Election time is right around the corner. Time for a guest post.
by Sam Harris
Huffington Post
January 2, 2006
Most people believe that the Creator of the universe wrote (or dictated) one of their books. Unfortunately, there are many books that pretend to divine authorship, and each makes incompatible claims about how we all must live. Despite the ecumenical efforts of many well-intentioned people, these irreconcilable religious commitments still inspire an appalling amount of human conflict.
In response to this situation, most sensible people advocate something called "religious tolerance." While religious tolerance is surely better than religious war, tolerance is not without its liabilities. Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive. It has also obliged us to lie to ourselves — repeatedly and at the highest levels — about the compatibility between religious faith and scientific rationality.
The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science. It is time we conceded a basic fact of human discourse: either a person has good reasons for what he believes, or he does not. When a person has good reasons, his beliefs contribute to our growing understanding of the world. We need not distinguish between "hard" and "soft" science here, or between science and other evidence-based disciplines like history. There happen to be very good reasons to believe that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. Consequently, the idea that the Egyptians actually did it lacks credibility. Every sane human being recognizes that to rely merely upon "faith" to decide specific questions of historical fact would be both idiotic and grotesque — that is, until the conversation turns to the origin of books like the bible and the Koran, to the resurrection of Jesus, to Muhammad's conversation with the angel Gabriel, or to any of the other hallowed travesties that still crowd the altar of human ignorance.
Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world. If there were good reasons to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse, these beliefs would necessarily form part of our rational description of the universe. Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so. The distinction could not be more obvious, or more consequential, and yet it is everywhere elided, even in the ivory tower.
Religion is fast growing incompatible with the emergence of a global, civil society. Religious faith — faith that there is a God who cares what name he is called, that one of our books is infallible, that Jesus is coming back to earth to judge the living and the dead, that Muslim martyrs go straight to Paradise, etc. — is on the wrong side of an escalating war of ideas. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of principle. I believe that the antagonism between reason and faith will only grow more pervasive and intractable in the coming years. Iron Age beliefs — about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc. — continue to impede medical research and distort public policy. The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is also terrifying, and it is increasing by the day. We are doing very little, at the level of our intellectual discourse, to prevent such possibilities.
In the spirit of religious tolerance, most scientists are keeping silent when they should be blasting the hideous fantasies of a prior age with all the facts at their disposal.
To win this war of ideas, scientists and other rational people will need to find new ways of talking about ethics and spiritual experience. The distinction between science and religion is not a matter of excluding our ethical intuitions and non-ordinary states of consciousness from our conversation about the world; it is a matter of our being rigorous about what is reasonable to conclude on their basis. We must find ways of meeting our emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of the preposterous. We must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity — birth, marriage, death, etc. — without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality.
I am hopeful that the necessary transformation in our thinking will come about as our scientific understanding of ourselves matures. When we find reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive religious myths. Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is. And only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Monday, December 05, 2011
America's great leap forward in public education
Kidding, of course. Here's a great piece to provide a little perspective on the many areas in which we continue to fail our students, and thus, ourselves:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/41284
And here's the list of things successful schools do (not in America, of course) from a book called Surpassing Shanghai, which is featured in that piece:
1. Funding schools equitably, with additional resources for those serving needy students
2. Paying teachers competitively and comparably
3. Investing in high-quality preparation, mentoring and professional development for teachers and leaders, completely at government expense
4. Providing time in the school schedule for collaborative planning and ongoing professional learning to continually improve instruction
5. Organizing a curriculum around problem-solving and critical thinking skill
6. Testing students rarely but carefully -- with measures that require analysis, communication, and defense of ideas
Needless to say, these are all things teachers (and their unions, occasionally) and most folks who have actually studied education have been saying all along. But in America, we don't look to experts for input on how to reform schools. We turn to businessmen and politicians because business can always be trusted to solve all our problems. If only we can get those pesky regulations off their backs and cut their taxes!
By the way, how's that giant for-profit charter school corporation, White Hat, doing in Ohio these days? (you know, that gang who just knew they could make profitable, successful, easy work out of what those dumb, lazy, public school teachers were doing) Oh, wait, perhaps these headlines will remind us:
http://education.ohio.com/2011/04/akrons-white-hat-gets-poor-grades-for-students/
http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/05/02/gop-budget-rewards-white-hat-for-failing-ohios-children/
http://www.ohio.com/news/local-news/white-hat-employees-told-company-must-boost-enrollment-profits-1.248313
http://www.ohio.com/news/10-charter-schools-sue-white-hat-over-assets-1.182842
(ha, I could do this all night!)
http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/12/02/memo-white-hat-charter-school-management-company-hasnt-met-financial-forecasts-for-the-last-five-years/
But hey, we're capitalists. For profit rules! Competition is the answer! Treat everything like a business. Adam Smith was an idiot, right?
Luth
Out
http://bigthink.com/ideas/41284
And here's the list of things successful schools do (not in America, of course) from a book called Surpassing Shanghai, which is featured in that piece:
1. Funding schools equitably, with additional resources for those serving needy students
2. Paying teachers competitively and comparably
3. Investing in high-quality preparation, mentoring and professional development for teachers and leaders, completely at government expense
4. Providing time in the school schedule for collaborative planning and ongoing professional learning to continually improve instruction
5. Organizing a curriculum around problem-solving and critical thinking skill
6. Testing students rarely but carefully -- with measures that require analysis, communication, and defense of ideas
Needless to say, these are all things teachers (and their unions, occasionally) and most folks who have actually studied education have been saying all along. But in America, we don't look to experts for input on how to reform schools. We turn to businessmen and politicians because business can always be trusted to solve all our problems. If only we can get those pesky regulations off their backs and cut their taxes!
By the way, how's that giant for-profit charter school corporation, White Hat, doing in Ohio these days? (you know, that gang who just knew they could make profitable, successful, easy work out of what those dumb, lazy, public school teachers were doing) Oh, wait, perhaps these headlines will remind us:
http://education.ohio.com/2011/04/akrons-white-hat-gets-poor-grades-for-students/
http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/05/02/gop-budget-rewards-white-hat-for-failing-ohios-children/
http://www.ohio.com/news/local-news/white-hat-employees-told-company-must-boost-enrollment-profits-1.248313
http://www.ohio.com/news/10-charter-schools-sue-white-hat-over-assets-1.182842
(ha, I could do this all night!)
http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/12/02/memo-white-hat-charter-school-management-company-hasnt-met-financial-forecasts-for-the-last-five-years/
But hey, we're capitalists. For profit rules! Competition is the answer! Treat everything like a business. Adam Smith was an idiot, right?
Luth
Out
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
What changed MY mind about unions?
If you dig back far enough on this stupid blog, you'll find me whining somewhere about unions. I was never given the choice of joining them. I was either automatically enrolled, and dues taken from my pay, or I didn't get the job. Not only that, but as one of those employees who lives comfortably, firmly in the middle of the pack, they never really protected my job, kept me from getting fired, nor got me any kind of raise or bonus. In fact, as a result of a union deal requiring/taking away my ability to negotiate the number of years of service credit I would accept, I ended up costing too much to be hired back into a profession I loved. As far as I was concerned, unions were a lot like leeches - no longer necessary in the practice of medicine, and never all that helpful in the first place... to the average, rule following, performing employee who simply put in the day's work for the day's pay.
In fact, there was a time in my more naive youth when I truly felt that unions, like horses and buggies, were little more than nostalgic reminders of what we'd left behind. I valued OSHA and the worker's rights rules unions helped create. I had deep respect for the sweat shops they'd helped destroy, the child labor and unsafe working conditions they'd done away with, but their time had come. I thought. To this day I can't quite wrap my brain around the notion of a union employee, even a union executive making more than the people they represent (from those peoples' DUES!)
But the more I looked into Ronald Reagan's pro-union past, the more I learned about the current U.S. meat packing industry, in other words, the more I learned about that vast world around me I'd spent most of my life insulated from, the more I started to think differently. In fact, you might even say unions went from "outlived their usefulness" all the way to "necessary evil" in my opinion.
Of course, as my perspective expanded, my thoughts about unions changed even more. Ohio Senate Bill 5 served as my latest wake up call. In examining the ridiculously convoluted wording of the bill, searching the text and my feeble mind for how it could possibly save the state any money, and brainstorming what could possibly motivate anyone to propose such lunacy, it dawned on me that Gov. Kasich is the ideal stand in for billionaire CEOs and Ohio's public employees are the equivalents of labor - or as we're known these days, the 99%.
I continue to be amazed at my own capacity to learn as I get older, lazier, fatter. I also continue to be amazed at how many of my fellow Ohioans in the 99% inexplicably favor and vocally support rules that even further favor the 1%. I find that sometimes it helps to use pictures rather than our native language to explain how I arrive at some of my conclusions.
Take this picture, for instance:
It's a graph showing the disconnect between worker productivity and wages. Note the two used to be pretty good pals up until about 3rd quarter 1990. (if you're really curious, you can check out the EPI Analysis of BLS Labor Cost Indexes, or Issue Brief 297 from March 2011) Here's what the pictures tell us: While worker productivity went up 62.5% from 1989-2010, wages grew... wait for it... 12%.
Here's another way to look at it: corporate profits are up 20.2% above pre-recession figures while workers (from public and private sectors) now make 3% less than they did pre-recession.
How could this happen? Well, my simple mind would like to say that CEOs have abandonded all pretense of sharing the wealth with the employees who make them rich. In fact, the graph kind of shows just that, but I'm an idiot no one should ever believe. Let's use the EPI reports explanation as a starting point:
The answers lie in an economy that is designed to work for the well off and not to produce good jobs and improved living standards.
OK, that sounds kind of shitty too. So let's turn to the argument so many of my fellow 99%ers make when defending the drivel spewed by Fox news 99%ers: "That's why I went to college"
or "That's why I'm grateful I was raised with a strong work ethic."
These are admirable goals/traits, but they don't indicate an understanding of the most basic math. What the EPI report goes on to say in about a hundred different ways, is that none of that matters. It doesn't matter how hard you work, how many jobs you have, or how much education you have. Our economy is currently designed to favor the 1% of American earners who claimed 56% of the NATION's economic growth from 1998-2007. The bottom 90% of American households shared just 16% of that pie.
That bears repeating. Prior to our current recession, the top 1% of Americans claimed 56% of economic growth while the bottom 90% of Americans claimed 16% of that growth.
As long as we're repeating unbelievable figures, throughout the recession, the top 1% continue to prosper, posting profits 22% higher than pre-recession levels while employees now earn 3% LESS.
We 99%ers have to accept some of the blame for this. Over the past 30 years, we've enjoyed lower priced goods as a result of this economic policy design, but at what cost? In our quest for Wal-Mart prices, we've set the following as our priorities:
-deregulation of industries
-privatization of public services
-the weakening of labor standards including the minimum wage
-erosion of the social safety net
-expanding globalization and... wait for it...
-the move toward fewer and weaker unions
(EPI issue brief #297 page 2)
Or, to put it in a phrase: The Republican (and to a lesser degree, The Clinton) Way.
So that's where we stand today. It took 30 years to create this system and the public, private, and corporate debt that has come with it. We enjoyed it during more prosperous times. It sucks when it catches up with us, and the 99% are the ones who suffer.
The thing that many of our fellow 99%ers seem to forget is that this affects all of us, not just the folks on unemployment, not just the folks who march on Wall Street, and not just folks who didn't go to college. 99% is 99%, and unless you earn over a million a year, you're with me. More importantly, the reason this should call for change rather than just inspiring us to work harder or get another degree is that first chart. A 30 year trend of working harder that resulted only in our CEOs getting richer while they paid us less and less. A more shocking reason for a better response is that this gap in income distribution is approaching the levels that preceded the Great Depression. Ever heard of that economics experiment about income distribution on the island? Once it all lands in the hands of the tiny top percentage, everything grinds to a halt.
Those of you who oppose all manner of tax increases need to check the math again. Whenever you join the "anti-Death Tax" argument, you're arguing in favor of a gigantic cut in revenues for the benefit of about .06% of all Americans. And if Ayn Rand is your inspiration, why shouldn't inheritance be taxed? The heir didn't EARN that wealth. Hell, maybe ALL of it should be surrendered to the state! We should also point out that the top marginal rates haven't been lower since the direct aftermath of the Great Depression. Do we really want to wait until it comes to that to even out the tax burden again?
For more optimistic reading, check out Who Rules America at
or 15 Mind Blowing Fact about Wealth and Inequality in America from BusinessInsider.com at
So, to sum it up, if we continue to weaken unions and empower CEOs who have clearly lost the moral imperative to share the wealth their workforces bring them with their workforces, then who will speak up for us? What possible say will we ever have over our conditions. As employees, we won't even have the option of leaving a job 'cuz they'll all pay unlivable wages. Without the collective power of a national workforce, we are absolutely powerless to direct our own fates and conditions. Without unions, having any kind of say means some kind of revolution. Wouldn't it better just to stand up for negotiating power again?
And now for the Jerry Springer moment: Before you go criticizing the World War 2, Vietnam, Desert Storm, OEF and OIF vets (that Rush called parasites), the local bank managers, the college students, the bums, the nurses, firefighters, factory workers, sales professionals and the rest of your friends and neighbors who have joined the OWS gatherings, remember that you're probably one of them - one of the 99%, whether you can do the math or not. And for the life of me, would someone please explain why so many 99%ers continue to deride our cohort, and defend pro 1% policy?
Reminds me a lot of the old bumper sticker: "If you're a Republican and you're not rich, you're stupid." But that's a little harsh. In the interest of bipartisan peace and harmony, maybe we should update it to "If you're a Republican and you're not in the top 1%, you're stupid."
Hmmm, that doesn't really sound much better. I'll work on it some more.
Luth
Out
In fact, there was a time in my more naive youth when I truly felt that unions, like horses and buggies, were little more than nostalgic reminders of what we'd left behind. I valued OSHA and the worker's rights rules unions helped create. I had deep respect for the sweat shops they'd helped destroy, the child labor and unsafe working conditions they'd done away with, but their time had come. I thought. To this day I can't quite wrap my brain around the notion of a union employee, even a union executive making more than the people they represent (from those peoples' DUES!)
But the more I looked into Ronald Reagan's pro-union past, the more I learned about the current U.S. meat packing industry, in other words, the more I learned about that vast world around me I'd spent most of my life insulated from, the more I started to think differently. In fact, you might even say unions went from "outlived their usefulness" all the way to "necessary evil" in my opinion.
Of course, as my perspective expanded, my thoughts about unions changed even more. Ohio Senate Bill 5 served as my latest wake up call. In examining the ridiculously convoluted wording of the bill, searching the text and my feeble mind for how it could possibly save the state any money, and brainstorming what could possibly motivate anyone to propose such lunacy, it dawned on me that Gov. Kasich is the ideal stand in for billionaire CEOs and Ohio's public employees are the equivalents of labor - or as we're known these days, the 99%.
I continue to be amazed at my own capacity to learn as I get older, lazier, fatter. I also continue to be amazed at how many of my fellow Ohioans in the 99% inexplicably favor and vocally support rules that even further favor the 1%. I find that sometimes it helps to use pictures rather than our native language to explain how I arrive at some of my conclusions.
Take this picture, for instance:
It's a graph showing the disconnect between worker productivity and wages. Note the two used to be pretty good pals up until about 3rd quarter 1990. (if you're really curious, you can check out the EPI Analysis of BLS Labor Cost Indexes, or Issue Brief 297 from March 2011) Here's what the pictures tell us: While worker productivity went up 62.5% from 1989-2010, wages grew... wait for it... 12%.
Here's another way to look at it: corporate profits are up 20.2% above pre-recession figures while workers (from public and private sectors) now make 3% less than they did pre-recession.
How could this happen? Well, my simple mind would like to say that CEOs have abandonded all pretense of sharing the wealth with the employees who make them rich. In fact, the graph kind of shows just that, but I'm an idiot no one should ever believe. Let's use the EPI reports explanation as a starting point:
The answers lie in an economy that is designed to work for the well off and not to produce good jobs and improved living standards.
OK, that sounds kind of shitty too. So let's turn to the argument so many of my fellow 99%ers make when defending the drivel spewed by Fox news 99%ers: "That's why I went to college"
or "That's why I'm grateful I was raised with a strong work ethic."
These are admirable goals/traits, but they don't indicate an understanding of the most basic math. What the EPI report goes on to say in about a hundred different ways, is that none of that matters. It doesn't matter how hard you work, how many jobs you have, or how much education you have. Our economy is currently designed to favor the 1% of American earners who claimed 56% of the NATION's economic growth from 1998-2007. The bottom 90% of American households shared just 16% of that pie.
That bears repeating. Prior to our current recession, the top 1% of Americans claimed 56% of economic growth while the bottom 90% of Americans claimed 16% of that growth.
As long as we're repeating unbelievable figures, throughout the recession, the top 1% continue to prosper, posting profits 22% higher than pre-recession levels while employees now earn 3% LESS.
We 99%ers have to accept some of the blame for this. Over the past 30 years, we've enjoyed lower priced goods as a result of this economic policy design, but at what cost? In our quest for Wal-Mart prices, we've set the following as our priorities:
-deregulation of industries
-privatization of public services
-the weakening of labor standards including the minimum wage
-erosion of the social safety net
-expanding globalization and... wait for it...
-the move toward fewer and weaker unions
(EPI issue brief #297 page 2)
Or, to put it in a phrase: The Republican (and to a lesser degree, The Clinton) Way.
