From the "Even a Stopped Clock is Right Twice a Day" file: Cal Thomas, uber-right wing commentator, just called on liberal commentators to give the same satiric treatment and overall attention to Andrew Young's case of foot-in-mouth that they did to US Senator George Allen's use of an ethnic slur.
I already did, thank you very much. But I agree with Thomas in that the errors, omissions, sins, and otherwise stupid actions of everyone, no matter what side of the aisle s/he occupies, must be fair game and must be brought to light by everone in the commentary biz, be the commentator of like or dissimilar general world views.
It is distasteful for me to admit that someone as mean-spirited and vindictive as Cal Thomas often is can be correct about anything, but in this case, he is. And now I am going to go wash my hands for having posted this.
* * * * * * * * * *
From the "Let's Blame the Victim" files: a recent letter to the Editor of the Omaha World-Herald claimed that the reason we lost Vietnam is that the draftees doing the fighting were less than motivated to accomplish the tasks set before them.
That idea is beyond offensive. It is downright odious.
We lost Vietnam for three main reasons: (1) politicians, not military men, made not just strategic, but tactical, decisions; (2) public perceptions in this country were that we were losing the war, especially after the Tet offensive; and (3) you can't fight and win a guerrilla war with conventional armies.
Too bad neither Dubya and his minions nor the Israelis have recognized this in regards to Iraq and Hezbollah, respectively.
* * * * * * * * * *
From the "Hold Your Enemies Closer" files: Op-ed columnist Jonah Goldberg recently posited that liberals have an inconsistent view of the US Constitution. For certain purposes, liberals want the Constitution to be a living, flexible, expanding document. For other purposes, however, liberals insist that the document remain rigid and inflexible.
He concludes that liberals have it backwards, because of where they want the Constitution to be flexible vs. where they want it to be static. He says the Constitution should be flexible to allow us to fight the war on terror, and should not be construed to forbid prayer in school, for example.
As I read his article, I knew instinctively he was wrong, but it took me a while to reason out why. He's wrong because the Constitution's ultimate purpose is to describe and limit the power of the government vis-a-vis the freedom of the individual citizen. Or else what's the use of our championing the concepts of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"? Still, his is the sort of conservative op-ed column that everyone must read, because on the face of it, his argument has a certain seductive power. In other words, it's thoughtful and reasoned, not just a piece of partisan screed, and thus deserves a respectful response/refutation.
Goldberg says there is nothing wrong with the warrantless wiretap program and other such efforts to fight the war on terror because the executive branch has the sole power to conduct foreign policy and wage war--and besides, "al-Qaida is using new technologies the founders never could have imagined."
I might agree with him, except for one small detail: these warrantless wiretaps are happening on US soil without any judicial supervision or oversight. The executive has the power to conduct foreign policy and wage war, but the legislative branch has the sole power of the public pursestrings (how can you fight a war when Congress won't pay for it?), and the judicial branch has the sole power to decide which actions of the other branches do or do not pass Constitutional muster.
Checks and balances are the heart of the Constitution. To posit that any branch can act without at least input from the other two is to ignore the very structure on which our government is built.
I don't disagree with Goldberg that present technologies, never conceived of by the founders, make it easier for terrorists to turn our liberties into "weapons against us." I do disagree with Goldberg when he says that that makes it OK to limit or even curtail those liberties.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Every Time I Think I Have Something Figured Out . . .
I discover yet another way of looking at it.
Submitted for your consideration: I always used to say that it was not a good thing that Americans collectively have a very, very short historical attention span. After all, it is axiomatic that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
But in thinking about the recent waves of illegals coming into this country, and the waves of sectarian prejudice gripping people of various faiths all over the world, I have decided that our notoriously short attention span is not necessarily a bad thing.
After all, it has kept America from being infected with all the ancient feuds and hatreds of the Old World. Yet those very feuds and hatreds seem poised to overwhelm us now.
To expand a bit by example: World War II seems, to most Americans with whom I've discussed it, to have taken place a long, long time ago, and is very old news. Yet in Europe, its scars are still exceedingly visible (consider the Kaiser Wilhelmskirche in Berlin, for instance). Indeed, World War I still seems to be an immediate experience to most Europeans I know. To Muslim extremists, the Crusades took place yesterday, not 900 years ago. Further, non-Muslims subjected to the hatred of Muslim extremists seem to be returning that hatred in kind.
