Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Bullshit ....

In writing my last post, I was googling to try to find the democratic party official or worker or something who said that while working for the democratic party, he didn't have to listen to the left at all. Instead, I came across a random blog - I guess it can't be that random if it showed up in google's first page search results - some guy wrote about how both the Democrats and Republicans have it wrong. Don't get me wrong, as evidenced by my voting for Nader, I think both parties have a lot of shaping up to do. However, this guy's reasons for why the democrats need to shape up are right out of the Fox News play book. Seriously, dude, seriously.

Before I, inappropriately, post a comment, I thought I'd share here my responses to his post:

Democrats still believe in higher taxes, especially the higher income people to spend on the "unfortunate". This is so stupid because

1. This reduces incentive to work. If one is "earning" without working, he'd rather not work and "earn" a little less, than work and earn a little more (and see a big chunk of earning taxed away).
2. The "unfortunate" (or anyone for that matter) does not appreciate something that is not hard earned.

Wow. Priviledged much? Would you stop working just so you could get welfare? I doubt it. Welfare and food stamps barely cover the cost of living. Welfare to "Work" is effectively slave labor - for example, Welfare to Work in New York City involves working sweeping parks for the New York City Parks and Rec. The New York City Parks and Rec has no incentive to hire anyone because they get workers for free and the workers aren't learning any valuable job skills. Also, you need to take into account the terrible education for the urban poor and that there are very few unskilled jobs where a worker can make enough to pay the bills anymore. Let's also not forget that Welfare to "Work" affected a lot of single mothers who were going back to school so they could improve their situation. So, yes, if I had a choice between working 3 jobs to barely pay the bills or going on welfare to barely pay the bills, I might take welfare.


3. Higher taxes are bad for the economy - they drive away the industry. Why would someone set up a true multinational in the US if the US is going to take 40% of their profit away, if setting up the same company in another country can reduce the tax liability by 90%. A case in the point, Schlumberger, the oil drilling company is moving to Dubai

The vast majority of corporations in the US don't pay any taxes at all so this argument doesn't make sense (and it makes it a bit comical that you think US corporations pay 40% of their profits in taxes). Companies are moving away even though they don't pay any taxes. Also, historically, all nations have had trade importation regulations which would encourage a company, especially one who wants to sell to the enticing American consumer, to stay. If no one is employed, no one can buy your product so it's not actually in a companies best interest to move away.
In fact, the most prosperous time in the US was '63 or so, when all the New Deal regulations were still strongly in place and might be considered the height of economic regulations. Post-WWII to the '80s saw the smallest gap between rich and poor; today the gap between the rich and the poor is as large if not larger than it was during the 20s ... an era that lead to the Great Depression, which is where we are now.
Last but not least, who said that the US supporting and bending over backwards to have "true multinational" corporations is the goal of the economy. I would argue that the purpose of the economy is to serve society - with jobs, products, education, health care - not the other way around.


5. What part of never kill the goose that lays the golden egg you don't understand?

Depends who you think the goose is. Clearly you think it's corporations. I'd argue it's consumers who make corporations profitable. So having an economic system that ensures capitalistic competition (which we currently don't have) and supports an ardent middle class, is in the best interest of the country.

6. This country was founded on the notion of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It is pursuit of happiness, not provision of happiness.

I'd say it's pretty difficult to be happy when you cannot afford to eat. And I'm not sure how taxation really impedes your ability to pursue happiness ... unless you believe happiness is equivalent to money and then I just sort of feel sorry for you. Our founding fathers - you know, the ones that wrote the Declaration of Independence - also said "No taxation without representation" so they created a system of representation. Also, since the supreme court long ago ruled that a corporation is entitled to the benefits of being considered a "person" under the law; shouldn't corporations also be required to bare the burdens - such as taxation - of being a "person" under the law.


7. This is Capitalism, not Socialism. US is prosperous because of enormous wealth creation by Capitalism. Socialism didn't work in USSR, it didn't work in North Korea, it didn't work in East Germany, it didn't work in China (till it shunned its Socialist/Marxist policies in favor of Capitalism).

Well, we sort of have capitalism (just like China, the USSR, East Germany and North Korea sort of had socialism and just like China now sort of - very very sort of - now has capitalism). Capitalism is based on many, small entities competing which we generally don't have today given corporate consolidation, corporate welfare, and a systematic dismantling of consumer protections in the last 20 or so years. Also, Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, warned against the treachery of corporations in the same industry cohorting to manipulate the "invisible hand" which they do today, perfectly legally. There's nothing that says that the government does not play a role in a capitalist economy - in fact, that's a huge lesson we learned during the Great Depression and was the basis for the New Deal. Then there's NAFTA: a trade agreement, especially one that trumps government rules, is by definition not capitalistic. I could go on and on ...

Secondly, there's nothing to say that there aren't areas of society that should be socialized; areas that don't benefit from the motivation of profit - education or health care, for example. Moreover, even today, the amount of government money flowing through our economy - fire fighter, police, and teacher salaries, research grants, subsidies for corporations etc etc - is greater than the stock market, effectively making the US one of the most "socialist" countries in the world and thus making your argument absurd.

Also, our current "wealth" goes to about 1% of the population so in fact, your "capitalism" has made most Americans less wealthy.

In fact, I would argue that what we currently have - a system that both republicans and democrats support with ridiculous campaign contributions and corporate lobbyists - is much closer to fascism (by definition, a corporate run state) than socialism.


-- End Inappropriate Comment --

Hillary didn't win; she just didn't lose ...

Last night, CNN was covered with talk of 'Hilary Won!' and peppered with 'Why did Hilary win?' and 'Why did Obama lose?'

