tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53697662024-03-07T18:40:14.803-08:00CalJunketCampus personalities present and past Rebecca C. Brown and Tommaso Sciortino tackle the issues. This week on a very special CalJunket: Rebecca learns not to chew with her mouth open and Tommaso finds out his best friend is addicted to no-doze.Rebecca C. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04266179966692604794noreply@blogger.comBlogger434125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1139275022434680242006-02-06T17:11:00.000-08:002006-02-06T17:17:02.453-08:00The end? Yes... really? No...Just kidding. Yes. This is the end for Caljunket. Or it is almost. I promised Rebecca the last post. The blog of course hasn't been doing much for a while but the blogging goes on for me over at my non-political <a href="http://doubtingtommaso.blogspot.com/">personal site</a> and at the political team blog <a href="http://thepartyline.blogspot.com">the party line</a>. I hope everyone had as good a time reading my political opinions which range from half-baked to boring. I make no pretense to understanding politics better than the average person, just better than BAD.<br /><br />God bless America, and everywhere else.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1137956051745554502006-01-22T10:37:00.000-08:002006-01-22T11:04:10.783-08:00The weird thing about misconceptionsIt's a common misconception among conservatives that liberals are for "tolerance" meaning that people should tolerate anything annoying or not just becuase tolerance is a value in and of itself. In fact, when liberals use the word tolerance they almost always mean it in a legal sense: If you want to pass a law stopping something, you have show that there is causes actual harm to you or to some third party.<br /><br />So when redstate publishes <a href="http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/1/22/123830/403">this</a> it really makes you wonder what the hell they think liberals believe. Do they honestly think that liberals aren't supposed to get angry at a violation of their right to privacy? And when they get angry, are they not allowed to make poorly thought out mean spirited jokes which they then write on to protest signs?<br /><br />Surely we liberals have similar misconceptions about conservatives (though I'm probably not in a very good spot to recognize what they are) but come on: this is a no-brainer.<br /><br />RedState: Like Mike Savage, but with pictures.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1136422217898282782006-01-04T16:42:00.000-08:002006-01-04T16:50:17.913-08:00Universal healthcare and my useless hipLet me just echo this <a href="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/01/poor_poor_pitif.html">sarcastic complaint</a> over at Obsidian Wings: I waited 3 months for my operation and filled out enough paperwork to make an Italian bureaucrat proud. Also, my company paid more for the health insurance than it would have paid in taxes for a nationalized system. Universal Health Care is *cheaper* and more efficient than what we have here in the US.<br /><br />The free-market is much more efficient than government at delivering goods and services in the vast majority of cases. However, a very limited number of goods (like national defense and national health) are more efficiently administered by the government. I know that’s difficult for some people to appreciate, but it’s the truth.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1135889190534168682005-12-29T12:46:00.000-08:002005-12-29T12:46:30.550-08:00Creepiness from Berkeley's own YooVia <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/29.html#a6511">Crooks and Liars</a>, this creepy quote is just creepy. See, it's not the illegal wiretaps per-se, it's the logic being used to justify them.<br /><blockquote>Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?<br /><br />Yoo: No treaty<br /><br />Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...<br /><br />Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.</blockquote>When people start argueing that the president can set aside congressional law well... let's just say I start dusting off the word "fascist" and get ready to use it.<br /><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1135525854919089772005-12-25T07:50:00.000-08:002005-12-25T07:50:54.933-08:00Merry Christmas (or Merry Sunday)For those readers who celebrate the birth of Jesus during this time, let me wish you all a merry Christmas. Yes, even the conservatives. Its easy to dehumanize and discount those with whom you disagree but we should remember that most everyone involved in politics is so becuase they honestly want to make the world better. Yes, even Bush and Cheny.<br /><br />As for those who don't celebrate Christmas: I hope your year has been good and that next year is better.<br /><br />So in general, though my online persona tends to be complainy, let me recognize what I'm greatful for: that we all live in indisputably the best time ever, in the best country ever, and that we have the opportunity to make it better - in personal and public ways.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1135319619841236422005-12-22T22:33:00.000-08:002005-12-22T22:33:39.856-08:00Should Bush be Impeached?I want to tackle this question separate from the question of whether Democrats should push for impeachment in the house and senate. Clearly they should not. Politically, they could hardly go wrong by trying to mainstream the idea. The question of whether Bush *should* be impeached for his actions. Now, as best I can tell, Bush pretty much has no defense for his illegal wire-tapping besides "we told congress we were doing it" which is less a legal defense than a punch line. Personally, if members of congress were sufficiently informed and yet failed to act, they should be punished to the full extent of the law.<br /><br />Some would argue that an impeachment hearing would be seen as a partisan witch-hunt and would contribute to heightened partisanship. They’re probably right. But that’s the fundamental adversarial basis of our government. Of course a president is going to be impeached by people who are doing it for political gain. Who else is going to do it? Centrists? Moderates? <br /><br />Ok, now that we’ve all stopped laughing I can continue.<br /><br />Impeaching George W. Bush would certainly do a lot to reassert the rule of law in our country. Had Bush backed down after being caught it might have been sufficient to censure him, but he has decided to shoot-the-moon and promises to continue breaking the law in the future. How can we accept that? How can we accept the illegal wiretaps going forward? The answer is we can’t. Our elected officials can certainly hold their tongues in acceptance of their limited power in the senate, but liberals should be able to say honestly and without moral ambiguity that when a president abuses the powers given to him, that president is not above the law.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1135188137739691532005-12-21T10:01:00.000-08:002005-12-21T10:02:17.753-08:00In defense of hating(also posted at partyline)<br /><br />Conservatives have been pretty good about attacking anyone who suggests that Bush is unlikable or a bad person. “Bush hater” is thrown around like a four-letter word. Even when his administration accuses critics of treason or accuses McCain of having an illegitimate child or tries to dismantle the Social Security which keeps millions of old people out of poverty, critics are expected to act as if Bush is personally a nice guy with whom we just happen to have a policy disagreement with.