INDEPENDENT LEGACY
50 Posts: Who in their right mind would post 278,000 words on one topic over the span of two years, with 50 posts that virtually no one has read? Someone had to do it, and apparently all of the completely sane, and more qualified, crusaders were busy.
Retrospective inclusions: I haven’t quite made it through all of the copies of Time magazine a friend gave to me a few months ago, but I have seen at least one article on all of the subtopics I’ve covered to date, (from immigration, health care, energy policy, funding for retirement and campaign finance, etc.) for which, if there is any pertinent information, will be filtered into the various subtopics in the massive word document I keep of all of my posts that is a complete chronicle of my work on the topic of the middle class’ future struggle for economic and political relevance in the future. Only the Dead Sea Scrolls is a more highly-prized collection of spiritual history than is the document I have created- sure, and the mackerel is famous for its ability to give a pelican’s gullet a hickey while it writes its last will and testament.
On Time: One other topic I’ve covered has also been the political relevance of Independent party candidates, whose voices mix so incompletely, incoherently, and discordantly, that they may never be legitimized because they lack an overriding and consistent voice that can boil down the issues in a way that would inform the voter how urgently the right kind of change is needed and how they (the Independent candidate) would realistically affect this change. Curiously, this makes them no different than the two parties for which the citizens keep voting. In Time’s February 11, 2008 issue is a commentary by Peter Beinart called “The Bloomberg Delusion” (pg. 53) which dismisses New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s potential (at the time) candidacy for president as an Independent. No harm there, of the things I had read about Bloomberg, his decision not to run for president was not something over which I lost a great deal of sleep. The specifics of Beinart’s last paragraph were none too troubling, but the sentiment considered in a greater context certainly is, especially when coupled with Joel Stein's which I more thouroughly refute at the end of this number:
“More than 50 years ago, the historian Richard Hofstader compared third parties to bees. They inject a new perspective into the political mainstream, and then they die. If Michael Bloomberg runs for President, he’ll skip the first step.” Still, I wonder how much more of an impression the typical republican or democrat can make, as they inject nothing worth perceiving into the political mainstream and live forever. C’mon, you cannot tell me that there aren’t a hundred thousand electable* Richard Nixons or Bill Clintons running around. These guys never die, we just call them by another name.
Independent party commentary in this post . . . to be continued below
3 Things about me as a capitalist: I have had infrequent conversations with proponents of the free-market, who are only pro-capitalism indirectly- they value the rich for their money, never minding how it was acquired, with the assumption that the rich have always earned their money through wisdom and effort and the poor are so for a reason. I would tell them this if their free-market protectionism would abate long enough for me to go on a conciliatory attack and disprove their theory that I am a socialist: 1) The richest 1-5% should not be taxed if it is determined that the government is wasting a substantial amount of money that can, should and must be redirected toward more responsible spending** - that doesn’t sound like a socialist to me; 2) those running small businesses and earning between $150k-$300k are the epitome of capitalism, are trying to put their ideas into practice, have worked like animals to become successful and probably have a small number of employees on the payroll who count on their jobs, and should not have their taxes raised. These entrepreneurs should not be penalized for just starting to make a profit- that does not sound like a socialist to me. However, those without a payroll making that kind of money, and who are likely among the richest 1-5% of income earners, should see a tax increase if it is determined that the government is not wasting our tax money. 3) The poor should not simply derive any kind of economic benefit from the rich or middle class if it can be determined, by just as objective a set of intelligently empowered federal bean-counters that they are abusing the Welfare system (see part 32) and are protected by the government while they are so doing***- that does not sound like a socialist to me.
As Dobbs writes: “The establishment elites have raised so-called free trade to the level of a personal and societal belief system that is as ardently faith-based as any religion. How else to explain their refusal to recognize thirty-one consecutive years of U.S. trade deficits or a U.S. trade debt that is rising faster than our national debt? How else to explain their attacks on independent thinkers and empiricists who question their economics with facts, critics whom they look upon as heretics.” (pg. 207, Independents Day) How can you even argue with that? Those defending the free-market and free trade, well, there is a name for people like that as well, and it is much worse than the label- socialist to someone who has proven he is far from it. Free market proponents treat the lack of oversight in the areas of U.S. free trade policies and globalization as if it is the equivalent of a belt loop the federal government missed when it was trying to cinch up its pants- which is something the federal and state governments should have been forced to do decades ago.