So that's where we stand today. It took 30 years to create this system and the public, private, and corporate debt that has come with it. We enjoyed it during more prosperous times. It sucks when it catches up with us, and the 99% are the ones who suffer.
The thing that many of our fellow 99%ers seem to forget is that this affects all of us, not just the folks on unemployment, not just the folks who march on Wall Street, and not just folks who didn't go to college. 99% is 99%, and unless you earn over a million a year, you're with me. More importantly, the reason this should call for change rather than just inspiring us to work harder or get another degree is that first chart. A 30 year trend of working harder that resulted only in our CEOs getting richer while they paid us less and less. A more shocking reason for a better response is that this gap in income distribution is approaching the levels that preceded the Great Depression. Ever heard of that economics experiment about income distribution on the island? Once it all lands in the hands of the tiny top percentage, everything grinds to a halt.
Those of you who oppose all manner of tax increases need to check the math again. Whenever you join the "anti-Death Tax" argument, you're arguing in favor of a gigantic cut in revenues for the benefit of about .06% of all Americans. And if Ayn Rand is your inspiration, why shouldn't inheritance be taxed? The heir didn't EARN that wealth. Hell, maybe ALL of it should be surrendered to the state! We should also point out that the top marginal rates haven't been lower since the direct aftermath of the Great Depression. Do we really want to wait until it comes to that to even out the tax burden again?
For more optimistic reading, check out Who Rules America at
or 15 Mind Blowing Fact about Wealth and Inequality in America from BusinessInsider.com at
So, to sum it up, if we continue to weaken unions and empower CEOs who have clearly lost the moral imperative to share the wealth their workforces bring them with their workforces, then who will speak up for us? What possible say will we ever have over our conditions. As employees, we won't even have the option of leaving a job 'cuz they'll all pay unlivable wages. Without the collective power of a national workforce, we are absolutely powerless to direct our own fates and conditions. Without unions, having any kind of say means some kind of revolution. Wouldn't it better just to stand up for negotiating power again?
And now for the Jerry Springer moment: Before you go criticizing the World War 2, Vietnam, Desert Storm, OEF and OIF vets (that Rush called parasites), the local bank managers, the college students, the bums, the nurses, firefighters, factory workers, sales professionals and the rest of your friends and neighbors who have joined the OWS gatherings, remember that you're probably one of them - one of the 99%, whether you can do the math or not. And for the life of me, would someone please explain why so many 99%ers continue to deride our cohort, and defend pro 1% policy?
Reminds me a lot of the old bumper sticker: "If you're a Republican and you're not rich, you're stupid." But that's a little harsh. In the interest of bipartisan peace and harmony, maybe we should update it to "If you're a Republican and you're not in the top 1%, you're stupid."
Hmmm, that doesn't really sound much better. I'll work on it some more.
Luth
Out
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
The Astute Mr. Limbaugh
One of my favorite, oft-deployed Rush Limbaugh quotes is, "words have meanings." It's been quite a while, but I believe Mr. Limbaugh used this decree to criticize someone for saying something Rush felt he or she must not have meant. (Rush KNOWS!) This favorite Rush quote of mine makes this image that much more intriguing:
I stumbled across the image via a Cake Music alert on Facebook. A guy by the name of Tom Remington posted it there. The photo shows up (unaccredited) on the Washington's Blog as well, along with several other photos of veterans from various wars joining the 99%.
Words do in fact have meanings, Mr. Limbaugh. Is there some meaning of "parasite" of which I'm not aware that you chose to apply to those who served where you would not?
Luth
Out
I stumbled across the image via a Cake Music alert on Facebook. A guy by the name of Tom Remington posted it there. The photo shows up (unaccredited) on the Washington's Blog as well, along with several other photos of veterans from various wars joining the 99%.
Words do in fact have meanings, Mr. Limbaugh. Is there some meaning of "parasite" of which I'm not aware that you chose to apply to those who served where you would not?
Luth
Out
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Ohio Issue 2 Debate
I tried to watch the debate of Ohio Issue 2 tonight, but after hearing Sen. Keith Faber argue the pro-2 side for about 10 minutes, I had to quit so I could go read the issue language again. Based on Sen. Faber's replies to former Sen. Dennis Eckart's statements, I was pretty sure I was confused about issue 2. I thought it was about limiting the rights of public employees to collective bargaining on most matters that most folks generally feel workers should have some kind of say in.
According to Sen. Faber, Issue 2 is about cutting spending and lowering taxes. In fact, I half expected the state's web page to include that very language when I looked it up. It's all he kept repeating. Heck, if that's the case, who wouldn't want to keep SB 5?
As it turns out, that's not really what Ohio 2 is about. The state's official web site confirms that Issue 2 does in fact limit public employees' collective bargaining rights to just about anything management doesn't want to discuss. The first line of the official summary says this:
Permits public employers to not bargain on any subject reserved to the management and direction of the governmental unit, even if the subject affects wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.
Hmmm. Now where would anyone opposed to Issue 2 get the idea that it restricts or even prohibits in many cases the right of public employees to collectively bargain the terms and conditions of their work? Oh, yeah, the language of the fricking bill, that's where.
Now that's weird because in between telling us that Issue 2 was about cutting taxes and lowering spending, Sen. Faber also said repeatedly that the law would NOT limit public employees' rights to bargain.
Now you can understand why I gave up trying to follow it.
Look, even Ronald Reagan, six-time president of the AFL-CIO Screen Actors Guild, and the ONLY U.S. President who was a union member, said, "...the most elemental of human rights - the right to belong to a free trade union." I'm reminding Republicans of this? I never even liked unions who forced dues from my wallet without my say. But the more I look at this blatant attempt to add a "union buster" notch to the old campaign belt with no regard for the stated purpose of the bill (saving the state money), the more I think Kasich, Faber, and their gang are snakes who have no idea what they're doing in Columbus other than making sure they and their friends stay rich at our expense.
The Unites States of America is a union. A union is nothing more than a group of people organized for a common purpose. If Governor Kasich can't negotiate with Ohio's public employee unions, let's repeal both him and his SB 5 and find someone who can. Let's not support his childish efforts to "show them!" Seriously, it's as if SB 5 is his way of taking his ball and going home because he was thrown out by someone's little sister at 1st base.
Note the confusion of the wording and response to the issue. First, the issue is a repeal of an existing law. One would think voting yes on a repeal would do away with the law in question, but Kasich's Secretary of State ensured the ballot language ends up just the opposite of this logical assumption.
The first line in the summary on the state's page is purposely strange as well: Permits public employers to NOT bargain. How to you permit someone to not do something. Why not just say "prohibits?" Well, that's because no one on the side of 2 is willing to come out and say it prohibits collective bargaining, but that's exactly what it does.
It seems like every attempt is being made to deceive Ohioans as to what the issue is actually about. Perhaps that's because supporters know that SB 5 - the law repealed by a NO vote on Issue 2 (that's clear, right?) - is doomed. An overwhelming number of petition signatures to put the issue on the ballot were collected. The handful of supporters reads like the handful of people who have continued to get rich as our recession roller coaster begins it's second dip. It appears to be less than 1% of our population.
Faber also argued that one good reason to support Issue 2 is because taxpayers don't want unelected officials (union bosses) telling public employers what they have to pay their employees. And yet, what the law provides for is a panel of 12 folks, none of whom were elected, to determine benefit and compensation packages for teachers and other public employees. So the law codifies exactly what Faber says taxpayers don't want. That's a strange way to win support.
Reminds me of a slew of Ohio governors who gradually did away with Ohio's former elected state school board and replaced them with governor-appointed "education experts." This began back when the first lawsuit claiming Ohio's public school funding system was unconstitutional was won. (A decision supported by the Ohio Supreme Court but largely ignored by every governor since except Strickland, who inherited Taft's deficits and this recession and was thus powerless to really address the issue).
In addition to the sneaky language, the common sense appeal of the opposition, and the support across the state to repeal the bill, there are plenty of other reasons to hate SB 5. Although Faber flat out stated that passage of 2 would just as likely INCREASE public employee salaries, it's somehow going to save the state money.
The money it's going to save comes from RAISING the salaries of 360,000 public employees?? Of course not. Those salaries will have to be cut in order for the bill to save money, OR the number of employees will have to be cut. Does your police or fire department have a bunch of extra guys sitting around all day? Does your high school have way too many teachers? Do they all drive Ferraris off duty? Even if we do cut these salaries, how much do we expect to save? And wouldn't any savings be offset by the cuts in personal spending these laid off or demoted employees have to implement at home? Well, probably not, since these personal budgets are probably already scaled back to levels Gov. Kasich can't even fathom. There's not a lot to scale back when you can only afford the staples to begin with, and let's face it, police, firefighters, teachers et al aren't exactly going to be cutting out a new yacht this season in order to scale back. Just as a flat tax benefits only the rich, SB 5 hurts MOST Ohioans.
C'mon people. SB 5 was railroaded through to begin with by a bunch of idiots we put in office for no better reason than because we were pissed at their collective ineptitude to begin with. SB 5 slithering through the Ohio Legislature is the result of our voting pissed at the last mid-term. Let's not make this mistake again.
Destroy Issue 2 in November, then send Kasich back to Wall Street, and let's try to elect a Governor who's more concerned with actually leading Ohio than he (or she) is with scoring partisan points and keeping his circle of friends rich at every Ohioan's expense.
Supporters of SB 5 and Issue 2 don't give a damn about saving the state money. They seek only the political victory of breaking up the state's public employee unions. If they are successful, they'll turn all state jobs into dead end positions no one ever wants. You think our roads are bad now? You think your county office provides poor customer service now? Just wait. The only plan this gang has for saving Ohio any money is by selling off all of Ohio's valuable assets: the lottery, the turnpike. So what do we do in the next term when we don't have anything left to sell? And if these things can be run so profitably by private owners, why can't the Governor make them profitable for the state? Is it because we Ohioans don't deserve the profit like Kasich's old colleagues from Lehman Bros?
Support the folks who run in while the rest of us run out. At least let them continue to have a say in their working conditions, salary, and benefits packages. And if you're one of those folks who thinks teachers and other state employees have life soooooo great, then become one, and VOTE NO on Issue 2.
According to Sen. Faber, Issue 2 is about cutting spending and lowering taxes. In fact, I half expected the state's web page to include that very language when I looked it up. It's all he kept repeating. Heck, if that's the case, who wouldn't want to keep SB 5?
As it turns out, that's not really what Ohio 2 is about. The state's official web site confirms that Issue 2 does in fact limit public employees' collective bargaining rights to just about anything management doesn't want to discuss. The first line of the official summary says this:
Permits public employers to not bargain on any subject reserved to the management and direction of the governmental unit, even if the subject affects wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.
Hmmm. Now where would anyone opposed to Issue 2 get the idea that it restricts or even prohibits in many cases the right of public employees to collectively bargain the terms and conditions of their work? Oh, yeah, the language of the fricking bill, that's where.
Now that's weird because in between telling us that Issue 2 was about cutting taxes and lowering spending, Sen. Faber also said repeatedly that the law would NOT limit public employees' rights to bargain.
Now you can understand why I gave up trying to follow it.
Look, even Ronald Reagan, six-time president of the AFL-CIO Screen Actors Guild, and the ONLY U.S. President who was a union member, said, "...the most elemental of human rights - the right to belong to a free trade union." I'm reminding Republicans of this? I never even liked unions who forced dues from my wallet without my say. But the more I look at this blatant attempt to add a "union buster" notch to the old campaign belt with no regard for the stated purpose of the bill (saving the state money), the more I think Kasich, Faber, and their gang are snakes who have no idea what they're doing in Columbus other than making sure they and their friends stay rich at our expense.
The Unites States of America is a union. A union is nothing more than a group of people organized for a common purpose. If Governor Kasich can't negotiate with Ohio's public employee unions, let's repeal both him and his SB 5 and find someone who can. Let's not support his childish efforts to "show them!" Seriously, it's as if SB 5 is his way of taking his ball and going home because he was thrown out by someone's little sister at 1st base.
Note the confusion of the wording and response to the issue. First, the issue is a repeal of an existing law. One would think voting yes on a repeal would do away with the law in question, but Kasich's Secretary of State ensured the ballot language ends up just the opposite of this logical assumption.
The first line in the summary on the state's page is purposely strange as well: Permits public employers to NOT bargain. How to you permit someone to not do something. Why not just say "prohibits?" Well, that's because no one on the side of 2 is willing to come out and say it prohibits collective bargaining, but that's exactly what it does.
It seems like every attempt is being made to deceive Ohioans as to what the issue is actually about. Perhaps that's because supporters know that SB 5 - the law repealed by a NO vote on Issue 2 (that's clear, right?) - is doomed. An overwhelming number of petition signatures to put the issue on the ballot were collected. The handful of supporters reads like the handful of people who have continued to get rich as our recession roller coaster begins it's second dip. It appears to be less than 1% of our population.
Faber also argued that one good reason to support Issue 2 is because taxpayers don't want unelected officials (union bosses) telling public employers what they have to pay their employees. And yet, what the law provides for is a panel of 12 folks, none of whom were elected, to determine benefit and compensation packages for teachers and other public employees. So the law codifies exactly what Faber says taxpayers don't want. That's a strange way to win support.
Reminds me of a slew of Ohio governors who gradually did away with Ohio's former elected state school board and replaced them with governor-appointed "education experts." This began back when the first lawsuit claiming Ohio's public school funding system was unconstitutional was won. (A decision supported by the Ohio Supreme Court but largely ignored by every governor since except Strickland, who inherited Taft's deficits and this recession and was thus powerless to really address the issue).
In addition to the sneaky language, the common sense appeal of the opposition, and the support across the state to repeal the bill, there are plenty of other reasons to hate SB 5. Although Faber flat out stated that passage of 2 would just as likely INCREASE public employee salaries, it's somehow going to save the state money.
The money it's going to save comes from RAISING the salaries of 360,000 public employees?? Of course not. Those salaries will have to be cut in order for the bill to save money, OR the number of employees will have to be cut. Does your police or fire department have a bunch of extra guys sitting around all day? Does your high school have way too many teachers? Do they all drive Ferraris off duty? Even if we do cut these salaries, how much do we expect to save? And wouldn't any savings be offset by the cuts in personal spending these laid off or demoted employees have to implement at home? Well, probably not, since these personal budgets are probably already scaled back to levels Gov. Kasich can't even fathom. There's not a lot to scale back when you can only afford the staples to begin with, and let's face it, police, firefighters, teachers et al aren't exactly going to be cutting out a new yacht this season in order to scale back. Just as a flat tax benefits only the rich, SB 5 hurts MOST Ohioans.
C'mon people. SB 5 was railroaded through to begin with by a bunch of idiots we put in office for no better reason than because we were pissed at their collective ineptitude to begin with. SB 5 slithering through the Ohio Legislature is the result of our voting pissed at the last mid-term. Let's not make this mistake again.
Destroy Issue 2 in November, then send Kasich back to Wall Street, and let's try to elect a Governor who's more concerned with actually leading Ohio than he (or she) is with scoring partisan points and keeping his circle of friends rich at every Ohioan's expense.
Supporters of SB 5 and Issue 2 don't give a damn about saving the state money. They seek only the political victory of breaking up the state's public employee unions. If they are successful, they'll turn all state jobs into dead end positions no one ever wants. You think our roads are bad now? You think your county office provides poor customer service now? Just wait. The only plan this gang has for saving Ohio any money is by selling off all of Ohio's valuable assets: the lottery, the turnpike. So what do we do in the next term when we don't have anything left to sell? And if these things can be run so profitably by private owners, why can't the Governor make them profitable for the state? Is it because we Ohioans don't deserve the profit like Kasich's old colleagues from Lehman Bros?
Support the folks who run in while the rest of us run out. At least let them continue to have a say in their working conditions, salary, and benefits packages. And if you're one of those folks who thinks teachers and other state employees have life soooooo great, then become one, and VOTE NO on Issue 2.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
My kingdom for a legitimate Republican candidate
No seriously. A little competition keeps everybody on their toes, and right now, Obama's got none. I've already bemoaned how far right the center has drifted, at least as portrayed by our "liberal media," but let's face it, if they were liberal, people like Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Tim Pawlenty wouldn't even be mentioned in the same story as serious contenders that any real number of Americans might vote for.
The also-rans in this pool pretty much weeded themselves out at last night's debate, but what gets me is how do we continue to let people like Bachmann and Perry remain in this race? They’re fringe candidates at best. They are ULTRA-right. Does anyone actually believe any ULTRA candidate is electable? Why are they being coddled when Ron Paul – who, by the way, has thus far remained the ONLY candidate who has refused to sell his soul to the Party – is all but ignored?
I want to like John Huntsman. He at least appears to have some critical thinking ability, but I can't help but wonder if I only think that because we don't really know him yet, or because he hasn't garnered enough of his party's attention to be forced to accept their ridiculous anti-science, anti-American ideas just yet.
Romney has sold out. I used to like him too but now I'm not sure what he even believes anymore. He works to create a workable healthcare plan in Massachusetts, and then he says it can’t work anywhere else. He used to have a pretty logical approach to abortion, but he traded it for party support. But, hey, before we get too far into the scary parts of my head, let's discuss Perry and Bachmann some more.