<o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormal">At the same time, it is respectable to hate <st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on">Clinton</st1:city></st1:place>. Hell, I’ve even had liberals look me straight in the eye and say they hated <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Clinton</st1:place></st1:city> and found that he was an immoral person. Why? Well, not because <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Clinton</st1:place></st1:city> abused his powers as president to illegally spy on citizens, not because he tried to impoverish millions with loaded tax cuts, no, that would be forgivable. Instead of lying about wiretapping citizens <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Clinton</st1:place></st1:city> lied about cheating on his wife. And quite honestly, it’s clear which one is more serious and worthy of our scorn.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I do think that conservatives have a better media game that liberals do. It’s not because the “media” is conservatively biased (giving conservatives the awesome power to insert six or seven biased words into a New York Times article which get edited out), it’s because they’ve set up a parallel media with their own radio and television stations. Overtly conservatives, they present people who are willing to attack the opposition in personal ways, thus Kerry is unlikable and stiff. His wife is overbearing and power-hungry. Mrs. Clinton is a Machiavellian and personally dislikable. You get to hear all these on talk radio and to find out that Bush is a jerk who wants dictatorial powers you have to switch over to Air <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> (and of course, they’re all nut-balls, I know because I heard it on Hannity).<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now, this may not seem like a big deal but I think it is because personal animosity is a great political motivator. Many Americans have no idea of Bush’s policies, they just “know” he’s a nice guy. They have no idea where democrats stand on <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> but they “know” Democrats are happy when things go bad there. They have no idea what Senator Clinton’s positions are, but they “know” she is conniving and mean. It’s bad enough when conservatives start internalizing this, its even worse when I have to hear liberals complain that “Sadly, I’ll just have to work for Hillary’s election in ‘08”.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">It’s important to be *able* to argue honestly that Bush and other popular conservatives are not a nice people. In Bush’s case it’s not just true, it’s politically wise. With Bush’s popularity at an all time low it’s important to start engaging conservatives in the character debate. If we’re lucky we can turn disenchantment with Bush’s policies and leadership ability into an appreciation for the character flaws (and warped sense of morality) that gave rise to them.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1134183268343998842005-12-09T18:42:00.000-08:002005-12-10T09:09:08.046-08:00Good CheerAs part of my de-extremification regimen, I've been reading <a href="http://www.redstate.org/">redstate.org</a> becuase apparently it has a good reputation. A a sign of their goodwill they have even <a href="http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/12/9/173311/267">asked their readers to send the ACLU wishings of Merry Christmas</a>!<br /><blockquote>It's time to wish the ACLU a Merry Christmas! No, not "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" or even "Kabbala Kwanzaa." And certainly not "Xmas." We're talking actual "Merry Christmas" here.<br /><br />You can now send several E-cards a day to the ACLU as well as send your actual physical Christmas card to their national offices.<br />Send them some e-Cards. And don't forget to send an actual Christmas card to:<br /><br />ACLU<br />"Wishing You Merry Christmas"<br />125 Broad Street<br />18th Floor<br />New York, NY 10004<br /></blockquote>With all the acrimony on the blogs today it’s really heartwarming to see people on the right extending a hearty handshake to the left on the issues we can all agree on: The right to proselytize whatever religion we want so long as we don’t use government funds to do it. Sure, the Christians at redstate (for indeed, they seem to assume their readers do not include any Jews, Muslims, Atheists or Agnostics) could have highlighted their disagreement with the ACLU by suggesting their readers entrusted with tax dollars use them to send these messages, but it is Christmas after all.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1133794075635944282005-12-05T06:46:00.000-08:002005-12-05T06:47:55.656-08:00The Perils of Withdrawal (from Reality)(This is being cross-posted from <a href="http://thepartyline.blogspot.com/">thepartyline</a>)<br /><br />The problem with <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2131189/nav/tap2/">Christopher Hitchens’ article</a> is illustrated in its title: “The Perils of Withdrawal”. It contains the deceit that the perils he mentions belong only to the plan advocated by Murtha and those who believe that the American military have done pretty much all they can in Iraq. Since the US will have to withdraw from Iraq within the next two or three years (for political and logistical reasons) the real question is why does Hitchens expect the military headed by Bush and Rumsfeld to mitigate these perils in the time remaining, and is what little we can achieve in Iraq worth the extra risk. An interesting pro-staying-the-course essay would delve into these topics but for the most part this essay is an exercise in name-calling and avoiding the point.<o:p> </o:p> <p class="MsoNormal">First he asks why those who favor a shorter timeline for <st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region> don’t also advocate one for <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Afghanistan</st1:country-region></st1:place>. For one, <st1:country-region st="on">Afghanistan</st1:country-region> is much smaller than <st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region> so if we managed to get out of <st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region> we would have plenty of troops free to continue multilateral defense of <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Afghanistan</st1:place></st1:country-region>. More generally, they are two different countries and I find it is a gross oversimplification to say that the same logic apply to both. Also of course, the nation (especially the media) has a small attention span. If things are going as badly in <st1:country-region st="on">Afghanistan</st1:country-region> as they are in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> its certainly not making the front page and thus there isn't popular support for a resolution. I have no problem with Democrats choosing their battles.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">He then gets to Murtha.<o:p> </o:p></p> <blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal">If, as Murtha says, the presence of American troops is the cause not the cure for Islamist "insurgency," then the logic would be the same in all cases: withdrawal at least to a more distant point where (presumably) their presence would not incite mayhem. Leaving aside the question of what geographical point that would be (<st1:country-region st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> ships were targeted in <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Yemen</st1:country-region></st1:place> before 9/11 and in the Jordanian Gulf of Aqaba after it), this argument does have its attractions.</p> </blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal">This is flawed logic. Murtha argues that American troops are *a* cause of the insurgency. This is just <a href="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html">one of many arguments</a> Murtha makes for his timeline (the main one being that we’ve accomplished all we can). Here Hitchens is implicitly saying that Murtha believes the case for his timeline can rest entirely on this argument.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But there is another deceit here. This whole foray into an Afghan/Iraq metaphor is not argument against Murtha’s logic. Rather, it's just a charge of hypocrisy. There is value in exposing hypocrisy but here it serves to let Hitchens avoid making the negative case against t. (I’ve given up on seeing a positive case by now).