A little over 18 years ago I was at home doing some interior decorating and had the television on. I was watching live as tanks were pumping tear gas into a large compound and starting to knock down the walls when all of a sudden, fires ignited all over the place. Within seconds, the entire place was an inferno. Within minutes, I was absolutely stunned to hear reporters questioning whether the National Guard actions had caused the fire. Anyone with any knowledge of how fires start and spread could see that, with the extensive size of the compound, the conflagration would have needed many starting points and a great deal of accellerant to get going that quickly. Considering how it was clearly impossible or even remotely logical for several beseigers to sneak into the various buildings, plant accellerant, start the fires and sneak out again without being seen by any of the well-armed inhabitants, it made absolutely no sense to even raise the question of whether, accidentally or deliberately, they could have been started by any action other than that of the Branch Davidians. Yet here were reporters suggesting that the fires could easily have been started by carelessness or even deliberate action by the very people who were trying to rescue the children inside.
I was stunned because for the first time in my life, I had actually witnessed the media creating and twisting news rather than honestly reporting it. By raising the question of how the fire had started and presenting the possibility as if it had equal merit with the very obvious truth, the reporters opened the conspiracy floodgates which remain open to this day. It is arguable that their words also paved the path to Oklahoma City and Columbine.
Whether it is Obama's birthplace, evolution, climate change or death panels, the media has become more interested in promoting controversy than in reporting the facts. Statements like "Some scientists believe...", when "some" is the 96% of scientists that are not in the pay of large corporations who stand to benefit from doubt, are not honest and allow people who do not know much or anything about a subject to assume that there is not an overwhelming preponderance of evidence on one side.
It is one thing to see this behavior from professional "opinionists" but something else entirely when delivered by people who hold positions that should be above the fray. More and more of what passes for news is a discussion of what other reporters or news anchors or newspapers or pundits have said. Less and less do we see actual facts about real events.
Ed Murrow, you were so right.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
I'm back! And just in time.
I had an interesting conversation the other day with a fairly staunch Republican but it turned out that we were able to agree on a surprising amount. Having an open discussion while carefully navigating the Charybdis of polarization, I found myself clarifying some points in my own mind.
I've always told people that if they don't understand something, explain it to your dog. By the time the dog understands it, you'll understand it. In this case, I hasten to clarify, my discussion was not with a dog but it was with someone who holds very different views on most things political.
The essence of my thoughts was as follows:
1. I believe that it is the purpose of government to provide a safe haven for its people. This should include an opportunity to provide for the family, safety from threats both foreign and domestic, access to quality healthcare, a quality infrastructure (roads, clean air and water, etc.) and the opportunity to better self and family.
2. I believe that the current state of politics in the US has come down to two parties that are both wholly dependent on the Corporate state. Every single politician from the President to the local dog-catcher is elected based on the donations of corporate sponsors. Re-election is therefore dependent on their keeping those sponsors happy.
3. I believe that the difference between the party platforms has far too little impact on how decisions are made. By definition, most politicians are well-heeled. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a poor man to be elected to high office. That being said, I consider myself a Democrat because they at least purport to believe in #1 above. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that making the rich richer does not improve the quality of life for most people.
4. I believe that those same corporations, or rather the upper echelons of power in them, in order to ensure their continued increase in power and wealth, use every means at their disposal to convince the very people who suffer most by their actions that they are acting in their best interest. Religion, national security, xenophobia, racism, conspiracy theories, welfare recipients - all are used to convince people that only by increasing the wealth of the very rich can we survive as a nation.
Now. Imagine for a moment that #2 and #3 were not true. What if the government undertook to actually level the playing field? Here are some things that just might happen:
1. The government could initiate a huge national infrastructure re-furbishment program - roads, sewers, bridges, trash clean-up - all the things that are currently collapsing of old age. The welfare program could be changed so that everyone would have to actually contribute to the program if they want to continue to receive government support. Unless you are physically or mentally incapable of contributing, you have to. Immediately, the welfare population is drastically reduced and the country benefits. For those who are not fit enough to do physical labor, there are a million other tasks that need doing: delivering meals to the elderly, picking up trash etc.