Independents on taxes (tying together the three previous paragraphs): If an Independent’s view on taxation, never minding what it is on campaign finance, immigration, health care, education, global warming, government bailouts, the federal reserve or foreign policy, is not contained in the paragraph- 3 Things about me as a capitalist, then there is absolutely no reason to vote for them- which also includes the reasons to not vote for a republican who will not raise taxes on the rich (see part 49- the material on MN governor Pawlenty), nor for a democrat, as they would never think to punish the poor for abusing welfare programs that are crippling this country (see part 32). The barometer by which the voter can best gauge a political candidate is how they treat the citizens and corporations (too poorly or too well) who are armed with the responsibility of lining the government’s pockets, or dismissed of this responsibility.**** How the government spends the money derived from the taxpayer, is even somehow less important, and how they spend it, or misspend it (see part 9) is pretty important stuff- at least as important as a beaver with coxydia finding out that sexting can be safe if not performed while going 65 mph on the interstate, unless they do so with a boll weevil that has snacked on some bad cotton buds. I would never admit to allowing the government to spend it unwisely, and agree to eliminate my frequent and reasonable requests for more accountability, transparency, discontinue this bloga (i.e. blog saga) and some kind of independent federal bean counters, just so that we could be taxed less, but we do need to be taxed less first, which would in part, begin to subject government spending to greater and greater scrutiny.
Madison on redistribution: James Madison, writing for the National Gazette, a paper backed by Thomas Jefferson, called for laws to prevent “ ‘an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches’ [and wanted] ‘to reduce extreme wealth toward a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.’ ” I don’t agree with this approach. It does not reward those who may have earned their rewards for the risks they have taken, while it allows those who have failed to labor, considering that they are able, to also benefit. Madison’s well chronicled concern for factions, which is at the economic heart of our country's political disagreement, is most adequately identified in these paragraphs, which appear in The Federalist #10:
“By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority
of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
“There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controling its effects.” Since neither of those two options have seemed altogether likely, or possible, (since it would be a faction that would author that change), and the government having no recourse to mitigate the interests of private citizens (if there were someone would surely have informed their rivals that their viewpoint was Unconstitutional by now) we must deal with the consequences of natural human liberty of thought, which rarely brings fairness into account- whether the opinions of the extremely wealthy or the indigent are considered.
Income disparity: Quoting from a Justin Fox, Time magazine article (May 26, 2008, pgs. 36-41) that in an April 2008 Gallup poll, “68% of respondents said wealth ‘should be more evenly distributed’ ” while “51%, agreed that ‘heavy taxes on the rich’ were needed.” I wouldn’t fall into either of those categories. That does not sound like a socialist to me. I feel as if I should come up with a battery of instances, in Jeff Foxworthy "you might be a redneck-ese" of explaining to conservatives what actually constitutes a redneck, excepting that I would substitute socialist for redneck. One example- if you can't remember the last time you had a boner at work or thought that the news headline "the death of the king of pop" was offensive to those who call it soda, you might be a socialist.
