should also take FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security and reestablish it as a cabinet level position... and Russell Honore would be a no brainer choice as the Secretary of FEMA... if Barack were to retain Secretary Gates, General Powell would be awesome as the Secretary of Veteran Affairs...

Again, I think that either candidate should go ahead and put some ideas out there... I know that breaks with tradition, but I think the momentum shift could be worth it... and by the way, I think that either candidate who tries this must make his cabinet bi-partisan... I think that the intense partisanship is one of the things that most frustrates and turns off the 18% of undecided likely voters (and believe it or not I'm one of them)... I think we all believe that no matter which party wins, if there's no bipartisan cooperation, we all lose...

That's about it for now... sorry I missed my last post (that apology was to JBH, as I think he's the only one reading)...

Fair Minded...

If there's one thing that pisses me off the most about the political culture and the people who follow it, it's the raging lack of fair mindedness... people just fall in line with their respective parties' talking points without even thinking about what they're saying... way too many sheep on both sides... George Washington once said that political parties would lead to the ruin of America, and boy was he right... the partisanship and the straight party ticket mentality runs counter to the absolutely imperative ideas of listening, cooperation, and critical thinking... if you vote on a regular basis, and you pull straight party, then I say shame on you... think for yourself... as uncomfortable as it will undoubtedly be at first, you may eventually come to enjoy it...

By the way, if you have an interest in being fair minded, and the facts are relevant in your world, here are a pair of awesome sites to get the truth:

www.factcheck.org

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker

I have been getting very frustrated with the unfair political advertisements I've seen coming out of both camps... the Obama campaign has an ad out there that accuses McCain of giving tax cuts to companies that outsource jobs... good grief... I have no doubt that some companies that received tax cuts over the last 7 years have indeed outsourced jobs... but some companies that received tax cuts created jobs too, right? The ad implies that McCain supported tax cuts that somehow encouraged corporations to ship jobs to Asia, which is absurd... John McCain is a lot of things, and not all of them are good... but it's completely unfair to say or even imply that he resides so deep in Wall Street's pockets that he would deliberately provide incentives to ship jobs across the pond...

I know that my Republican friends will accuse me of not being fair minded myself, but I do have to say that the McCain ads are even worse... yes, I have seen the statistics indicating that a higher percentage of "negative ads" are coming from the Obama camp... but I'm a lot less interested in percentages than in severity... and to me, the Obama folks use selective facts and statistics to paint a picture that favors themselves and discredits McCain (often unfairly)... but at least the Obama campaign pays some attention to the facts... McCain's ad that accuses Obama of favoring sex education for 6 year old children crosses the line from misleading to lying, as does the McCain ad that calls former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines one of Obama's chief economic advisors (no one can cite even a single conversation between Obama and Raines)...

Here's the thing that's most amazing to me... both sides have ample ammunition to use without resorting to lies and distortions... I mean, John McCain actually did chair the Senate committee on Commerce... that's actually true... so, it was on his watch that the economy slipped into chaos... and whatever he might say he tried to do, he sure as hell didn't do enough... not to mention, McCain has boasted about his stance as a deregulator... how has that worked out for the American people?

And Obama might not have ties to Franklin Raines, but there is no doubt that he chose another former Fannie Mae chief in Jim Johnson to chair his search for Vice President... so if Barack has legitimate close ties to an over-compensated former chief of Fannie Mae, why even bring up Raines? To me, the McCain campaign could and should crush Barack for his ties to Johnson... the McCain campaign should ask whether or not Obama's close relationship with Jim Johnson represents the change we need in these uncertain economic times... I mean, if Obama trusts a guy like Jim Johnson, why in the hell should we trust Obama?

Honestly, at some point, I sincerely hope that the American people will grow tired enough of all this crap that we'll consider 3rd party candidates... until we wake up and take collective action, we'll just continue to prove George Washington right...

My Dirty Little Secret...

Guess what? I am a Republican... the only political candidate I've ever given a dime to is Ron Paul (I love crazy people)... I thought about giving money to Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama too during the primary season, but eventually decided against it... I really liked Huckabee... he seemed to be rational and compassionate (the story about how he handled displaced New Orleans residents in the wake of Katrina made me cry harder than the last time I saw my weenie)... and initially, Obama inspired me... I thought he was "different"... by different, I don't mean black with a weird name... I mean like a different kind of politician... but much to my dismay, I have repeatedly seen that he is not much different at all... he ducks tough questions, his campaign spins everything, his television ads are deceptive, etc...

