Tea Party "Contract from America" a Fiscal Suicide Pact Crooks and Liars
This story has an interesting graphic about the sources of the deficit.
Another reason I am a skeptic when it comes to Tea Party claims that they are for lower taxes and smaller government is the unfeasability of their schemes.
Nobody on the right (except some of the right leaning libertarians) ever talks about reductions in military spending and ending expensive wars or about realistic plans to cut spending significantly. They simply have other priorities on which they would spend money or create deficits, the most important being cutting taxes on the relatively affluent. They'll borrow and shift the burden to future generations just as they have always done in my adult lifetime. They'll make a huge mess and leave it to Democrats to clean it up if they can. Government will be no smaller, and overall taxes will be higher (albeit deferred).
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Why I Don't Believe Teabaggers
Why don't I believe the Teabaggers when they say want smaller government and more freedom? First, I've heard this same crap by so called conservatives many times before, and it has always been false. Second, they lie or are just so misled about so many easily checked facts that they render themselves utterly trustworthy. Third, their authoritarian fellow travellers are not exactly testimonials to their freedom loving.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Garden and Bird News
Our new handyman came by and fixed the raised beds that I made so incompetently last year and built me a third bed. He is going to put in a fourth bed on Friday, so we will have 400 square feet (with the herb garden and strawberry patch) under cultivation plus the berry patch. With our CSA membership, we are going to be swimming in produce, so I reckon we'll have to do some canning or other preservation. My family in Georgia used to say about our huge harvest that "we eat what we can and what we can't we can".
I have my work cut out hauling wheelbarrows of top soil from the driveway to the garden beds, but I aim to do it and to plant all the beds by this weekend. We planted one already when we had that hot spell a week or so ago.
For the first time this year, I am daunted by pond maintenance. Mucking the pond by hand this years smacks of effort. I used not to mind it, but I am overcome with sloth or something this year. A pond guy is coming by to give me an estimate on muck removal and suggestions on how to reduce sediment flowing into the pond. If I can afford his solutions, I'll do it. Otherwise, I was thinking of getting a trash pump and sucking the muck out of the pond and spreading it on the lawn. That's what I was doing with the wheelbarrow loads. The grass is greener on the muck.
Jasper is getting into fair weather Kong fetching shape. He's already hunting amphibians for hours on end.
We have a new species of bird, the great crested flycatcher. I hope he eats as many flies as he can and invites his whole clan. No hummers yet. The goldfinches are getting golder by the day.
I bought a propane grill- a CharBroil Red and have been cooking out every chance I get.
Life is so much better when winter is over.
I have my work cut out hauling wheelbarrows of top soil from the driveway to the garden beds, but I aim to do it and to plant all the beds by this weekend. We planted one already when we had that hot spell a week or so ago.
For the first time this year, I am daunted by pond maintenance. Mucking the pond by hand this years smacks of effort. I used not to mind it, but I am overcome with sloth or something this year. A pond guy is coming by to give me an estimate on muck removal and suggestions on how to reduce sediment flowing into the pond. If I can afford his solutions, I'll do it. Otherwise, I was thinking of getting a trash pump and sucking the muck out of the pond and spreading it on the lawn. That's what I was doing with the wheelbarrow loads. The grass is greener on the muck.
Jasper is getting into fair weather Kong fetching shape. He's already hunting amphibians for hours on end.
We have a new species of bird, the great crested flycatcher. I hope he eats as many flies as he can and invites his whole clan. No hummers yet. The goldfinches are getting golder by the day.
I bought a propane grill- a CharBroil Red and have been cooking out every chance I get.
Life is so much better when winter is over.
Anti-government?
I have seen protesters several times in the last couple of weeks referred to as "anti-government". Yet, when they prevail, they immediately form a government.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
We're Doomed
I got a little depressed when I found out that Andromeda and the Milky Way are on a collision course. Odds are that this will have a negative impact on survival of whatever we've evolved into by then. This means we have only 4.5 billion years to become an intergalactic civilization. There's not a moment to waste.
Afterlife Schmafterlife
I lean toward universalism but I don't really have strongly held beliefs about the afterlife. It's a mystery as far as I'm concerned, and I'll know what I need to know when I need to know it.
The concept of hell is bothersome. I trust that if hell exists God has His reasons and that them as are consigned to hell belong there. I trust that ending up in hell will be in furtherance of God's plan. I assume that God will cause the resurrected saints to forget about the tormented souls in hell or that He will construct them in a way that will enable them to embrace the fact. Some folks would doubtless be disappointed if there were no hell. I would not. It seems to me that God would not resurrect the damned just to destroy them or subject them to eternal suffering. And if there is a hell, perhaps it's temporary so that when the damned have learned their lesson they can join the saints. I just don't know. How could I? Nobody ever comes back and explains anything.