I have pretty sound reasons for why I think they shouldn't be considered as even remote possibilities for president. And when I say that, I don't just mean because I don't like them...I don't just mean because they're Republicans. It's really because every time they talk, they cause me to question their critical thinking skills more and more. The crap they spew is just plain wrong. Not just wrong for a country as great as ours, not just "I disagree with it," but technically wrong, unsound, irrational wrong, "these-kids-will-flunk-the-Ohio-Graduation-Test" wrong. We’re not just talking campaign rhetoric here, empty promises, lies that play well on the news. We’re talking fundamental thinking ability. Do we really want to elect someone who lacks the ability to think?
Here are just a couple of examples: During last week’s debate, in response to questions about global warming, Perry said, "the science is not settled on this..." There's no way to spin it, there's no missing context. Perry is just flat out wrong. The science is settled. Human factors contributed to the phenomena. The only people who say otherwise don’t understand science, and the only people who listen to them are folks who have turned off their ability to think in order to hear what they want to hear from a politician on a campaign trail.
Here's what “the science community” as represented by the US National Academy of Sciences has to say about global warming: "Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
Is there anything about that statement that sounds even remotely unsettled? No. This is what the SCIENTISTS are saying, as a group. The only folks who dispute it are politicians who not only lack a scientific background, but who, apparently, aren’t even familiar with the concept of science, the scientific method, or who understand the most basic premise of seeking evidence and forming sound conclusions.
Perry and company often point out that this science, much like the science of evolution, is only "theory," much like Einstein's THEORY of relativity, on which our entire nuclear weapons and energy programs are based... or Newton's THEORY of gravitational forces, or Copernicus's THEORY that the Earth actually revolves around the sun, later supported by Galileo. Speaking of Galileo, when asked which scientists Perry has been listening to he couldn't name one (like Sarah Palin couldn't name a periodical she actually read), but he noted that Galileo was "outvoted for a spell too" when he first embraced heliocentrism. Again, Perry’s lack of critical thinking skills (or lack of an 8th grade education??), or at least his inability to construct a logical argument based on any historical reality becomes blatantly obvious. Galileo wasn't doubted or questioned by the scientific community at all. It was only a powerful, state-like church who questioned his heliocentric discoveries. Perry, standing in against the science of global warming or evolution is like Pope Urban VIII abandoning his friendship with Galileo and supporting the heresy proceedings against him. So... Perry is wrong on two counts in just one topic!
I know caving in to "the base" makes for good politics, but accepted scientific theory is not subject to political pandering. At least not among folks who can formulate a thought without it being spoon fed to them. On this, Perry is just plain wrong. And he's so wrong, so publicly and repeatedly, it makes me wonder how I'm supposed to trust that he's rational enough to man the nuclear arsenal, deploy our military, or spend the nation’s money. Critical thinking skills don't just suddenly flitter in and out of a person's head. He either has them or he doesn't, and based on his stated beliefs in this matter - a matter not subject to anyone's beliefs - he doesn't. So how is it he's still leading the polls? Is someone incapable of critical thought actually electable in 2012? Has the right allowed their hatred of President Obama to completely blind them to rational thought?
And then there's Michele Bachmann. We don't even need wade into the murky waters of science or faith, unless you count statistics as science. She opened up a whole new line of uncritical thinking in her response to President Obama's address last Thursday. As is generally the case, information she speaks as though it were fact, comes up lacking when compared with the world around her. http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201101250021
First she blamed Obama and the Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the loss of over 10 million jobs. The problem with this is that close to 8 million of the 10 million jobs were lost BEFORE RRA was enacted.. meaning before Obama had been in office for 6 months… meaning as a result of W-era policy.
You can cry “how much longer will be blame W” all you want, but the recession began in Dec. 2007 – directly on the heels of eight straight years of spend and spend plus unfunded war W policy. Since that time, the first hint of job growth didn’t come until December of 2009 (per BLS data) right after guess what happened? That’s right, the RRA – an Obama move. Stimulus spending. And it worked, until the just say no congress prevented expanding it.
But hey, this is about Michele Bachmann. Another of her claims is, “In the end, unless we fully repeal Obama Care, a nation that currently enjoys the world's best healthcare may be forced to rely on government-run coverage that will have a devastating impact on our national debt for generations to come.” That’s what she said. What the Affordable Healthcare Law actually says is that there is none/ will be no government run care. (Perhaps Ms. Bachmann should read what she wants to repeal). What she calls Obama Care simply requires all Americans to carry health insurance, or pay their share of what health insurance costs the rest of us to cover them when they don’t buy insurance. Kind of like we do with auto insurance. Do you have government run auto insurance? Me neither. And guess what, the insurance in the Affordable Healthcare Act is provided by private companies to pay for medical care provided by private, non-government providers. So, either Ms. Bachmann really doesn’t understand the policy she’s condemning as part of her platform, she’s comfortable misrepresenting it in order to forward her status, or she’s an idiot who thinks we’re all idiots too. She got a couple other significant facts about the Affordable Healthcare Act wrong as well – the legality of selling insurance across state lines…I could go on, but I believe we’ve made our point.
Fact is, I was disappointed in the Affordable Healthcare Law precisely because it does NOT call for government run healthcare. Some of the most effective, affordable healthcare in the country is government run. Just ask our current military who enjoy Tri-Care, or our veterans who qualify for VA care. Both boast the highest customer and employee satisfaction of any major provider, and both have kept costs around 2/3 of what you or I pay for healthcare in the free market. I personally feel the lack of public healthcare in the world’s richest, most innovative nation is kind of embarrassing. I can’t believe more Americans aren’t also embarrassed by that. I digress. Back to Ms. Bachmann…
When she says the “world’s best healthcare,” one can only assume she means the world’s most expensive healthcare, since that’s the only category wherein the U.S. leads the rest of the world. We don’t live longer, we don’t have fewer terminal diseases, accidents – especially medical accidents!, etc. and so on. We’re 24th in life expectancy, behind the notably safe haven, Israel, according the World Health Organization’s latest rankings. Overall, we’re 37th, behind such powerhouses as Malta, Ireland, and Oman… and 33 other countries, most of whom have that dreaded “socialized medicine” stuff… including Norway, which also boasts the most entrepreneurs as a percentage of population. How could this be? Well, entrepreneurs in Norway say it’s because they don’t stay tied to dead-end, unproductive jobs in order to keep from going bankrupt worrying about their healthcare costs. They take chances, start up new businesses. What a concept. So, “best healthcare?” Unless she’s talking strictly about our government programs, she’s just plain wrong. 37th isn’t best. 24th isn’t best. Like her friend, Gov. Perry, wrong on several aspects of just one topic.
One more for good measure before we wrap this up: corporate tax rates. Ms. Bachmann not only blamed Obama for this, but claims (wrongly, duh) that he wants to make it worse. Here’s what she said: “America will have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.” Turns out, not so much. Germany, the soundest economy in Europe right now, has higher corporate tax rates than America, as do several other industrialized European countries. Know who doesn’t? Greece. See how low corporate tax rates are working for them? (kidding… I don’t have a problem with lower corporate tax rates as long as corporations actually pay taxes). On that note, here’s what he said (and by “he” I mean President Obama) “I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years- without adding to our deficit.” Hmmm… lower the rate for the first time in 25 years, eh? So that puts us back through 8 years of W (our corporate rates must have been cool then), 8 years of Clinton (can’t believe our rates were cool then according to Ms. Bachmann, and even 9 years back into HW and Pappy Reagan. So Obama is the first president since REAGAN to propose LOWERING the corporate tax rate? And what was it that Ms. Bachmann (and lots of folks on Fox said again?) Oh yeah, it was “America will have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.” I’m not even sure what to say about her interpretation of this except to say, she’s wrong. Plain wrong.
So if keeping track of simple facts is a quality you want in your next president, and if you’d like him or her to be able to put together a solid, logical, evidence-based premise or idea, then please join me in pressuring the Republicans to pay a little more attention to John Huntsman… or pull Colin Powell or Jack Kemp out of retirement… or something.
The candidates they’ve tossed out so far make me suspect there’s some Left Wing Conspiracy afoot that has the Democrats secretly choosing Republican candidates to ensure another Obama victory! (which, for the record, wouldn't be all that bad now that he seems to have found his er, um, his drive again)
Luth
Out
The also-rans in this pool pretty much weeded themselves out at last night's debate, but what gets me is how do we continue to let people like Bachmann and Perry remain in this race? They’re fringe candidates at best. They are ULTRA-right. Does anyone actually believe any ULTRA candidate is electable? Why are they being coddled when Ron Paul – who, by the way, has thus far remained the ONLY candidate who has refused to sell his soul to the Party – is all but ignored?
I want to like John Huntsman. He at least appears to have some critical thinking ability, but I can't help but wonder if I only think that because we don't really know him yet, or because he hasn't garnered enough of his party's attention to be forced to accept their ridiculous anti-science, anti-American ideas just yet.
Romney has sold out. I used to like him too but now I'm not sure what he even believes anymore. He works to create a workable healthcare plan in Massachusetts, and then he says it can’t work anywhere else. He used to have a pretty logical approach to abortion, but he traded it for party support. But, hey, before we get too far into the scary parts of my head, let's discuss Perry and Bachmann some more.
I have pretty sound reasons for why I think they shouldn't be considered as even remote possibilities for president. And when I say that, I don't just mean because I don't like them...I don't just mean because they're Republicans. It's really because every time they talk, they cause me to question their critical thinking skills more and more. The crap they spew is just plain wrong. Not just wrong for a country as great as ours, not just "I disagree with it," but technically wrong, unsound, irrational wrong, "these-kids-will-flunk-the-Ohio-Graduation-Test" wrong. We’re not just talking campaign rhetoric here, empty promises, lies that play well on the news. We’re talking fundamental thinking ability. Do we really want to elect someone who lacks the ability to think?
Here are just a couple of examples: During last week’s debate, in response to questions about global warming, Perry said, "the science is not settled on this..." There's no way to spin it, there's no missing context. Perry is just flat out wrong. The science is settled. Human factors contributed to the phenomena. The only people who say otherwise don’t understand science, and the only people who listen to them are folks who have turned off their ability to think in order to hear what they want to hear from a politician on a campaign trail.
Here's what “the science community” as represented by the US National Academy of Sciences has to say about global warming: "Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
Is there anything about that statement that sounds even remotely unsettled? No. This is what the SCIENTISTS are saying, as a group. The only folks who dispute it are politicians who not only lack a scientific background, but who, apparently, aren’t even familiar with the concept of science, the scientific method, or who understand the most basic premise of seeking evidence and forming sound conclusions.
Perry and company often point out that this science, much like the science of evolution, is only "theory," much like Einstein's THEORY of relativity, on which our entire nuclear weapons and energy programs are based... or Newton's THEORY of gravitational forces, or Copernicus's THEORY that the Earth actually revolves around the sun, later supported by Galileo. Speaking of Galileo, when asked which scientists Perry has been listening to he couldn't name one (like Sarah Palin couldn't name a periodical she actually read), but he noted that Galileo was "outvoted for a spell too" when he first embraced heliocentrism. Again, Perry’s lack of critical thinking skills (or lack of an 8th grade education??), or at least his inability to construct a logical argument based on any historical reality becomes blatantly obvious. Galileo wasn't doubted or questioned by the scientific community at all. It was only a powerful, state-like church who questioned his heliocentric discoveries. Perry, standing in against the science of global warming or evolution is like Pope Urban VIII abandoning his friendship with Galileo and supporting the heresy proceedings against him. So... Perry is wrong on two counts in just one topic!
I know caving in to "the base" makes for good politics, but accepted scientific theory is not subject to political pandering. At least not among folks who can formulate a thought without it being spoon fed to them. On this, Perry is just plain wrong. And he's so wrong, so publicly and repeatedly, it makes me wonder how I'm supposed to trust that he's rational enough to man the nuclear arsenal, deploy our military, or spend the nation’s money. Critical thinking skills don't just suddenly flitter in and out of a person's head. He either has them or he doesn't, and based on his stated beliefs in this matter - a matter not subject to anyone's beliefs - he doesn't. So how is it he's still leading the polls? Is someone incapable of critical thought actually electable in 2012? Has the right allowed their hatred of President Obama to completely blind them to rational thought?
And then there's Michele Bachmann. We don't even need wade into the murky waters of science or faith, unless you count statistics as science. She opened up a whole new line of uncritical thinking in her response to President Obama's address last Thursday. As is generally the case, information she speaks as though it were fact, comes up lacking when compared with the world around her. http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201101250021
First she blamed Obama and the Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the loss of over 10 million jobs. The problem with this is that close to 8 million of the 10 million jobs were lost BEFORE RRA was enacted.. meaning before Obama had been in office for 6 months… meaning as a result of W-era policy.
You can cry “how much longer will be blame W” all you want, but the recession began in Dec. 2007 – directly on the heels of eight straight years of spend and spend plus unfunded war W policy. Since that time, the first hint of job growth didn’t come until December of 2009 (per BLS data) right after guess what happened? That’s right, the RRA – an Obama move. Stimulus spending. And it worked, until the just say no congress prevented expanding it.
But hey, this is about Michele Bachmann. Another of her claims is, “In the end, unless we fully repeal Obama Care, a nation that currently enjoys the world's best healthcare may be forced to rely on government-run coverage that will have a devastating impact on our national debt for generations to come.” That’s what she said. What the Affordable Healthcare Law actually says is that there is none/ will be no government run care. (Perhaps Ms. Bachmann should read what she wants to repeal). What she calls Obama Care simply requires all Americans to carry health insurance, or pay their share of what health insurance costs the rest of us to cover them when they don’t buy insurance. Kind of like we do with auto insurance. Do you have government run auto insurance? Me neither. And guess what, the insurance in the Affordable Healthcare Act is provided by private companies to pay for medical care provided by private, non-government providers. So, either Ms. Bachmann really doesn’t understand the policy she’s condemning as part of her platform, she’s comfortable misrepresenting it in order to forward her status, or she’s an idiot who thinks we’re all idiots too. She got a couple other significant facts about the Affordable Healthcare Act wrong as well – the legality of selling insurance across state lines…I could go on, but I believe we’ve made our point.
Fact is, I was disappointed in the Affordable Healthcare Law precisely because it does NOT call for government run healthcare. Some of the most effective, affordable healthcare in the country is government run. Just ask our current military who enjoy Tri-Care, or our veterans who qualify for VA care. Both boast the highest customer and employee satisfaction of any major provider, and both have kept costs around 2/3 of what you or I pay for healthcare in the free market. I personally feel the lack of public healthcare in the world’s richest, most innovative nation is kind of embarrassing. I can’t believe more Americans aren’t also embarrassed by that. I digress. Back to Ms. Bachmann…
When she says the “world’s best healthcare,” one can only assume she means the world’s most expensive healthcare, since that’s the only category wherein the U.S. leads the rest of the world. We don’t live longer, we don’t have fewer terminal diseases, accidents – especially medical accidents!, etc. and so on. We’re 24th in life expectancy, behind the notably safe haven, Israel, according the World Health Organization’s latest rankings. Overall, we’re 37th, behind such powerhouses as Malta, Ireland, and Oman… and 33 other countries, most of whom have that dreaded “socialized medicine” stuff… including Norway, which also boasts the most entrepreneurs as a percentage of population. How could this be? Well, entrepreneurs in Norway say it’s because they don’t stay tied to dead-end, unproductive jobs in order to keep from going bankrupt worrying about their healthcare costs. They take chances, start up new businesses. What a concept. So, “best healthcare?” Unless she’s talking strictly about our government programs, she’s just plain wrong. 37th isn’t best. 24th isn’t best. Like her friend, Gov. Perry, wrong on several aspects of just one topic.
One more for good measure before we wrap this up: corporate tax rates. Ms. Bachmann not only blamed Obama for this, but claims (wrongly, duh) that he wants to make it worse. Here’s what she said: “America will have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.” Turns out, not so much. Germany, the soundest economy in Europe right now, has higher corporate tax rates than America, as do several other industrialized European countries. Know who doesn’t? Greece. See how low corporate tax rates are working for them? (kidding… I don’t have a problem with lower corporate tax rates as long as corporations actually pay taxes). On that note, here’s what he said (and by “he” I mean President Obama) “I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years- without adding to our deficit.” Hmmm… lower the rate for the first time in 25 years, eh? So that puts us back through 8 years of W (our corporate rates must have been cool then), 8 years of Clinton (can’t believe our rates were cool then according to Ms. Bachmann, and even 9 years back into HW and Pappy Reagan. So Obama is the first president since REAGAN to propose LOWERING the corporate tax rate? And what was it that Ms. Bachmann (and lots of folks on Fox said again?) Oh yeah, it was “America will have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.” I’m not even sure what to say about her interpretation of this except to say, she’s wrong. Plain wrong.
So if keeping track of simple facts is a quality you want in your next president, and if you’d like him or her to be able to put together a solid, logical, evidence-based premise or idea, then please join me in pressuring the Republicans to pay a little more attention to John Huntsman… or pull Colin Powell or Jack Kemp out of retirement… or something.
The candidates they’ve tossed out so far make me suspect there’s some Left Wing Conspiracy afoot that has the Democrats secretly choosing Republican candidates to ensure another Obama victory! (which, for the record, wouldn't be all that bad now that he seems to have found his er, um, his drive again)
Luth
Out
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Is there such thing as a middle-wing conspiracy theory?
Remember a while back when Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was gunned down for speaking in public and there was a calm, rational discussion about right-wing hate speech possibly being connected to actual violence? And remember how Rush and Glenn and Bill and their buds all told us how ridiculous this was? Perhaps you even remember them explaining how preposterous it was to allow the actions of a few unstable radicals to represent an entire group?