</p> <p class="MsoNormal">He then throws in some more insult our intelligence:<o:p> </o:p></p> <blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal">It was said even then that the attack would fail, because (remember?) if you killed Osama Bin Laden, then a thousand more would rise up to take his place. This line soon mutated into, "No war on <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>: It's a distraction from the hunt for Bin Laden."</p> </blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal">Look at the arguments he pulls to fabricate a charge of hypocrisy. The first “thousand more” argument would be advocated by an anti-Afghan war crazy. The second “distraction” argument is a mainstream one which even I have used. He offers no proof that any individual has actually held both of these positions, much less that many have.*<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Finally we get back to Murtha:</p> <blockquote>There is some evidence that Murtha is wrong and that the Baathists and Bin Ladenists in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> are increasingly targeting civilian Iraqis—especially Kurds and Shiites—rather than those coalition forces who enjoy the benefits of "force protection."<o:p></o:p></blockquote> <o:p></o:p> <p class="MsoNormal">This does not contradict Murtha’s claim that the insurgency is fueled in part by <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> presence. It merely underlines the horrible tragedy which is life in modern <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> and that the situation is not improving even with US troops there. It is important to note here Hitchens is disagreeing not just with Murtha, but with General Casey who said in a September 2005 Hearing, “the perception of occupation in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> is a major driving force behind the insurgency.” To me, there is a heavy burden of proof which Hitchens makes no serious attempt to overcome.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The rest of the piece is just a wish list of what <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region></st1:place></st1:country-region> could be without any explanation of why he thinks we are going to get it. He says we should stay till asked by the Iraqi government to go but ignores their request for a timeline.** Murtha has a timeline. Is it to short? Should we pull out in one year or two? I don't really know. The factions in the Iraqi government haven't come to an agreement on the issue either. But instead of choosing and defending a timeline, Hitchens attacks those who have. Not with facts and logic, but with sloppy invective and caricature.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">*Another deceit that jumped out at me here was this smear against MoveOn.org:</p> <blockquote>In spite of furious opposition from the MoveOn left and the Lindbergh right, and endless talk about a "quagmire" from many liberals, most Americans did back the intervention in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Afghanistan</st1:place></st1:country-region> because of the self-evident link between al-Qaida and the Taliban.</blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal">MoveOn did not oppose the war in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Afghanistan</st1:place></st1:country-region>. I wouldn’t be a member if they did. There has been a strong push by the right and to demonize MoveOn as being radical despite the fact that it focuses on popular liberal causes and explicitly stays out of intra-party disputes. MoveOn does a really good job raising money to counter the right though they may be a little inexperienced at running contests and protests (see the Hitler commercial which MoveOn did not produce but got tarred with anyways). It and groups like it are vital if liberals are ever going to be elected in this country.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">** This technically isn't a contrdiction though I find it difficult to see why would should trust Iraq to tell us when to leave but not when they tell us to set a timetable.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Update: I've made some changes to since my first posting but I don't want to keep fiddeling with it. I could modify it endlessly but let me add only that I realize that Hitchens isn't obliged to argue about what I want him to. Still though, I feel my other arguments are valid.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1132897060306417412005-11-24T21:23:00.000-08:002005-11-24T21:41:08.480-08:00ThanksgivingI'm thankful for many things:<br /><br /><ul><li>I'm thankful that I get to live in such a great country. I may nitpick the USA from time to time, but that's just how I show my love. Maybe I get that from my mom.<br /></li><li>I'm thankful for my good health (a little torn cartilage may literally slow me down but metaphorically I'm still going strong). My operation is in January.<br /></li><li>I'm thankful for the fact that I live in an age where expressing my half-baked political views for everyone to see can be accomplished with a few clicks instead of involving ink-stained presses and typesetting.<br /></li><li>I'm thankful that I have a job that doesn't bore me to tears. Whenever I get to employ a design pattern, my day is made. More broadly I'm thankful that I am in a position to participate in the economy in a way that doesn't leave me screwed over. (My girl-friend's a public school teacher.)<br /></li><li>I'm thankful for everyone fighting for us in Iraq and around the world.<br /></li><li>Lastly, I'm thankful to all my friends for putting up with my over the top political views. I mean, come on: Am I for real?</li></ul>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1131908158245588722005-11-13T10:54:00.000-08:002005-11-14T06:39:32.306-08:00I *like* Coit tower<p class="MsoNormal"></p> <blockquote style="font-style: italic;"> <p class="MsoNormal">[I]f I'm the president of the <st1:country-region st="on">United States</st1:country-region>, ... I say, "Listen, citizens of <st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on">San Francisco</st1:city></st1:place>, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead." </p> <p>And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in <st1:country-region st="on">America</st1:country-region> is off limits to you, except <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">San Francisco</st1:place></st1:city>. You want to blow up the <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Coit</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">Tower</st1:placetype></st1:place>? Go ahead." </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200511100008">Bill O'Rielly</a></p> </blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal">My cubicle at work happens to have a great view of <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Coit</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">Tower</st1:placetype></st1:place> and I’m sure that if it blew up I’d have a great view of that too. But I think it’s fair to say it wouldn’t be in favor of any terrorist attack on <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">San Francisco</st1:place></st1:city> for all the normal reasons and for the reason that my great view of Coit tower is from a building next to the Transamerica Pyramid.<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But I didn’t post so I could reiterate my disapproval of terrorism, nor to recap what a jack-ass Bill O’Rielly is, instead I wanted to talk about opposition to military recruitment. The official rational (and the legal basis upon which military recruitment can be limited in schools) is that schools don’t have to allow groups which discriminate on campus and that the Army discriminates unfairly against homosexuals. But lets be honest, this is probably only part of the story.