I'm not sure about hell at all. I'm not even sure about heaven or the whole idea of the afterlife. What a gift it is just to have lived at all and to have been a sentient being. We should be grateful for that and not squander it on hopes for pie in the sky when we die. If there is an afterlife, then it's a bonus. I trust that God knows what is best for us. I would still follow Jesus even if the promise of life everlasting be a myth.
The concept of hell is bothersome. I trust that if hell exists God has His reasons and that them as are consigned to hell belong there. I trust that ending up in hell will be in furtherance of God's plan. I assume that God will cause the resurrected saints to forget about the tormented souls in hell or that He will construct them in a way that will enable them to embrace the fact. Some folks would doubtless be disappointed if there were no hell. I would not. It seems to me that God would not resurrect the damned just to destroy them or subject them to eternal suffering. And if there is a hell, perhaps it's temporary so that when the damned have learned their lesson they can join the saints. I just don't know. How could I? Nobody ever comes back and explains anything.
I'm not sure about hell at all. I'm not even sure about heaven or the whole idea of the afterlife. What a gift it is just to have lived at all and to have been a sentient being. We should be grateful for that and not squander it on hopes for pie in the sky when we die. If there is an afterlife, then it's a bonus. I trust that God knows what is best for us. I would still follow Jesus even if the promise of life everlasting be a myth.
Monday, April 12, 2010
SCOTUS Endorsements
What is wanted on the Supreme Court is a greater diversity of professional background. There are enough law professors and career jurists on the court already. I reckon somebody with an executive or legislative background would be an asset to the court and to the country. For example, Governor Granholm of Michigan or Secretary of State Clinton might make excellent justices and would bring new and important perspectives. It would be helpful to have someone on the court who actually knows how the government really works and can speak to the likely practical impacts of decisions.
Wonkette : Romney Beats Ron Paul By Exactly One Vote In GOP Confederate Straw Poll
Wonkette : Romney Beats Ron Paul By Exactly One Vote In GOP Confederate Straw Poll
As Wonkette puts it:
"An unelectable Taxachusetts liberal gazillionaire, an unelectable libertarian extremist, an unelectable idiot teevee host and an unelectable chocolate-sucking amoral has-been … it’s the cream of the crop, Republican-style!"
Can this really be the GOP field? Maybe these are all just placeholder candidates while the real potential candidates wait and see whether there really is any kind of shot in 2012.
As Wonkette puts it:
"An unelectable Taxachusetts liberal gazillionaire, an unelectable libertarian extremist, an unelectable idiot teevee host and an unelectable chocolate-sucking amoral has-been … it’s the cream of the crop, Republican-style!"
Can this really be the GOP field? Maybe these are all just placeholder candidates while the real potential candidates wait and see whether there really is any kind of shot in 2012.
Taibbi Takes Brooks to Task for Douchebaggery
Brooks: Let Them Eat Work - Matt Taibbi - Taibblog - True/Slant
Seriously, Brooks claims rich peoiple deserve to be rich because they work harder.
"Only a person who has never actually held a real job could say something like this. There is, of course, a huge difference between working 80 hours a week in a profession that you love and which promises you vast financial rewards, and working 80 hours a week digging ditches for a septic-tank company, or listening to impatient assholes scream at you at some airport ticket counter all day long, or even teaching disinterested, uncontrollable kids in some crappy school district with metal detectors on every door.
Most of the work in this world completely sucks balls and the only reward most people get for their work is just barely enough money to survive, if that. The 95% of people out there who spend all day long shoveling the dogshit of life for subsistence wages are basically keeping things running just well enough so that David Brooks, me and the rest of that lucky 5% of mostly college-educated yuppies can live embarrassingly rewarding and interesting lives in which society throws gobs of money at us for pushing ideas around on paper (frequently, not even good ideas) and taking mutual-admiration-society business lunches in London and Paris and Las Vegas with our overpaid peers."
Seriously, Brooks claims rich peoiple deserve to be rich because they work harder.
"Only a person who has never actually held a real job could say something like this. There is, of course, a huge difference between working 80 hours a week in a profession that you love and which promises you vast financial rewards, and working 80 hours a week digging ditches for a septic-tank company, or listening to impatient assholes scream at you at some airport ticket counter all day long, or even teaching disinterested, uncontrollable kids in some crappy school district with metal detectors on every door.