Anyhoo, the list below kind of disagrees. It even kind of suggests maybe some of us wacko lefties may have been on to something when we surmised that the violent talk (even if only metaphorical) that the right had publicly inundated us with since President Obama first proved a viable presidential candidate, might actually coincide with real violence.
Once again, I said "coincide" not directly cause, but again, the growing list of violence on our own soil shows more than a casual correlation with right wing beliefs.
To be clear, this is not the kind of thing that keeps me up at night. It hit me over the head as I read Charles Pierce's recent article about fragmentation - both the kind that ends up as shrapnel and the kind that sends people running to their own little corner of the internet to find those fragments of society who agree with them when no one else will... and when no one else should. Pierce also suggests that we are ALL political, but rather than facing up to the challenges, responsibilities, and privileges that entails, we'd rather just stick our heads in our own ostrich holes and claim we're not political. "Awww Spongebob... I hate politics. Can't we just talk about something else?" But whether you only enjoy the most local level of politics i.e. the gossip at the local barber shop, or you truly enjoy reading crap like this, if you are human, rest assured, you are a political animal. You have no choice.
So, having cleared that up, back to the point, which is that since well before 9/11, there has in fact been a string of domestic terrorism in this country - Pierce notes that a school was bombed in Michigan in 1927 because, according the bomber, "his taxes were too high" - that by the perpetrator's own admission, is strictly right wing in impetus.
I know you think I'm just pulling this out of my rear, as I occasionally enjoy doing in less serious conversations, but look at the list... a list from another article by David Neiwert, a Spokane Washington based journalist and blogger who is clearly a left-wing nut job... because he collected this stuff into one place... which means, regardless of the police reports that verify all as fact, that he can't be trusted because he compiled the collection and dared to suggest it it might lead to a rather clear conclusion... but before we get into that, the list:
-- July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how "liberals" are "destroying America," walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.
-- October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.
-- December 2008: A pair of "Patriot" movement radicals -- the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted "to attack the political infrastructure" -- threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime.
-- December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear "dirty bomb" in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb during Obama's inauguration.
-- January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.
-- February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.
-- February 2009: A 60-year-old former Republican Party campaign volunteer opens fire on a gathering of Chilean exchange students in an apartment complex in Miramar Beach, Fla., after telling a neighbor he wanted to start a "revolution" against Latino immigrants.
-- April 2009: A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial.
-- April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama's purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police.
-- May 2009: A "sovereign citizen" named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.
-- June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.
-- February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one "domestic terrorism" too.)
-- March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war... to protest the current liberal government.
-- March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead.
-- May 2010: A "sovereign citizen" from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse. (note the frequency with which these Sovereign Citizens appear on this list! (they sure as hell ain't a liberal group)
-- May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.
-- May 2010: Two "sovereign citizens" named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed. (because Obama was coming to take their guns.. their words, not mine)
-- July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded.
-- September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year--old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the "Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.
-- January 2011: A 22-year-old gunman named Jared Lee Loughner with a long grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and a paranoid hatred of the government walks into a public Giffords event and shoots her in the head, then keeps firing, killing six people and wounding 14 more. Gifford miraculously survives.
-- January 2011: A backpack bomb with the potential of killing or injuring dozens of people is found along the route of a Martin Luther King Day “unity march” in downtown Spokane.***prevented from detonating and injuring hundreds by overpaid, inefficient PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
-- January 31, 2011: An Army veteran from California with a previous arrest record for making threats against President Bush is arrested for making terrorist outside a mosque in Michigan inside a car whose trunk was filled with Class C explosives. (be it anti-Bush or anti-Obama, anti-government is a RIGHT wing tenet)
-- March 2011: Five people in the Fairbanks area are arrested on charges of plotting to kidnap or kill state troopers and a Fairbanks judge. All five are self-proclaimed "sovereign citizens," including local militia leader Schaeffer Cox.
-- March 2011: A man from Madera, CA, named Donny Eugene Mower is arrested for the firebombing of a Planned Parenthood clinic and the vandalization of a local Islamic religious center. The crimes were committed in the name of Mower's one-man hate group, the American Nationalist Brotherhood. His 'manifesto' asked: 'Isn't it time that someone hit back?'
The list is straight from Niewert's blog "Crooks and Liars." It even has a groovy, interactive map with little "pins" located where each of these incidents took place. You can click on the pins and they'll take you to more details (and sometimes fun commentary) about the incidents. Here's a link to the map:
So, what does it mean when someone says "Left wing conspiracy theory?" Does it suggest that the left is dreaming up a conspiracy where none exists? Or does it mean that the left is conspiring against the government, the right, someone else? It's one of those labels that's kind of hard to pin down... hard to know what the person saying it really means.
While I'm asking questions, do you remember hearing about any of these stories? Or did they simply get fragmented away as isolated incidents with no possible connecting thread? Let's face it, when it's possibly a Muslim activity, our press is getting very good and keeping it in the news for weeks on end. When a story has to do with an arbitrary concept like a debt ceiling and how Congressional Republicans will spare us from disaster, our press will float it as though the Earth's viability rests on it, but what did our press do with these stories? Seems like they kind of just died quickly and were forgotten as isolated incidents. How is that even possible, unless, of course, the press bends over backwards to appeal to the right... and the Whitehouse bends over backwards to appeal to the right, and this whole myth about a "liberal media" is truly that: myth. WTF? And don't even get me started on Obama's willingness to kiss the Right's ass lately...that's another whole post!
One thing is pretty clear though, the side of the division where the above list began is right. I am open to evidence to the contrary, but there doesn't seem to be a list of leftist inspired violence since 2008 that even comes close to this. And I'm not saying anyone is formally in charge of "the right" and is orchestrating each of these hits. No, I'm not saying that at all. It's clearly a lot more like Al Quaeda... with independent cells, purposely cut off from each other, and from those higher up the chain, to prevent the lower agents from knowing too much about the upper ones. Just like Al Quaeda, occasional videos are released with generic orders and motivational propaganda like a pep rally for the minions. Only instead of occasionally showing up in Al Jazeera's mailbox, we get to see the videos on Fox... or hear them on AM radio, but the motivational speech and the de facto connectivity of these cells is as unmistakable as the network Al Quaeda has built and uses to terrorize infidels.
Pierce goes on to point out in his article that we are a nation of folks who would rather ignore the monster we've created, retreat to our fragmented safe places, and hear the praise of those who think like us, than ask the questions to which we're afraid of the answers, or, worse yet, to face up to what we've built out of these fragments.
I guess I kind of agree with Pierce's analysis but only on an individual level. On a national level, I believe that a middle still exists... that moderates still hold the middle of the bell curve that is our national thinking. In fact, I still believe Obama could represent that middle of the bell better than any of our modern presidents if only we'd all enter the discussion as responsible, rational adults as opposed to used car salesmen and low-balling buyers who represent the looong tail of the bell... the 1% that rightfully should get ignored, but instead have taken over the media forcing the rational moderates among us off to our little fragments.
Those of us who used to reside comfortably on the sides or even smack at the top of that bell curve need to come out from our fragments and demand that the conversation stay somewhere near the middle... where the adults used to converse and compromise. It's great to acknowledge, and occasionally even borrow from some of those wackos on the looong tails of the bell once in a while, but it's time to stop letting them dominate the conversations, the headlines, and stop pretending that everything they say is a valid idea.
If Obama has failed at anything, it's keeping those long tails in check. Granted, he's not solely to blame. The Fox and AM radio crowd have set up the tilted table for this failure since way before anyone even heard of Obama. Truth be told, I kind of admired Obama for his reluctance to stoop the their level, but I am becoming of the opinion that he's allowed way too much leeway for the radical right's agenda to be portrayed as legitimate. As such, he's given away his bargaining power UNLESS he comes at them with equally ridiculous and radical low-ball-like counter-proposals. If he does this, he BECOMES the wacko AM radio and the people on that list up above falsely claim that he is. But if he doesn't, he's assuming that the facts and logic will prevail, and look where that got Jimmy Carter. (How ridiculous was Carter for assuming Americans dealing with an oil embargo might see the logic in alternative energy sources??)
The hate speech and oversimplified ILlogic spewed by AM radio somehow convinced us that our press was biased toward the left... so much so that any connection of the long list of right-inspired domestic terrorism above can't possibly exist... so much so that our press actually started believing it until they bent over backwards to avoid the falsely applied label... so much so that they refused to even hint at a connection among the items on that list... or Oklahoma City... or the 1927 Michigan school bombing. So much so that even as T. Boone Pickens begins to recognize the profitability of alternative energy, that he is magically transformed into a treehugger for pointing out that he does it for the money! So much so that NO ONE mentioned how many times it was simply the routine of Congress to lift the debt ceiling in the past... well, no one but Jon Stewart, until very recently... months into the "debate."
Still don't believe we've swung way too far to the right? Then how else do we explain how every viable Republican candidate who dares venture into the race gets clipped for having a rational, moderate belief until they're all rendered so bland and generic that they drop out or they adapt to the ultra-right, and leave us actually considering people like Michele Bachmann or Sara Palin or Emanuel Cleaver as viable candidates? Seriously... HTF do these people even get mentioned in the same arena as John Kerry or Bob Dole or Clinton or Reagan???
It's time we all forget the fragments and force the conversation back to the middle. Our compass has been thrown WAY TF off, but not by a "liberal media."
This argument HAS to move back to the middle. All of our nation's arguments HAVE to move back to the middle. Congress gets paid to compromise, not stand off. That's what politicians do, and make no mistake, we're ALL politicians. How about this: instead of allowing "re-elect NO ONE" to be the theme of the next elections (after all, it didn't exactly work out last time) let's go with a theme of electing only those candidates who admit that they are in fact politicians. Cuz the surest way to know they're lying is when they speak and claim they're not. Perhaps then we can pull off the blinders, recognize the obvious connections among the listed violence above, and stand together, in the middle, against it. Fear mongers need the kind of fear these events inspire in order to force the conversation away from the middle. Let's leave the fear mongering to Al Quaeda. Then let's get back to work proving that this majestic empire is NOT ready to fall just yet. If that's gonna happen, it's gonna happen somewhere in the middle.
You can call folks in the middle fence riders. You can spout cliches about how traffic doesn't move in the middle, and you can pretend what we've done in the past 10 years or so has been great for all involved, but if you're honest, you know it hasn't been working. Let's meet somewhere a little closer to where the middle used to be and start fixing it.
Luth
Out
Anyhoo, the list below kind of disagrees. It even kind of suggests maybe some of us wacko lefties may have been on to something when we surmised that the violent talk (even if only metaphorical) that the right had publicly inundated us with since President Obama first proved a viable presidential candidate, might actually coincide with real violence.
Once again, I said "coincide" not directly cause, but again, the growing list of violence on our own soil shows more than a casual correlation with right wing beliefs.
To be clear, this is not the kind of thing that keeps me up at night. It hit me over the head as I read Charles Pierce's recent article about fragmentation - both the kind that ends up as shrapnel and the kind that sends people running to their own little corner of the internet to find those fragments of society who agree with them when no one else will... and when no one else should. Pierce also suggests that we are ALL political, but rather than facing up to the challenges, responsibilities, and privileges that entails, we'd rather just stick our heads in our own ostrich holes and claim we're not political. "Awww Spongebob... I hate politics. Can't we just talk about something else?" But whether you only enjoy the most local level of politics i.e. the gossip at the local barber shop, or you truly enjoy reading crap like this, if you are human, rest assured, you are a political animal. You have no choice.
So, having cleared that up, back to the point, which is that since well before 9/11, there has in fact been a string of domestic terrorism in this country - Pierce notes that a school was bombed in Michigan in 1927 because, according the bomber, "his taxes were too high" - that by the perpetrator's own admission, is strictly right wing in impetus.
I know you think I'm just pulling this out of my rear, as I occasionally enjoy doing in less serious conversations, but look at the list... a list from another article by David Neiwert, a Spokane Washington based journalist and blogger who is clearly a left-wing nut job... because he collected this stuff into one place... which means, regardless of the police reports that verify all as fact, that he can't be trusted because he compiled the collection and dared to suggest it it might lead to a rather clear conclusion... but before we get into that, the list:
-- July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how "liberals" are "destroying America," walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.
-- October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.
-- December 2008: A pair of "Patriot" movement radicals -- the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted "to attack the political infrastructure" -- threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime.
-- December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear "dirty bomb" in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb during Obama's inauguration.
-- January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.
-- February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.
-- February 2009: A 60-year-old former Republican Party campaign volunteer opens fire on a gathering of Chilean exchange students in an apartment complex in Miramar Beach, Fla., after telling a neighbor he wanted to start a "revolution" against Latino immigrants.
-- April 2009: A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial.
-- April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama's purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police.
-- May 2009: A "sovereign citizen" named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.
-- June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.
-- February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one "domestic terrorism" too.)
-- March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war... to protest the current liberal government.
-- March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead.
-- May 2010: A "sovereign citizen" from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse. (note the frequency with which these Sovereign Citizens appear on this list! (they sure as hell ain't a liberal group)
-- May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.
-- May 2010: Two "sovereign citizens" named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed. (because Obama was coming to take their guns.. their words, not mine)
-- July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded.
-- September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year--old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the "Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.
-- January 2011: A 22-year-old gunman named Jared Lee Loughner with a long grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and a paranoid hatred of the government walks into a public Giffords event and shoots her in the head, then keeps firing, killing six people and wounding 14 more. Gifford miraculously survives.
-- January 2011: A backpack bomb with the potential of killing or injuring dozens of people is found along the route of a Martin Luther King Day “unity march” in downtown Spokane.***prevented from detonating and injuring hundreds by overpaid, inefficient PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
-- January 31, 2011: An Army veteran from California with a previous arrest record for making threats against President Bush is arrested for making terrorist outside a mosque in Michigan inside a car whose trunk was filled with Class C explosives. (be it anti-Bush or anti-Obama, anti-government is a RIGHT wing tenet)
-- March 2011: Five people in the Fairbanks area are arrested on charges of plotting to kidnap or kill state troopers and a Fairbanks judge. All five are self-proclaimed "sovereign citizens," including local militia leader Schaeffer Cox.
-- March 2011: A man from Madera, CA, named Donny Eugene Mower is arrested for the firebombing of a Planned Parenthood clinic and the vandalization of a local Islamic religious center. The crimes were committed in the name of Mower's one-man hate group, the American Nationalist Brotherhood. His 'manifesto' asked: 'Isn't it time that someone hit back?'
The list is straight from Niewert's blog "Crooks and Liars." It even has a groovy, interactive map with little "pins" located where each of these incidents took place. You can click on the pins and they'll take you to more details (and sometimes fun commentary) about the incidents. Here's a link to the map:
So, what does it mean when someone says "Left wing conspiracy theory?" Does it suggest that the left is dreaming up a conspiracy where none exists? Or does it mean that the left is conspiring against the government, the right, someone else? It's one of those labels that's kind of hard to pin down... hard to know what the person saying it really means.
While I'm asking questions, do you remember hearing about any of these stories? Or did they simply get fragmented away as isolated incidents with no possible connecting thread? Let's face it, when it's possibly a Muslim activity, our press is getting very good and keeping it in the news for weeks on end. When a story has to do with an arbitrary concept like a debt ceiling and how Congressional Republicans will spare us from disaster, our press will float it as though the Earth's viability rests on it, but what did our press do with these stories? Seems like they kind of just died quickly and were forgotten as isolated incidents. How is that even possible, unless, of course, the press bends over backwards to appeal to the right... and the Whitehouse bends over backwards to appeal to the right, and this whole myth about a "liberal media" is truly that: myth. WTF? And don't even get me started on Obama's willingness to kiss the Right's ass lately...that's another whole post!
One thing is pretty clear though, the side of the division where the above list began is right. I am open to evidence to the contrary, but there doesn't seem to be a list of leftist inspired violence since 2008 that even comes close to this. And I'm not saying anyone is formally in charge of "the right" and is orchestrating each of these hits. No, I'm not saying that at all. It's clearly a lot more like Al Quaeda... with independent cells, purposely cut off from each other, and from those higher up the chain, to prevent the lower agents from knowing too much about the upper ones. Just like Al Quaeda, occasional videos are released with generic orders and motivational propaganda like a pep rally for the minions. Only instead of occasionally showing up in Al Jazeera's mailbox, we get to see the videos on Fox... or hear them on AM radio, but the motivational speech and the de facto connectivity of these cells is as unmistakable as the network Al Quaeda has built and uses to terrorize infidels.
Pierce goes on to point out in his article that we are a nation of folks who would rather ignore the monster we've created, retreat to our fragmented safe places, and hear the praise of those who think like us, than ask the questions to which we're afraid of the answers, or, worse yet, to face up to what we've built out of these fragments.
I guess I kind of agree with Pierce's analysis but only on an individual level. On a national level, I believe that a middle still exists... that moderates still hold the middle of the bell curve that is our national thinking. In fact, I still believe Obama could represent that middle of the bell better than any of our modern presidents if only we'd all enter the discussion as responsible, rational adults as opposed to used car salesmen and low-balling buyers who represent the looong tail of the bell... the 1% that rightfully should get ignored, but instead have taken over the media forcing the rational moderates among us off to our little fragments.
Those of us who used to reside comfortably on the sides or even smack at the top of that bell curve need to come out from our fragments and demand that the conversation stay somewhere near the middle... where the adults used to converse and compromise. It's great to acknowledge, and occasionally even borrow from some of those wackos on the looong tails of the bell once in a while, but it's time to stop letting them dominate the conversations, the headlines, and stop pretending that everything they say is a valid idea.
