Some Thoughts on Memorial Day

While most Americans enjoy a long holiday weekend, Memorial Day is about remembering and honoring those who fought to ______________  (insert your own words).  What did you think of?

The wedding photo of an Iraq war veteran and his bride

In the Hunger Games, extra food was given to those who put their names in the pool to be drafted for a fight-to-the-death game. The poor, obviously, did it more often, because they didn't have many  other choices to provide for themselves and family.

In the 19th c. a British cabin boy was killed and eaten so others could survive in the lifeboat. Is something like this unacceptable under all circumstances?

This group, like all other societies, made a decision that some have to be sacrificed to save the community and its values. Often the ones to be sacrificed are given no choice in the matter. When the greater community decides to send off its "cabin boys" to fight in a war, it's understood that sacrifice (death) will ensue.

In a voluntary system, who are the ones who opt for the "hunger games"?

The number was high, we knew that, but here's what I found: 18 current soldiers and veterans (of our last 2 wars) commit suicide every day on average. More deaths by suicide than by combat casualties since 2001. In addition to the 6,500 dead (both wars), the 35,000 injured (some very seriously, crippled for life), the hundreds of thousands civilian deaths, the cost of war is not just in dollars by in changed human lives! Changed, as in seriously and adversely changed!

Life goes on....  and, with benefits, if you're lucky, or if our country makes good choices.

Where Job Creation Come From. [Hint: Not From Tax Breaks to the Super Rich!]

There are lots of myths in our society, some are good some are horrible. A good one is the idea of natural rights. That is, every person is born with certain unalienable rights, so the concept of a social contract is easier to imagine. I'm not questioning whether every human being should have fundamental rights, but how do you prove that everyone is born with equal rights? At any rate, the point of this essay is to discuss another harmful  myth, and that is, the notion that tax cuts for the rich is a good thing. This belief is an article of faith being constantly repeated by the conservatives, while leaders like president Obama and many in the Democratic Party are afraid to challenge it!

Class warfare is the term that scares many, like an actual war might be. Relax everybody, the war is over and the elites have won it. But, I was very surprised to hear that TED Talks censored a speech critical of this article of faith.

Watch this video by a rich person who clearly makes sense about where job creation comes from. 

 

Happy Mother's Day! Honoring Mothers By Improving the Lives of Women

This Sunday, we're celebrating Mother's Day. Everywhere in the world a mother is giving birth right now, some by choice, some by the fact of being kept as chattel. Women have attained the highest status in liberal democracies, even though, say, in Norway they fare a lot better than in our own country over all. 


If you want to know a whole lot about a country ask one question: what is the status of women? From the answer, you'll most safely ascertain the level of development, affluence, access to opportunity, legal treatment, economic participation, choices, political regime, and civil freedoms! A great society, a happy society, a more stable society, a healthier society, a nicer society is possible by elevating the status of women to parity with men. This is threatening to traditional societies, primitive cultures, and the American conservatives.

In some places in Africa there's a good chance the mother is infected with HIV/AIDS. It's not here fault, because it's her husband that most likely infected her. And, she's told by her religious leaders that condoms are worst than disease itself.

In Niger, a mother has an average of 8 children, and in much in the poorest countries women spend most of their lives being pregnant and/or caring for little children. In parts of Alabama and Mississippi infant mortality is higher than in Iran. More than one million little children go to bed hungry every night in the US.

Celebrating motherhood has to be more than the activities of one day in the year. We all had mothers, so  it would be nice if we could make their lives better. Take a look at the UN Millennium Development Goals and you'll see that every step we take to fulfilling those goals is a meaningful improvement in the lives of mothers--poverty & hunger, education, gender equality, combat HIV/AIDS, maternal health, etc.

Honoring motherhood begins with treating women better.