The problem is that the Republicans aren't Republicans... I mean, what do Republicans stand for anyway? Theoretically, they are the party of limited federal government, conservation of our natural resources, fiscal responsibility, state rights, strict interpretations and enforcement of the constitution, its amendments, and the bill of rights, etc... I support all of those things... but I'm not at all sure that Republicans support any of them...

You know what? I shouldn't say Republicans... it's fairly obvious to me that the Republican party has been hijacked by the Christian Conservatives and the Neo-Conservatives, and that my Republican heroes like Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would neither recognize nor embrace the current version of their former party...

I guess we'll start with the Christian Conservatives... first of all, let me say that although I am not a church goer myself, many of my friends who I admire the most are people of strong faith... in fact, my experience has been that Christians who have deep sincerity and conviction in their beliefs and make an earnest effort to live their lives accordingly are some of the kindest and most humble and most genuine and most unselfish people on earth... so please accept my sincerity that as I pummel the lunatic right wing Christian Conservatives, I do not by any means intend my remarks as an attack on Christianity and Christians as a whole...

Here's one of my favorites... when far right wingers decry the evil abuses of the lazy and shiftless welfare recipients, I often ask if they're aware of arguably the first example of social welfare in recorded human history... that's right, folks, it's Jesus Christ distributing the loaves and the fishes... boy does that ever piss these a**holes off... I mean seriously, What Would Jesus Do? Look, I'm no biblical scholar, but I'm pretty motherf***ing positive that one thing Jesus WOULDN'T do is s**t on poor people and cut off funding and health care for single mothers...

The typical retort to this line of questioning is that of course they believe in helping the poor... they just don't believe that it's the government's proper role to intervene directly... but have you heard the evil c**ksuckers like Ralph Reed and John Hagee decry the government's direct involvement in the run of massive bailouts for the Wall Street giants? I sure as hell haven't... so, it's OK for the government to protect your portfolio, but it's not OK for the government to look after poor children? Get the f**k out of my face with that bulls**t...

The point is that these people don't have actual faith-based convictions (by the way, let me again state that many of the people who follow the Christian Conservative leadership DO have sincere convictions about issues- particularly abortion- to use a relevant analogy, an attack against Hitler should not be perceived as an attack against all Germans) ... it's pure politics... how else do you explain the "Moral Majority" supporting a man who has no apparent regard for the 7th Commandment (6th Commandment if you're a Roman Catholic or a Lutheran)? By the way, every time the Republicans attack Barack's character (which they do constantly), the Democrats should hammer McCain's lack of regard for the 7th Commandment... they should then let the television pundits figure out and remind the people what the 7th Commandment is...

Now, on to the Neo-Cons... what is a Neo-Con anyway? To me, the Neo-Conservative movement has 4 basic pillars:

1. Domestic mean spiritedness and bigotry.
2. Hyper aggressive foreign policy that a) often backfires and b) is recklessly expensive.
3. Massive deficit spending (we want it all right now, but we're so irresponsible that we'll let our children and their children worry about the cost some other time).
4. A refusal to accept facts and/or scientific evidence that contradicts what they believe.

On the first point, let me say that in my opinion, the majority of adults in the US who wind up in dire straits find themselves in that position primarily because of their own lack of foresight and a series of poor decisions... but please, can we stop pretending that a lack of foresight and a series of poor decisions are the ONLY reasons people wind up in desperate situations? There are A LOT of factors involved... but right now, I am so hungry and in such desperate need of some cold beers that I'm quitting for now... I'll write more tomorrow... the other 2 entries took me a combined total of 30 minutes at most, but this entry has already taken me 45 minutes and I'm not even quite to the halfway point... so, I'm out of here...

OK... I'm back... one thing that took me less than 3 full entries to discover... I am definitely not going to make an entry every day... I think realistically, we're looking at Monday through Thursday until the end of the election... my track record says that goal is pretty unreachable... we'll see...