If Obama has failed at anything, it's keeping those long tails in check. Granted, he's not solely to blame. The Fox and AM radio crowd have set up the tilted table for this failure since way before anyone even heard of Obama. Truth be told, I kind of admired Obama for his reluctance to stoop the their level, but I am becoming of the opinion that he's allowed way too much leeway for the radical right's agenda to be portrayed as legitimate. As such, he's given away his bargaining power UNLESS he comes at them with equally ridiculous and radical low-ball-like counter-proposals. If he does this, he BECOMES the wacko AM radio and the people on that list up above falsely claim that he is. But if he doesn't, he's assuming that the facts and logic will prevail, and look where that got Jimmy Carter. (How ridiculous was Carter for assuming Americans dealing with an oil embargo might see the logic in alternative energy sources??)
The hate speech and oversimplified ILlogic spewed by AM radio somehow convinced us that our press was biased toward the left... so much so that any connection of the long list of right-inspired domestic terrorism above can't possibly exist... so much so that our press actually started believing it until they bent over backwards to avoid the falsely applied label... so much so that they refused to even hint at a connection among the items on that list... or Oklahoma City... or the 1927 Michigan school bombing. So much so that even as T. Boone Pickens begins to recognize the profitability of alternative energy, that he is magically transformed into a treehugger for pointing out that he does it for the money! So much so that NO ONE mentioned how many times it was simply the routine of Congress to lift the debt ceiling in the past... well, no one but Jon Stewart, until very recently... months into the "debate."
Still don't believe we've swung way too far to the right? Then how else do we explain how every viable Republican candidate who dares venture into the race gets clipped for having a rational, moderate belief until they're all rendered so bland and generic that they drop out or they adapt to the ultra-right, and leave us actually considering people like Michele Bachmann or Sara Palin or Emanuel Cleaver as viable candidates? Seriously... HTF do these people even get mentioned in the same arena as John Kerry or Bob Dole or Clinton or Reagan???
It's time we all forget the fragments and force the conversation back to the middle. Our compass has been thrown WAY TF off, but not by a "liberal media."
This argument HAS to move back to the middle. All of our nation's arguments HAVE to move back to the middle. Congress gets paid to compromise, not stand off. That's what politicians do, and make no mistake, we're ALL politicians. How about this: instead of allowing "re-elect NO ONE" to be the theme of the next elections (after all, it didn't exactly work out last time) let's go with a theme of electing only those candidates who admit that they are in fact politicians. Cuz the surest way to know they're lying is when they speak and claim they're not. Perhaps then we can pull off the blinders, recognize the obvious connections among the listed violence above, and stand together, in the middle, against it. Fear mongers need the kind of fear these events inspire in order to force the conversation away from the middle. Let's leave the fear mongering to Al Quaeda. Then let's get back to work proving that this majestic empire is NOT ready to fall just yet. If that's gonna happen, it's gonna happen somewhere in the middle.
You can call folks in the middle fence riders. You can spout cliches about how traffic doesn't move in the middle, and you can pretend what we've done in the past 10 years or so has been great for all involved, but if you're honest, you know it hasn't been working. Let's meet somewhere a little closer to where the middle used to be and start fixing it.
Luth
Out
Friday, June 24, 2011
A parent´s sacrifice
The wife (Mrs. Poup) and I thought it would be a cool experience for our oldest spawn to do the non-school, and therefore, non-language club trip to France and Spain. (school boards can´t take the risk to even nominally endorse a trip that actually provides some kind of education or meaningful experience these days)
We also thought it would be cool for one of us (me) to go along.
So far we were right. It´s been VERY cool.
So cool, in fact, that I feel kind of guilty for being here.
But I won´t let that stop me from dispelling the BS I´ve heard about France - from, I suspect, people who seem to forget we kind of owe them our independence.
See, here´s the thing: I´m no stranger to world travel. I am quick to enjoy myself, but not to be impressed. I´ve been to London, Port au Prince, Rome, Munich, Baghdad, Kuwait City, Doha, Keflavik, Tegucigulpa, ... I´ve even been to Detroit, LA, Salt Lake City and Ann Arbor (and a bunch of other places - I was just dropping the names of the weird ones) ...and so in the course of my travels I´ve had opportunity to hear all kinds of stories about how weird, dirty, inhospitable, anti-American, overly commercial, and other versions of how shitty France, especially Paris, is as a destination.
And guess what I´ve discovered: not so much.
Granted, a lot of the must-see sites, as is the case in most of Europe, are a tad more religious than I would need them to be, but, also like most of Europe, even those sites represent the amazing ability of humans to overcome and leave something better than they found it.
The fact that these historical sites still exist is proof that WE CAN all just get along... even if many of these sites remind us that we didn´t at some point.
Anyhoo...
Thus far, every day of this trip has been better than the last. We started in Paris (after an overnighter on two planes). Martremont, Sacre Couer, Notre Dame, The Louvre, Eiffel Tower, Seine River Cruise, Sorbonne/Latin Quarter... Two days there was not enough to get more than a taste of it, but the taste was absolutely delicious.
Then it was a train ride to Biarritz. For those of you who have never experienced a train ride in Europe... well, I may as well not even bother trying to describe the beauty of efficient public transportation...clean, comfortable, friendly, cheap... I know... I know, Gov. Kasich is right on: why would Ohioans want anything like that?
Biarritz was a refreshing change from the mad bustle of Paris. Quaint, quiet, calm, but every bit as beautiful and awe-inspiring. And like every other stop thus far, it was better than the last AND it reminded me not to listen to any "conventional wisdom." Everything about France was spectacular!
San Sebastian and Bilbao were next. (and speaking of new experiences, each better than the last, I think I´ve found a new favorite place in the world)
With me are bright, creative, resourceful teachers who love their jobs, work their butts off (even during their summer "off" on a non-school trip), and who seem to genuinely like their students; parents who are actually involved in their kid´s lives BEFORE rehab, uplanned pregnancies, etc.; grandparents who seem way too aware of a life outside of small-town, midwestern America to actually be Americans, at least as the news portrays us; a tour guide who seems to enjoy his work, know his stuff, and who has a sense of humor; and a group of 12 mature, respectful, semi-responsible teenagers who will likely one day look back on this trip as a pretty powerful experience.
There have been several moments thus far on this trip wherein I´ve been confronted with just how lucky I am... to be able to send a daughter on this trip... to have met people and seen sites... to have breathed the air, tasted the food, felt the warmth of the sun, shielded my eyes while watching it sink into the ocean or rise over a mountain range... to have been alive right here, right now...to be excited to get home to another great daughter and wonderful wife and mother...
and it all started there in that dirty, worthless, overly commercial, expensive, anti-American Paris.
Don´t ever go there. It´s horrible.
Oh! the sacrifices we parents make.
Luth,
Out.
We also thought it would be cool for one of us (me) to go along.
So far we were right. It´s been VERY cool.
So cool, in fact, that I feel kind of guilty for being here.
But I won´t let that stop me from dispelling the BS I´ve heard about France - from, I suspect, people who seem to forget we kind of owe them our independence.
See, here´s the thing: I´m no stranger to world travel. I am quick to enjoy myself, but not to be impressed. I´ve been to London, Port au Prince, Rome, Munich, Baghdad, Kuwait City, Doha, Keflavik, Tegucigulpa, ... I´ve even been to Detroit, LA, Salt Lake City and Ann Arbor (and a bunch of other places - I was just dropping the names of the weird ones) ...and so in the course of my travels I´ve had opportunity to hear all kinds of stories about how weird, dirty, inhospitable, anti-American, overly commercial, and other versions of how shitty France, especially Paris, is as a destination.
And guess what I´ve discovered: not so much.
Granted, a lot of the must-see sites, as is the case in most of Europe, are a tad more religious than I would need them to be, but, also like most of Europe, even those sites represent the amazing ability of humans to overcome and leave something better than they found it.
The fact that these historical sites still exist is proof that WE CAN all just get along... even if many of these sites remind us that we didn´t at some point.
Anyhoo...
Thus far, every day of this trip has been better than the last. We started in Paris (after an overnighter on two planes). Martremont, Sacre Couer, Notre Dame, The Louvre, Eiffel Tower, Seine River Cruise, Sorbonne/Latin Quarter... Two days there was not enough to get more than a taste of it, but the taste was absolutely delicious.
Then it was a train ride to Biarritz. For those of you who have never experienced a train ride in Europe... well, I may as well not even bother trying to describe the beauty of efficient public transportation...clean, comfortable, friendly, cheap... I know... I know, Gov. Kasich is right on: why would Ohioans want anything like that?
Biarritz was a refreshing change from the mad bustle of Paris. Quaint, quiet, calm, but every bit as beautiful and awe-inspiring. And like every other stop thus far, it was better than the last AND it reminded me not to listen to any "conventional wisdom." Everything about France was spectacular!
San Sebastian and Bilbao were next. (and speaking of new experiences, each better than the last, I think I´ve found a new favorite place in the world)
With me are bright, creative, resourceful teachers who love their jobs, work their butts off (even during their summer "off" on a non-school trip), and who seem to genuinely like their students; parents who are actually involved in their kid´s lives BEFORE rehab, uplanned pregnancies, etc.; grandparents who seem way too aware of a life outside of small-town, midwestern America to actually be Americans, at least as the news portrays us; a tour guide who seems to enjoy his work, know his stuff, and who has a sense of humor; and a group of 12 mature, respectful, semi-responsible teenagers who will likely one day look back on this trip as a pretty powerful experience.
There have been several moments thus far on this trip wherein I´ve been confronted with just how lucky I am... to be able to send a daughter on this trip... to have met people and seen sites... to have breathed the air, tasted the food, felt the warmth of the sun, shielded my eyes while watching it sink into the ocean or rise over a mountain range... to have been alive right here, right now...to be excited to get home to another great daughter and wonderful wife and mother...
and it all started there in that dirty, worthless, overly commercial, expensive, anti-American Paris.
Don´t ever go there. It´s horrible.
Oh! the sacrifices we parents make.
Luth,
Out.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
NOW Congress questions war-like intentions?!
You've got to be shitting me! Mitch McConnell has suddenly decided that it's Congress's job to stop a President from going to war? WTF was he in 2003 when we invaded a country where the dictator was NOT waging war against his own people, was NOT criticized by the U.N. AND the Arab League, did NOT have WMD (as it seems to have turned out), and clearly did NOT have anything to do with the 9-11 attacks? Where was he to stop an invasion in which we were NOT joined by every neighboring military force?
Is his (and the rest of Congress's, and the entire Fox News audience's) memory really that short? I guess we can forgive him for forgetting our nearly solo, non-U.N. sanctioned invasion of Iraq. After all, the strategy was so well planned that it was over and done almost immediately.
What's that? Oh, this just in: we're still mired in that useless OIF mess!
So really, before we go casting those stones, let's glance outside our shattered glass houses for a minute and just admit that the only reason to criticize the current president for going along with the rest of the world and preventing the wholesale slaughter of innocent Libyans at the hands of their completely f'd up dictator is because nothing President Obama does will ever be good enough for his opponents. EVEN if what he does is kind of the right way of what his predecessor got so wrong just 9 years ago!
Please.
Luth
Out
Is his (and the rest of Congress's, and the entire Fox News audience's) memory really that short? I guess we can forgive him for forgetting our nearly solo, non-U.N. sanctioned invasion of Iraq. After all, the strategy was so well planned that it was over and done almost immediately.
What's that? Oh, this just in: we're still mired in that useless OIF mess!
So really, before we go casting those stones, let's glance outside our shattered glass houses for a minute and just admit that the only reason to criticize the current president for going along with the rest of the world and preventing the wholesale slaughter of innocent Libyans at the hands of their completely f'd up dictator is because nothing President Obama does will ever be good enough for his opponents. EVEN if what he does is kind of the right way of what his predecessor got so wrong just 9 years ago!
Please.
Luth
Out
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Apples, oranges, and more myths about teaching
You hear a lot of talk these days about how teachers only "work" for 9 months a year. Technically, even that's a stretch according to the logic of the comment. They really only "work" for about 180 days. (well, most contracts cover something like 192 days, give or take but still...) In many circles, that's really only 6 months! So the teacher in my previous example, (the one with 27 years experience and a PhD) could make $89,000 for just 6 months worth of "work." Holy shit. How are so many people laying off a job like that? Could it be there's more to it? Is it possible our definition of "work" when applied like this is a little twisted?
The problem with this logic is that it only makes sense when you define the word "work" as "performance delivery." Let's look at how this definition might apply to other professions to gain a better understanding of what that means.
Wal-Mart is a retail giant. Their actual "work" consists solely of selling stuff to customers. So by the definition that says teachers only "work" for 6 months a year, Wal-Mart employees only "work" when customers pass through the checkout line. Stocking shelves isn't work. Unloading trucks isn't work. Cleaning floors or bringing carts in from the parking lot isn't work. Hiring, paying, scheduling employees isn't work. Hell, by this definition, Wal-Mart management and administrative folks never work a day in their lives! The only folks who actually work for Wal-Mart are the cashiers. And they only work when accepting money from customers during the actual exchange of that money for a Wal-Mart good or service. Bagging purchases isn't work. Answering questions isn't work. Counting out a drawer at the end of a shift isn't work.
How about actors or entertainers? The average musician is lucky to make one hit song in his lifetime. That song is usually around three minutes long. So by our definition of work, the average musician only works about three minutes in a lifetime. The missed takes in the studio while recording this song aren't work. Subsequent play of the song on a radio, in a commercial, etc. aren't work. The time spent learning to play an instrument, writing a thousand shitty songs that eventually become the hit, rehearsing, auditioning, putting bands together, touring, breaking bands up...not work.
Actors appear in a play or on a movie screen for about 90 minutes. So they only work for the 90 minutes that it takes an audience to see the movie or play. Producers, directors, set-builders, stunt men... none of those people ever actually work by our current definition of working. Just the actors who actually deliver a performance - and then, only during the actual performance. The fact that it can take up to a year to film a movie doesn't factor into our definition of work. The only actual work we're counting now is the time during which the performance is actually delivered.
How about manufacturing employees? Their job is to put things together. So stocking their supply bins isn't work. Cleaning their areas and keeping them free of hazards isn't work. Gathering, inspecting, maintaining tools? Not work. Attending production meetings isn't work. They only work when actually putting a part on whatever they're building. Picking up the part isn't work. Inspecting it isn't work. Tossing a bad part aside isn't work. Work, by our definition, only happens when the employee is in the act of putting that part on whatever he's building. Clearly, by this definition of work, people like production schedulers, HR specialists, or, say, quality assurance engineers don't ever actually work. Truck drivers who deliver the parts don't work (at least not in this scenario), the people who process payroll for manufacturing plants don't actually work. The folks who built the building don't work. Not by our new definition that says work is only performance delivery.
How about boxers? They only work something like 7.5 to 25 minutes - or three to ten 2.5-minute rounds, maybe ten times a year. We've all heard people say, "I'd get in the ring with Mike Tyson for $10 million!" And according to our new definition of work, we should all be able to do that. Training isn't work. Developing one's talents isn't work. Starting in Golden Gloves at the age of 10 and living in the gym for ten years isn't work. A decade as an amateur getting the shit beat out of you isn't work. Going from normal training regimens to intense 12 hours/day, 7 days/week workouts for 8 weeks before the fight isn't work. Work, by our definition, only consists of the time spent in the ring during the actual fight.
I like that comparison because like a boxer, when the bell rings, teachers are ON. There are no timeouts between the bells. Teacher's "rounds" usually last around 45 minutes. They get a little longer than boxers between rounds. (During which, technically, they are not working.) These breaks between rounds are usually something like 3 to 5 minutes, during which they get to do fun things like break up fights, answer homework questions, call parents, meet with their boss, set up for the next class, monitor a hallway or playground, and occasionally even go to the bathroom.
Those "6-hour" days that teachers "work" are pretty intense. There's no leisurely stroll from the coffee machine to the bathroom or the water cooler. There's no asking if a colleague saw that episode of Idol last night - those are all saved for the 20-minute lunch period, which, by the way, does not count as work either! There's no room to nurse a hangover, or check your portfolio, call the bank, drop off a library book... or pretty much anything else, as is generally the case in most non-teaching jobs. You can't fake it. You can't call it in. Kids will eat you alive... but only for the 180 days you're actually "working" so it's no big deal. Hell, it's a part-time job.
Of course, grading papers isn't work. Meeting with parents for conferences isn't work. Helping students with homework outside of class time isn't work. Neither are getting a degree before being qualified to apply for a license, continuing with one's education (at one's own expense) over the entire course of the career in order to be able to keep a license, or writing lesson plans, serving on committees, planning and overseeing graduation ceremonies, field trips, pep-rallies, interventions, drug programs, teen pregnancy programs, or just listening to a student whose parents are never home or never sober or never not yelling at them. These things aren't work and teachers don't get paid to do them. They only get paid for their 9-months of "work."