If we are not going to let America be inundated, and thus lose a large part of what makes America unique, we must consciously stop falling into the trap of taking and giving endless revenge, retribution, and retaliation.
Go ahead, ask me how we go about doing that. I honestly have no idea. I just know it needs to be done if the idea that is "America" is to survive. I welcome your comments, suggestions, insights. This topic must be explored and the problem it poses solved if we want to restore and keep lighted the American beacon of hope for the rest of the world.
Submitted for your consideration: I always used to say that it was not a good thing that Americans collectively have a very, very short historical attention span. After all, it is axiomatic that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
But in thinking about the recent waves of illegals coming into this country, and the waves of sectarian prejudice gripping people of various faiths all over the world, I have decided that our notoriously short attention span is not necessarily a bad thing.
After all, it has kept America from being infected with all the ancient feuds and hatreds of the Old World. Yet those very feuds and hatreds seem poised to overwhelm us now.
To expand a bit by example: World War II seems, to most Americans with whom I've discussed it, to have taken place a long, long time ago, and is very old news. Yet in Europe, its scars are still exceedingly visible (consider the Kaiser Wilhelmskirche in Berlin, for instance). Indeed, World War I still seems to be an immediate experience to most Europeans I know. To Muslim extremists, the Crusades took place yesterday, not 900 years ago. Further, non-Muslims subjected to the hatred of Muslim extremists seem to be returning that hatred in kind.
If we are not going to let America be inundated, and thus lose a large part of what makes America unique, we must consciously stop falling into the trap of taking and giving endless revenge, retribution, and retaliation.
Go ahead, ask me how we go about doing that. I honestly have no idea. I just know it needs to be done if the idea that is "America" is to survive. I welcome your comments, suggestions, insights. This topic must be explored and the problem it poses solved if we want to restore and keep lighted the American beacon of hope for the rest of the world.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Maybe Ritual Idioting IS Just For Cricket Players After All
I was half-asleep when I heard this report on NPR, so if I get any of the information wrong, please tell me!
In a recent test between England and Pakistan (which England had already won, but you have to play out the string), an umpire named Hair (Hare? spelling was not specified) was of the opinion that the Pakistanis had somehow doctored the ball. In protest, the Pakistanis refused to come out to play the next game. So the umpire went on to declare a forfeit.
The cricket players of all South Asian countries have had a feud of sorts with this umpire for a long time, apparently--they collectively are of the opinion that he lacks respect for them and the high quality of their play--and so several Indian newspapers had a lot of fun with the headlines for articles reporting this most recent incident ("Bad Hair Day," "Hare-Brained" being amongst the best puns).
The Pakistanis are also saying the umpire was too quick to declare the forfeit, as they were just going to come out late as a protest of his previous ruling about the state of the ball.
Does the term "tempest in a teapot" occur to anyone but me? If the outcome of the entire match were in doubt, this protest would be worth a lot more, but still . . . far be it from me to chastise anyone who wishes to protest "on the principle of the thing." I am one for whom principles matter. So I say to the Pakistani team, right on!
It does seem odd that this news was reported so soon after my last posting. Doubtless, it's merely coincidental . . . but then again, the Lord moves in mysterious ways!
In a recent test between England and Pakistan (which England had already won, but you have to play out the string), an umpire named Hair (Hare? spelling was not specified) was of the opinion that the Pakistanis had somehow doctored the ball. In protest, the Pakistanis refused to come out to play the next game. So the umpire went on to declare a forfeit.
The cricket players of all South Asian countries have had a feud of sorts with this umpire for a long time, apparently--they collectively are of the opinion that he lacks respect for them and the high quality of their play--and so several Indian newspapers had a lot of fun with the headlines for articles reporting this most recent incident ("Bad Hair Day," "Hare-Brained" being amongst the best puns).
The Pakistanis are also saying the umpire was too quick to declare the forfeit, as they were just going to come out late as a protest of his previous ruling about the state of the ball.