A couple of things I thought about between last night and now that I'd like to add before I continue... one, on my earlier accusation that Christian Conservative leaders are often if not usually more political than Godly... consider the moral issues of the day... on abortion, Christian Conservative leadership rallies around the Pro Life cause... while I understand all sides of this issue, the Pro Life advertisement of "abortion stops a beating heart" really rang true to me as a scientific fact... as such, from a moral perspective, I think Pro Life is the correct position... when asking the litmus morality question from the Christian perspective (What Would Jesus Do?), it's fairly clear in my mind that Jesus would be Pro Life... however, I think that Jesus would favor slightly higher taxes for rich people to help the country as a whole (factually speaking, the Bible favors a charitable heart and deplores greed)... I also think it's pretty obvious that New Testament philosophy based on Jesus Christ's teachings would likely reject both the death penalty and an aggressive foreign policy based on the threat of violence that often leads down a path to war... so when you look at many other issues of a political nature that involve big picture questions of moral values, the Christian Conservative leadership demonstrates quite clearly, at least in my mind, that they value their position as a political power broker a lot more than they do Judeo Christian moral principles... I believe that they use abortion as a means to rally a lot of decent people to support them in their otherwise un-Christian political positions...

The other point I wanted to mention quickly is the issue of state rights... allegedly and on paper, Republicans favor state rights... and yet, if you look at the cases of assisted suicide in Oregon, medinal marijuana in California, or the Terry Schiavo case in Florida, Neo-Con posterchild John Ashcroft (presumably at the behest of the Bush administration) directed the Attorney General's office to interve aggressively and directly on behalf of the federal government... considering that every Republican I've ever had a conversation with will say they support state rights, these interventions make a mockery of one of the most important traditional pillars of the alleged Republican platform... it's very similar to Vladamir Putin's position on freedom of the press... they can write anything they like, as long as he agrees with it... it's a joke, except that it's not funny... if you claim to support state rights, but you support federal intervention in state affairs without a clear constitutional basis (for example, JFK intervening to integrate several of the larger Southern universities is justified by the 14th amendment), then I have a news flash for you- YOU DON'T SUPPORT STATE RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!! Man, that kind of s**t pisses me off...

Also, let's talk quickly about conservative vs. liberal... the root of conservative is conserve, as in keep things the way they are... conservatives were against abolition, trustbusting, women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, etc... liberals, on the other hand, are often labeled "Secular Progressives" by the talking heads, most notably Bill O'Reilly... what's the root of the word progressive? That's right, folks... PROGRESS... keep things as they are or even return to the idyllic 1950's (I'm not sure that women and American black people feel like the 1950's were quite so wonderful, by the way, but I'll save that for another post), or move forward and make progress... that shouldn't be such a tough choice...

Now, back to the causes of some Americans finding themselves in some very tough spots... as I said, I think most people are largely responsible for their own destinies... however, I think we can agree that the circumstances surrounding your birth play an important role in where life takes you as well... if you are blessed with 2 college educated parents who own their own home, for example, you have quite a head start over the children who are born to uneducated single mothers with limited financial means... domestically, it's my opinion that we should do what we can to ensure that poor children have better opportunities to live the American dream... a poor child's efforts plus a poor child's talents should produce proportional results similar to an affluent child's efforts and talents... regardless of your political affiliation, this is a goal we should all share... let's try to make things a little better and a little more fair for poor children... I think the Neo-Con talking points on personal responsibility don't acknowledge or care about the discrepancy between opportunities for children based on their parents' circumstances... to me, that's mean-spirited, un-Christian, and un-American...

As for the bigoted accusations, just listen to the patronizing and condascending comments white conservatives make toward Barack... the only compliment they'll pay him at all is that he's "well spoken" and a"gifted orator"... um, he graduated from Columbia and Harvard law school, and he taught at the University of Chicago's law school... so, yes, he's well spoken... but I haven't heard Lindsey Graham or Rudy Giuliani call any white politicians "well spoken," have you? It's very thinly veiled racist code... fortunately, Barack's campaign is too smart to take the bait, as the Republicans are looking for any excuse to accuse Barack of "playing the race card"... and by the way, white men in their 60's and 70's who grew up during segregation and if they were being honest (which they wouldn't be) would admit that segregation suited them just fine hopefully won't get away with patronizing and condascending remarks directed at American black people...