And then there's the whole concept of working for an "entire year." The apples and the oranges. Let's take a closer look at that as well. The typical American work week is 40 hours over 52 weeks, adding up to 2080 hours a year. No one in America regularly works every single one of those weeks. It is common practice for manufacturing to shut down between Christmas and New Years. Now we're down to 2040 hours. Many manufacterers repeat this for inventory (not work, by the way) again in the summer. 2000 hours. Most full-time employees take at least a week off (and if they're full-time, most are paid for it) each year. 1960 hours. But let's be generous and say the average American "works" 2000 hours a year. That's 250 days. Hmmm. Nine months is 270 days. The average American employee works LESS than 250 days. Sounds like MOST Americans only "work" 9 months a year!! (Of course, by our definition, they're not really "working" all that time... they're just getting paid.) So when you "adjust" teacher pay to reflect what it would be IF teachers worked for an entire year, do you also adjust the pay of people with "real jobs" AS IF they worked for an "entire year?"
And we haven't even begun to cover the actual hours worked during the school year for most teachers. I'll bet it's closer to that 2080 figure than most people with similar education and experience work in their "whole year" jobs.
C'mon man...Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh can oversimplify tougher arguments this! Apples and oranges, my friend, apples and oranges.
Luth
Out
The problem with this logic is that it only makes sense when you define the word "work" as "performance delivery." Let's look at how this definition might apply to other professions to gain a better understanding of what that means.
Wal-Mart is a retail giant. Their actual "work" consists solely of selling stuff to customers. So by the definition that says teachers only "work" for 6 months a year, Wal-Mart employees only "work" when customers pass through the checkout line. Stocking shelves isn't work. Unloading trucks isn't work. Cleaning floors or bringing carts in from the parking lot isn't work. Hiring, paying, scheduling employees isn't work. Hell, by this definition, Wal-Mart management and administrative folks never work a day in their lives! The only folks who actually work for Wal-Mart are the cashiers. And they only work when accepting money from customers during the actual exchange of that money for a Wal-Mart good or service. Bagging purchases isn't work. Answering questions isn't work. Counting out a drawer at the end of a shift isn't work.
How about actors or entertainers? The average musician is lucky to make one hit song in his lifetime. That song is usually around three minutes long. So by our definition of work, the average musician only works about three minutes in a lifetime. The missed takes in the studio while recording this song aren't work. Subsequent play of the song on a radio, in a commercial, etc. aren't work. The time spent learning to play an instrument, writing a thousand shitty songs that eventually become the hit, rehearsing, auditioning, putting bands together, touring, breaking bands up...not work.
Actors appear in a play or on a movie screen for about 90 minutes. So they only work for the 90 minutes that it takes an audience to see the movie or play. Producers, directors, set-builders, stunt men... none of those people ever actually work by our current definition of working. Just the actors who actually deliver a performance - and then, only during the actual performance. The fact that it can take up to a year to film a movie doesn't factor into our definition of work. The only actual work we're counting now is the time during which the performance is actually delivered.
How about manufacturing employees? Their job is to put things together. So stocking their supply bins isn't work. Cleaning their areas and keeping them free of hazards isn't work. Gathering, inspecting, maintaining tools? Not work. Attending production meetings isn't work. They only work when actually putting a part on whatever they're building. Picking up the part isn't work. Inspecting it isn't work. Tossing a bad part aside isn't work. Work, by our definition, only happens when the employee is in the act of putting that part on whatever he's building. Clearly, by this definition of work, people like production schedulers, HR specialists, or, say, quality assurance engineers don't ever actually work. Truck drivers who deliver the parts don't work (at least not in this scenario), the people who process payroll for manufacturing plants don't actually work. The folks who built the building don't work. Not by our new definition that says work is only performance delivery.
How about boxers? They only work something like 7.5 to 25 minutes - or three to ten 2.5-minute rounds, maybe ten times a year. We've all heard people say, "I'd get in the ring with Mike Tyson for $10 million!" And according to our new definition of work, we should all be able to do that. Training isn't work. Developing one's talents isn't work. Starting in Golden Gloves at the age of 10 and living in the gym for ten years isn't work. A decade as an amateur getting the shit beat out of you isn't work. Going from normal training regimens to intense 12 hours/day, 7 days/week workouts for 8 weeks before the fight isn't work. Work, by our definition, only consists of the time spent in the ring during the actual fight.
I like that comparison because like a boxer, when the bell rings, teachers are ON. There are no timeouts between the bells. Teacher's "rounds" usually last around 45 minutes. They get a little longer than boxers between rounds. (During which, technically, they are not working.) These breaks between rounds are usually something like 3 to 5 minutes, during which they get to do fun things like break up fights, answer homework questions, call parents, meet with their boss, set up for the next class, monitor a hallway or playground, and occasionally even go to the bathroom.
Those "6-hour" days that teachers "work" are pretty intense. There's no leisurely stroll from the coffee machine to the bathroom or the water cooler. There's no asking if a colleague saw that episode of Idol last night - those are all saved for the 20-minute lunch period, which, by the way, does not count as work either! There's no room to nurse a hangover, or check your portfolio, call the bank, drop off a library book... or pretty much anything else, as is generally the case in most non-teaching jobs. You can't fake it. You can't call it in. Kids will eat you alive... but only for the 180 days you're actually "working" so it's no big deal. Hell, it's a part-time job.
Of course, grading papers isn't work. Meeting with parents for conferences isn't work. Helping students with homework outside of class time isn't work. Neither are getting a degree before being qualified to apply for a license, continuing with one's education (at one's own expense) over the entire course of the career in order to be able to keep a license, or writing lesson plans, serving on committees, planning and overseeing graduation ceremonies, field trips, pep-rallies, interventions, drug programs, teen pregnancy programs, or just listening to a student whose parents are never home or never sober or never not yelling at them. These things aren't work and teachers don't get paid to do them. They only get paid for their 9-months of "work."
And then there's the whole concept of working for an "entire year." The apples and the oranges. Let's take a closer look at that as well. The typical American work week is 40 hours over 52 weeks, adding up to 2080 hours a year. No one in America regularly works every single one of those weeks. It is common practice for manufacturing to shut down between Christmas and New Years. Now we're down to 2040 hours. Many manufacterers repeat this for inventory (not work, by the way) again in the summer. 2000 hours. Most full-time employees take at least a week off (and if they're full-time, most are paid for it) each year. 1960 hours. But let's be generous and say the average American "works" 2000 hours a year. That's 250 days. Hmmm. Nine months is 270 days. The average American employee works LESS than 250 days. Sounds like MOST Americans only "work" 9 months a year!! (Of course, by our definition, they're not really "working" all that time... they're just getting paid.) So when you "adjust" teacher pay to reflect what it would be IF teachers worked for an entire year, do you also adjust the pay of people with "real jobs" AS IF they worked for an "entire year?"
And we haven't even begun to cover the actual hours worked during the school year for most teachers. I'll bet it's closer to that 2080 figure than most people with similar education and experience work in their "whole year" jobs.
C'mon man...Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh can oversimplify tougher arguments this! Apples and oranges, my friend, apples and oranges.
Luth
Out
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Teacher pay and "tenure" myths
Strangely, I've been in two conversations in the past month wherein a conversant has invoked the outrageous pay for teachers in a particular area school district.
I'm going to make up names to protect the innocent here, but I can't help but be amused at the way some people arrive at what they believe to be facts, especially when it involves something so easy to track down like the public salary of a public employee in a public institution.
So anyway, in the first conversation my counterpart noted as fact that teachers in this school district can achieve "six-figure retirement packages." She added that she's seen the contract that guarantees this.
Given that the general formula for calculating teacher retirement in the state of Ohio is something along the lines of 80% of your highest three years, this means teachers in this particular district must average $125,000 a year for three years in order to make $100,000 a year (six figures) in retirement. So, in the course of those high three years, they'll actually make more than $125,00 in order to achieve that as their average.
A quick check of the particular school's website gives us the following myth-busting information:
The top pay on this year's scale (presumably the highest) is $89,354.00.
I know, I know... seems like a lot for a teacher, right? Does it seem like a lot for someone with 27 years of experience in their field and a PhD? 'Cuz that's the only way you'll hit this rare territory. I'm willing to bet there are few outside of teaching with those qualifications who make that little... and even fewer who are entrusted with the responsibilities of a teacher.
But the bigger point is, 80% of 89,000 will never be six figures.
This doesn't mean no teacher in that district could ever retire with a six figure pension. All he or she would have to do is pick up a mere $36,000 in supplemental contracts, like coaching, class advisor, band director, department head, etc. Given that the average supplemental contract runs somewhere in the $1,500 neighborhood (according to the district's April 2010 board minutes) this teacher would merely have to coach 24 different sports each year... for three straight years, after teaching for 27 years and earning a PhD. That sounds do-able.
I'm calling this one busted.
While the other conversation referenced this same district, it was in relation to "tenure." Another popular myth when it comes to teaching these days. If by "tenure" what you refer to is a "continuing contract," then yes, tenure still exists in the teaching profession - as it does in just about every profession. But here's where the misconception begins. New teachers are typically offered one-year contracts. Like all contracts, upon termination, there is no expectation of renewal. Do your job, and you will likely get renewed, but there's no obligation either way. You don't have to stay. They don't have to keep you. Various districts then have procedures to move returning folks into two- or three-year contracts, typically for the first five to ten years of their career. Once you reach that stage, you are then eligible to be offered, or to ask for a "continuing contract."
This, apparently, is what folks think of when they say "tenure." What most folks outside the profession don't realize is that this is where MOST employees OUTSIDE of teaching start. You may have to survive a probationary period of between 30 days and a year, but once that's over, you become a "permanent" employee... just like teachers on a continuing contract. This doesn't mean you can't be fired. It just means your employer must show cause to fire you. As long as you perform according to your job standards, it's pretty tough to show cause for termination. Again, this is no different for most employees than it is for "tenured" teachers on a continuing contract. The only difference is that few employees outside of teaching need to prove themselves for three-five years AFTER getting a degree AND a license to achieve this "tenure."
So yeah, teachers in this district could retire with six-figure pensions, but it's pretty unlikely. And yeah, teachers can still achieve "tenure," but I don't think what you think is what I think we were really thinking. What?
Luth
Out
I'm going to make up names to protect the innocent here, but I can't help but be amused at the way some people arrive at what they believe to be facts, especially when it involves something so easy to track down like the public salary of a public employee in a public institution.
So anyway, in the first conversation my counterpart noted as fact that teachers in this school district can achieve "six-figure retirement packages." She added that she's seen the contract that guarantees this.
Given that the general formula for calculating teacher retirement in the state of Ohio is something along the lines of 80% of your highest three years, this means teachers in this particular district must average $125,000 a year for three years in order to make $100,000 a year (six figures) in retirement. So, in the course of those high three years, they'll actually make more than $125,00 in order to achieve that as their average.
A quick check of the particular school's website gives us the following myth-busting information:
The top pay on this year's scale (presumably the highest) is $89,354.00.
I know, I know... seems like a lot for a teacher, right? Does it seem like a lot for someone with 27 years of experience in their field and a PhD? 'Cuz that's the only way you'll hit this rare territory. I'm willing to bet there are few outside of teaching with those qualifications who make that little... and even fewer who are entrusted with the responsibilities of a teacher.
But the bigger point is, 80% of 89,000 will never be six figures.
This doesn't mean no teacher in that district could ever retire with a six figure pension. All he or she would have to do is pick up a mere $36,000 in supplemental contracts, like coaching, class advisor, band director, department head, etc. Given that the average supplemental contract runs somewhere in the $1,500 neighborhood (according to the district's April 2010 board minutes) this teacher would merely have to coach 24 different sports each year... for three straight years, after teaching for 27 years and earning a PhD. That sounds do-able.
I'm calling this one busted.
While the other conversation referenced this same district, it was in relation to "tenure." Another popular myth when it comes to teaching these days. If by "tenure" what you refer to is a "continuing contract," then yes, tenure still exists in the teaching profession - as it does in just about every profession. But here's where the misconception begins. New teachers are typically offered one-year contracts. Like all contracts, upon termination, there is no expectation of renewal. Do your job, and you will likely get renewed, but there's no obligation either way. You don't have to stay. They don't have to keep you. Various districts then have procedures to move returning folks into two- or three-year contracts, typically for the first five to ten years of their career. Once you reach that stage, you are then eligible to be offered, or to ask for a "continuing contract."
This, apparently, is what folks think of when they say "tenure." What most folks outside the profession don't realize is that this is where MOST employees OUTSIDE of teaching start. You may have to survive a probationary period of between 30 days and a year, but once that's over, you become a "permanent" employee... just like teachers on a continuing contract. This doesn't mean you can't be fired. It just means your employer must show cause to fire you. As long as you perform according to your job standards, it's pretty tough to show cause for termination. Again, this is no different for most employees than it is for "tenured" teachers on a continuing contract. The only difference is that few employees outside of teaching need to prove themselves for three-five years AFTER getting a degree AND a license to achieve this "tenure."
So yeah, teachers in this district could retire with six-figure pensions, but it's pretty unlikely. And yeah, teachers can still achieve "tenure," but I don't think what you think is what I think we were really thinking. What?
Luth
Out
Save Money by eliminating collective bargaining?
I'm about the most anti-union liberal you'll find, but Governors Walker, Kasich, and Christie must be on crack if they think anyone other than complete idiots believes collective bargaining by public employees is the cause of today's state budget struggles.
I can't blame them for trying. To quote one of my favorite movies:
"They got this depression on. I gots to do for me and mine."
And as another character in that movie says,
"Hard times will flush the chumps. Everybody's looking fer answers."
Here's an answer: It's a recession (and it has nothing to do with collective bargaining rights)
I don't want to get into the arguments about whether or not raising taxes increases or decreases revenue, (although Walker's office's own figures make pretty clear that he's offered Wisconsin corporations, whose taxes are already ridiculously reduced, more in tax cuts - over two years - than their one year gap needs) but I will get into some of the myths you have to buy in order to think Walker... or Kasich (who's been a lot quieter with his union-busting plans since the protests in Wisconsin grew so loud)... or Christie are on track with this wacky idea.
Myth 1: Public employees make more than private employees
I know, I know, two charts in a million-page BLS report showed this was true, but those two charts don't prove much other than the old saying, "figures lie, and liars figure." If you look beyond those two charts made famous in USAToday, at some of the rest of those million pages in the BLS report, you'll note that simple adjustments for little things like education, or the size of the employer, tell us what common sense tells us: public employees still make between 5 and 15% LESS than private employees.
Here are some examples from a Rutgers study that dug a little beyond the two BLS charts:
Average National Salaries by Education
Public ..... Private
$44,000 ..... 44,000 ... high school diploma
$56,641 ..... 89,041 ... bachelors degree
$79,330 ..... 157,141 ... professional degree (lawyers, doctors)
(note how teacher and professor salaries tend to hold the high end of this down! NICE! What do they do to create jobs?)
Yep, those public employees are ROBBING us with their out of control salaries.
OK, you say, but what about retirement benefits? Well, if we're talking about states like Wisconsin, the benefits currently being paid to retirees of the state of Wisconsin are being funded out of the salaries of current Wisconsin employees, as is the case in most retirement systems, including Social Security.
In fact, another study by University of Wisconsin Econ professors showed after adjusting for education and employer size, public sector employees make 11% less than their private sector counterparts.
The Economic Policy Institute says it's more like 4.8% (8.2 until you factor in benefits)... but it's still LESS. Public employees make LESS than their private sector counterparts. No one's saying they're underpaid or overpaid, just that they make less. LESS. L-E-S-S.
What these big business, dare I say Koch-addled? governors are telling us simply isn't true.
Myth 2: Unions won't discuss cuts in desperate times
Bullshit. Like the auto industry showed us, management gave away the store rather than bothering to negotiate with unions during the good times. This same shortsightedness leaves them searching for someone to blame during the tough times. How much discussion has Governor Walker had with the unions that represents Wisconsin public employees? Collective bargaining simply means that management and labor DISCUSS these cuts, not that cuts can't be made. In fact, government intervention that prohibits such discussion sounds like just the opposite of what Republicans came to Washington to do. It sounds like bigger government forcing itself into matters where it doesn't belong.
Myth 3: Eliminating collective bargaining is the ONLY way for Wisconsin to balance their budget
Well, let's check in with free-market, high rolling, big business Texas, who did away with their public employees' collective bargaining rights years ago. Oh wait, maybe we shouldn't, since their deficit is bigger than Wisconsin's!! Hmmm, must have been something else wrong there. OK, how about we look at Federal Air Traffic Controller salaries. Seems like I remember some little incident wherein they gave up their rights to bargain. Oh, that's right, FEDERAL employees are even MORE overpaid than state and local employees. Sounds like doing away with the bargaining rights might just have the opposite effect Governor Walker is looking for in their case. So we'll skip them too.
OK, let's look at some of the numbers in Wisconsin. They're facing a one year shortfall of about $140 million. Governor Walker would have us believe that doing away with collective bargaining rights so he can cut the salaries of public employees is the only way to fix the problem. In essence, he wants to TAX - that's right, I said TAX 175,000 Wisconsin residents (public employees). How else would you describe taking money from their paychecks to run the government? But I thought he wasn't going to raise taxes?!
Before you look up what percentage that is of Wisconsin's total population, let's point out that the governor's own figures claim they'll cut $165 million just by restructuring debt. The governor won't discuss the fact that a 1.5% tax increase on just the wealthiest 2% of Wisconsin residents and corporations - a far smaller chunk of the population - would more than cover their woes even during this recession... even if these hikes were temporary, because he won't discuss raising taxes. Not even 1.5% on the wealthiest 2%. (but wait...he'll raise them by a far higher percent on 175,000 public employees??) Never mind the fact that corporate tax revenue to the state has been cut in half since 1981. Never mind the fact that the Wisconsin Department of Revenue reports 2/3 of Wisconsin corporations pay NO taxes. NONE. NADA. ZIP. In what kind of world is it right for corporations to have more rights than actual citizens? Is this what he won't discuss with public employee unions? Is it because these corporations don't use the public roads, utilities, police and fire protection, or other services the state provides? (seriously?) NO. (you weren't actually thinking about that were you?) It's because these corporations funded the governor's campaign.