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Personally, I favor allowing military recruitment on campus. But there is a fair amount of hostility toward recruitment from certain (small) sectors on the left. I’m no expert but I assume the bulk of these bans are on college campuses and are supported mostly by wide-eyed college activists. College is wonderful time to experiment. For most politically minded kids, experimenting leads to good old-fashioned idealism; the idea that one cannot possibly contribute to anything which is not 100% pure. This goes for lefties and righties alike though for obvious reasons there are more lefty kids on campus.<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Usually idealism just leads to wasting one’s time. I remember learning about how the students of UC Berkeley NOW were going to protest a <i style="">statue honoring women.</i> According to them, the statue (which was a collage of various women throughout history) objectified women. Similarly, some college Republicans will patiently explain whenever you care to hear how Social Security, Medicare, and the Department of Education, are all actually unconstitutional.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I guess in the eyes of idealists, military recruitment is doubly splotched: one for discriminating, two for having done some not so good things in the past (even if they were under orders). This last one is particularly precient now as the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> war wasn’t such a good idea and the more soldiers we recruit for it, the worse it gets. I think it accounts for the banning of recruitment in ideological cities like <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">San Francisco</st1:place></st1:city>.<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">There are some other arguments I hear against recruitment. Some say it’s unfair to the poor since it sends them out to die while the rich stay behind. I don’t think that argument is operative since the average soldier is actually wealthier than the average American (probably due to the entry tests which filter out those who went to schools in poor areas). </p> <p class="MsoNormal">This post is too long. In conclusion: O’Reilly is an idiot. Anti-recruitment people should get of their high-horse.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Update: BAD (and Rebecca outside the blog) explains that the "ban" isn't a band so much as a statement of intent to ban. I think the arguments still apply since it's still clear that many don't look on recruiting favorably.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1131434432838717572005-11-07T23:06:00.000-08:002005-11-07T23:20:32.853-08:00Only punks don't voteAnd by "punk" I don't mean a person who listens to a certain genre of edgy rock 'n' roll. I mean a person who's a big loser who wets his bed and lives with his mommy 'til he's 43 years old.<br /><br />Tuesday is voting day. You have 8 referrenda on which to vote Yay or Nay. Don't know what they are? <a href="http://www.calvoter.org/voter/elections/2005/special/index.html">Look 'em up!</a> Don't know where to vote? <a href="http://smartvoter.org">Look that up too!</a><br /><br />Here's how I'm voting, in case my political persuasions were a mysterious enigma shrouded in a thick cloak of curiosity:<br /><br />73-78: No<br />79-80: Yes<br /><br />That wasn't so hard, was it?<br /><br />I feel most adamently about 73. Unfortunately, I flew in from DC about an hour ago, and it's 2:14am to me right now, and I'm too tired and grumpy to write a tretise on how the passage of 73 helps no one and only promises to endanger girls' health.<br /><br />On the bright side, I saw Tim Russert walk back from his lunch break last week! And I got to hang out in the C-SPAN control room and watch "Washington Journal" be produced!<br /><br />By the way, DC is run by tools. More later.Rebecca C. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04266179966692604794noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1131040114386805072005-11-03T09:20:00.000-08:002005-11-03T09:48:34.400-08:00The Anti-Tax Revolt<p class="MsoNormal">Or should it be called the Anti "Tax revolt" revolt? I don't know. What I do know is that the conservative tax "revolts" of the 70's and 80's which lead to travesties like prop 13 here in California are finally now being re-examined by citizens who appreciate that society costs money. Specifically, <st1:place st="on"><st1:state st="on">Colorado</st1:State></st1:place> has finally <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113097898438286898-33hURt0Om7osM9AQ2ky4cCnhjIk_20061103.html?mod=blogs">done away with TABOR</a>, an insidious little piece of legislation which limited the amount people could vote to invest in their public infrastructure. That's liberal-speak for limiting taxes.<br /><br />Of course, the whole idea that the original tax "revolt" was anything other than a plot by Big Business to slip out from their obligations while making <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> less competitive is kind of silly. I realize that conservatives like to pooh-pooh framing when our side does it but you've got hand it to them for doing such a <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=tax+revolt">good job framing the issue</a>. Calling it a "revolt" makes it sound like Ronald Reagan and Grover Norquist stormed the Bastille instead of just pushing a plan with tons of money from special business interests.<br /><br />Sure, when they passed prop 13 they talked a lot about little old ladies not being able to afford their property tax but the end result was that government shifted property taxes from business to people, specifically new home buyers. Since Prop 13 ensured that property taxes could never go up (more than a certain small percentage) once you bought the house, the only way to invest in <st1:state st="on"><st1:place st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State> was to raise <i>beginning</i> tax rates. And since owning your own home is one of the greatest ways to get out of poverty you can imagine what that's done to our economy. Meanwhile, business unlike people could move out of a building in fractions (first moving out a third of your people, then another third etc) so as to not set off the property reassessment in Prop 13. The end result is the businesses in <st1:state st="on"><st1:place st="on">California</st1:place></st1:State> don't pay nearly as much property tax as do people.<br /><br />Hopefully, <st1:state st="on">California</st1:State> can follow <st1:state st="on"><st1:place st="on">Colorado</st1:place></st1:State>'s lead.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1130687378088412792005-10-30T07:46:00.000-08:002005-10-31T07:01:44.356-08:00A response to RepBast1984 on Fascism<p class="MsoNormal">This response got too big for the comments section:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>“why was fascism considered right wing? Because they opposed socialism?”<o:p> </o:p></blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">True, it’s not enough to simply point out that the fascists dismantled unions or opposed socialism. There are many reasons why Fascism is understood to be right-wing. They actively opposed liberalism and communism while forming coalition government with conservatives. Fascists (like Mussolini) were financially supported by wealthy industrialists and landowners. They did so for the same reason that they supported other conservatives: because fascists made were against progressive reforms and were better for the bottom line. The Fascists often had support from the religious community. They did so for the same reasons religious groups support other conservatives: Fascists believed in “traditional values”, and in strengthening the role of faith in the public sphere. Mussolini in particular had the support of the <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Vatican</st1:country-region></st1:place> (which was even more conservatives at the time). </p> <p class="MsoNormal">On a more basic level, if you look at the Lakoffian “frames” used by fascists, it’s clear that they were using a “strict father” frame in governing. The believed in strongly in reward and punishment to the exclusion of nurturance. They believed that strength came from the strong leader at the top (one of the more obvious trait of fascism). They idealized the past and framed their goals in those terms. I could go on but I think the analysis is clear.