Does the term "tempest in a teapot" occur to anyone but me? If the outcome of the entire match were in doubt, this protest would be worth a lot more, but still . . . far be it from me to chastise anyone who wishes to protest "on the principle of the thing." I am one for whom principles matter. So I say to the Pakistani team, right on!
It does seem odd that this news was reported so soon after my last posting. Doubtless, it's merely coincidental . . . but then again, the Lord moves in mysterious ways!
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Ritual Idioting--It's Not Just For Cricket Players Anymore
Monty Python to the contrary, ritual idioting is not solely the province of those who play cricket.
We have plenty of idiocy to go around on this side of the pond, thank you very much.
The most recent examples, from both sides of the aisle, as it were, of which I am aware are: (1) US Senator George Allen, R-Va., calling the only person of color at a Republican rally "Macaca," and (2) Andrew Young, civil rights leader and erstwhile improver of Wal-Mart's public image, implying it's OK for Wal-Mart to drive out the "mom and pop" grocery stores, because the Jews, Koreans, and Arabs who run those "mom and pop" stores have ripped off blacks long enough.
What makes Allen's remark so heinous is that he knew the man who was its object would get the point. For Allen's remark is common slur used by French Tunisians, of whom Allen's mother is one descendant. And Allen's comment's object, one S.R. Sidarth, though born and raised in Virginia, is himself of East Indian descent. He was at the rally to videotape it for Allen's Democratic challenger in the senate race, one James Webb.
Worse, Allen has since claimed that (a) he didn't know what the word meant; (b) he fumbled saying the word "mohawk" as he was really referring to Sidarth's haircut [which technically wasn't even a Mohawk to begin with.--Ed]; and (c) that he's really sorry if Sidarth took offense, as none was intended.
Note that he never once apologized for making the remark in the first place. Further, Allen's audience at the rally seemed to appreciate greatly his use of the slur. So the rich white guys are still speaking in code to attempt to keep the rest of us cowed and so intimidated that we let them get away with their @$$%*&*^&@#@#.
Not that what Young said was any better. Wal-Mart promptly distanced itself from his remarks [if nothing else, Wal-Mart does understand the larger implications of bad marketing.--Ed] and Young had the decency to resign his position as head of Working Families for Wal-Mart. The AP report I read said Young had apologized for the remarks, but since what he said as apology was NOT printed, I have no idea whether Young acknowledged the wrongness of the stereotypes those remarks promulgated. Indeed, from what the AP article did say, I have my doubts. Young was quoted as saying "[t]hings that are matter-of-fact in Atlanta, in the New York and Los Angeles environments tend to be a lot more volatile." First, I'm not sure the racism in Atlanta that Young's quote suggests is true. Second, I'm quite sure that Young's statement also implies he thinks what he said was true, and not offensive in and of itself.
I'm no fan of political correctness, but I do believe in courtesy and accuracy. Young's original remarks were tactless and not necessarily accurate, especially when you consider the additional things he said, to wit: that the "mom and pop" stores deliberately overcharged black customers, and sold bad meat, stale bread, and wilted vegetables.
I'm not even going to get into the whole subject of whether a civil rights leader should have anything to do with a huge corporation that pays the absolute minimum in wages and benefits that it legally can get away with paying, and which goes out of its way to stifle all employee attempts to unionize.
Has air pollution wrecked our collective ability to think clearly? The whole world lately seems to think that if someone shouts something loudly enough and long enough, that makes it true, even when it most definitely is not.
One more example of that wrongheadedness is Dubya's insistence in the face of a federal judge's ruling to the contrary that his warrantless wiretap program passes Constitutional muster. I'm so sick of Dubya's take on the whole subject that I can't even address it rationally anymore, beyond crying out the warning once more that our very system of government, of putting laws before men, is in great danger . . . and I don't mean from terrorists, whether they are Islamo-fascists or not.
We have plenty of idiocy to go around on this side of the pond, thank you very much.
The most recent examples, from both sides of the aisle, as it were, of which I am aware are: (1) US Senator George Allen, R-Va., calling the only person of color at a Republican rally "Macaca," and (2) Andrew Young, civil rights leader and erstwhile improver of Wal-Mart's public image, implying it's OK for Wal-Mart to drive out the "mom and pop" grocery stores, because the Jews, Koreans, and Arabs who run those "mom and pop" stores have ripped off blacks long enough.