2. Taxes could be increased on the wealthy. Not by Use Taxes, which proportionately hurt those who have to spend their entire income to survive. Not by a Flat Tax, which guarantees the rich will walk away with the cream. Rather, by providing a sliding scale so that those whose income comes mainly through the work of others would pay proportionately more. Also, we could just get rid of the loopholes that allow the rich and the corporations to shuffle their wealth around and avoid paying anything close to their fair share.
3. We could remove all unnatural benefits associated with outsourcing jobs overseas, at least until US unemployment reaches a sensible level. Even then, if there are not enough workers here, companies will not need subsidies to oursource, they will do it through necessity.
4. Here's the big one. Capitalism has one rule. It is the primary purpose of a public company to make as much money as possible for its shareholders. This is the justification for cutting quality, for asset stripping, for buying up successful companies and milking them as cash-cows, and for buying the government to provide subsidies and loopholes. It's time to change that rule. I'm all for profit but it shouldn't be based on this quarter's numbers. It should be based on a 5, 10 or even 20 year plan that allows for investment (and possibly less or even no profit now) so that true growth will follow later.
OK, enough for this post. I'm sure I'll have more to say soon!
/eclectos..
I've always told people that if they don't understand something, explain it to your dog. By the time the dog understands it, you'll understand it. In this case, I hasten to clarify, my discussion was not with a dog but it was with someone who holds very different views on most things political.
The essence of my thoughts was as follows:
1. I believe that it is the purpose of government to provide a safe haven for its people. This should include an opportunity to provide for the family, safety from threats both foreign and domestic, access to quality healthcare, a quality infrastructure (roads, clean air and water, etc.) and the opportunity to better self and family.
2. I believe that the current state of politics in the US has come down to two parties that are both wholly dependent on the Corporate state. Every single politician from the President to the local dog-catcher is elected based on the donations of corporate sponsors. Re-election is therefore dependent on their keeping those sponsors happy.
3. I believe that the difference between the party platforms has far too little impact on how decisions are made. By definition, most politicians are well-heeled. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a poor man to be elected to high office. That being said, I consider myself a Democrat because they at least purport to believe in #1 above. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that making the rich richer does not improve the quality of life for most people.
4. I believe that those same corporations, or rather the upper echelons of power in them, in order to ensure their continued increase in power and wealth, use every means at their disposal to convince the very people who suffer most by their actions that they are acting in their best interest. Religion, national security, xenophobia, racism, conspiracy theories, welfare recipients - all are used to convince people that only by increasing the wealth of the very rich can we survive as a nation.
Now. Imagine for a moment that #2 and #3 were not true. What if the government undertook to actually level the playing field? Here are some things that just might happen:
1. The government could initiate a huge national infrastructure re-furbishment program - roads, sewers, bridges, trash clean-up - all the things that are currently collapsing of old age. The welfare program could be changed so that everyone would have to actually contribute to the program if they want to continue to receive government support. Unless you are physically or mentally incapable of contributing, you have to. Immediately, the welfare population is drastically reduced and the country benefits. For those who are not fit enough to do physical labor, there are a million other tasks that need doing: delivering meals to the elderly, picking up trash etc.
2. Taxes could be increased on the wealthy. Not by Use Taxes, which proportionately hurt those who have to spend their entire income to survive. Not by a Flat Tax, which guarantees the rich will walk away with the cream. Rather, by providing a sliding scale so that those whose income comes mainly through the work of others would pay proportionately more. Also, we could just get rid of the loopholes that allow the rich and the corporations to shuffle their wealth around and avoid paying anything close to their fair share.
3. We could remove all unnatural benefits associated with outsourcing jobs overseas, at least until US unemployment reaches a sensible level. Even then, if there are not enough workers here, companies will not need subsidies to oursource, they will do it through necessity.
4. Here's the big one. Capitalism has one rule. It is the primary purpose of a public company to make as much money as possible for its shareholders. This is the justification for cutting quality, for asset stripping, for buying up successful companies and milking them as cash-cows, and for buying the government to provide subsidies and loopholes. It's time to change that rule. I'm all for profit but it shouldn't be based on this quarter's numbers. It should be based on a 5, 10 or even 20 year plan that allows for investment (and possibly less or even no profit now) so that true growth will follow later.