The following is from my last year's post, but I think it's worth repeating:

Motherhood cannot be separated from the condition of women in the world today.
UK's The Independent has a great article about that condition. The British government in cooperation with human rights groups have found some very disturbing facts:

• Two-thirds of the world's 800 million illiterate adults are women as girls are not seen as worth the investment, or are busy collecting water or firewood or doing other domestic chores.
• Two million girls aged from five to 15 join the commercial sex market every year.
• Domestic violence kills and injures more people in the developing world than war, cancer or traffic accidents.
• Seventy per cent of the world's poorest people are women.
• Violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or war.
• Women produce half the world's food, but own less than two per cent of the land.
• Of the more than one billion people living in extreme poverty, 70 per cent are women.
• Almost a third of the world's women are homeless or live in inadequate housing.
• Half of all murdered women are killed by their current or former husbands or partners.
• Every minute a woman dies as a result of pregnancy complications.
• Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, yet earn only a tenth of its income.
• One woman in three will be raped, beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime.
• 43 million girls are not able to go to school.
• In 2007, one million HIV-positive women died of AIDS-related illnesses because they could not get the drugs they needed.
• Human Rights Watch, in reports on 15 countries including Afghanistan, Brazil, Morocco, Papua New Guinea, Togo and South Africa, has identified violence against schoolgirls, child domestic workers and those in conflict with the law as on the rise.
• Women across the developing world are the victims of systematic abuse.

Meanwhile in the good ol' USA

And in our country, the conservatives want to conserve anachronistic views which include discriminating against women. The GOP has insisted on fighting against women's health and choice. It's amazing what these conservatives have been pushing for.. [link]

On the surface someone might think that the recent debate about same-sex marriage is not related to anything else, but indeed, it's an illustration of how a conservative prefers the status quo instead of being open, accepting progressive change. 

While we've waited so long for Obama to ..evolve in his views about the rights people should have, it's becoming clearer by the day that there's a big difference between the progressives and the conservatives in this country and it's getting wider. It's good to see the president finally saying the obvious instead of pandering to those whose vote he would never get. 

Leadership matters in order to change people's views, but most importantly leaders, like FDR, Johnson, and Lincoln, may have to push for changes a conservative society would take so much longer to accept. But, once the benefits of the New Deal, the Great Society, Emancipation, etc, take hold, people accept the new reality and adopt it as their own.  

In 2004, I was working for John Kerry's presidential campaign in Cleveland, OH, and the conservatives had an initiative on the ballot to strictly prohibit same-sex unions. I spoke with many conservative Democrats who simply told me that their marriage would lose value if homosexuals were given legal sanctions! Well, such views were also common in states that were among the first to grand same rights to the LGTB community. Once people saw that MA didn't disappear into the Atlantic ocean and things aren't any different, they accepted the new reality. It's not even an issue anymore in most of the states that have been leaders in this regard.


Wasn't the same for the rights of women back then?...

Religious Freedom in America. Theocracy is Trying a Comeback

As many faithful here in the US have been celebrating some of the most important religious holidays in April, it's worth noting that the many of our compatriots don't understand the constitution, do not have knowledge of our history, and, most importantly, do not recognize other people's rights when it comes to religion, nor do they recognize the wall of separation between church and state.

This is one of the better documentaries I've seen on the issue of religious freedom. The focus is King, North Carolina, but the statements and beliefs those residents also reflect religious people all over the country. What's great about this documentary is that once the subject of religiosity is examined beyond the slogans and bumper-sticker mentality, a whole other pictures emerges: that of contradictions, belief without even a smidgen of skepticism, lots of ignorance of someones' own faith, and ample fanaticism.

 

It's a long documentary but definitely worth-watching. Scott Burdick became a filmmaker after he witnessed the small town of King, NC having a rally for Xtianity that had been ignited by a returning Afghanistan veteran who threatened to sue the town if they didn't remove the Xtian flag from the public Veteran's Memorial.

There are the voices of intolerance but also of those who, in the name of religious freedom, argue for a separation of Church-state. There are also a few skeptics and non-believers, but I think the best effect comes not from those who criticize the believers but from the believers themselves.

Richard Dawkins commented, 

"One highlight, for me, was the spectacularly stupid woman around 0:22:40. She begins by denying that God could ever sanction slavery. Scott then gets her to read aloud the relevant passage from Leviticus and she then completely changes her tune, saying that homosexuality is worse than slavery. That's right: homosexuality is WORSE than slavery. Why? Because the Bible condemns homosexuality and (as she has just that minute learned from Scott) it doesn't condemn slavery.

Even more horrifying is the section (starting around 0:59) labelled "Following Orders": a covert allusion to the Nuremberg Defense. Scott asks people to put themselves in the position of Joshua, ordered by God to slaughter the native peoples already living in the promised land, or of Abraham, ordered by God to sacrifice his son. One after another, the faith-heads say (reluctantly in the case of the young man with glasses and curly hair, but with something close to relish in the case of the odious man with a bald head and little beard) that yes, they would commit genocide and infanticide if God ordered them to. This is as clear an illustration of the evil of religion as I have come across for a long time."