On hyper-aggressive foreign policy, let me simply say that we can't afford it... as you know, I think that large-scale deficit spending devalues our currency and destroys our economy... as for how often it backfires, consider this... actually, first, let me say that our enemies dislike us for all kinds of reasons... the Neo-Con belief that "they hate us for our freedom" is not altogether incorrect, although it makes people sound like idiots when they repeat that talking point like sheep... if you don't think that the CONSERVATIVES in the Islamic world (can we all agree that no one would describe Al Qaeda or the Taliban as liberal or progressive?) take issue with the allure of American culture to many youths in the Islamic world, you're nuts... 7 year old little girls in the Middle East probably want to dress like Brittney Spears and I'm sure many Muslim women admire and would like to emulate a strong American businesswoman like Meg Whitman or Oprah Winfrey... and just as Susan B. Anthony pissed off conservative American men, you can bet that cultural revolutionaries in the Muslim world piss off conservative Muslim men... and the pervasiveness of American culture is as reasonable of a scapegoat as any... and being that freedom is such a huge part of our culture, it's not too much of a stretch to say that "they hate us for our freedom"...

But FAR bigger issues are little things like, oh, I don't know... how about the vital role Harry Truman played in the creation of Israel? Or the role all subsequent American adminstrations have played in arming, training, and protecting Israel? Or, maybe Iran's still mad about the time we toppled a traditional regime to install the pro-west Shah? Or, maybe the Taliban is still mad about how we deserted the Mujahideen and failed to help rebuild Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out... wait a second, aren't the Taliban and the Mujahideen the same exact people? Oh, so they are still mad then? If you look at the Marshall Plan and if you look at Douglas MacArthur's role in rebuilding Japan, it's pretty clear that when we intervene and help rebuild afterward, we create new allies... but when we intervene and bail out the minute it suits us, leaving destruction and chaos in our wake, we create enemies (if you're wondering, the answer is yes, I think we'd be stupid to leave Iraq before the Iraqi government and security forces are ready)...

You already know how I feel about deficit spending... goodness, I hope the Obama campaign figures out that deficit spending and the debt it creates is catchy and simple enough to resonate...

As for the 4th pillar of the Neo-Cons, why in the world do conservatives hate science so much? I mean, faith healing and creationism is OK I guess, but science and medicine are OK too, right? I really don't understand it... the only rationale I can think of to stand in the way of science is that you're uncomfortable with mankind trying to "play God"... the problem with that, however, is that when it comes to government policy, we have a little thing called separation of church and state (by the way, I think it's literally unconstitutional that I can't buy a bottle of booze on a Sunday)...

As for not letting facts stand in the way of their beliefs, I'll give 2 quick anecdotes before I sign off until Monday (I have a feeling that this rambling post is getting WAY too long)... Joe Biden told Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press- "Lindsey, you're entitled to your own opinions... you're not entitled to your own facts." Although I definitely believe that Republicans do not have a monopoly by any means on dishonest politicians, I think they are by far more stubborn about their beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence than are the Democrats (by the way, sticking with your guns in the face of contradictory opinions is conviction, but sticking with your beliefs in the face of contradictory facts is stupidity)... I think about the father of Neo-Conservatism, Ronald Reagan... I just read Reagan's authorized biography by Edmund Morris, and one of the points Morris makes that amazed him and amazed me is the amount of times Reagan would repeat incorrect information that validated his beliefs... the example that sticks out most vividly to me is Reagan citing the incredible bravery of the American troops who liberated Auschwitz... when people on hand would try to correct him and let him know that it was in fact the Russians who liberated Auschwitz, Reagan would get his nose out of joint and accuse the people on hand of denigrating the service of American troops... then, a few weeks later, he would go right back to praising the bravery of the American troops who liberated Auschwitz... I know this is a silly example, but it is vintage Neo-Conservative bulls**t... I mean, seriously, Neo-Conservative types, please stop pretending you're entitled to your own facts...

OK, I'm finished... I'm not sure what I'll write about Monday... anyway...

The Economy

Let me first be clear about one thing... I am not an expert... not even close in fact... but there are a few simple principles that I do understand, so we'll just stick with those...