OK, enough for this post. I'm sure I'll have more to say soon!
/eclectos..
Sunday, November 16, 2008
The Dawning of the Age of Pisces?
We keep hearing echoes of the sixties now that Obama has been elected. Seems to me though that rather than Aquarius, this country is best represented by Pisces - a pair of fishes swimming in opposite directions. Half the people think we're finally coming out of the dark ages and the other half thinks we're doomed. I keep asking myself how two people can see the same news and come away with such diverse opinions. Not to mention how one person can hold two views that are diametrically opposed.
I read how everything bad that happened in the last eight years was set in motion by Bill Clinton. But the current collapse is all Obama's fault. Work that one out.
Hate crime is up since the election. School children are chanting "Assassinate Obama" - isn't that a pretty picture. Old beliefs die hard. People say "This is the South" as if that explains (and justifies) it. Although Long Island, where I grew up, is hardly the South but still has plenty of racism and bigotry.
The real problem with Bill Clinton was that he beat the Republicans when they were still up. All their attacking found plenty of fertile ground, even among the Centrists. Let's just hope that this time they've done enough damage to their image that their poison will only work on the ignorant.
Voting for Obama endangers your soul - no more Holy Communion for you!
I read how everything bad that happened in the last eight years was set in motion by Bill Clinton. But the current collapse is all Obama's fault. Work that one out.
Hate crime is up since the election. School children are chanting "Assassinate Obama" - isn't that a pretty picture. Old beliefs die hard. People say "This is the South" as if that explains (and justifies) it. Although Long Island, where I grew up, is hardly the South but still has plenty of racism and bigotry.
The real problem with Bill Clinton was that he beat the Republicans when they were still up. All their attacking found plenty of fertile ground, even among the Centrists. Let's just hope that this time they've done enough damage to their image that their poison will only work on the ignorant.
Voting for Obama endangers your soul - no more Holy Communion for you!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Nobody bodders me!
Enemies won't challenge the US when John McCain is President because he's been tested. He says so. I'm afraid in my book that comes awfully close to the sWaggerer himself with his "Bring 'em on" rhetoric. Look how well that worked out.
I'd rather have someone who thinks, talks, considers and then takes action to a hothead who boasts about his war-making activities.
I remember back in 2000 turning to my wife after the vice presidential debate and saying "If they (Bush/Cheney) get in, we're going to have a war." Cheney said in that debate that an army was not for peace-keeping, an army was for fighting. And he said it with that unmistakeable air of a guy just itching for a good fight (whatever that is).
Well, we've had eight years of fighting and I think it's time to go back and sit down and talk like civilized adults instead of childishly zipping our lips shut, crossing our arms and humphing threateningly. GWB and Dick C. have shown us what it's like to have mindless bullies running the show. Enough, already!
Diplomacy, anyone?
I'd rather have someone who thinks, talks, considers and then takes action to a hothead who boasts about his war-making activities.
I remember back in 2000 turning to my wife after the vice presidential debate and saying "If they (Bush/Cheney) get in, we're going to have a war." Cheney said in that debate that an army was not for peace-keeping, an army was for fighting. And he said it with that unmistakeable air of a guy just itching for a good fight (whatever that is).
Well, we've had eight years of fighting and I think it's time to go back and sit down and talk like civilized adults instead of childishly zipping our lips shut, crossing our arms and humphing threateningly. GWB and Dick C. have shown us what it's like to have mindless bullies running the show. Enough, already!
Diplomacy, anyone?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
A Matter of Percentages
According to this CNN piece, McCain is claiming that 40% of Americans don't pay any taxes at all. As a result of this astounding fact, he claims, the only way this 40% can benefit from Obama's tax cutting is to receive checks from the government (paid for, of course, by the hard-done-by super-rich).
I see two scenarios here and I've contacted FactCheck in the hopes of finding out which (if either) is true.
I can cheerfully accept the 40% if we include infants, small children, retirees, the homeless, full-time students, stay-at-home moms (and dads!), the unemployed and other non-wage-earning groups. If we're talking about specific individuals who pay no tax, 40% doesn't seem all that out of whack. And the large majority of those are living off taxed money. There is a tax-paying breadwinner in the family who will pay less taxes under the Obama plan.