The Patriot Act (ala Biden): During last fall’s presidential election season, democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden made a tax pledge quite unlike that made by Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty. Biden said, during one interview that: “We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.” He then noted “that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: ‘It’s time to be patriotic . . . time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.’ ” Again, while I appreciate the sentiment, much like that above about mayor Bloomberg’s lack of presidential merit, I am not a proponent of that approach. The rich do not owe the middle class any money unless the latter are under the employ of the former; those do not seem like the words of a socialist to me.***** If Biden, and his like-minded senators, or those who are exactly the opposite, with desires for rewarding the rich with tax breaks and incentives, were patriotic, no class of citizen would be asked by their government to bear more of a burden than responsibility demands. I would assure Mr. Biden that American people of all classes are far more patriotic on average with less financial security assured to them than the average politician who ill considers some of their tax burden decisions in the federal legislature. Politicians and political pundits are amusing. The economy, credit crunch, the values of their homes plummeting, their jobs being stripped from them by workers overseas, the rising cost of health care, the infrastructure of the nation crumbling and taxpayers have to watch these people (politicians and pundits) with the audacity to appear on Meet the Press to discuss the vetting process of the newest supreme court nominee. How she will vote on the issue of abortion and whether she will be mindful of the obvious subtextual elements of a document (the Constitution) way past its prime, to the delight or horror of millions with a stake in her brilliance or fatuity****** are bizarre concerns compared to the havoc that a living document like the Constitution brings to our daily lives, too often unbeknownst to us. The ability of someone to look to the oracle of the Constitution and interpret the founder’s intentions is slightly more important than the starting pitcher guessing at how the home plate umpire will be interpreting the strike zone; and in the latter case, the umpire’s efficiency is formally judged. A sea anemone that just sits and waits for its prey to happen by, is treated like a whore by the clown fish and is consumed by the sea slug is less pathetic and still more independent than the Constitution; the latter gives life only to those whose imaginations are already dead. (Source of the quote above- “Biden Calls Paying Higher Taxes a Patriotic Act” Associated Press, September 18, 2008.)
Fair tax: It may be time to institute the Fair Tax, a consumptive tax, which is not to say one that has tuberculosis, but that rather taxes those who purchase goods and services, without compromising our immune system, so it is a tax of each according to his means. For the full details see- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax. From the book Affluenza (written by Clive Hamilton and Richard Denniss- “people would be taxed on what they consume, at a rate rising from twenty percent (on annual spending under $40,000) to seventy percent (on annual spending over $500,000) . . . the idea is to tax those with the most serious cases of ‘luxury fever’ . . . at the highest rates, thus encouraging saving instead of spending.” Which brings one question to mind- how in the hell is the government going to enact that. Too many of a politician’s constituents make a lot of money from a middle class that is in debt from the interest rates on their credit card bills. If the citizen is saving their money, they cannot be spending it. Like the national id card, education spending, government waste, and health care, I think it would be best to institute a pilot project to prove to proponents and opponents alike that it either would or would not work. The biggest problem preventing a fair tax pilot project is determining which states would participate. The solution- amending the Constitution so that a state’s rights are subject to the collected people’s will. Tracing every proposed solution back to the question of Constitutional authority is more frustrating than playing competitive hide and seek with a prairie dog who has the keys to your bank account. A convicted murderer in Virginia once said that the governor had just lost his vote, claiming that the state’s execution methods, (lethal injection) were unconstitutional.
INCOME AND TAXES
“The (Impossible) American Dream”: is an article written by Robert J. Samuelson for Newsweek (November 28, 2007) in which the author writes- “we’re more prosperous than at any time in our history.” Some of us are and some of us would want the words “on average” included in that sentence, lest we lose track of the big picture. Samuelson also writes that “About two-thirds of today’s adults have incomes higher than their parents did”- but this trend is sure to be discontinued in this time of 1.5% raises; another thing missing from this particular sentence are these words- as measured against inflation- its omission is telling. What is the point of saying that someone is making $20 an hour if a loaf of bread costs 10 times what it did 30 years ago, or that a furnace is obsolete 10 years after its installation these days whereas those built in 1973 are still going strong? It is a good idea when you write an article about keeping things in perspective you actually keep things in focus. Samuelson concludes- “The possibility that their children will move down the economic ladder, in class position if not income, is one of the great anxieties that assault the vast middle class, even at its highest reaches. Mobility is a great thing, but it often comes at someone else’s expense.” Quite right, and it comes at everyone’s expense if the government decides to add or increase taxes in lieu of responsible spending. (See- http://www.newsweek.com/id/72618.)
Conservative assessment: Minnesota radio talk show host Jason Lewis wrote an article for the Minneapolis Star Tribune which appeared in September of 2007. In it he writes “ . . . since the Census Bureau figures don’t include the value of noncash government benefits, such as food stamps, housing subsidies, Medicaid or even the Earned Income Tax Credit, the data suggest a far wider gap in lifestyles between John Edwards and middle America than between poor and average households.” My point all along, no matter how convoluted it would be for me to break down his valid and invalid points about overall consumption of government outlays by the less fortunate compared against the rich, in terms of overall measureable income. The data actually suggest, such as below, that 75% of all income the last 7 years has gone to the richest 1%; referring to the average amount of redistributed tax credits or social service money handed to the poor is a waste of words, excepting if it is given to those abusing the system, and not all people receiving assistance are in that category.