<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>“If you want to talk <st1:country-region st="on">Italy</st1:country-region>, yes <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Italy</st1:country-region></st1:place> was not industrialized untilt he 1930's”</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Italy</st1:place></st1:country-region> was industrialized as of 1930 at least in the north which is where the fascists had more power. Though it was still poor, industry and trade unions were a powerful political force. In the south (where my family lives) there was little industry and little support for fascism since the rich needed no protection against socialists.<br /></p><blockquote>“Italian Fascism is different from Nazism because of the focus on national unity as opposed to racial unity. Racial unity is not Fascism.”</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This is just weird. Why is racial unity/ national unity a meaningful distinction when the nations in question are mostly racially homogenous? The Italian fascists were also against Jews and Roma, even the ones that had lived in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Italy</st1:place></st1:country-region> all their lives. German fascists identified a “greater <st1:country-region st="on">Germany</st1:country-region>” which included places like <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Austria</st1:place></st1:country-region> where ethnic Germans lived. <st1:country-region st="on">Italy</st1:country-region> identified a “greater <st1:country-region st="on">Italy</st1:country-region>” which included lands outside <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Italy</st1:place></st1:country-region> where ethnic Italians lived. This is a distinction without a difference - and I don’t see why you are trying to make it.<br /></p><blockquote> “Stability was destroyed, their businesses were confiscated by the state and the fascists brought wars to their countries.”</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>True, but they hardly campaigned on this. I mean, by that standard, communism is right wing since it didn’t really help the poor.<br /></p><blockquote>“Interesting, communism was supposed to be a movement that did not include the agricultural poor.”</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>You are right in a sense. It is a great historical irony that Marx (and most other communists) assumed that their system would come about because industrialized workers would become exploited and overthrow the existing order. Instead, Communism took hold only in unindustrialized countries like <st1:country-region st="on">Russia</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region st="on">China</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region st="on">Korea</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region st="on">Cuba</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region st="on">Laos</st1:country-region>, and <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Vietnam</st1:place></st1:country-region> through agricultural peasant revolts.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>“As we've found out from this year's electiont he agricultural poor are conservative reactionaries guided by religion.”</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>This is wrong on a couple levels. 1. Due to mechanization, the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> doesn’t really have an agricultural poor anymore. 2. The poor vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. 3. Are you seriously trying to extrapolating the mindset of Chinese peasants from modern day election results? 4. Read a history book, bud. The communists came to power in <st1:country-region st="on">Russia</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region st="on">China</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region st="on">Cuba</st1:country-region>, and <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Vietnam</st1:place></st1:country-region> with a powerbase of peasants. Not being industrialized, there was no other political base to launch a revolution from. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p> <blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal">“The communists knew that no peasants were going to be involved in a revolution that would provide equity and abolish capital. Peasants who were poor (petty bourgeoisie), just wanted more money. this is why communist regimes fell. They never adhered to Marxist theory, mainly because Marxist theory would work nowhere.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> </blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p>I have no idea what you are arguing here. Let’s get back to the Fascism.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Update: David Neiwert hits this issue hard in <a href="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/10/ultimate-newspeak.html">this post</a>:<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>Of course, as I just <a href="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/10/fascism-two-hoary-myths.html">got done explaining a little bit ago,</a> the conservative charge that fascism was a leftist phenomenon is a rightist attempt at David Irvingesque historical revisionism. There is not a single serious historian of either fascism or World War II who does not consider it a right-wing phenomenon: its anti-liberalism and anti-socialism were its defining characteristics, regardless of the rhetoric adopted by early adherents and leaders.<br /></blockquote><p></p>This quote really doesn't do him justice though. <a href="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/10/ultimate-newspeak.html">Read the whole thing.</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1130603746917647292005-10-29T08:02:00.000-07:002005-10-29T09:36:51.103-07:00Liberal Fascism... as opposed to the regular kindThe conservative writer Jonah Goldberg has come out with a new "book" called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385511841/103-3517647-9015811?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance">Liberal Fascism</a>. To me it indicates the lack of ideas on the right, but more importantly, the lack of intellectual seriousness more than anything else. I mean, how divorced from reality do you have to be to compare Fascism – the international enemy of left-of-center movements of all types, from liberal to socialist to communist, universal friend of conservative movements (for that is who they invariably formed coalition governments with) – to liberalism, the ideology of pluralism? Answer: all the way divorced. That’s how much.<br /><p>Author <a href="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/10/fascism-two-hoary-myths.html">David Neiwert</a> explains:<br /></p><blockquote>Mussolini was indeed an active socialist at the beginning of his political career. But he was remarkable for shifting his alliances and adjusting his ideology accordingly as he climbed the ladder of power; and by the time he had completed his climb, he was an outspoken and lethal anti-socialist.<br /><p>Hitler's fascists, somewhat in contrast, only adopted a limited socialist rhetoric as a sop to its efforts to recruit from the working class. Hitler quickly jettisoned these aspects of the party as he obtained power, particularly in forming a ruling coalition with conservative corporatists. There was little doubt that Hitler and the Nazis were devoutly anti-leftist: their Brownshirts made a career of physically attacking socialists and communists wherever they gathered, and the first people sent to the concentration camp at Dachau in 1933-34 were socialist and communist political leaders.