From the conservative perspective, high taxes stifle growth... I agree that a repressively high tax rate is not good, as the more you take from wealthy people and corporations, the less motivation and capability they will have to work hard, invest, spend money, create jobs, etc... I get it... furthermore, the Laffer Curve makes sense to me... the idea that an optimum tax rate exists after which point government revenues will actually decrease as productivity drops registers with me as well...

That having been said, there seems to be no conclusive evidence what exactly that optimum tax rate is... and Republicans love to point out that tax revenue increased from 2001 to 2007, and that 2007 tax revenues exceeded anything we saw during the Clinton years... Republicans cite this fact (and it is a fact) as evidence that lower taxes mean more growth and therefore more federal revenue... their idea is that a smaller piece of a bigger pie is still more pie, and that economic growth will outpace the tax cuts...

Here's the problem... as a percentage of the GDP, we have had far less economic growth in the 7 years since 2001 than we had in the 7 years prior to 2001... so even though tax revenue has increased because the modest overall economic growth since 2001 did in fact outpace the tax cut, the evidence suggests that the tax cuts did not cause the growth, as we experienced more growth before the tax cuts than after...

OK, that's my analysis of the tax situation... I just offered not one single solution... I told you I'm not an expert... I do think, though, that as Republicans brag about how much growth and therefore additional tax revenue the tax cuts created, the Democrats should point out that 2001-2007 was actually an economic slowdown compared with the Clinton years... the Dems should hammer this point home... every time the Republicans talk revenue, the Democrats must counter with our economy's stunted growth...

By the way, aren't the Republicans magnificent at political spin? McCain talks about the economy's sound fundamentals... when questioned, he says that the American workers are the most important fundamental, and how dare someone attack American workers... I think that most sensible people would agree that while a capable work force is an important element of a healthy economy, the "fundamentals" are things like the strength of our currency, credit markets, housing markets, employment rates, retail sales, the stock market, and I'm sure many others... besides employment rates (which will probably spiral downward very soon), aren't all the other economic fundamentals I mentioned basically in ruins? The Democrats must specify what they think the fundamentals are, and they must point out McCain's blatant dishonesty and spin and lack of straight talk when he pretends like he was referring exclusively to American workers... and the Democrats had better hurry, as the straight party ticket sheep are already repeating McCain's ridiculous talking point...

It reminds me of a disagreement I just had with a conservative at work... as I mentioned in my last entry, I think the Democrats should leave Sarah Palin alone (except to point out McCain's pure political motivations for choosing her)... but when a socially far right governor who demands that only abstinence be taught at public schools winds up with a pregnant teenage daughter, I find that ironic if not hilarious... my conservative friend accused me of being sick (he's right, but that's another topic)... he then morphed my comment on irony into an attack on all people of faith...

"I don't find Bristol's pregnancy ironic at all; quite the contrary. I'm a Christian just like Sarah Palin and her family. Moreover a Christian who makes mistakes frequently. Your suggestion that it's ironic that Palin's daughter became pregnant while she's an advocate of abstinence is erroneous. Are you surmising that Christians are somehow perfect and not subject to mistakes? I'm now an advocate of abstinence but my track record before accepting Christ speaks to the contrary--am I a hypocrite?"

Are conservatives amazing or what? I mean, seriously, what the f**k is this guy talking about?

Now, on to a few simple principles (or maybe just one principle) that I do understand...

When a poor person buys a Cadillac or a Ford F350 on credit, it's a very bad idea, as the difference between a poor person and a desperately poor person is debt... economics 101- expenses shouldn't exceed revenues (and yes I do understand that some expenses are an investment and that investment-based short term debt often keys growth in the business world)... but still, I think we can generally agree that assuming large-scale debt runs contrary to responsible fiscal behavior...

I know you know where I'm going with this... since 2001, our national debt has risen from $4 trillion to $9 trillion... that's a lot of money in a short amount of time... and it's a major problem, and I would argue it's THE major problem...

Both parties like to spend money... the Democrats have long been labeled, I think in many cases fairly, as the party of "tax and spend" (social security, medicare, etc)... but if you look at the hard numbers, the truth is that Bill Clinton, wild-eyed fornicating liberal that he was, spent considerably less than either our current president or Ronald Reagan (in Reagan's case, using inflation adjusted dollars)... so, while the Democrats may be the party of "tax and spend", at least they're responsible enough to pay for their spending habits...