Arguing about economic disparity between two combatants with facts in hand cannot be done if one of them is without empathy and objectivity and the other is without tolerance for those deficiencies. Republicans, particularly those who are preoccupied with reelection, are more stubbornly aggressive about a high-end income tax and state business taxes than a fossa, a cat-like animal that lives in Madagascar with the agility of a squirrel and the temperament of a wolverine, worries about the next infant dinner it hopes to have. Sometimes I get those two worries mixed up. But then again, conservatives confuse their paranoia for die hard protectionism and think it is their duty to keep us safe from a government that is just as dangerous when they are at the helm.
My assessment: There are liberal political pundits so jaded in their coverage that they may be more worried about a republican governor’s use of unallotment in the first year of a biennium than of our $4.1 billion trade deficit with Mexico, a nation of families that might feed their children sand for breakfast. Liberals are probably more worried about saving a species of albatross who enjoy auto-erotic asphyxiation, where they tie themselves around each other’s necks, than about someone whose tax deductions include an attempt to claim a hot tub with mood lighting as a business expense. One cover of Time magazine just before the 2008 presidential election, featured an electronic voting machine, with the cover title- “7 Things that Could Go Wrong on Election Day”. Two things- I think they stopped at 7, because they had to fit in some exclusive with Obama. Time magazine running with a story that refers to access to Obama as an exclusive is like me saying that robins are on the endangered species list. I fished that copy of Time out of the recycling bin for a joke about electing a republican or democrat as two of the seven things that could go wrong on election day. I wanted to refer to this cover as the first in 2008 that actually did not have Obama on the cover. Shockingly predictable, when I peered into the recycling bin, Obama’s face appears in the top right corner. The sun rising is less expected at this point. (Note: unallotment is where if a forecasted deficit remains the governor can drain reserves, then cut appropriations.)
Income: In reading yet another old issue of Time magazine I discovered this column: “How the Next President Should Fix the Economy” Justin Fox, May 26, 2008, (pgs. 36-41), same as above. Fox separates into categories the major concerns of the next president, and the reason for our current predicament. Two categories that appear in succession within the article stick out to me. Fox writes (under the heading “Income”) “75% of all income gains from 2002 to ’06 went to the top 1%--households making more than $382,600 a year.” Jesus, how much is enough for you people really? Further, Fox writes- “The gap between high and low earners has been growing since the late 1970s, and until recently, economists attributed virtually all of it to technological and demographic changes that increased the premium paid to those with advanced skills and education . . . And you certainly wouldn’t want to discourage people from getting an education by heavily taxing the rewards for it.” I would not, (that does not sound like a socialist to me) but neither do I want the cost of a college education to financially extend a middle class student so that they finally are done paying for it when their mid-life crisis is upon them. Those who protect the free market from the onslaught of regulations believe that the market corrects itself- that additional competitors will avoid jumping into a certain market if there is not enough profit for them to risk investing money to obtain it; the government is apparently accepting of the proposition that only the richest 5% of the country can afford a college degree and take a similar approach to justifying it- that those who would attend college are not likely to recoup the financial investment, in lifetime earnings, they would have to make. Perhaps the government is pleased that American workers are replaced by foreign ones. Is there any way to outsource presidential or legislative work, or work normally done by liberal or conservative ideologues?
Tax cuts: Fox writes- “Many economists now believe at least two other factors have contributed to the growth in inequality: [aside from education which was the factor I addressed above] globalization and Reagan’s big cuts in taxes on the rich. Even as it rewards those at the top of their fields worldwide with spectacular paydays, globalization holds down earnings for millions of Americans who compete with workers overseas . . . Public opinion has reacted to this with increasing distrust of free trade.” Ya think? (Note: I’ve checked out a book on globalization and will address that more specifically in a separate post. I need to give the people something to look forward to- something akin to a prostate exam given by a Japanese spider crab diagnosed with a difficult temperament prone to mood swings.) Fox concludes the subtopic of income in his article by revealing “the income gap is an issue that’s been danced around for too long. It’s time to address it.”