What makes Allen's remark so heinous is that he knew the man who was its object would get the point. For Allen's remark is common slur used by French Tunisians, of whom Allen's mother is one descendant. And Allen's comment's object, one S.R. Sidarth, though born and raised in Virginia, is himself of East Indian descent. He was at the rally to videotape it for Allen's Democratic challenger in the senate race, one James Webb.
Worse, Allen has since claimed that (a) he didn't know what the word meant; (b) he fumbled saying the word "mohawk" as he was really referring to Sidarth's haircut [which technically wasn't even a Mohawk to begin with.--Ed]; and (c) that he's really sorry if Sidarth took offense, as none was intended.
Note that he never once apologized for making the remark in the first place. Further, Allen's audience at the rally seemed to appreciate greatly his use of the slur. So the rich white guys are still speaking in code to attempt to keep the rest of us cowed and so intimidated that we let them get away with their @$$%*&*^&@#@#.
Not that what Young said was any better. Wal-Mart promptly distanced itself from his remarks [if nothing else, Wal-Mart does understand the larger implications of bad marketing.--Ed] and Young had the decency to resign his position as head of Working Families for Wal-Mart. The AP report I read said Young had apologized for the remarks, but since what he said as apology was NOT printed, I have no idea whether Young acknowledged the wrongness of the stereotypes those remarks promulgated. Indeed, from what the AP article did say, I have my doubts. Young was quoted as saying "[t]hings that are matter-of-fact in Atlanta, in the New York and Los Angeles environments tend to be a lot more volatile." First, I'm not sure the racism in Atlanta that Young's quote suggests is true. Second, I'm quite sure that Young's statement also implies he thinks what he said was true, and not offensive in and of itself.
I'm no fan of political correctness, but I do believe in courtesy and accuracy. Young's original remarks were tactless and not necessarily accurate, especially when you consider the additional things he said, to wit: that the "mom and pop" stores deliberately overcharged black customers, and sold bad meat, stale bread, and wilted vegetables.
I'm not even going to get into the whole subject of whether a civil rights leader should have anything to do with a huge corporation that pays the absolute minimum in wages and benefits that it legally can get away with paying, and which goes out of its way to stifle all employee attempts to unionize.
Has air pollution wrecked our collective ability to think clearly? The whole world lately seems to think that if someone shouts something loudly enough and long enough, that makes it true, even when it most definitely is not.
One more example of that wrongheadedness is Dubya's insistence in the face of a federal judge's ruling to the contrary that his warrantless wiretap program passes Constitutional muster. I'm so sick of Dubya's take on the whole subject that I can't even address it rationally anymore, beyond crying out the warning once more that our very system of government, of putting laws before men, is in great danger . . . and I don't mean from terrorists, whether they are Islamo-fascists or not.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Gloriosky, Sandy! Arf!
Blame it on the dog days of summer. It's just too darned hot to think. Or more correctly, to think sensibly.
Ferinstance: I just saw a news headline about Fidel Castro saying, "He walks, he talks" and all I could think of was the old side show spiel: "He walks! He talks! He crawls on his belly like a reptile!"
It's even too hot to laugh, though the mental image of Fidel I got from that connection was certainly amusing. Snakes with beards. On a plane--or not. [Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes?--Ed.]
* * * * * * * * * *
In a small act of personal political rebellion, I refused to watch the televised debate between US Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) and his challenger, Pete Ricketts (R-Exceedingly Rich Right Wing). It's too hot to put up with all that "sturm und drang." Or, as a wit I know translated into English, "storm and dreck." Besides, I can pretty much predict what happened, based on the ads both campaigns have been running lately. Much mud was flung, started by Ricketts. When Nelson responded in kind, Ricketts claimed "Ben started it!" and flung more of his own, all the while protesting his innocence. Any resemblance between this and the behavior of very small, very spoiled children should be remembered.
My favorite bit of misinformation, a/k/a mud, flung by Ricketts is his trying to color Ben as being a "Clinton-Kennedy" liberal Democrat. Boo! Are you scared yet?