With all the tools of reasoning and knowledge, and having the relative safety, leisure, affluence, freedom it's truly incredible why people believe crazy stuff. Take the identifiers out, or the identity of the author, and then examine the moral imperatives in holy books... most people would see the horrors and the ridiculousness of those beliefs. They do that for the ..others people's faith already! 

So, it must be a virus of the mind: self-replicating, zombiefying, fear-inducing, paralyzing, reason-killing, hiding the infection and making the host believe this virus is the host's greatest asset!

And, now something totally new.... (or, old)

Author D.M. Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S.)

Evidence is for persons who are curious about what actually happened or actually is, so no evidence can convince the religious fanatics. They ask for a ton of evidence from the skeptics (and that the skeptics ..prove there's no god) while they present none to prove their own extraordinary claims. 

Genesis 8:22. Is that All We Need to Know? [and that God likes the smell of burning flesh!]

Spring is not officially here but it feels like it already here in the Northeast. We've been trying to cancel ..winter and it just might happen if we try hard enough. So, my thanks to those who act as if "climate change" or "global warming" is a hoax perpetrated by the liberal elite. The latter hate capitalism and wealthy corporations who look after the interests of the people by providing jobs!

Oh, yeah, I found gold at the end of this rainbow

I toot my horn when I see huge cars with their 30 gallon tanks, using fuel that could power a small village to transport one person. If there was any doubt about the kind of people those drivers are, their bumper stickers pronounce their patriotism ("love it or leave it" kind of view) and their religious convictions about anything they believe in. Yeah, tell that to Jesus!

Of course, this is America--more precisely, the USA--and we have candidates for the highest office that don't believe in the separation of church-state, science, intellectualism, education, equality of opportunity, legal equality, but believe all else fit for the Dark Ages. Witch hunt, anyone?

If idiotic pronouncements were an exception, I'd say the loons exist in any political party, normally not be of a major, "mainstream" party. However, such is not the case in the US, and one that defines the gap between the progressives and the conservatives today: the perception of reality. You'd think that most people would prefer reality and would not support the election to high office anyone whose views are so ridiculous, especially when such views impact the conduct and public policy of that public office!

Take for example Senator Inhofe (R-OK), the senior ranking Republican on the ..Environment & Public Works Committee, who says the Bible is all we need to know! In Genesis 8:22, Inhofe says, and the Bible confirms, that God is in charge of the climate and we cannot change it, plus that since the Flood, God promised Noah that he would destroy humanity again. Yes, it's all there for all to see, you doubters. In the same chapter we also learn that God likes the smell of burning flesh! [The Bible notes after Noah sacrifices some animals and burns them to thank God for not downing him.]

Upon further reading, I learned that: To the woman [God] said, I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. -Genesis 3:16
I don't like this kind of language and sounds very petty, vindictive, immature, petulant, and sexist. I do love the women in my life, from my mother onward and don't appreciate this kind of attitude.

Even though it's shameful that a Santorum reflects the sentiment of so many Americans, I hope he gets the nomination of this GOP. We need to have this debate about utter religious nuttery and sanity so the GOP and our polity in general could become more modern. Yet, I'm afraid that Obama is not the one to make the clear rational and secular argument a modern state should adopt.

Romney just suffered another defeat in the South and he becomes weaker by losing to such weak candidates. I think he's also losing his "electability"--the "best candidate" in the field against Obama among the conservative base.
...


..
I'm going out to play. It's such a wonderful day! Looking forward to warm nights when I can sit outside looking at the magnificent cosmos overhead.

Slavery By Another Name is Unknown History

People want to believe in something. What makes them feel better is preferred to that that makes them uncomfortable, so sometimes reality is not preferable. 

As Black History Month draws to a close, I wanted to help promote this program, aired on PBS recently. It's painful to think that these conditions existed in our country not so long ago, as recently as in 1950s, and it's a history that many Americans don't know or want to know about.
 

If one is to understand politics in the US since the colonial times, the issue of race and slavery is of fundamental importance. Even since WW2, elections, the law, and the trajectory of the political parties, all have been influenced by this reality. The Democratic Party used to be the party of slavery and segregation until the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s when it traded place with the Republican Party. The latter, through its Southern strategy made the South a fortress and a solid base for electoral victories. 