Taxes: The other subtopic of interest from Fox’s Time article was “Taxes”. He writes that “In general, we levy taxes not to ease income inequality but to fund government . . . for the 2008 fiscal year, which ends in September, the government will probably spend $500 billion more than it takes in, a deficit of 3.5% of GDP.” That cannot continue. The only two options are control government spending (in my opinion by redirecting what the government already takes in in taxes to more worthwhile, responsibly-managed areas) or taxing the public. The desires of the public given this dichotomy are more obvious than the brotherly love a fairy tern with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder******* has for a sea gull to which it was once considered more directly related. If that wasn’t clear, I think the American public wants the federal and state governments to be more responsible.
Pro business taxes: In her article “It’s His Tax Hike, and—Bravely—He’s Sticking to it” (May 10, 2009, OP1 and OP3) Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Lori Sturdevant writes of her man crush on DFL senate tax chairman Tom Bakk who may be running for Minnesota governor in 2010. Ok, so it isn’t really a man crush . . . Sturdevant is a woman. She finds “Bakk’s unabashed call for a tax hike an uncommon show of political courage and candor.” I think that after six years of her excoriating governor Pawlenty, she is fawning after any kind of tax increase at all. I think she may be happy if the only taxes we raised across the whole state were hers, and I’ve commented that taxes may need to be raised, only after it is objectively verified that they have to be. I’ve written this so many times, as recently as the beginning of this installment, I won’t even bother with a cross reference. Bakk’s proposed tax bill, in addition to rolling back some income tax reductions from 2000, would add “a fourth tier, 9.25 percent on any portion of married joint filers’ incomes greater than $250,000.” That, to republicans, is more illogical than the mating habits of the Mekong giant catfish. Sturdevant also writes that “Baak refutes any suggestion that he’s unfriendly to business.” Riiiiiight, and I’m not passionately long-winded. “Baak believes access to quality education and affordable health care are probusiness” not while your bill includes a “$330 million increase in the statewide business property tax.” Saying you are pro business while championing a bill which significantly raises taxes on businesses is like saying the flippers a sea turtle uses to move through the ocean can also be used for flight. I would only be in favor of a tax increase on small businesses making less than $300k if 1) we had already saved millions in state funds that could be redirected to education and health care; 2) the richest 1-5% of the state had their taxes increased and 3) a guy like Baak stops admitting that eating tapir feces is an aphrodisiac. You can’t make outlandish statements that unite two completely antithetical worlds and expect the taxpayer to take you seriously; who do you think you are, some kind of blogger or something? Sturdevant seems like she would believe Baak if he said that installing a chain link fence would keep dandelions out of her yard.
Vote on Taxes Committee: I know there are all kinds of entities, conservative, liberal and Independent running around predicting a novel and depressing future for a country as great as ours, like little Nostrodami, but on the issue of taxes very little predicting is necessary. If we keep raising taxes to fund war and welfare, health care and social security, the budget deficit, a weak economy, protecting gravity from falling leaves in the fall, whatever the reason, this leaves the people and its country morally and financially bankrupt. This is the first page from a website I ran across doing research on the subtopic of taxation:
“Your ‘Vote on Taxes’ Committee is committed to adding the ‘Vote on Taxes’ amendment to the U.S. Constitution. History has demonstrated that requiring voter approval of new taxes and spending will ensure that future generations of Americans will enjoy significantly higher standards of living than if government continues to tax and spend at will. The official forecast is for the U.S. to run out of money by 2050 leading to a multi-generational economic decline.
“The process of amending our Constitution is difficult, time consuming and needs the broad support of the American people. Never in our history has an amendment been successfully proposed and ratified by state legislatures. But, the founding fathers had the foresight to include a way that the states, without the help of the U.S. Congress, could change the Constitution if there were no other way to preserve the American dream of freedom and expanding economic prosperity.”