Anyone who has spent more than a microsecond in Nebraska knows Ben is no such thing. Indeed, the main complaint around here about Ben comes from Nebraska Democrats: he is a DINO [in case anyone out there doesn't know, DINO means "Democrat in name only."--Ed.] Ricketts has nothing but contempt for the intelligence of the average Nebraska voter, however, as he seems to think that if he scares Nebraskans enough by making that accusation, he'll not only make it true, he'll win the election.
God, I hope not!
Actually, the Nebraska Democratic Party is supporting Ben by slinging the worst of the mud coming from that campaign . . . and technically, it isn't mud because it's true. Ricketts wants his million-dollar-plus home tax valuation reduced. The valuation went up recently, based on the purchase price Ricketts agreed to pay for the home. The tax is still less than what it would have been if the valuation had been based 100% on the actual sale price--it's somewhere in the range of 90% of the actual sale price, as required by state law, and which Douglas County has been overly lax in enforcing until recently. But Ricketts says it is still too high, and the home is worth much, much less. [OK, I'll bite: then why the heck did he pay so much for it?--Ed.]
To a degree, shouting about this has backfired: Ben has tried to get the tax valuations on his DC and Nebraska homes reduced, more than once, which Ricketts' campaign team has in turn advertised in the most lurid fashion possible.
But if Ricketts believes that he can sling mud and then claim that Ben is the one doing it, I hope the voters in November prove Ricketts wrong.
Besides, Ricketts keeps saying he's not a career politician, he's a business man, who will "work for conservative change in Washington. " First, as anyone who pays attention knows, everything in the US Senate is based on seniority. Even if Ricketts were to win (now THAT'S a scary thought), he wouldn't be able to do much of anything until he became the dreaded "career politician" he claims to be running against.
Second, would you really want to trust the public's funds to someone who can't negotiate a sensible price and who thus pays too much for his own home?
Third, some of Ricketts' actual ideas to promote "conservative change" are downright nasty. As Nelson's campaign has in turn publicized, one of Ricketts pet projects is to get a national sales tax passed and get rid of the IRS as we know it. That ad has been running for weeks with no response at all from Ricketts' campaign team. Maybe none of them have figured out that most of us see that a national sales tax is a BAD idea.
Where Ben got his "it will add 30% to the cost of everything you buy, including food" figure, I do not know. But I like that his campaign staff is pointing out that (1) even Ronald Reagan's chief economic advisor thought a national flat tax was a dumb idea, (2) the present mortgage payment and home mortgage interest payment tax deductions would disappear under such a scheme, and (3) that we average folks would pay a lot more in under such a system than we do now, while the super-rich like Ricketts would pay a lot less.
Don't let the right wing fool you with all its talk about how we shouldn't be promulgating an economic class war. They already been waging war on the true middle class. They just don't want you to notice. The most horribly short-sighted aspect of their stand is that no democracy can survive or even remain stable without a secure middle class. The way things are going under current Republican-driven policies, a few are getting super-rich, a lot are getting much poorer, and the middle is literally being squeezed out of existence. I wouldn't be surprised to see a shooting war come to this country once the middle is gone. It's already frightfully insecure.
To wit: Nebraska recently adopted a concealed weapons carry law. Here's my question about that: if you must carry a gun, what's the big deal about keeping it concealed? Why not just carry it in plain sight? If you say it deters criminals when they don't know whether you are packing heat, I say that if you carry openly, there's no room for doubt. So why all this push for "concealed carry"? I don't get it.
Anyway, don't let the rich right wing extremists fool you by their definition of what is "middle class," either. I hate to inform them of this, but anyone making a six-figure income is NOT middle class. Anyone with that much income is UPPER class, economically speaking, at least. [I make no representations as to those folks' class in aesthetic or humane terms.--Ed.]
By the way, the real reason Dubya wants to let illegal immigrants get some kind of work permits to validate their status in the US is that they will work for less than a US living wage. It's still more than they could make at home. They send most of it back to their homes of origin anyway. They thus are better off taking the risk of being illegal than they would be if they just stayed home in the first place. Dubya's business buddies like the idea of very cheap labor more than they care to help their fellow US citizens. It makes it easier for them to keep their profit margins up. [I can see it now: Economic Viagra!--Ed.]