This, however, has been changing, as Obama proved that a Democrat who's not from the South can win. Furthermore, the Southern states aren't as "red" as they used to be, like North Carolina, northern Virginia, etc. With other western states turning into swingers, the road to the White House doesn't have to go via the South at all nowadays.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party is beholden to a shrinking base that is also out of the mainstream America. Add to this the activism of another extreme element--the Tea parties and even the libertarians--and you have a recipe for disaster. Did I mention immigration and how Hispanics have been trending Democratic?...

Again, the PBS program, Slavery By Another Name, is worth a watch. In the video above there's the promo of this program, plus earlier discussions with Bill Moyers and the author of the book upon which the PBS program was based. 

The Theater of the Absurd Keeps Performing, and Amazingly Attracting Audience!

The last GOP debate before "super Tuesday" took place yesterday with hyperbole and hubris at center stage.  I liked the audience booing too. This theater of the absurdity is beyond critical evaluation; it's entertainment of the lowest (and we know how low this is) common denominator in Republican politics today.

Here's a better, funnier, cleverer clip of Jon Stewart. Enjoy! Don't even think why so many Americans actually believe the crap the conservatives have been dishing out, because you'll probably weep.

Darwin's Day Means a Celebration of Science

Charles Darwin was born 203 years ago, on February 12th, and 50 years later he published the ground-breaking theory of evolution. [Here's a great BBC documentary on Darwin's Tree of Life with David Attenborough]

When I was little I couldn't understand the concept of billions of years. I looked at those over 30 and thought they were too old! It was the time I believed in Santa Claus and in superheroes with fantastical supernatural powers. Then I slowly began to learn all sorts of wonderful stuff about history, science, and critical thinking. Eventually I was exposed to the theory of evolution. Eventually this led  me to ask one of my teachers when the soul entered the human body in this long chain of changing forms--from the very primitive to modern humans--a question I've asked anyone who tries to reconcile evolution with creationism; I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer.

The teachings of religion used to be the source to explain everything. Science has replaced this, at least, for those who have answered the question, which knowledge is more reliable? There are gaps or unknowns, but a scientific method is the best tool we have to discover and understand the world around us. It's a matter of self-confidence to accept notions like, I don't know, and, it remains to be seen, rather than opting for a "sure thing" that's based on irrational conjecture at best.

It's amazing that it took so long for humans to come up with a rather obvious theory of adaptation, survival, and changing forms in response to environmental conditions. Since the domestication of animals and plants, our ancestors could see evolution taking place in their lifetimes, yet, they stuck with the religious notions that everything was designed in its present form! 

These remnants of thought-inhibitors are still erecting obstacles to progress today. How else can you explain the current debate about contraception? The bishops say contraception is bad, because they figured out that what the maker of the universe wants, so they're part of the debate and given political considerations! Oyvey.

I tip my proverbial hat to Charles Darwin for having the courage (to go against his family and the prevailing social views) and the intellectual fortitude to formulate such an important scientific theory--by observation, testing, factual investigation, reasoning--and advance important knowledge for humanity.


Science depends on people who understand its importance and on people who value it so they're willing to support such an endeavor. I'm saddened though that we have not succeeded in teaching the most important thing science is to every person in the US, and indeed the world: skepticism, rational thinking, and inquiry.

Controversy over contraception. There they go again: "Sex for Pleasure isn't Good". Surely they're fucking with us!

WARNING: If you're offended by sex, vulgarity, by a rational argument against nuttery, or, if you don't want to think about sex, sexual innuedo and sexual intercourse, and why people have sex for fun, (I know, it's too late now not to think about those things) DO NOT read the following post.... So, you are forewarned. And, by the way DO NOT look at the picture below).

****

An appropriate solution to those who oppose contraception?

Persons who have the least experience in (good, mature) sex tell us that sex isn't good for us!  Many of the strongest advocates of this nuttery are some clergy who looked the other way (or, shielded the many perverts who were raping children). Not to be remiss, a bunch of conservative religious pricks in the US stick their heads in our private affairs-- instead of sticking their heads in the usual place, you know,whether the sun doesn't shine.