All right, all right. I got off the rails a little there. The point is, it sure seems like there's a lot more wiggle room in this budget than the governor is letting on.
Myth 4: Public employee salaries are insulated from and therefore do not reflect what the market would support
Have you been following this story at all? OK, even if we use the most conservative figures, public employees make about 95% of what their private sector counterparts make, less when compared equally by education, less still when comparing by size of employer, but let's go with 95%. So this means that they make about 95% less than what the free market supports in the outside world. In other words, the marketplace has determined these salaries are about where they should be. So... why then are these free-market governors trying to intervene with what the free and open market has established. Isn't this exactly the opposite of what they came to Washington to do? Oh wait, that's right. They only manipulate the free and open market for the banking industry and the hedge fund managers who made $1.5 million PER HOUR last year! We certainly can't discuss raising their taxes even temporarily to close the recession induced gaps. After all, we can squeeze a little more out of teacher and garbage collector pay before we have to burden those guys!
So... tell me one more time how doing away with collective bargaining rights of public employees solves the recession-induced budget woes of the state of Wisconsin?
Or is this just a political move capitalizing on desperate times in order to bust the union and claim a quick, hollow victory to brag about in the next election cycle? Hmmm... maybe it's that kind of shortsighted thinking that helped Wisconsin get into this mess in the first place. Or maybe it just has something to do with the worst recession in 75 years.
Shhhhh, my common sense is tingling.
Luth
Out
I can't blame them for trying. To quote one of my favorite movies:
"They got this depression on. I gots to do for me and mine."
And as another character in that movie says,
"Hard times will flush the chumps. Everybody's looking fer answers."
Here's an answer: It's a recession (and it has nothing to do with collective bargaining rights)
I don't want to get into the arguments about whether or not raising taxes increases or decreases revenue, (although Walker's office's own figures make pretty clear that he's offered Wisconsin corporations, whose taxes are already ridiculously reduced, more in tax cuts - over two years - than their one year gap needs) but I will get into some of the myths you have to buy in order to think Walker... or Kasich (who's been a lot quieter with his union-busting plans since the protests in Wisconsin grew so loud)... or Christie are on track with this wacky idea.
Myth 1: Public employees make more than private employees
I know, I know, two charts in a million-page BLS report showed this was true, but those two charts don't prove much other than the old saying, "figures lie, and liars figure." If you look beyond those two charts made famous in USAToday, at some of the rest of those million pages in the BLS report, you'll note that simple adjustments for little things like education, or the size of the employer, tell us what common sense tells us: public employees still make between 5 and 15% LESS than private employees.
Here are some examples from a Rutgers study that dug a little beyond the two BLS charts:
Average National Salaries by Education
Public ..... Private
$44,000 ..... 44,000 ... high school diploma
$56,641 ..... 89,041 ... bachelors degree
$79,330 ..... 157,141 ... professional degree (lawyers, doctors)
(note how teacher and professor salaries tend to hold the high end of this down! NICE! What do they do to create jobs?)
Yep, those public employees are ROBBING us with their out of control salaries.
OK, you say, but what about retirement benefits? Well, if we're talking about states like Wisconsin, the benefits currently being paid to retirees of the state of Wisconsin are being funded out of the salaries of current Wisconsin employees, as is the case in most retirement systems, including Social Security.
In fact, another study by University of Wisconsin Econ professors showed after adjusting for education and employer size, public sector employees make 11% less than their private sector counterparts.
The Economic Policy Institute says it's more like 4.8% (8.2 until you factor in benefits)... but it's still LESS. Public employees make LESS than their private sector counterparts. No one's saying they're underpaid or overpaid, just that they make less. LESS. L-E-S-S.
What these big business, dare I say Koch-addled? governors are telling us simply isn't true.
Myth 2: Unions won't discuss cuts in desperate times
Bullshit. Like the auto industry showed us, management gave away the store rather than bothering to negotiate with unions during the good times. This same shortsightedness leaves them searching for someone to blame during the tough times. How much discussion has Governor Walker had with the unions that represents Wisconsin public employees? Collective bargaining simply means that management and labor DISCUSS these cuts, not that cuts can't be made. In fact, government intervention that prohibits such discussion sounds like just the opposite of what Republicans came to Washington to do. It sounds like bigger government forcing itself into matters where it doesn't belong.
Myth 3: Eliminating collective bargaining is the ONLY way for Wisconsin to balance their budget
Well, let's check in with free-market, high rolling, big business Texas, who did away with their public employees' collective bargaining rights years ago. Oh wait, maybe we shouldn't, since their deficit is bigger than Wisconsin's!! Hmmm, must have been something else wrong there. OK, how about we look at Federal Air Traffic Controller salaries. Seems like I remember some little incident wherein they gave up their rights to bargain. Oh, that's right, FEDERAL employees are even MORE overpaid than state and local employees. Sounds like doing away with the bargaining rights might just have the opposite effect Governor Walker is looking for in their case. So we'll skip them too.
OK, let's look at some of the numbers in Wisconsin. They're facing a one year shortfall of about $140 million. Governor Walker would have us believe that doing away with collective bargaining rights so he can cut the salaries of public employees is the only way to fix the problem. In essence, he wants to TAX - that's right, I said TAX 175,000 Wisconsin residents (public employees). How else would you describe taking money from their paychecks to run the government? But I thought he wasn't going to raise taxes?!
Before you look up what percentage that is of Wisconsin's total population, let's point out that the governor's own figures claim they'll cut $165 million just by restructuring debt. The governor won't discuss the fact that a 1.5% tax increase on just the wealthiest 2% of Wisconsin residents and corporations - a far smaller chunk of the population - would more than cover their woes even during this recession... even if these hikes were temporary, because he won't discuss raising taxes. Not even 1.5% on the wealthiest 2%. (but wait...he'll raise them by a far higher percent on 175,000 public employees??) Never mind the fact that corporate tax revenue to the state has been cut in half since 1981. Never mind the fact that the Wisconsin Department of Revenue reports 2/3 of Wisconsin corporations pay NO taxes. NONE. NADA. ZIP. In what kind of world is it right for corporations to have more rights than actual citizens? Is this what he won't discuss with public employee unions? Is it because these corporations don't use the public roads, utilities, police and fire protection, or other services the state provides? (seriously?) NO. (you weren't actually thinking about that were you?) It's because these corporations funded the governor's campaign.
All right, all right. I got off the rails a little there. The point is, it sure seems like there's a lot more wiggle room in this budget than the governor is letting on.
Myth 4: Public employee salaries are insulated from and therefore do not reflect what the market would support
Have you been following this story at all? OK, even if we use the most conservative figures, public employees make about 95% of what their private sector counterparts make, less when compared equally by education, less still when comparing by size of employer, but let's go with 95%. So this means that they make about 95% less than what the free market supports in the outside world. In other words, the marketplace has determined these salaries are about where they should be. So... why then are these free-market governors trying to intervene with what the free and open market has established. Isn't this exactly the opposite of what they came to Washington to do? Oh wait, that's right. They only manipulate the free and open market for the banking industry and the hedge fund managers who made $1.5 million PER HOUR last year! We certainly can't discuss raising their taxes even temporarily to close the recession induced gaps. After all, we can squeeze a little more out of teacher and garbage collector pay before we have to burden those guys!
So... tell me one more time how doing away with collective bargaining rights of public employees solves the recession-induced budget woes of the state of Wisconsin?
Or is this just a political move capitalizing on desperate times in order to bust the union and claim a quick, hollow victory to brag about in the next election cycle? Hmmm... maybe it's that kind of shortsighted thinking that helped Wisconsin get into this mess in the first place. Or maybe it just has something to do with the worst recession in 75 years.
Shhhhh, my common sense is tingling.
Luth
Out
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Their best stuff for free?
H&R block is giving away their best stuff free, eh? What a generous organization. Apparently what they saved in advertising review, they're passing on to us. Ya see, their best stuff, according to the commercials, is helping you fill out a 1040EZ - you know, the form designed so the average American, with NO tax prep experience, can fill it out WITHOUT having to go to a professional tax preparer?
So apparently, the rest of H&R Block's stuff is less than their best. Which means, anything you might actually NEED professional help with, and that you'll pay your hard earned money for, should probably go to some other tax preparer. Someone whose best stuff is actually the stuff you might need help with.
Strange, strange commercial. And here I am, giving them this review of why it's bad for FREE!
I guess my real question is this: Did H&R Block's ad people count on Americans being the idiots we are and decide to run what they knew was actually a commercial that speaks badly about their real work anyway? Did they count on a society who can't stay focused on anything more than 140 characters, or who won't think for themselves? Or did they just not realize that this commercial says what they do best is what a high school kid can do pretty darn good without any help?
I'm sticking with my brother-in-law for my taxes this year, but if I ever get back to the point where I can do a 1040EZ again, who knows, maybe instead of filling out that single page all by myself, I'll actually brave the elements and traffic and the embarrassment and take it to H&R Block and get me some of their best stuff, for FREE!
Luth
Out
So apparently, the rest of H&R Block's stuff is less than their best. Which means, anything you might actually NEED professional help with, and that you'll pay your hard earned money for, should probably go to some other tax preparer. Someone whose best stuff is actually the stuff you might need help with.
Strange, strange commercial. And here I am, giving them this review of why it's bad for FREE!
I guess my real question is this: Did H&R Block's ad people count on Americans being the idiots we are and decide to run what they knew was actually a commercial that speaks badly about their real work anyway? Did they count on a society who can't stay focused on anything more than 140 characters, or who won't think for themselves? Or did they just not realize that this commercial says what they do best is what a high school kid can do pretty darn good without any help?
I'm sticking with my brother-in-law for my taxes this year, but if I ever get back to the point where I can do a 1040EZ again, who knows, maybe instead of filling out that single page all by myself, I'll actually brave the elements and traffic and the embarrassment and take it to H&R Block and get me some of their best stuff, for FREE!
Luth
Out
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
State of the Union - Mo' money!
Yep, mo' money it is, but is that really a surprise? We're a bigger nation than we've ever been. We're facing bigger problems than we ever have. Our infrastructure is older and as neglected as it's ever been. Our population requires more care and feeding than it ever has, AND our revenue is less than it's been in a while. Now, I know raising taxes is no guarantee of increased revenue, but raising taxes and cutting spending just might be... ya think?
Let's ask Ohio's new governor who, teamed up with the rest of Clinton's EAs, managed to balance a budget and turn over a deficit to, oh what the heck was that guy's name who succeeded Clinton... dangit. Well, you know who I'm talking about, and you know what came of that extra money. So we've got the experience to make this work...as long as we don't have to read anyone's lips.
Let's at least make sure the guys in the previous post pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the teachers in the last post. How's that for a start?
Luth,
Out
Let's ask Ohio's new governor who, teamed up with the rest of Clinton's EAs, managed to balance a budget and turn over a deficit to, oh what the heck was that guy's name who succeeded Clinton... dangit. Well, you know who I'm talking about, and you know what came of that extra money. So we've got the experience to make this work...as long as we don't have to read anyone's lips.
Let's at least make sure the guys in the previous post pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the teachers in the last post. How's that for a start?
Luth,
Out
Follow the Money
About a year ago, lefty wacko Les Leopold posted an article on that equally lefty wacko HuffPost site purporting that the top 25 hedge fund managers in 2009 made as much as 658,000... wait for it... (for those of you not familiar with these numbers go ahead and guess...)
...hedge fund managers in 2009 made 658,000 what?
average bonus?
annual salary?
per hour?
No way, none of those guesses can be right. It would be ridiculous if during the year in which the efforts of people in this particular industry put 10% of the rest of us out of work, destroyed a much larger percentage of most our retirement accounts, spurred the foreclosure of hundreds of thousands of mortgages, and produced (as in Gross Domestic PRODUCT) pretty close to nothing, they made money reflected by any of those multiple choices!
Well, if you at least guessed that the $658,000/hour was a wrong choice, you're kind of right. Actually, Les Leopold's numbers suggest that the top ten 2009 hedge fund managers earned $900,000 PER HOUR! Yes you read that correctly. $.9 million PER HOUR.
But the 658,000 figure is even more exhilarating. Leopold's article suggested that the top 25 hedge fund managers in 2009 (combined) earned 658,000 starting teacher SALARIES. (He figured the average starting teacher salary, with benefits, to be about $38,000) Since I know some teachers in Ohio start a little below $25,000, and some a little above it, I'll accept Leopold's figure even if in my experience, it might be a little generous.
Of course some hedge fund professional associations disputed the other figure and I couldn't find any direct sources to back it up, but you can check Leopold's math for yourself (the math appears legit, even if no legit sources for any particular hedge fund manager's salary can seem to be legitimized) at the original post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/why-are-25-hedge-fund-man_b_531420.html or you can pick up his book, The Looting of America.
Nope, before posting this, I went for some numbers I could find and back up at least as much as my OpEd heroes, Rush, Bill, and Glenn could sink their teeth into. According to Absolute Return magazine's 2010 "Rich List" Appaloosa Management's David Tepper made $4 billion in fees and earnings last year.
To be fair, Mr. Tepper's earnings would only have paid 105,263 new teachers. To get anywhere near Leopold's 2009 claims, he's gonna need some help. Next on AR's list was the evil George Soros who had to scrape by on $3.3 billion. That would only cover the annual salaries of 86,842 new teachers. Leopold was clearly being extremely hyperbolic in his assessment. (by the way, ever notice when someone like Soros uses that money to campaign for something he's an "elitist" who's "buying votes," but when someone like T. Boone Pickens uses it, he's a "patriot" and whatever he spends it on is called "speech?")
Anyhoo, to get anywhere near Leopold's clearly exaggerated 2009 claim we'll have to use AR's numbers for the remaining 23 of the 25 top hedge fund managers, who, together with Tepper and Soros, put up a record $25.3 billion in fees and gains for 2010. (poor guys had to suffer through a down year in 2008, making only half of what they made in the previous record year, 2007...ah the ups and downs of hedge fund mgt.) And so our 2010 tally would only cover 665,789 (and a half) salaries of first year teachers. Wow. Perhaps Leopold wasn't exaggerating.
Maybe we just need another perspective to remind us that we are a capitalist society and that being successful isn't such a bad thing. Let's try this: since at least 10% of America's hourly wage earners were out of work in 2010 as a result of the kinds of things Tepper and Soros do for a living, maybe if we look at their salaries from the hourly perspective it won't hurt so bad.
OK, so there are 40 hrs in the American work week, 52 weeks in a year, so that's 3.3 billion divided by 2080... well, there you go. Soros (the #2 guy) only ended up making $1,586,583.00 per hour in 2010. PER HOUR... $1.5 million PER F-ING HOUR.
I guess it wasn't really comforting to view it that way. Well, at least we know where our nation's priorities lie. And at least we can take comfort in how our culture rewards those who contribute most to the well-lobbied-for corporate tax structure - no wait, I meant to type: those who contribute most to society. Just look at society today. How could we ever ask for more?
Luth,
Out
...hedge fund managers in 2009 made 658,000 what?
average bonus?
annual salary?
per hour?
No way, none of those guesses can be right. It would be ridiculous if during the year in which the efforts of people in this particular industry put 10% of the rest of us out of work, destroyed a much larger percentage of most our retirement accounts, spurred the foreclosure of hundreds of thousands of mortgages, and produced (as in Gross Domestic PRODUCT) pretty close to nothing, they made money reflected by any of those multiple choices!
Well, if you at least guessed that the $658,000/hour was a wrong choice, you're kind of right. Actually, Les Leopold's numbers suggest that the top ten 2009 hedge fund managers earned $900,000 PER HOUR! Yes you read that correctly. $.9 million PER HOUR.
But the 658,000 figure is even more exhilarating. Leopold's article suggested that the top 25 hedge fund managers in 2009 (combined) earned 658,000 starting teacher SALARIES. (He figured the average starting teacher salary, with benefits, to be about $38,000) Since I know some teachers in Ohio start a little below $25,000, and some a little above it, I'll accept Leopold's figure even if in my experience, it might be a little generous.
Of course some hedge fund professional associations disputed the other figure and I couldn't find any direct sources to back it up, but you can check Leopold's math for yourself (the math appears legit, even if no legit sources for any particular hedge fund manager's salary can seem to be legitimized) at the original post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/why-are-25-hedge-fund-man_b_531420.html or you can pick up his book, The Looting of America.
Nope, before posting this, I went for some numbers I could find and back up at least as much as my OpEd heroes, Rush, Bill, and Glenn could sink their teeth into. According to Absolute Return magazine's 2010 "Rich List" Appaloosa Management's David Tepper made $4 billion in fees and earnings last year.
To be fair, Mr. Tepper's earnings would only have paid 105,263 new teachers. To get anywhere near Leopold's 2009 claims, he's gonna need some help. Next on AR's list was the evil George Soros who had to scrape by on $3.3 billion. That would only cover the annual salaries of 86,842 new teachers. Leopold was clearly being extremely hyperbolic in his assessment. (by the way, ever notice when someone like Soros uses that money to campaign for something he's an "elitist" who's "buying votes," but when someone like T. Boone Pickens uses it, he's a "patriot" and whatever he spends it on is called "speech?")