So, the only way to stop illegal immigrants from flooding this country is to make it UNPROFITABLE for the businesses that employ them to continue doing so . . . and the only way to do that is to enact some whopping fines (like millions of dollars per hire)--and even more importantly, to enforce those same fines. But business owners don't want that. Once they find themselves making 50% profits, they can't seem to scale back to even 45% profits. They all bought into Wall Street's "Greed is Good" mantra.
That also demonstrates why those who say the free market is the "be all and end all" of everything are wrong. Not everything is--or should be-- a commodity. Were you as grossed out as I was about the news reports that women are selling their breast milk to companies who are reselling it at a profit?
The fact that these women were compelled economically to do it is bad enough. That companies can and do turn a profit on it is disgusting. But we can't have stem cell research, oh no! That would be wrong! [Sarcasm most definitely intended.--Ed.]
If you had any kind of unpleasant gut reaction to the breast milk sales story, you know that society is about more than a financial bottom line. If we are to reestablish our country as a civilized beacon of light for the rest of the world, we need to relearn that.
However, as long as people like Pete Ricketts think they can get away with scaring us by wearing Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy masks [I dread Halloween this year, I really do.--Ed.], we aren't going to make any progress on undoing the damage that's been done by those who worship the Almighty Dollar. Don't let them fool you with that "prayer of Jabez" crap, either. They all have forgotten what Jesus said about it being "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven." Someday, they'll be in for as much of a surprise as they think the fundamentalist Muslims suicide bombers and their sympathizers will be.
I hope.
Ferinstance: I just saw a news headline about Fidel Castro saying, "He walks, he talks" and all I could think of was the old side show spiel: "He walks! He talks! He crawls on his belly like a reptile!"
It's even too hot to laugh, though the mental image of Fidel I got from that connection was certainly amusing. Snakes with beards. On a plane--or not. [Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes?--Ed.]
* * * * * * * * * *
In a small act of personal political rebellion, I refused to watch the televised debate between US Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) and his challenger, Pete Ricketts (R-Exceedingly Rich Right Wing). It's too hot to put up with all that "sturm und drang." Or, as a wit I know translated into English, "storm and dreck." Besides, I can pretty much predict what happened, based on the ads both campaigns have been running lately. Much mud was flung, started by Ricketts. When Nelson responded in kind, Ricketts claimed "Ben started it!" and flung more of his own, all the while protesting his innocence. Any resemblance between this and the behavior of very small, very spoiled children should be remembered.
My favorite bit of misinformation, a/k/a mud, flung by Ricketts is his trying to color Ben as being a "Clinton-Kennedy" liberal Democrat. Boo! Are you scared yet?
Anyone who has spent more than a microsecond in Nebraska knows Ben is no such thing. Indeed, the main complaint around here about Ben comes from Nebraska Democrats: he is a DINO [in case anyone out there doesn't know, DINO means "Democrat in name only."--Ed.] Ricketts has nothing but contempt for the intelligence of the average Nebraska voter, however, as he seems to think that if he scares Nebraskans enough by making that accusation, he'll not only make it true, he'll win the election.
God, I hope not!
Actually, the Nebraska Democratic Party is supporting Ben by slinging the worst of the mud coming from that campaign . . . and technically, it isn't mud because it's true. Ricketts wants his million-dollar-plus home tax valuation reduced. The valuation went up recently, based on the purchase price Ricketts agreed to pay for the home. The tax is still less than what it would have been if the valuation had been based 100% on the actual sale price--it's somewhere in the range of 90% of the actual sale price, as required by state law, and which Douglas County has been overly lax in enforcing until recently. But Ricketts says it is still too high, and the home is worth much, much less. [OK, I'll bite: then why the heck did he pay so much for it?--Ed.]
To a degree, shouting about this has backfired: Ben has tried to get the tax valuations on his DC and Nebraska homes reduced, more than once, which Ricketts' campaign team has in turn advertised in the most lurid fashion possible.
But if Ricketts believes that he can sling mud and then claim that Ben is the one doing it, I hope the voters in November prove Ricketts wrong.