No fucking for pleasure they argue, because, god-knows where this may lead.... Or, is it using contraception the main problem? Maybe that's why those rapists in the church overwhelmingly chose to molest--you know, orally and anally--children of the faithful. Ergo, no need for contraception there. Why not sex for pleasure, you ask? Because if it's for pleasure, then what happens to the religious view of the perverse human nature? And, bodily pleasures [this should include food, sports, movies, art, and all mental/emotional rewards] take away from worshiping our imaginary tormentor. This is the purpose in life, isn't it?...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Did you notice that God didn't do anything about it while this was taking place in his house of worship. Not one of those sodomites was struck dead. Maybe god is OK with it. Or, maybe he doesn't really care what the fuck we humans do down here. It's up to us to decide what's good or bad! It's up to us to think whether it makes sense to use contraceptives to plan family size and for women's health. It's up to us to rationally think and act without some false divine and private revelation, and without the perverse interpretation of some inane passage in the book god allegedly wrote.

It's, therefore, up to us to fuck however we want, among consenting adults, and have fun while doing it. Those who dislike sex do not have to have it. Or, they do not have to use contraceptives. But, most importantly, they should stay the fuck out of our way.

Poorly designed church mural

UPDATE: I'm not claiming popular wisdom as being always right, but when it comes to personal choices, and what the insurance companies, health providers should do, it's a clear majority of Americans who believe contraception/family planning should be provided to employees. Those organizations who extend their domain into health care, insurance, etc, should be required to provide for such services as deemed appropriate in a modern society.

It has nothing with religious freedom. They're free to worship and believe in any god and in Divine revelation. Can you imagine, say the Mormon Church, arguing that it would not have to pay for goods and services if such were rendered by a black person? Oh, it was the Mormon dogma (until 1979) that blacks were inferior. OK. That's what that church believed; it was its right not to admit blacks or other minority. That's freedom of religion.

• 73 percent of Democrats agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 65 percent of millenials agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 62 percent of women agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 58 percent of Catholics agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 57 percent of all voters agree “that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.”
• 55 percent of ALL Americans agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 53 percent of Catholic voters agree“that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.”

Those who want to deny health services on moral grounds should get out of that business. Imagine a doctor who has a religious belief that would prevent him from treating a particular injury when you're rushed to the ER?  Preposterous. I know. We have to let them  know too.

I'm not usually this vulgar as when I wrote this post, but I resent being told about morality from those who have no shame and have no hesitation in wanting to force others to follow their perverted ways!

Newt Gingrich is A Big Fat Idiot... and, a Socialist Revolutionary!

As of now, it seems that the Republicans are still not convinced about Romney, but they may prove me wrong and pick him as the eventual nominee. I had argued that the former Massachusetts governor would not appeal to the majority of the very conservative, religious activist base. Well, he still isn't all that popular, since the majority of primary/caucus participants have voted for someone else. If you remove his supposed "electability" then his core support falls below Ron Paul's! The latter is a marginal candidate who doesn't have any chance of success.

There's a scenario whereas Grinch further implodes and Santorum becomes the one to capture all the anti-Romney conservative votes. This scenario will be tested when the race moves to the Midwest. In 2008, the Dems went through a similar phase, pitting the favorite, Hilary Clinton, and the rest. Once Obama became the only one standing he became also stronger as he captured the anti-Clinton votes.  However, there's a huge difference between those contests in the Dem race and today in the GOP race. The Dems had proportional allocation of delegates, whereas the loser(s) still got something out of a state contest.

The winner-takes-all system, many state Republican parties have, gives a huge amount to the candidate who crosses the line first. There's no majority principle here, just a plurality one. Romney is polling ahead of Newt right now and that may just be enough.  I assumed that the GOP would come up with a strong traditional conservative in which case Mittens would lose despite his organization and tons of money. Well, we've seen that the party wanted this to happen. Any announced candidate, an "anti-Romney"  candidate who appeared remotely competitive had his/her poll numbers spike well above Romney's initially. Every single one of them--Bachmann, Santorum, Grinch, Caine, Perry, Paul--were beating Romney at some point before the process began and even afterward. This is significant, because Mittens was a well-known candidate as the second runner up 4 years ago. The GOP usually selects "the next in line" to hold its flag. Yearning for the anti-Romney may just remain an unfulfilled urge in conservative politics.

All the non-Romney candidates self-imploded for various reasons. This field is looney because the Republican base that's active in the selection process has lots of loons--people who are way out of the country's mainstream.