Most of the work in this world completely sucks balls and the only reward most people get for their work is just barely enough money to survive, if that. The 95% of people out there who spend all day long shoveling the dogshit of life for subsistence wages are basically keeping things running just well enough so that David Brooks, me and the rest of that lucky 5% of mostly college-educated yuppies can live embarrassingly rewarding and interesting lives in which society throws gobs of money at us for pushing ideas around on paper (frequently, not even good ideas) and taking mutual-admiration-society business lunches in London and Paris and Las Vegas with our overpaid peers."
Saturday, April 10, 2010
My Take on the WBTS
Confederate history has been in the news lately thanks to Virginia's proclamation that April is Confederate History Month and the omission of slavery in the original proclamation. The governor of Virginia knew what he was doing. Even though he apologized for his "mistake", everybody knows where his heart really is. Slavery was bad. Nudge nudge wink wink.
Now folks are arguing about how we should feel about the Confederacy and what the Confederacy was all about. My confederate bona fides are as good as anyone's. I'm the direct descendant of at least eight Confederate veterans and the indirect descendant of many more. There's not a single Union soldier in my family tree. I am interested in the history of the time and the role my family played in it and how we were impacted by it.
Only one of my Confederate ancestors owned any slaves. The rest were poor farmers or tradesmen who worked their own land or plied their own trade without the help of enslaved persons. I don't aim to piss on the graves of my ancestors, and I don't aim to attribute grand motives to them. Each had his own reasons for fighting. Some were conscripted. Others responded to the call to defend their state in the same way that so many bastards have been duped throughout human history. At least one of them was probably defending the institution of slavery by which he profited. Every one of them would have been better off if he hadn't been involved in the war. The South should have stayed in the Union and argued the point about slavery through legitimate processes. If abolition resulted, then the South should have manned up and accepted it. I like to imagine that my ancestors would have been on board with something like that rather than tearing their country apart.
I doubt that any of them gave a second thought to tariffs or abstract constitutional arguments. The war was not of their making. They were caught up in it as pawns of powerful elites. What the war was "about" for each of them we can no longer say. In a larger historical sense, the war was about defending the right of people to own other people and about the fundamental structure of the United States of America. The pro-slavery side lost. The concept of the US as a loose confederation of sovereign states also lost.
Those who advocate a system of state sovereignty with a weak federal government should perhaps avoid coupling their argument with an apparent nostalgia for slavery. There's nothing inherently immoral about the idea of such a government structure, and it ought to be discussed on its merits. And forget about turning back the clock and revising the interpretation of the Constitution that has prevailed for a century and a half. If we want a weak federal government with strong states, we'll need a new constitution or some radical amendments. The idea should be put to the political test for what it is, a radical rethinking of the structure of the government.
States' "rights" has been so often deployed in the context of the reprehensible (slavery, Jim Crow) that it has become almost universally recognized as code for racism. That's what Reagan meant when he talked about respecting states' rights in 1980. He was appealing to disaffected southern voters still angry over civil rights legislation. The GOP is still engaged in this "Southern Strategy". They poison discussion about the concept of decentralization by coupling it with reactionary and authoritarian ideas.
Let's stop talking about the frakking WBTS, and start talking about decentralization on its own merits. Moreover, let's discuss it pragmatically and accept ad arguendo that some things are more appropriate for decentralization than others. Let's talk about it in the context of actual policies and issues that matter today and forget about what the government was like in 1840 or what the Founding Fathers would have preferred. They're dead, and it's the living who will have to contend with our constitutional arrangements.
Now folks are arguing about how we should feel about the Confederacy and what the Confederacy was all about. My confederate bona fides are as good as anyone's. I'm the direct descendant of at least eight Confederate veterans and the indirect descendant of many more. There's not a single Union soldier in my family tree. I am interested in the history of the time and the role my family played in it and how we were impacted by it.
Only one of my Confederate ancestors owned any slaves. The rest were poor farmers or tradesmen who worked their own land or plied their own trade without the help of enslaved persons. I don't aim to piss on the graves of my ancestors, and I don't aim to attribute grand motives to them. Each had his own reasons for fighting. Some were conscripted. Others responded to the call to defend their state in the same way that so many bastards have been duped throughout human history. At least one of them was probably defending the institution of slavery by which he profited. Every one of them would have been better off if he hadn't been involved in the war. The South should have stayed in the Union and argued the point about slavery through legitimate processes. If abolition resulted, then the South should have manned up and accepted it. I like to imagine that my ancestors would have been on board with something like that rather than tearing their country apart.