Besides, Ricketts keeps saying he's not a career politician, he's a business man, who will "work for conservative change in Washington. " First, as anyone who pays attention knows, everything in the US Senate is based on seniority. Even if Ricketts were to win (now THAT'S a scary thought), he wouldn't be able to do much of anything until he became the dreaded "career politician" he claims to be running against.
Second, would you really want to trust the public's funds to someone who can't negotiate a sensible price and who thus pays too much for his own home?
Third, some of Ricketts' actual ideas to promote "conservative change" are downright nasty. As Nelson's campaign has in turn publicized, one of Ricketts pet projects is to get a national sales tax passed and get rid of the IRS as we know it. That ad has been running for weeks with no response at all from Ricketts' campaign team. Maybe none of them have figured out that most of us see that a national sales tax is a BAD idea.
Where Ben got his "it will add 30% to the cost of everything you buy, including food" figure, I do not know. But I like that his campaign staff is pointing out that (1) even Ronald Reagan's chief economic advisor thought a national flat tax was a dumb idea, (2) the present mortgage payment and home mortgage interest payment tax deductions would disappear under such a scheme, and (3) that we average folks would pay a lot more in under such a system than we do now, while the super-rich like Ricketts would pay a lot less.
Don't let the right wing fool you with all its talk about how we shouldn't be promulgating an economic class war. They already been waging war on the true middle class. They just don't want you to notice. The most horribly short-sighted aspect of their stand is that no democracy can survive or even remain stable without a secure middle class. The way things are going under current Republican-driven policies, a few are getting super-rich, a lot are getting much poorer, and the middle is literally being squeezed out of existence. I wouldn't be surprised to see a shooting war come to this country once the middle is gone. It's already frightfully insecure.
To wit: Nebraska recently adopted a concealed weapons carry law. Here's my question about that: if you must carry a gun, what's the big deal about keeping it concealed? Why not just carry it in plain sight? If you say it deters criminals when they don't know whether you are packing heat, I say that if you carry openly, there's no room for doubt. So why all this push for "concealed carry"? I don't get it.
Anyway, don't let the rich right wing extremists fool you by their definition of what is "middle class," either. I hate to inform them of this, but anyone making a six-figure income is NOT middle class. Anyone with that much income is UPPER class, economically speaking, at least. [I make no representations as to those folks' class in aesthetic or humane terms.--Ed.]
By the way, the real reason Dubya wants to let illegal immigrants get some kind of work permits to validate their status in the US is that they will work for less than a US living wage. It's still more than they could make at home. They send most of it back to their homes of origin anyway. They thus are better off taking the risk of being illegal than they would be if they just stayed home in the first place. Dubya's business buddies like the idea of very cheap labor more than they care to help their fellow US citizens. It makes it easier for them to keep their profit margins up. [I can see it now: Economic Viagra!--Ed.]
So, the only way to stop illegal immigrants from flooding this country is to make it UNPROFITABLE for the businesses that employ them to continue doing so . . . and the only way to do that is to enact some whopping fines (like millions of dollars per hire)--and even more importantly, to enforce those same fines. But business owners don't want that. Once they find themselves making 50% profits, they can't seem to scale back to even 45% profits. They all bought into Wall Street's "Greed is Good" mantra.
That also demonstrates why those who say the free market is the "be all and end all" of everything are wrong. Not everything is--or should be-- a commodity. Were you as grossed out as I was about the news reports that women are selling their breast milk to companies who are reselling it at a profit?
The fact that these women were compelled economically to do it is bad enough. That companies can and do turn a profit on it is disgusting. But we can't have stem cell research, oh no! That would be wrong! [Sarcasm most definitely intended.--Ed.]
If you had any kind of unpleasant gut reaction to the breast milk sales story, you know that society is about more than a financial bottom line. If we are to reestablish our country as a civilized beacon of light for the rest of the world, we need to relearn that.
However, as long as people like Pete Ricketts think they can get away with scaring us by wearing Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy masks [I dread Halloween this year, I really do.--Ed.], we aren't going to make any progress on undoing the damage that's been done by those who worship the Almighty Dollar. Don't let them fool you with that "prayer of Jabez" crap, either. They all have forgotten what Jesus said about it being "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven." Someday, they'll be in for as much of a surprise as they think the fundamentalist Muslims suicide bombers and their sympathizers will be.
I hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)