Anyhoo, to get anywhere near Leopold's clearly exaggerated 2009 claim we'll have to use AR's numbers for the remaining 23 of the 25 top hedge fund managers, who, together with Tepper and Soros, put up a record $25.3 billion in fees and gains for 2010. (poor guys had to suffer through a down year in 2008, making only half of what they made in the previous record year, 2007...ah the ups and downs of hedge fund mgt.) And so our 2010 tally would only cover 665,789 (and a half) salaries of first year teachers. Wow. Perhaps Leopold wasn't exaggerating.
Maybe we just need another perspective to remind us that we are a capitalist society and that being successful isn't such a bad thing. Let's try this: since at least 10% of America's hourly wage earners were out of work in 2010 as a result of the kinds of things Tepper and Soros do for a living, maybe if we look at their salaries from the hourly perspective it won't hurt so bad.
OK, so there are 40 hrs in the American work week, 52 weeks in a year, so that's 3.3 billion divided by 2080... well, there you go. Soros (the #2 guy) only ended up making $1,586,583.00 per hour in 2010. PER HOUR... $1.5 million PER F-ING HOUR.
I guess it wasn't really comforting to view it that way. Well, at least we know where our nation's priorities lie. And at least we can take comfort in how our culture rewards those who contribute most to the well-lobbied-for corporate tax structure - no wait, I meant to type: those who contribute most to society. Just look at society today. How could we ever ask for more?
Luth,
Out
Saturday, January 15, 2011
First Amendment Clarification
Lest anyone think a liberal 'blogger is calling for laws about what politicians and media folk are allowed to say, I thought I'd better clarify.
Nope, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, it's time we grow the F up. We shouldn't need a law for adults to WANT to behave like adults in public. The law shouldn't have anything to do with it. What we need is for the rest of us to voice it when we disagree with the childish behavior of both our politicians and our big media personalities... or even with that guy in Wal-Mart talking on his cell phone in the diaper aisle screaming the F-word in every sentence!
You know me, I LOVE the F word, but when did it become acceptable for it to be part of every sentence someone's yelling in Wal-Mart?? I suspect it hasn't become acceptable, but rather, we've lost the adult skill of addressing the unacceptable-ness of it. Instead, we childishly stew, letting our anger at it, or at our own inability to address it grow into some hostile seething. The seething is then somewhat soothed when we hear Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh complaining about the same thing on the radio, but then hyperbolically calling for some drastic measure - in a PURELY entertainment-esque metaphor - NOT to be taken literatlly! tirade that makes us feel better. But it doesn't really. It just makes us feel less alone in our powerlessness. Then we confuse our own ineptitude with the EIB or MSNBC proposed solution and start believing such exaggerated silliness is an actual solution.
The thing is, the solution is simply, politely, asking the "gentleman" at Wal-mart to please use more appropriate language in public...around your mom, or your children. The solution is for all of us to grow the F up.
Have there been moments when, in the angry aftermath of some ridiculous statement made by a politician that I felt some childish satisfaction at a mean comment Olberman, or Rush made about the comment? Sure, then I remembered I'm an adult, that neither side in that childish spat was getting us closer to solving the issue, and that this particular form of entertainment is nothing more than that. I remembered that when it comes time for me to figure out where I actually stand on an issue, I need to think for myself and try to tune out the BS... the entertainment. Like what Jersey Shore characters, or AM radio "characters" say and actually tune in on what really should matter.
It's no surprise that this has been the theme of the week on The Daily Show. Many fans who stood in line for the free tickets in recent miserable New York City weather this past Monday might have felt a little slighted as the Monday show's entire first segment was Stewart intelligently and carefully explaining why it's not fun to make fun of the news when the news involves the tragedy of the previous weekend. As it was, he probably lost half his audience in that brief speech but it was eloquent, needed to be said, and probably wasn't and won't be heard anywhere else.
Later in the week, The Daily Show hosted Tim Pawlenty, who admitted to having said things in public he later wished he hadn't, but remained defensive as Stewart laid out his plea for SELF restraint. It was as if Pawlenty assumed Stewart was calling for repealing the 1st amendment. He didn't seem able to grasp what Stewart actually said: that we and our politicians should WANT to use speech that made a clearer distinction between them and crazed gunmen or extreme talk show hosts.
Am I the only one saddened by the fact that the only "news" show that's handled the truly important topics of the week with an adult approach and an appropriate and respectful deference and urgency is on Comedy Central?
So, back to the point: Yes, I believe Keith, Rush, Rachel, and Glenn should be ALLOWED to say whatever the hell they want. And, as a legion of idiots, we should be allowed to hang on and repeat their every word. No, there shouldn't be a LAW that prevents this.
What there should be is an adult segment of our population, say those over 17, who are able to see this for what it is, react negatively when appropriate rather than embrace it as the solution to the world's problems, and then to be able to seek more appropriate, relevant, and useful information upon which to form their opinions. They should then act on and voice those adult opinions in grown up ways. We should tell our politicians when their speech is inappropriate and worse, when their actions (or lack of) are ineffective. We should ignore entertainers whose idea of entertaining is simply preying on the ignorant who can't form their own opinions.
The dude using the F word in Wal-Mart only thinks that's ok because as a society, we have agreed that it is. This is in no small part because we hear and pay lots of money for very similar language on afternoon radio and evening cable tv. The initial confrontations of our collective childishness won't be smooth. They will require the MOST adult among us to use all of our skills to do it. But that's what we have to do - it's not legislation I'm calling for.
We should just all grow the F up.
Luth
Out
Nope, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, it's time we grow the F up. We shouldn't need a law for adults to WANT to behave like adults in public. The law shouldn't have anything to do with it. What we need is for the rest of us to voice it when we disagree with the childish behavior of both our politicians and our big media personalities... or even with that guy in Wal-Mart talking on his cell phone in the diaper aisle screaming the F-word in every sentence!
You know me, I LOVE the F word, but when did it become acceptable for it to be part of every sentence someone's yelling in Wal-Mart?? I suspect it hasn't become acceptable, but rather, we've lost the adult skill of addressing the unacceptable-ness of it. Instead, we childishly stew, letting our anger at it, or at our own inability to address it grow into some hostile seething. The seething is then somewhat soothed when we hear Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh complaining about the same thing on the radio, but then hyperbolically calling for some drastic measure - in a PURELY entertainment-esque metaphor - NOT to be taken literatlly! tirade that makes us feel better. But it doesn't really. It just makes us feel less alone in our powerlessness. Then we confuse our own ineptitude with the EIB or MSNBC proposed solution and start believing such exaggerated silliness is an actual solution.
The thing is, the solution is simply, politely, asking the "gentleman" at Wal-mart to please use more appropriate language in public...around your mom, or your children. The solution is for all of us to grow the F up.
Have there been moments when, in the angry aftermath of some ridiculous statement made by a politician that I felt some childish satisfaction at a mean comment Olberman, or Rush made about the comment? Sure, then I remembered I'm an adult, that neither side in that childish spat was getting us closer to solving the issue, and that this particular form of entertainment is nothing more than that. I remembered that when it comes time for me to figure out where I actually stand on an issue, I need to think for myself and try to tune out the BS... the entertainment. Like what Jersey Shore characters, or AM radio "characters" say and actually tune in on what really should matter.
It's no surprise that this has been the theme of the week on The Daily Show. Many fans who stood in line for the free tickets in recent miserable New York City weather this past Monday might have felt a little slighted as the Monday show's entire first segment was Stewart intelligently and carefully explaining why it's not fun to make fun of the news when the news involves the tragedy of the previous weekend. As it was, he probably lost half his audience in that brief speech but it was eloquent, needed to be said, and probably wasn't and won't be heard anywhere else.
Later in the week, The Daily Show hosted Tim Pawlenty, who admitted to having said things in public he later wished he hadn't, but remained defensive as Stewart laid out his plea for SELF restraint. It was as if Pawlenty assumed Stewart was calling for repealing the 1st amendment. He didn't seem able to grasp what Stewart actually said: that we and our politicians should WANT to use speech that made a clearer distinction between them and crazed gunmen or extreme talk show hosts.
Am I the only one saddened by the fact that the only "news" show that's handled the truly important topics of the week with an adult approach and an appropriate and respectful deference and urgency is on Comedy Central?
So, back to the point: Yes, I believe Keith, Rush, Rachel, and Glenn should be ALLOWED to say whatever the hell they want. And, as a legion of idiots, we should be allowed to hang on and repeat their every word. No, there shouldn't be a LAW that prevents this.
What there should be is an adult segment of our population, say those over 17, who are able to see this for what it is, react negatively when appropriate rather than embrace it as the solution to the world's problems, and then to be able to seek more appropriate, relevant, and useful information upon which to form their opinions. They should then act on and voice those adult opinions in grown up ways. We should tell our politicians when their speech is inappropriate and worse, when their actions (or lack of) are ineffective. We should ignore entertainers whose idea of entertaining is simply preying on the ignorant who can't form their own opinions.
The dude using the F word in Wal-Mart only thinks that's ok because as a society, we have agreed that it is. This is in no small part because we hear and pay lots of money for very similar language on afternoon radio and evening cable tv. The initial confrontations of our collective childishness won't be smooth. They will require the MOST adult among us to use all of our skills to do it. But that's what we have to do - it's not legislation I'm calling for.
We should just all grow the F up.
Luth
Out
Thursday, January 13, 2011
After the hangover... more on hate speech
Funny you should come back now, Ray. When I awoke from the hangover of yesterday's post, even I felt it was reactionary, premature, maybe even immature. I was thinking all day about posting something to that effect, but when I read it again, I noticed how short I stopped from drawing any direct link between the right's hate speech and political violence. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I simply extrapolated Krugman's point: that there's a difference between strong rhetoric (even emotionally charged strong rhetoric...even if it's less than researched, ie opinion) and inciting violence. One is common only to the right. One is ubiquitous.
It doesn't take long to Google Limbaugh or Beck and find either carefully couched but obvious, or downright violent samples...here are the initial hits:
RUSH:
"It's called Operation Chaos! The dream end... I mean, if people say what's your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That's the objective here..." (April 2008)
BECK:
"...let's line em up and shoot em in the head..."
"I'd like to kill Charlie Rangel with a shovel..."
"I put poison in your (nancy Pelosi's) wine..."
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore..."
Not to mention the calculated build ups that don't actually come right out and say it but leave little to the imagination...
"the president is a racist...has a deep seated hatred of white culture..."
(How do you think Beck expects Klansmen to receive those remarks?)
Or how about "The razor wire is coming." after a riff on the American Revolution and how it only took 12% of Americans to start it... and at least 30% of today's Americans don't want to live inside the razor wire, do we people? Sure, that's not a direct call for violence, but if you don't see Beck's call for revolution (and NOT just in the voting booths) in this speech, you're blind.
Show me samples like this from Olberman or Maddow... (do I even need to include Williams, Brokaw, Rather??) or even Stewart or Colbert (who are clearly comedians... a title Limbaugh and Beck deny for themselves vehemently)
Nope, I stand by this one. Reactionary? Sure. Inaccurate? I don't think so. I should trust my reactionary gut more often.
True, there's no direct link, but I'm sticking with the notion that if a lefty said these kinds of things, he or she would be shunned by the Democrats. The Dems thus endorse CIVIL discourse NOT violent elimination of the opposition.
The GOP has embraced violent rhetoric. Most of the Arizona Tea Bag politicos would rather bankrupt the state than write a gun law, let people with brown skin walk their streets without papers, or raise taxes. Palin tweets about pitbulls, mama grizzlies, and reloading. There's no denying the Beck/Limbaugh connection and the way actual Repubs talk. That's the difference. That's endorsement. That's what foments cultural shifts. That's the link, indirect as it may be, between violent acts and Beck/Limbaugh cum Republican hate speech. This kind of endorsement is undeniably absent from the Dems and even the Left's cable media.
We're not talking about emotions or strong language here. Those have a place in debate/argument. You should be passionate about what you believe, but you should be able to argue for it on its merits, not by calling for the elimination of your opponents. You're allowed to get angry during the course of a debate, but you don't specifically name someone you'd hit with a shovel.(that's often referred to as "assault") I think even you can see the difference between that and invoking the expression (with no PERSON as the target) about bringing a knife to a gunfight when speaking VERY clearly about FUNDRAISING.
There's a slight difference between direct speech and figurative language...even if the direct speech is presented as a tasteless joke, it's direct, almost literal, NOT about fundraising. Calling for a Chicago'68-like riot at the Denver Democratic Convention is NOT a metaphor. It's a direct call. Poisoning Pelosi's wine or killing Charlie Rangel by hitting him in the head with a shovel may be just jokes, but they are also explicit, violent statements. I guess that's what makes them funny... among a circle of like-minded friends, but not in a public broadcast.
There's also a considerable difference between a psychopath stating some connection for his acts, and a culture that condones the acts. John Hinckley shot Reagan to get the attention of Jodie Foster. Mark Chapman killed John Lennon because it somehow fit with his world view based on The Catcher in the Rye. So are Foster and Salinger to blame? Uh, no, but that's not quite the same as Klansman, encouraged by their culture and their political leaders, lynching blacks in the 50s and 60s now is it. I think it's fair to say there's a connection in the latter, but not in the former.
Richard Nixon and his buddy, then VP at CBS, had the Smothers Brothers removed from television for far less inflammatory, far less specific, and far more sophisticated humor than what Beck and Limbaugh have gotten away with for years. And THAT was when the Republicans still pretended to be civil. Today, they don't even bother pretending anymore. Do you honestly think it's not just a matter of time? If this kind of thing DID go on in the left, it would have been outlawed in Arizona by now!
Luth
Out
It doesn't take long to Google Limbaugh or Beck and find either carefully couched but obvious, or downright violent samples...here are the initial hits:
RUSH:
"It's called Operation Chaos! The dream end... I mean, if people say what's your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That's the objective here..." (April 2008)
BECK:
"...let's line em up and shoot em in the head..."
"I'd like to kill Charlie Rangel with a shovel..."
"I put poison in your (nancy Pelosi's) wine..."
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore..."
Not to mention the calculated build ups that don't actually come right out and say it but leave little to the imagination...
"the president is a racist...has a deep seated hatred of white culture..."
(How do you think Beck expects Klansmen to receive those remarks?)
Or how about "The razor wire is coming." after a riff on the American Revolution and how it only took 12% of Americans to start it... and at least 30% of today's Americans don't want to live inside the razor wire, do we people? Sure, that's not a direct call for violence, but if you don't see Beck's call for revolution (and NOT just in the voting booths) in this speech, you're blind.
Show me samples like this from Olberman or Maddow... (do I even need to include Williams, Brokaw, Rather??) or even Stewart or Colbert (who are clearly comedians... a title Limbaugh and Beck deny for themselves vehemently)
Nope, I stand by this one. Reactionary? Sure. Inaccurate? I don't think so. I should trust my reactionary gut more often.
True, there's no direct link, but I'm sticking with the notion that if a lefty said these kinds of things, he or she would be shunned by the Democrats. The Dems thus endorse CIVIL discourse NOT violent elimination of the opposition.
The GOP has embraced violent rhetoric. Most of the Arizona Tea Bag politicos would rather bankrupt the state than write a gun law, let people with brown skin walk their streets without papers, or raise taxes. Palin tweets about pitbulls, mama grizzlies, and reloading. There's no denying the Beck/Limbaugh connection and the way actual Repubs talk. That's the difference. That's endorsement. That's what foments cultural shifts. That's the link, indirect as it may be, between violent acts and Beck/Limbaugh cum Republican hate speech. This kind of endorsement is undeniably absent from the Dems and even the Left's cable media.
We're not talking about emotions or strong language here. Those have a place in debate/argument. You should be passionate about what you believe, but you should be able to argue for it on its merits, not by calling for the elimination of your opponents. You're allowed to get angry during the course of a debate, but you don't specifically name someone you'd hit with a shovel.(that's often referred to as "assault") I think even you can see the difference between that and invoking the expression (with no PERSON as the target) about bringing a knife to a gunfight when speaking VERY clearly about FUNDRAISING.
There's a slight difference between direct speech and figurative language...even if the direct speech is presented as a tasteless joke, it's direct, almost literal, NOT about fundraising. Calling for a Chicago'68-like riot at the Denver Democratic Convention is NOT a metaphor. It's a direct call. Poisoning Pelosi's wine or killing Charlie Rangel by hitting him in the head with a shovel may be just jokes, but they are also explicit, violent statements. I guess that's what makes them funny... among a circle of like-minded friends, but not in a public broadcast.
There's also a considerable difference between a psychopath stating some connection for his acts, and a culture that condones the acts. John Hinckley shot Reagan to get the attention of Jodie Foster. Mark Chapman killed John Lennon because it somehow fit with his world view based on The Catcher in the Rye. So are Foster and Salinger to blame? Uh, no, but that's not quite the same as Klansman, encouraged by their culture and their political leaders, lynching blacks in the 50s and 60s now is it. I think it's fair to say there's a connection in the latter, but not in the former.
Richard Nixon and his buddy, then VP at CBS, had the Smothers Brothers removed from television for far less inflammatory, far less specific, and far more sophisticated humor than what Beck and Limbaugh have gotten away with for years. And THAT was when the Republicans still pretended to be civil. Today, they don't even bother pretending anymore. Do you honestly think it's not just a matter of time? If this kind of thing DID go on in the left, it would have been outlawed in Arizona by now!
Luth
Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)