What would really depress me would be to find out that 40% of American households earn so little that they pay no taxes at all. First and foremost, it would imply that 40% of American households are living below the poverty line because surely that is the point where someone is considered to be earning enough to contribute to the country's well-being. Er, this is America, no? Forty percent?
This could be true, of course. And I'm hoping that FactCheck will come through with the goods. But I came upon some disturbing info yesterday that, considered in the light of this 40% thing, is pretty scandalous. In 1980, the top 10% of Americans earned 33% of all the country's earnings. After Ronald Reagan introduced "trickle-down economics" this grew to 40% by 2000. Wait for it, it gets worse. By 2004, it grew to 60%. At that time, the top 1% was pulling in 40% of the income. Who knows where the percentages are now. It will be another 3 or 4 years before anyone gets them out. But think of it this way. The average person in the top 1% is earning 90 times the average earnings of the bottom 90%.
In other words, if we doubled income taxes on just the richest 100,000 people, we could eliminate taxation on everyone else in the country and be no worse off as a nation. Actually we'd be a lot better off because everyone else would have lots of money in their pockets to pay off debt and stimulate the economy. We'd need less social programs because we'd have a lot less people who needed them. We might even get people being able to save for their own retirement.
It's also arguable that that 1% would not be noticeably worse off - they might have to put off buying that extra Lear jet for another month but I expect they'd get by.
I see two scenarios here and I've contacted FactCheck in the hopes of finding out which (if either) is true.
I can cheerfully accept the 40% if we include infants, small children, retirees, the homeless, full-time students, stay-at-home moms (and dads!), the unemployed and other non-wage-earning groups. If we're talking about specific individuals who pay no tax, 40% doesn't seem all that out of whack. And the large majority of those are living off taxed money. There is a tax-paying breadwinner in the family who will pay less taxes under the Obama plan.
What would really depress me would be to find out that 40% of American households earn so little that they pay no taxes at all. First and foremost, it would imply that 40% of American households are living below the poverty line because surely that is the point where someone is considered to be earning enough to contribute to the country's well-being. Er, this is America, no? Forty percent?
This could be true, of course. And I'm hoping that FactCheck will come through with the goods. But I came upon some disturbing info yesterday that, considered in the light of this 40% thing, is pretty scandalous. In 1980, the top 10% of Americans earned 33% of all the country's earnings. After Ronald Reagan introduced "trickle-down economics" this grew to 40% by 2000. Wait for it, it gets worse. By 2004, it grew to 60%. At that time, the top 1% was pulling in 40% of the income. Who knows where the percentages are now. It will be another 3 or 4 years before anyone gets them out. But think of it this way. The average person in the top 1% is earning 90 times the average earnings of the bottom 90%.
In other words, if we doubled income taxes on just the richest 100,000 people, we could eliminate taxation on everyone else in the country and be no worse off as a nation. Actually we'd be a lot better off because everyone else would have lots of money in their pockets to pay off debt and stimulate the economy. We'd need less social programs because we'd have a lot less people who needed them. We might even get people being able to save for their own retirement.
It's also arguable that that 1% would not be noticeably worse off - they might have to put off buying that extra Lear jet for another month but I expect they'd get by.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
I am Sarah Palin's Friend!
I bet that wasn't obvious to you from my previous postings. Actually, it wasn't obvious to me either until she told me. My old buddy Sarah sent me a nice letter headed "Dear Friend, " asking me for my support. Ol' Moosehunter (as I'm her Friend, I'm sure she won't mind me calling her that) tells me she would be really pleased if I would join the Republican National Committee and give them a couple of thousand bucks out of my unlimited post-crash supply. They need the money because those pesky Democrats with their "fearful and pessimistic mentality" are "set to raise over $1 billion" (her bolding) to "relentlessy flood America's airwaves with their negative and false attacks against our Republican candidates."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the McCain campaign had opted for Federal funding. Shouldn't that preclude he or his co-candidate coming to me with hand out, even if it is for that no-specific-candidate body, the RNC? By the way, exactly how is the RNC going to run ads that don't urge you to vote for a specific candidate? Are there several Republicans running for President? Forgive me, I hadn't noticed.