Newt Gingrich is a Big Fat Idiot

If he can slander others by misrepresenting the truth, promote ignorance, and employ the politics of fear, I think I can safely use the big fat idiot term to describe his "intellectual" abyss. Actually I had (I still do) endorsed Grinch for the GOP nomination!  Why, you ask?

It's time that this Republican party becomes a modern, rational, pragmatic party--as much a conservative party is able, and we all know the limitations of this. With Grinch as the one holding the party banner, the GOP would suffer major defeats. Through this experience, perhaps, some reasonable Republicans would try to wrest control from the loons and turn the party around from heading back to the Dark Ages. Maybe after serious defeats, the GOP would realize that what it represents today, what its leaders pronounce, what the stated policy is,  it has left mainstream America.

Bill Moyers Essay: Newt's Obesession with Saul Alinsky from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

I have frequent discussions with Republicans and I ask them if they think whether the core principles beliefs and public policy of this GOP reflect the majority of Americans...  And, if not so, whether the country is moving toward or away from those... I think the answer is clear. Any reasonable Republican (endangered species) know it.

It's time we had this discussion. Let's hope that Obama can point out the gap between the GOP and the public. Leadership matters, especially when people take things on faith or they look to leadership for clues. Most of the public, especially the conservatives don't know what social democracy is, yet they hate anything about it because they're told so by their leaders. Who the hell knows or has heard the name Alinski ?! But, Grinch tells his followers to hate Alinski and his "radicalism."  They're supposed to love Ronnie, though if he was alive today and insisted upon some of his policies, he would find himself outside this GOP!

 The president has the loudest megaphone, so let's hope he uses it not only for re-election but also for destroys the politics of fear, prejudice, and ignorance.  You know, like FDR did. Is this too much to ask from the president nowadays?...

Obama Delivers a SOTU Speech Outlining His Campaign Themes. [But, will he revert back to a soft, compromising, and ineffectual style?]

Good speech by the president in the SOTU address, which revealed the main themes of his re-election campaign. Obama is a centrist and will play to the so-called independents and the "floaters"--which, for now, have left but many can be convinced to return, especially given the Republican challengers this year.

There are many reasons why we progressives can't stand the conservatives and this loony, extremist Republican party. Yes, that party whose ideology and public policy proposals go against the vast majority of Americans, in spirit and as public policy.

Obama talked about those American values that unite us. Well, let's see, what are those values, besides nationalism, patriotism, American exceptionalism-center of the universe, "support the troops," motherhood and apple pie?

I'll take them in order as Obama mentioned them, without the president being blunt and drawing his highlight pen to expose the Republicans as the ones against those American values.

1. Tuition assistance and generally the cost of education. Access to opportunity, and, of course, having an educated population is good for the US. The Republicans are against grants, tuition assistance, and want the ..marketplace to price education.

2. Immigration. Well, need I say more? OK, I will. The GOP is hostage to a shrinking but still xenophobic base that is more concerned with "border security" and arresting and expelling anyone who lacks documentation (heck, anyone who can't produce papers on demand). Giving amnesty to all those who have benefited from a hard-working, low-paid labor pool is fine with the Republicans, but giving a path to citizenship to those who have been here more many years, are productive, have paid taxes, and have stayed out of trouble, well, this is a no-no for the Republicans.

3. Public funds for scientific research. What is science anyway? It's just some theories who have gaps and the ..liberal scientists are conjuring up hoaxes on the American people... according to many Republicans. We have no money for science, we must balance the budget... unless we have to pay for another war against Iran. The Republicans are against funding for science and exploration, and research for alternative energy, etc.

4. Public projects. We built them even during the Great Depression and under sensible Republicans like Eisenhower. Not any more according to Republicans today. Infrastructure, communications, the internet, national parks, and even electrification were some of the deeds the GOP has opposed.

5. Regulations about consumer protection, conservation, environment, reckless Wall Street practices, etc, are all opposed by the Republicans.


6. Extending the payroll tax breaks to the middle class workers is opposed by the Republicans. Yet the GOP is in favor of keeping the Bush tax cuts for the millionaires!

7. The super rich like Romney pay a lower percentage of taxes than the middle class. I don't see why the millionaires (and anyone who earns over that amount) couldn't pay more. The Republicans oppose that, even when the country was about to default in paying its bills (many expenses a Repub prez and a Repub Congress authorized), because the GOP wanted to shove it to anyone (98% of Americans) but the rich.