</p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">Structurally, the fascists had to be anti-left. Their base was not the unionized workers and intellectual middle class. The Nazis disbanded unions the second they got the chance. They terrorized universities and destroyed the modern art and modern science that they gave rise to. Politically, their reason for being was that the left was a dual threat to society: Communists and Socialists were attacking society, and the flabby liberal government couldn’t keep people safe. This same line played itself out over and over again; in <st1:country-region st="on">Germany</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region st="on">Italy</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region st="on">Spain</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region st="on">France</st1:country-region>, and even the <st1:country-region st="on">US</st1:country-region> (though thankfully the silver shirts didn’t get far in the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region>). Again and again the fascists came to power in coalition governments with other conservatives. Again and again they were bankrolled by the same corporatists that bankrolled other conservative movements. Again and again they instituted the same policies which left the rich richer and the poor poorer. Again and again they attacked liberal pluralism as “relativism” and tried to replace it with one true faith.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The left has often been accused of comparing Republicans to Fascists. Besides a few stoned out radicals from the 60s, I'm happy to say this is generally false. What’s true is that no respected liberal thinkers have made this accusation seriously (although of course we keep an open mind on the subject if new facts come to light). With this book, Jonah Goldberg, nationally syndicated columnist and an editor-at-large for the <i>National Review</i><span style="">, has stepped over the line. If he earnestly made this accusation, then he - and the conservative movement that backs him - is intellectually bankrupt; if he made it dishonestly, then he guilty of the worst kind of smear-campaign. Either way it does not bode well for the seriousness of the conservative movement.</span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1130425436306784932005-10-27T07:14:00.000-07:002005-10-27T18:38:49.513-07:00Why are feminists so hot?I like to read the feminists blogs becuase well... because I like lefty blogs in general, but also becuase it's great fun to read their rightous ire at popular right-wing mysogynists. Case in point, <a href="http://www.pandagon.net/archives/2005/10/to_be_truly_hap.html">Amanda Marcotte</a> riffing on <a href="http://www.thepublicinterest.com/notable/article7.html">Leon Kaas</a> and <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2128818/nav/tap1/">Harvey Mansfield</a>:<br /><p></p> <blockquote> <p>The first and most obvious bit of misogyny is the assertion that the only reason men would get married is because they can't get sex otherwise. In other words, women better fall down on our knees and thank the lord for the pussy or else we'd have no bargaining chip to keep our social superiors from ignoring our foul, disgusting selves completely. To put it bluntly. Truly, the argument that a man has to be bribed into marriage assumes that men cannot find anything else about women to like enough to want to be with women, and on the flip side, it assumes that women are so debased and lowly that we are dying to touch the robes of the sex that would kick us out in the snow if we didn't bribe them with pussy. How the hell love factors into the cold transaction of men tolerating the presence of debased females in their lives in exchange for sex, I couldn't tell you. </p> <p>The Mansfield/Kass argument is misogynistic on another level as well. O'Rourke characterizes their supposed concern for the well-being of young women as a cover story for them to wring their hands about the evil sluttitude out there, and I definitely think she's right but I also think there's something else going on there, something more sincere. I think on a certain level, these two men cannot conceive that women might have subjective inner lives that would create conflict between them snapping easily into the Mansfield/Kass sexual fantasy of the virginal bride and living their own lives. In other words, since they tend to think of women as objects to project their fantasies onto and nothing much else, they don't see why it would actually be unfulfilling for a woman to live out the fantasies being projected on her.</p> </blockquote> <p> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">What's really weird is that men like Kaas and Mansfield manage to exist in our culture at all. I know that there are some pretty conservative areas out there but honestly, who hasn't internalized the idea that premarital sex should be a personal choice for women just like it has always been for men?<br /><br />I realize that conservatives have been working on vilifying feminists since they started this whole "equality" thing but seriously, who can argue with the basic tenets of Feminism today? Who can argue with equal work for equal pay? Who can argue against sharing parenting duties (or dividing them in some other mutually agreed upon way)? Who can argue against letting women have control over their own sexuality? Who can argue against the idea that guys are responsible for their own sexual behavior and that they don't have to be tricked into marriage with promises of sex? The basic idea of feminism has already been absorbed into our culture (except in parts of <st1:state st="on"><st1:place st="on">Utah</st1:place></st1:state>), the best conservatives have managed is to try and disassociate feminist social progress from the feminists who made it happen and co-opt it with idiotic anti-feminists like Ann Coulter.<br /><br />Feminism isn't some PC crap foisted upon <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> by big brother, it's a choice made by our culture at large by men and women everywhere. Those who think themselves part of some anti-feminist cultural elite vanguard, well... They're free to argue their case if they want, but we've been there, done that, and we've decided we like this much better.</p> Also, check out the bloggers at <a href="http://feministe.us/blog/">Feministe</a> and <a href="http://www.feministing.com/">Feministing</a>. They are very entertaining... <a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2005/01/02/about-the-author/">and</a> <a href="http://www.feministing.com/about.html">also</a><br /><a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2005/05/12/the-new-kid-on-the-feministe-block/">hot</a>.<br /><p class="MsoNormal">Update: Bonus story! Last time I was in <st1:city st="on">San Diego</st1:city> I was driving somewhere with my little old aunt who grew up in <st1:state st="on">Sicily</st1:state> and immigrated to the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> in the 1950's (with two kids in tow). We were talking about women and divorce and she was lamenting her daughter's divorce years earlier. She said something like the following:<br /><br />You know, in my day, we didn't have divorce... but you know… women also got treated pretty badly too. I hear people complain today saying "Oh I'm tired I've been doing the laundry today". Tired? The machine did it! When I was a girl we had to do it by hand and you had to take the clothes to the town fountain to do it. My dad and brother worked hard every day. Every single day. But when they got home, they were treated like kings! We had to keep working. No, things are better today...