Republicans, on the other hand, are the party of "borrow and spend"... and deficit spending and the debt it creates, in my opinion, is the single biggest cause for our current financial situation...

Here's how it works... we run up huge debt, and rather than cutting spending or raising taxes to pay down the debt, we manufacture new money out of thin air to pay down the debt... now, once we have flooded the world economy with new dollars, the value of the dollar plummets, and voila- inflation...

So, massive deficit spending (as we had under Reagan and Bush 2) causes widespread inflation, but irresponsible federal borrowing and spending habits also destabilize credit markets... so, as inflation outpaces wages and the dollar loses much of its purchasing power, the American people find themselves in a situation in which they need loans (second mortgages, additional credit cards, etc) to maintain a comfortable lifestyle or in some cases to even keep their heads above water...

So Neo-Conservative fiscal policy creates a helluva catch 22... deficit spending causes inflation, which causes the people to need additional loans, but whoops... too late... deficit spending has already destabilized the credit markets!!!!

Democrats have to explain this to the American people... I think it will resonate... something else that will resonate is this- INFLATION IS A TAX!!!! Not only is it a tax, but it's a tax that disproportionately affects people who can least afford it...

That's about it... oh, one more thing... McCain's answer to irresponsible spending seems to be his fight against earmarks... he wants to expose the folks who add earmarks ("I'll make them famous!!") to legislation at the last second, and that's fine... but by focusing solely on earmarks, he implies that earmarks are a much bigger piece of the problem than they actually are... he acts like if we eliminate or reduce earmarks, then that will solve everything and balance the budget... I don't have any stats, but I GUARANTEE that earmarks are WAY less than 1% of total federal expenditures... it's disingenuous and misleading and arguably flat out dishonest to make earmarks the centerpiece of your fight against runaway spending...

Tomorrow (allegedly), I'll talk about what I perceive to be the 4 main pillars of the neo-con movement... and I might get into what a Republican is, used to be, and should be...

F***ing Democrats...

Why can't the Democrats get their s**t together? It's like the Republicans hand them the election on a silver platter, and they still can't dislodge their collective head from their collective arse long enough to speak simply and coherently and directly to the American people...

Everything Democrats do revolves around reacting to Republican tactics... the Republicans attack, and the Democrats whine about how mean and unfair the attacks are...

And when the Democrats do attack, they invariably pick the wrong issues... for example, they attack Sarah Palin for her lack of experience... Are they kidding? Regardless of which party or candidate you prefer, Sarah Palin does have more executive experience than does Barack Obama... in other words, the Democrat attack served to highlight Barack's biggest weakness and make his lack of experience dominate the news cycle (or at the least, their collective lack of experience has shared the news cycle)... right when the American people were ready to move past Barack's lack of experience, the Democrats move experience to the front and center of the presidential race... morons!!!!

What makes this line of attack especially awe inspiring in its sheer stupidity is that they could have attacked based on Barack's biggest strength... he is the candidate of change... and by picking Palin, McCain did the same thing he's been doing on most other issues since he lost in 2000- pandering to the lunatic fringe of his far-right wing base... socially, Sarah Palin is even further right than the James Dobson/Jerry Falwell (yes, I realize he's dead)/Pat Robertson crowd... and to make the VP pick about politics and catering to the far right base runs very counter to the formerly true but currently false premise of McCain the Maverick... and the Obama campaign should want to point this out... most unbiased, sensible people I know who follow politics agree that McCain was a maverick until he lost to the far right wing base and their candidate in 2000... since that time, he has worked his heart out to repair relationships with the far right folks, and as such hasn't been a maverick in a very long time (taxes, environmental protection, taking on lobbyists, etc)...

Now, the question remains- did McCain change his tune to give himself a chance to win the 2008 primary, or did he change his mind? If he has changed his tune, and plans to return to his roots of working across party lines, fighting for the middle and lower classes, taking on corporations and special interests, and rooting out corruption, then I say his campaign has been a brilliant ruse and I am frankly inclined to vote for him... but if he has changed his mind, then I think he's dangerous, and the label of "Bush's 3rd Term" is fair and accurate... but isn't this a question that the Obama campaign should be asking?

More to come... our next entry will be on the economy...