I doubt that any of them gave a second thought to tariffs or abstract constitutional arguments. The war was not of their making. They were caught up in it as pawns of powerful elites. What the war was "about" for each of them we can no longer say. In a larger historical sense, the war was about defending the right of people to own other people and about the fundamental structure of the United States of America. The pro-slavery side lost. The concept of the US as a loose confederation of sovereign states also lost.
Those who advocate a system of state sovereignty with a weak federal government should perhaps avoid coupling their argument with an apparent nostalgia for slavery. There's nothing inherently immoral about the idea of such a government structure, and it ought to be discussed on its merits. And forget about turning back the clock and revising the interpretation of the Constitution that has prevailed for a century and a half. If we want a weak federal government with strong states, we'll need a new constitution or some radical amendments. The idea should be put to the political test for what it is, a radical rethinking of the structure of the government.
States' "rights" has been so often deployed in the context of the reprehensible (slavery, Jim Crow) that it has become almost universally recognized as code for racism. That's what Reagan meant when he talked about respecting states' rights in 1980. He was appealing to disaffected southern voters still angry over civil rights legislation. The GOP is still engaged in this "Southern Strategy". They poison discussion about the concept of decentralization by coupling it with reactionary and authoritarian ideas.
Let's stop talking about the frakking WBTS, and start talking about decentralization on its own merits. Moreover, let's discuss it pragmatically and accept ad arguendo that some things are more appropriate for decentralization than others. Let's talk about it in the context of actual policies and issues that matter today and forget about what the government was like in 1840 or what the Founding Fathers would have preferred. They're dead, and it's the living who will have to contend with our constitutional arrangements.
Friday, April 09, 2010
Embarrassing Mistake
This morning on the way to work on the Taconic, my carpool companion spied a state trooper on the side of the road pointing a device at us. Fearing that it might be an RPG, we opened fire on him. It turned out to be a radar gun. Was my face red or what?
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Corporations are Creatures of the State so the State Should Create Them Diffrently
One way for ordinary people to deal with corporate power is to get state legislatures to enact more stringent rules for operating as a corporation like what existed before general incorporation laws became common. Back in the day, states granted charters more sparingly, and strings were attached. Moreover, states could revoke charters whenever it seemed to be in the public interest to do so. Charters were for limited time periods and required renewal. Charters were for limited purposes, and corporations had to get permission to change their line of business. The liability scheme could also be modified to keep executives honest. Corporations could be required to act in the pubic interest, and public directors could be mandated.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Stuff in the News
bpsycho posts about the collateral murder video and Oliver Willis's hissy fit about liberals who criticize the military: http://www.psychopolitik.com/2010/04/if-you-dont-know-them-by-now/
I don't reckon pointing out bad acts necessarily constitutes a blanket condemnation of all servicemembers. I have observed a lot of right wingers among my FaceBook acquaintances who go to great lengths to defend even egregious crimes like the one in the video. War is ugly sometimes, they say, so what can you do? Avoid indiscriminate killing of civilians, for one thing. Observe the rules of engagement and the law of land warfare for another. Prosecute war criminals to the fullest extent of the law.
So the Pope knew about child molesting priests and was involved in the cover-up? D'uh! That would be true no matter which Cardinal had been elected Pope. Covering up and enabling were the policy of the Church, and you don't get to management in a top down hierarchy by bucking policy.
Afghan President Kharzai threatens to join the Taliban? What are we fightng for over there, again?
I don't reckon pointing out bad acts necessarily constitutes a blanket condemnation of all servicemembers. I have observed a lot of right wingers among my FaceBook acquaintances who go to great lengths to defend even egregious crimes like the one in the video. War is ugly sometimes, they say, so what can you do? Avoid indiscriminate killing of civilians, for one thing. Observe the rules of engagement and the law of land warfare for another. Prosecute war criminals to the fullest extent of the law.
So the Pope knew about child molesting priests and was involved in the cover-up? D'uh! That would be true no matter which Cardinal had been elected Pope. Covering up and enabling were the policy of the Church, and you don't get to management in a top down hierarchy by bucking policy.
Afghan President Kharzai threatens to join the Taliban? What are we fightng for over there, again?
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Rush Limbaugh is a Walrus
This is the the most awesome SadllyNo piece in a long time. http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/29831.html
Monday, April 05, 2010
We bought some plastic storage bins to stash our Christmas decorations and keep the voles from nesting in them. They had the above warning sign on them. I'm not sure what it means. Is it a warning to people that the bin is not suitable for storing a baby? Or do babies like to crawl into stoarge bins and pull the lids down on themselves? A baby that stupid would never understand the warning sign, so I'm guessing this is for adults. Never put your baby in a bin!