</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1130421732149654402005-10-27T06:57:00.000-07:002005-10-27T07:02:12.163-07:00Harriet Miers WithdrawsLike a mormon having unprotected sex, Harrient Miers has prematurly withdrawn today leaving room for bush to nominate someone else to have a go. I want to write more but really I just wanted to use that metephor.<br /><br />So will bush nominate a far-right crazy or play the safe course?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1130029744154408222005-10-22T18:05:00.000-07:002005-10-26T07:12:15.446-07:00John Edwards at UC BerkeleyFrom a e-mail by MoveOn.org:<br /><blockquote>This Tuesday, Senator John Edwards will be at University of Californoa—Berkeley continuing his whirlwind national tour to galvanize young people in the fight against poverty. The last few events have been smash hits, and momentum continues to build.<br /><p>The Senator has asked us to invite MoveOn members to join him when the "Opportunity Rocks" tour hits Berkeley. Here are the details: </p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;">WHO:</span> John Edwards, UC Berkeley students, and MoveOn members from the community<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">WHERE:</span> UC Berkeley -, Union Ballroom, Pauley Ballroom, Martin Luther King Student Union<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">WHEN:</span> Tuesday, October 25th. Doors open at 5:30 pm<br />Seating is limited, so please reserve tickets today at: </p><p><a href="http://www.opportunityrocks.org/tour-2005/tickets/moveon/">http://www.opportunityrocks<wbr>.org/tour-2005/tickets/moveon/</a><br /></p></blockquote><br />I have my tickets. See ya there.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Update:</span> Just got back from the speach. John Edwards is certainly a good speaker and what he had to say about poverty in America was very insightful. I may have more thoughts on it later.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Update:</span>I was certainly a good speach. I didn't have a good seat so I couldn't see his face most of the time but I feel like that let me concentrate on his words more.<br /><br />What was interesting to me was that the whole speech was about increasing opportunity and the idea that we could help. But when he went to list the ways we could alleviate poverty his solutions were things like extending the EITC, mixed income housing, extending Medicare and Medicaid benefits (presumably leading the way for some kind of universal healthcare) and other things which are pretty much things politicians can only do.<br /><br />Personally I think this is correct. But then that means the best we can do is work in the Democratic party to get people elected *and* try to convince people to join our cause through things like liberal blogs and think tanks. (Hey, like this one!) I don’t know what groups were there after the speech to recruit, but I’m glad liberals are getting away from the hippy-dippy flower power idea that we can fix systematic problems with what basically amounts to non-governmental charity programs.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1129422979721471522005-10-15T17:22:00.000-07:002005-10-15T17:36:19.730-07:00Blogging spree! (DDT Lies)<p class="MsoNormal">Via <a href="http://www.crookedtimber.org/">Crooked Timber</a> I find this <a href="http://timlambert.org/category/science/ddt/">link to a page</a> debunking yet another common anti-liberal myth. This one claims that liberals and environmentalists made DDT illegal and thus contributed to malaria world-wide.<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p> <blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal">What about the ban on using DDT to fight malaria? <a href="http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html">There is no such ban</a>. DDT is banned from agricultural use (and rightly so because of environmental damage) but can still be used for disease prevention. JTFCSS pretends that there is a ban so they can hang malaria deaths around the neck of environmentalists.<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">…</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Yes, the mosquitoes in <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Sri Lanka</st1:country-region></st1:place> have evolved resistance to DDT. <strong>It doesn’t work any more.</strong> In fact, that is the reason why they stopped using DDT in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Sri Lanka</st1:place></st1:country-region>. It wasn’t because of any ban—it was because it stopped being effective. [Members of The World Health Organization] are <a href="http://mosquito.who.int/docs/asianeedsmalaria_srilanka.xls">sending malathion</a>, which will actually be able to kill the mosquitoes there.</p> </blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal"></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>This slur plays right to the biases that conservatives have. Namely, it’s the common conservative belief that environmentalists want us to choose between the environment and man. As this story proves, the opposite is true: Environmentalists (like me) want to use our resources wisely so as to not squander long term economic health for short term gain. Environmentalists helped phase out the use of DDT as an agricultural pesticide in the developing world because the environmental damage it caused was unnecessary and so its use as an anti-malarial pesticide could be maintained.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>It’s a pity that, having failed to find true arguments, anti-environmentalists have to resort to fake ones. Or maybe it’s not.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1129347356938356822005-10-14T20:32:00.000-07:002005-10-14T20:37:05.243-07:00HackYou know, I don't ussually double post like this but jesus: Could Glenn McCoy be any more of a hack? Look, if you think that Bush is so awesome that he can do no wrong, fine. Ignore the wrong he does. But does this comic even make sense if you think about it? Yes, newscasters also use scripts. Newscaster's however, generally write their own scripts since they *do* report.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/883/269/1600/gm051014.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/883/269/400/gm051014.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1129342627267278792005-10-14T19:14:00.000-07:002005-10-15T06:49:33.223-07:00Hate Crime laws: Anti-Terror legislation, not Thought CrimesConsider the following scenarios:<br /><ol> <li>A man you do not know kills you just to watch you die.</li> <li>A man you do not know kills you for your money.</li> <li>A man you do not know kills you accidentally while in a drug-induced haze.</li> <li>A person kills you accidentally because they a knife slipped from their hand and flew across the room.</li> <li>A person assists your suicide.</li> <li>A person kills you with the intent of intimidating people who are like you.</li> </ol>The outcomes of each of these cases are the same: you are dead. And yet because the motivation is different, our criminal justice system recognizes them as different and may assign different punishments to each. This is why we have first and second degree manslaughter. This is why lawyers spend months proving intent and premeditation. The idea, as floated by some conservative writers, that a law that judges intent is equal to the legislation of a “thought crime” is unserious. Intent is obviously important.<br /><br />So what of the hate crime? Does it actually warrant different treatment from the criminal justice system? I say it does. A person who commits a regular crime does not necessarily intend to terrorize the general population. A hate criminal doesn’t just commit a crime against a specific person – he commits the extra crime of purposely terrorizing a specific population.