What!? Bypass Moses (the U.S. congress) in order to get a new commandment (Constitutional amendment) into the most venerated list of ambiguously worded rights ever written. We would have a better chance trusting an el legarto with diphtheria to baby sit our children than of adding a logical, people’s rights amendment to that document, a right that is not infringed upon by government, conservative blowhards or liberal tree-huggers, abused by convicted murderers, or misinterpreted by supreme court justices. (Note: el legarto (or lizard) is Spanish for alligator.) Nowhere is referendum voting more needed than on the issue of taxation and that is what will make the process of fighting its collection the least likely alteration in the country. After all, if we bypassed politicians and charged ourselves with our own governance, who would misrepresent us? Too bad we cannot deleverage our warehouse full of politicians like a lot of companies have been doing with their assets in order to gather capital.
Tax obligation: I don’t know that anyone thinks the idea of having their taxes raised sounds like a good idea, but I agree with Nader who writes that: “For millions of individuals, acceptance of their tax obligations would increase if they thought everyone was paying their fair share and the monies were being used efficiently and wisely.” (The Good Fight,********* pg. 80) That is quite a lot to expect of our government, quite a big if, but hardly an extreme idea. We'll probably never get any more from our government unless we demand it, and likely even if we do. There is a better chance of seeing a puffin off the coast of Maine the third week of August that is into cannibalism and dreams of being a former catholic prelate than there is that the government is going to be responsible with our money. Strange things happen all the time. It was inconceivable two weeks ago that the USA would be playing for the FIFA soccer championship, considering the string of events that had to go their way: a win by 3 goals a loss by Italy of 3 goals and a US victory over #1 Spain.
ECHO NARCISSISM REVISITED- see part 16
(Independent party continued from above)
I could probably have been done with this overall topic of the economic middle class woes a long time ago except that my stubbornness and diligence outrank other people’s attention span. I must admit, if I weren’t the author of this now 50 part blog saga, I probably wouldn’t be reading it either. I wrote- probably.
Supposed: They tell us it is supposed to rain, our kids are supposed to behave and eat their vegetables, we are all supposed to say please and thank you, but apparently no one told Joel Stein that Independents (those by word and deed) no longer feel as if voting for either a democrat or republican is something we are supposed to do- not those of us with balls anyway. Joel Stein wrote a column that appeared in the March 10, 2008 issue of Time magazine with the heading “How Sorry is this Guy? If Ralph Nader wants any votes in this election, he should cop to the last one he screwed up.” (pg. 72).
Stein begins: Nader “is the progenitor of two of the world’s most annoying types of people: local-TV consumer advocates and guys who enjoy reminding you to put your seat belt on.” I happen to think that is fairly standard fare and would consider those as two more things, well-meaning citizens are supposed to do. I would have guessed that flaming liberals, like Stein, (after all, he writes for Time magazine) who have probably compared Al Gore to Bobby Kennedy, would also be on the short list of the world’s most annoying- along with Mario Lopez (Slater from “Saved by the Bell”), the dude who got dimple implants before deciding he would never say no to any project his agent ever brought to his attention. Yeah, I can do cutesy little allusions to strangely popular television personalities too. (Stein had dropped an Urkel reference in the column- very impressive.) Perhaps Stein has never shared an apartment with a squirrel, had to wash parts of their bathroom ceiling down the drain before stepping into the shower, or had a sprinkler company blame you for their mistake after unsuccessfully winterizing your irrigation system. Stein may never have needed to file a claim to the Better Business Bureau, nor needed to go to court to fight the apartment complex manager for the rent money you put in escrow, (because of the squirrels and the leaky pipes I mentioned above). These types of protections are in place because of people like Nader- look up Nader's bio. The real world’s most annoying types of people are hypocrites and bo-bos for one of the two major political parties; the dichotomy between those two types is less complex than the plot of the average Full House episode, because there isn’t a dichotomy. Does the term package deal mean anything to you?