Well, I hate to disappoint my old Friend Sarah. I'm just too darn fearful and pessimistic to find hope in her "confident, optimistic view of principled, conservative government and opportunity for all." Even if it does mean the "Obama-Biden Democrats" will take "total control of our government."
As for cutting "through the false claims and fearful rhetoric of the [O-B D's]," I'm having trouble identifying same through the din of the "Palin around with the ignorant" mob. And in these dark times, I much prefer fearful to fear-mongering.
Sarah, with Friends like me, you better not quit your day job quite yet.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the McCain campaign had opted for Federal funding. Shouldn't that preclude he or his co-candidate coming to me with hand out, even if it is for that no-specific-candidate body, the RNC? By the way, exactly how is the RNC going to run ads that don't urge you to vote for a specific candidate? Are there several Republicans running for President? Forgive me, I hadn't noticed.
Well, I hate to disappoint my old Friend Sarah. I'm just too darn fearful and pessimistic to find hope in her "confident, optimistic view of principled, conservative government and opportunity for all." Even if it does mean the "Obama-Biden Democrats" will take "total control of our government."
As for cutting "through the false claims and fearful rhetoric of the [O-B D's]," I'm having trouble identifying same through the din of the "Palin around with the ignorant" mob. And in these dark times, I much prefer fearful to fear-mongering.
Sarah, with Friends like me, you better not quit your day job quite yet.
Monday, October 13, 2008
How to stimulate the economy
While Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats attempt to give the middle class a chance to recover from the overwhelming disaster that has befallen them in the last few weeks, the GOP has its own suggestion: make the already ludicrously rich even richer. Here are their ideas:
1. Removing legal barriers to speed up new offshore oil drilling. A law banning offshore drilling expired October 1, but Republican lawmakers say lawsuits could block new offshore rigs and want judges to quickly rule on the cases.
This will deliver untold billions to those same energy companies that are already making tens of billions a quarter while having absolutely no impact on American families for years to come, if ever. Why not allow the oil companies to spend as much as they want on windmills, tidemills and geo-thermal power and deduct the lot from their taxes instead? Of course, the trouble with those forms of energy is that once you've built them, they're self-sufficient. You can't go on selling the same old crap over and over again.
2. Lowering taxes on income that U.S. corporations earn from their overseas subsidiaries.
1. Removing legal barriers to speed up new offshore oil drilling. A law banning offshore drilling expired October 1, but Republican lawmakers say lawsuits could block new offshore rigs and want judges to quickly rule on the cases.
This will deliver untold billions to those same energy companies that are already making tens of billions a quarter while having absolutely no impact on American families for years to come, if ever. Why not allow the oil companies to spend as much as they want on windmills, tidemills and geo-thermal power and deduct the lot from their taxes instead? Of course, the trouble with those forms of energy is that once you've built them, they're self-sufficient. You can't go on selling the same old crap over and over again.
2. Lowering taxes on income that U.S. corporations earn from their overseas subsidiaries.
...making it even easier to offshore jobs and put more and more Americans out of work.
3. Eliminating capital gains taxes on the sale of homes up to $500,000 for a couple.
And that will help most Americans how exactly? THERE IS NO CAPITAL GAINS TAX if you move from one house to another. This ONLY helps those with second, third, forth and, yes, eleventh homes. Can anyone say "John McCain?"
4. Suspending capital gains taxes on securities purchased during the next two years.
Considering that most middle-class Americans don't trade in securities directly to speak of, this is another one that only affects the "investor class" - the ones with all those Bush tax dollars that they can now drop into the thoroughly deflated market and ride back up. Let's see, what can I do with that $700 thousand I just got in the McCain tax cut?
5. Extending government deposit insurance to business transaction accounts.
Bear in mind that small businesses are already covered. We're talking here about LARGE businesses like, oh, Enron, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and the like. That's really going to help the little guy pay his mortgage, isn't it.
6. Directing the government to guarantee inter-bank loans.
Then all the banks can just lend themselves out of debt. "Hey, you lend me a couple billion, I'll lose it (nudge, nudge), and then you can just claim it back from the government."
OK, all you people who think preventing gay marriage is more important than providing your family with a roof over their head and the odd square meal, go for it! After all, trickle-down economics has worked so well so far, why stop now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)