<br /><br />Terror *is* what we’re talking about here. To commit a hate crime it’s not sufficient to merely kill a gay person or other minority. You have to pick out that group in your mind, go to where you can find members of that group, and purposefully bypass others as you head toward your goal. (That's the thing about minorities. They're harder to find.) Oh sure, some criminals may have decided to commit a crime already and figure that while they’re at it they might as well pick a member of some group they hate. Call it “killing two birds with one stone”. Well then, I say let them serve time for both birds when they come home to roost.<br /><br />Of course we shouldn’t let recognizing the extra terror component of hate crimes lead us to extra penalties on just any crime against a minority. If someone beats up a lesbian without caring about her orientation that person would be an asshole, but I wouldn't call him a homophobe asshole without other information.<br /><br />Update: changed "knowing" to "caring about" becuase that's what I really meant.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1129136862410993522005-10-12T09:56:00.000-07:002005-10-12T10:07:42.416-07:00Conservative tax plans<p class="MsoNormal">While engaging in all this artsy fartsy talk about taxes and all it's good to keep in mind what representatives voted in by actual real life conservatives do with tax code. Via <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/12/2143/0405">Daily Kos</a> we find a report that Republicans are eliminating the AMT, a tax that the rich can never get out of paying no matter how many lawyers they have. Granted, this tax will start affecting regular people (re: people who *earn* their money) soon so it should be reformed so it goes back to working how it should. But I guess Republicans know that they can use this opportunity to help the rich sneak out of their taxes yet again and the conservatives back home will keep voting for them. Aren’t conservatives grand!<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But wait. Its gets better.<o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Apparently, the Republican congress has been reading DTI’s posts here on Caljunket because they’re going to offset the money lost from the AMT by simplifying the tax code! That’s right; they’re getting rid of deductions on mortgage interest and health insurance! You know, deductions that are small for rich people but which are a godsend for the middle class. Thank god conservatives managed to get their congressmen elected so that they could cut taxes on the wealthy and raise them on the middle class – oh wait – did I say that? I meant to say “get us closer to a flat tax”.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Congrats, DTI!</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1128976573997976072005-10-10T13:16:00.000-07:002005-10-11T20:42:58.256-07:00Nowhere to go but upLinked to from Andrew Sullivan today is <a href="http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/422-IRIS-Exclusive-All-Flat-Tax-Countries-Experiencing-Explosive-Growth-Rates.html">this</a> startling news: Adopting a flat tax (i.e. raising taxes on regular people and lowering them on the rich) leads to explosive growth!<br /><blockquote>I believe this is one of the biggest pieces of economic news ever. Milton Friedman's single-postcard flat-tax idea has finally started catching on (ten Eastern European countries, with four more in Europe close to adoption). 2004 GDP growth rates there averaged a staggering 8%, well over twice the industrialized nations' average of 3.4%. Of course these flat-tax rates vary widely, from 12-33%. Among the six lowest-taxed countries, growth rates are the highest: 8.6%. The lowest-taxed three have 9.5% growth.<br /></blockquote>Wow, that really is amazing! Clearly this person has not only discovered something about economics but he has also discovered that correlation equals causation. How else to explain the wild leaps of faith required to come to his conclusion. Poor countries, especially those joining the capitalist world for the first time, are due for high growth regardless of what silly tax policies they adopt. Just look at India and China.<br /><br />Ah the flat tax. You know, the rich are always the eternal enemies of capitalism. They not only stand to gain personally from its disruption, but unlike stoned-out hippies, they have the means to affect it. The flat tax is the latest attack on the American capitalistic system. It’s yet another way to shift tax responsibilities from the rich onto regular folk while simultaneously eroding the funding for the governmental structures which keep capitalism alive. Sometimes I wish the flat tax would actually be implemented for a month. The public revulsion would be so strong and so immediate that whole elitist Libertarian structure would be overturned in a fortnight like shaking off a bad dream.<br /><br />Now I’m just getting dark.<br /><br />Update: Via <a href="http://plumer.blogspot.com/">Brad Plumber</a> comes <a href="http://plumer.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_plumer_archive.html#112899407341052192">more information</a> on the "Flat Earth Flat Tax". I think he's being unfair: Flat Earthers' beliefs are inconsequential. Flat Taxer's would pretty much ruin America.<br /><br />Update: The orignal poster has retracted a bit of what he said <a href="http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/422-IRIS-Exclusive-All-Flat-Tax-Countries-Experiencing-Explosive-Growth-Rates.html">here</a>. Hat's off to him I say. If his tax preferences are a little eccentric, he is at least honest about the facts on the ground.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1128702500977218162005-10-07T09:21:00.000-07:002005-10-07T09:28:20.986-07:00It's not his fault if he's overratedBerkeley's own George Lakoff pens <a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10391">this piece</a> in my favorite Magazine today. It does a lot to cut through the mumbo-jumbo framing crap people keep misunderstanding Lakoff as saying and applies his ideas to the real life case of Hurricane Katrina: A tragedy that proves the necessity of effective liberal government and the bankruptcy of the conservative governing ideology.<blockquote>The tragedy of Katrina was a matter of values and principles. The heart of progressive values is straightforward and clear: empathy (caring about and for people), responsibility (acting responsibly on that empathy), and fairness (providing opportunities for all and a level playing field from which to start). These values translate into a simple proposition: The common wealth of all Americans should be used for the common good and betterment of all Americans. In short, promoting the common good so that we can all benefit -- and focusing on the public interest rather than narrow individual gain -- is the central role of government. These are not just progressive values. They are America’s values.<br /><br />Katrina shines a light not only on the failure of conservative values but especially on their fundamentally un-American character. Since the days of the colonies, when the commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia were formed, Americans have pooled their common wealth for individual aspirations. </blockquote>Lakoff's framing ideas will only take us so far but it's important for liberals and progressives to recognize that the failures of the recent congress and administration are *not* caused by personal incompetence. Rather, a fundamentally unworkable hard-right governing ideology is setting us up for failure regardless of how competent any individual Republican is.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5369766.post-1128446649299955612005-10-04T10:21:00.000-07:002005-10-04T10:24:09.306-07:00You Could Have it Moderately BetterThe new Franz Ferdinand EP (released today!) is more enjoyable than their debut album from last year, which is a significant accomplishment. You should go listen to it. Then, if you like it, you should buy it. Help the brothers out. The Scottish economy needs it.<br /><br />Goddamn those guys are good.Rebecca C. Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04266179966692604794noreply@blogger.com0