Dismissed: I really wonder why Stein would write an article about how easily Nader could be dismissed. Isn’t it easier to dismiss someone if you don’t bring up their name? Apparently Stein can’t handle the truth and did not get the memo, that Nader was not to be touched by any in the media in 2008, which is the surest sign of disrespect in print form. (Of course, it is difficult to use the form of disrespect categorized by not writing about someone if you’ve already decided to not write about them. Don't worry about it- that one confused me too.) Stein must have been hard up for a column to defy his brand of liberal mafia bosses********** like that—he went all Code Red*********** on Nader in this article, and I am presuming without consent from those who choose which candidates are worthy of being ignored, or unworthy of being covered—you’d be surprised, there is a huge difference, or not. That can backfire. Note to self, look into the difference between the liberal print media and the liberal television media, and calculate the difference in terms of overall "political elitist" points. According to Stein, Nader “[took] key votes from Al Gore . . . [and that democrats and republicans] hate him for getting George Bush elected.”
Mock outage: Fans of professional sports grow eager as playoff series and championships are to be decided because they expect that the two best teams throughout the season ought to meet to decide the title. The better NFC team during the 2007 season was the Green Bay Packers, as evidenced by their 13 wins and home field advantage in the NFC championship game, which they lost to the New York Giants, a wild-card team, but the better team that day. Gore, apparently wasn’t considered that much better than Bush in the 2000 election or the supreme court would not have been required to declare Bush the president. The Giants went on to stun the almost invincible, and undefeated, New England Patriots for one of the most entertaining and improbable championships in sports history. So, when Stein writes that “Nader just can’t admit that he’s at least a little responsible for Gore’s loss” I cannot help but disagree, even should Stein be penning one of his columns teeming with mock outrage. It almost seems as if, and I am probably just being a little sensitive here, that Stein is blaming what all of us, as Americans, have been through these last eight years, with Bush II at the helm, on Nader’s limited appeal to those fed up with the failures we, as a collection of voters, keep electing. It isn’t the Independent’s fault that the major party’s put up two very average candidates. The venom of some of the more obvious implications Stein makes might lead an aye-aye whose mental retardation is discussed in the lady bug community to celebrate the first original thought of its life. To wit, Stein admits: “I’m still glad he’s running. It’s important for people who feel they’re not being heard to have the option to vote for insane, incapable candidates . . . Only new parties can break us out of dangerous paradigms . . . [and that] a two-party system is designed to eliminate extreme ideas . . .” and here I thought it was because they could collude to suppress reasonable ones, like fiscal responsibility, a review of government oversight, a position of compromise between the two extreme political ideologies that are defined by the republicans and democrats and backed by the media. Even a Smurf shaman knows that. (Note: For instances where a republican or democrat has either been proven or suspected to be a hypocrite please see parts 1-49 or do some research for yourself. I can't do everything. The number of supporting arguments a millipede could make would probably not shock you. That means- everyone, even insects, knows how consistently rueful, and how easily obtainable are examples, of the pledges and promises of politicians and the manner in which they go about the super-legal business of collecting money and votes.************)
Seriously: Stein condescendingly concedes that “a new party is not Nader’s goal. He simply wants to give people—especially those who are independent and didn’t vote in the primaries—a chance to register dissatisfaction so extreme that they’re willing to hurt themselves to express it.” Stein, a bo-bo for liberalism, is spectacular at delivering his brand of hip demagogy and is still angry that his average candidate (Gore) was Bush-whacked in 2000; isn't there counseling for that? A dingo roadie eunuch is less hip but more potent than someone who writes an article about dismissing someone that is attempting to better the political landscape with intelligence and process improvements. Stein should just take an intern assignment with the WHO************* and propagate the information storm for this fall’s swine flu extravaganza or disseminate leaflets autographed in tears shed after he learned of the death of Michael Jackson.************** Reading Stein makes me want to give my recliner a hug. Stein’s whole article is about downplaying the need for additional parties in the political process; Independents (and by that I mean those who actually vote for Independents) take democrats and republicans as seriously as they take us. That is why we don't vote for them anymore; we may have to wait 20 years for everyone else to catch up.