What I find fascinating is that a major political party can advocate for policies that go against the interests of the vast majority of Americans, and even against what the public wants right now [ie, spend to create jobs as opposed to balancing the budget], and yet this party is allowed to have so mach political power. The Republicans should not be allowed to govern, because they don't believe the government can do anything well or any good--unless it's about fighting the evil doers. Oh, and tell us how not to fuck.

It's going to be an interesting campaign season. Have I mentioned that I endorsed Newt for the Repub nomination?  I could go with Mittens but I think the campaign for the general election might be too much about style and personalities. However, with Newt being the GOPer, we may finally have the debate about the kind of conservatism inappropriate for in America of the 21st century and beyond. It's about time the conservative vision and policy proposals are clearly defeated and dismissed for good. Maybe then a more modern Republican party can emerge. That would be good for the country.

GOP and the Rich: Don't Offend God by Engaging in Class Warfare!

"When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus 1 percent," ... "you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God."  Mitt Romney

So, I found out that the presidential candidates are a lot like the rest of us, except they have multiple houses and millions of dollars in wealth. Oh, and that Mitt Romney pays less in taxes that I do.

Oh, and when we raise the issue of wealth, benefits, privileges, influence, power, etc, we're accused of ..class warfare. The lord of the manor, Mr. Romney, probably thinks we're committing ..sacrilege for challenging the divine order of the universe, in which the rich get richer and the middle class--the arrogant and inglourious basterds--is falling further behind. 


The gaps between the middle class and the poor is also growing, not because the middle class is advancing but because poverty is increasing in the US. Personally, I don't feel better off when more people fall behind me. If I'm not moving while a fraction of the top captures most of the wealth generated, then I have no problem committing sacrilege. As for "class warfare" it seems to me that the ..war is over and the elites have won it!

The Republican Debates 

I wanted to watch their debates and even discuss the main points, you know, see why we differ in values, priorities, and public policy. But, it's hopeless. I really tried. It's painful and not even worth discussing the bumper sticker statements these candidates are using to excite the very conservative crowds attending the debates. Indeed, they cheapen the dialogue by appealing to the lowest common denominator. They cheapen their stature if any of them becomes, gasp, president.

Take for example, Gingrich's statement (which was met with roaring applause) that ..Obama put more people on food stamps than any other president of recent. Hmm. People falling into poverty and ..applying for food assistance is Obama's fault. There's no logic in this. Or, that the constant Republican motto, "Get a job!" Well, 1/3 of those who receive food stamps work. Assuming someone makes minimum wage, and assuming (big "if" here) he has a full-time job, that may not be enough to meet basic needs, especially if there's family involved. These wages, vary form $5.15 to 9.04, nationally--though there are 9 states that have no MW or is below the fed standard of $7.25. [US Dpt of Labor] Working FT making $300 a week isn't a lot, and if the Repubs had their way, there would be no minimum wage. Plus the lower working class would have to use these 300 bucks to buy food, health insurance, and an education.

But, We're So Much Better Off Than Those Euros

Paul Krugman wrote this the other day, and, as usual, he nailed it: 

"The Times recently reported ["Harder for Americans to Rise"]on a well-established finding that still surprises many Americans when they hear about it: although we still see ourselves as the land of opportunity, we actually have less intergenerational economic mobility than other advanced nations. That is, the chances that someone born into a low-income family will end up with high income, or vice versa, are significantly lower here than in Canada or Europe.

 
And there’s every reason to believe that our low economic mobility has a lot to do with our high level of income inequality.

 
Last week Alan Krueger, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, gave an important speech about income inequality, presenting a relationship he dubbed the “Great Gatsby Curve.” Highly unequal countries, he showed, have low mobility: the more unequal a society is, the greater the extent to which an individual’s economic status is determined by his or her parents’ status. And as Mr. Krueger pointed out, this relationship suggests that America in the year 2035 will have even less mobility than it has now, that it will be a place in which the economic prospects of children largely reflect the class into which they were born."

But, we live in a la-la land, where conservative memes, like viruses, still roam the minds of millions of our compatriots. Like, more wealth to the top, fewer taxes [I shouldn't be too upset that Romney pays less % in taxes than I do, especially after learning the GE paid no taxes!], and less protection for the consumer and the environment lead to more prosperity and, of course, more freedom. Tsk...