I never knew how irresistible babies found buckets. Apparently, they like to stick their heads in them. If they are full of liquid they will drown. I'm not sure those babies are smart enough to heed the warning sign I have seen on buckets that I own.
These were hazards that were never explained to me when I was a wee one. We knew about plastic bags.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
I'm OK with Pedophile Priests as Long as They Don't Act on Their Pedophilia
I'm not Catholic, so as far as I'm concerned the Pope is just a guy in a funny hat. This Pope has even less moral authority from my perspective than your average Pope what with the handling of the priestly pedophilia scandal. It's not enough to transfer sexually abusive priests to parishes with less attractive children. Seriously, what does it take to get fired as a priest? The way it was handled makes it look as if the RCC condones child molestation by priests and considers the problem to be exposure rather than the abuse itself.
And now the defense of the Pope and the RCC seems to be to accuse critics of anti-Catholic bigotry. Talking about priestly child molesting is worse than priestly child molesting. This fits in with the notion that the problem is exposure rather than the abuse. Unless the RCC actually considers child molesting a priestly prerogative, it ought to acknowledge the mistakes it has made and pledge to do better in the future.
And now the defense of the Pope and the RCC seems to be to accuse critics of anti-Catholic bigotry. Talking about priestly child molesting is worse than priestly child molesting. This fits in with the notion that the problem is exposure rather than the abuse. Unless the RCC actually considers child molesting a priestly prerogative, it ought to acknowledge the mistakes it has made and pledge to do better in the future.
Standing on Principles
I have to hand it to Wm Norman Grigg for sticking to his principles. He continues to call out DHS and to defend the rights of recent terror suspects. I'm not so courageous. I have been very disturbed by the "Patriot Movement" and the possibility of domestic terrorism and by the tone of discourse from the right that appears to condone violence. Also, a part of me gets a kick out of seeing right wingers who were so gung ho about the security and surveillance apparatus when GW Bush ran it become targets of it.
New Talking Point for Wingnuts
I guess it's not really new, but it's used in a new context. Accuse people who point out Tea Party craziness of being "name callers". What's worse than advocating domestic terrorism? Pointing out that someone advocates domestic terrorism.
The idea is that the craziness of the Tea Partiers does not detract from their ideas. I reckon that would be true if the movement actually had any ideas and was anything other than a manifestation of a generalized reactionary discontent. In principle, the movement has certain not very controversial objectives such as smaller government and lower taxes, but it appears that the rank and file are willing to use violence to air their vaguely expressed grievances and, if not willing to use it or advocate it, to condone it. This makes it very hard to trust them on any issue or to take their positions seriously.
The idea is that the craziness of the Tea Partiers does not detract from their ideas. I reckon that would be true if the movement actually had any ideas and was anything other than a manifestation of a generalized reactionary discontent. In principle, the movement has certain not very controversial objectives such as smaller government and lower taxes, but it appears that the rank and file are willing to use violence to air their vaguely expressed grievances and, if not willing to use it or advocate it, to condone it. This makes it very hard to trust them on any issue or to take their positions seriously.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Why the Windies Will Never Dominate Again
West Indian acquaintances who learn that I am interested in cricket invariably ask me to explain why the West Indies, unstoppable for a decade not long ago, cannot recapture the days of glory. I usually just nod and remark on what a mystery it is and promise to look into it. The answer is pretty simple, though. The rest of the world adapted to the relentless pace attack that the West Indies mastered and monopolized during its Decade of Dominance. The rest of the world learned to hit fast bowling and to cultivate pace bowlers themselves. The West Indies needs a new trick if it aims to dominate again. Its population base is too small to allow it to outcompete year in and year out the teams from larger countries.
Another reason for the decline in the fortunes of West Indies cricket is a product of the earlier success. Youth cricket has become highly institutionalized in the West Indies with the result that "sandlot" cricket is an increasingly rare phenomenon. Youth are channeled into organized leagues, and playing outside the formal system is devalued. This drives many young would be cricketers away from the sport.
Still, you gotta love the Windies. They're America's team.
Another reason for the decline in the fortunes of West Indies cricket is a product of the earlier success. Youth cricket has become highly institutionalized in the West Indies with the result that "sandlot" cricket is an increasingly rare phenomenon. Youth are channeled into organized leagues, and playing outside the formal system is devalued. This drives many young would be cricketers away from the sport.
Still, you gotta love the Windies. They're America's team.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)