Here's the thing: Hilary did not "win" any votes yesterday. In fact, she lost many.

Prior to election day, Obama was polling at around 20% in Texas and Ohio. (Now we could go into a diatribe about how polling is bullshit but I'll hold off). Which means that, since Obama got around 45% of the vote , he won 25% of Hilary's voters or, put in another way, Hilary lost 25% of her voters.

Now I'm no Obama lover, but my hatred for simplistic media coverage trumps all political affiliations.


One guest on CNN finally got it right around midnight: The media (and perhaps the country) is treating this election like a general election, in other words, we are treating it like it is 'winner take all.' It's not. The delegate difference remains virtually unchanged.

Frankly, that delegate difference is the real issue and could result in another riot like the one in 1968 (i.e. if the super delegates don't vote for the popularly elected canidate or Hilary fights for Michigan and Florida's votes to count even though no one else campaigned or was even on the ballots there.)

The primary system is failing us!!

I just found out that Edwards is dropping out of the presidential race. This right after Kucinich - by far the best progressive candidate and the only politician i know with the balls to risk his career to do what's right - dropped out due to a fierce re-election campaign.

I'm heartbroken and I blame the primary system. Here's why:

• Having primaries on different days in different states gives more weight to those states that come first. Super Tuesday hasn't happen yet. Four states - count them four - have voted. (Well technically 6 states have voted but since the democratic party has used its corrupted weight to disenfranchise Michigan and Floridian democrats and not count their votes, I won't either). Only 8% of the country has weighed in on primary candidates and already 4 candidates (Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd, andBiden) have dropped - one of them (Edwards) even had a real shot. Moreover, none of the states that have voted are states significant enough to swing an election. Plus I don't want Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to make voting decisions for me. Do you?
  
• Caucus's are bullshit. The caucus system (used in Iowa and I think Nevada), just like th electoral college, are fucking us time and time again. They are complex and time-consuming - we can't even get people to come out and pull a lever, let alone show up at a specific time to play musical chairs. Moreover, it gives a skewed perception of people's votes. If my candidate doesn't get enough people standing in the corner, then I have to more all my voting power to another candidate that I don't want. It makes it an all or nothing race and convinces people that a) certain policies are more popular than they are and b) that they can never vote for a long shot candidate because they'll have to pick the mainstream choice anyway. I do understand the motivation behind caucusing - it gives some semblance of a second choice. However, there are better options out there - like Instant Run-Off which allows you to rank candidates giving the politicians and the media and you a better picture of what Americans really want.
• The god damn media. Something needs to be done about the FCC and it's total unresponsiveness to the American people. (Don't believe me? The FCC recently ruled to open up media companies to even more conglomeration despite holding hearings across the country in which citizens overwhelmingly said NO to this proposal.) The media has talked about 2, maybe 3, democratic candidates - Clinton, Obama, and somtimes Edwards. And what do they talk about? Clinton's tear; whether race or gender will cause one or the other to win. It's ridiculous. Maybe, for once, CNN could mention some of their policies?
  
• Debates not being debates. This plays into the above topic. Kucinich - despite meeting their set criteria - was not allowed in multiple televised debates. Remember when we had fair access laws? Think we still do? Thanks to Reagan the media can favor a single candidate - even in a debate - for no reason what so ever. The American public - we included - tends to think that debates are run by the government or some non-partisan organization. Not so. Debates are run by the Democratic party and the Republican party period. So what you might say? So this means that they are not going to include third parties or even their own candidates if they seek to create change.

Ahh. I'm so fucking pissed about this. Now who am I going to vote for? Mrs. Corporate interests or Mr. I talk the talk but never show up for Senate votes?

Green on Gore ...

Harsh words from the Green Party directed at leftist Gore supporters ...

It was under the Clinton/Gore administration that Depleted Uranium weaponry was first authorized. It was under was the Clinton/Gore administration that 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi children died from the sanctions, which is still a greater death toll than the Bush administration, although the Bushies are catching up quickly.

The Clinton/Gore administration first authorized "extraordinary rendition" and signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act which has further consolidated the corporate media, which is, in my opinion the biggest risk to democracy we face today. Let us also not forget "Welfare Reform" and the "War On Drugs", both an attack on poor people. Clinton/Gore again.

Then let us not forget that Gore actually won the 2000 election and instead of standing up for those who voted for him, including the 90,000 illegally purged from the voting rolls, Al Gore told the Congressional Black Cacaus to "sit down and be quiet", as noted in the Michael Moore movie Farenheight 9-11.

The WTO protests of Seattle in 1999 were targeting the policies of the Clinton/Gore administration. This includes signing up for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, the IMF, massive give-a-ways of public land to the Mining Industries and of large tracts of our forests to the Lumber Industries.

None of this was mentioned in his cute little film. Instead of targeting the corporate responsibility for the crisis of global warming, he tells us what "we little people" can do. Buy a Prius, change a light bulb etc, not what General Motors should be forced to do. Just us "little people" changing bulbs etc. He also obviously did not target the policies started under his vice-presidency. No talk of NAFTA or corporate globalization in his movie.

Al Gore is a well packaged, corporate friendly "environmentalist." Al Gore is a "green-washed" corporate prostitute who has been green-washed just as surely as British Petroleum or any other corporate polluter. My fullest apologies to prostitutes for comparing you to Al Gore.

Now that is really an "inconvenient truth" and I can guarantee that this is something you will never hear from the Sierra Club, Dennis Kucinich or any of the local versions of him here in Minnesota. That is another "inconvenient truth."

In other words, wake up people. Pay attention to the actions instead of the words. You are being lied to, again.