Foolish consistency and consistent hypocrisy: I stopped favoring people that lied to me in the third grade. Mr. Stein ought to remember that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” – Emerson. Consistently voting for one consistently hypocritical party or another to keep some kind of exemplary ignorance streak alive is also something for which one should apologize. If Stein, and the millions like him, can’t figure that out- get out of the way. (Note: if anyone questions why I could continue to use the word hypocrisy, do some research on the candidates from both major parties over the past 70 years- it isn’t pretty; there are just as many crazies in that bunch as anywhere else. Those in the mainstream who cite examples of kooks in the margin have a shorter memory than a sardine with rheumatism that somehow accidentally just escaped from its tin coffin. There just isn’t room on earth for that many in the mainstream to be such hypocrites.)
Stein concludes: “Part of Nader’s problem is that the Democrats are so good at self-righteous anger. Perot cost the first Bush the 1992 election, but no one got too upset when he ran again in 1996. People just ignored him. That’s how third parties are supposed to work.” Not exactly. Third parties introduce mainstream components essentially authored by a number of citizens who have grown tired of the same damn thing over and over again- partisan politics, hypocrisy, ineffectiveness, lies and half-truths. Actually, “people” did not ignore Perot, as he still gathered over 8% of the popular vote, pretty good for someone who was ignored. Elections have been won or lost, and blame assessed to third party candidates who have gathered less than 8%. Who really ignored Perot, the third party candidate, was the media, who always loves a good story, even if they have to make one up. Clinton, after all, only beat Dole by a little over 8%. So, whose problem is it when an incumbent president, whose popularity was pretty high among democrats, with the media behind him, defeats a senator well past his prime, (Dole had been running for either vice-president or president every election since 1976, excepting when his party was running an incumbent president) by a relatively small margin in popular vote while an Independent candidate gets about the same percentage (8%) as the popular vote margin of victory while being ignored? It is easy to say that the people ignored Perot when they were only following the media’s lead. (Note: there were 11 states in the 1996 election where the percentage of the popular vote was less than 5%. Men like Stein should either pay attention to a third party candidate, or the bo-bo mandate handed down to him by others, but not both. It is best to be consistent. Also, after three unsuccessful attempts at claiming the office of the president of the United States, shouldn't Bob Dole have just gone away?)
Conversations: I’ve gotten involved in a number of issue discussions with friends and relatives about politics over the past five years and this is the simplest way I can state this. Take an empty ice cube tray and hold it so that the long end is at your stomach as you stand poised before the faucet. Turn the water on at half flow and watch to see what happens when placing either the left or the right row of compartments directly under the stream of water. More than half of the water we intend to direct into the compartments in the left and right columns shoots out of the tray. Move the tray so that the water hits the divider between the two columns. The tray is so much easier to fill. If one man’s uncle is huffily proclaiming that all the republicans do and say is right and another man’s neighbor is saying that the democrats are so spot on in their world view and have exactly the opposite stance as a republican on the ten biggest issues of the day (health care, entitlements, immigration, education, foreign policy, redistribution of wealth, etc.), wouldn’t logic dictate that the man that thinks they’re both nuts, and values the better components of each such as they are, be more reasonable by default?
Faction: When following the herd, it may be best to, at times, consider if you are going the right way, and if you are leading it, if you do well by those that follow. There is no doubt that the Independents have “the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” in mind- consistently. If you are skeptical about whether the republicans and democrats do, why keep voting for them or why listen to people who have apparently cornered the market on faction.
* And when I say electable, I only mean- capable of being elected. This does not speak well of those who are casting votes in favor of those types of candidates.
** As judged by who? Well, the taxpayer of course. I probably have not indicated enough that there ought to be more referendum voting, particularly where the money to be used for any endeavor comes directly from the money that a citizen has earned from their own labor. There are plenty of caveats with this which it may be best not to address at this time, else this column digress into a topic far removed from what is intended. I do that enough as it is.
*** I read an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune written by columnist Nick Coleman that tried to put a myth about Minnesota being a welfare state to bed (see OP3). Coleman quoted governor Tim Pawlenty as saying (after he vetoed certain tax increase measures that would have benefited the poor): “ ‘There’s increasing concern about people coming from other parts of the country for our welfare system, . . . They’re not coming for the weather.’ ” Coleman then refers to a Department of Human Services report that indicated that “14 percent of public assistance seekers were from outside Minnesota in 2007” and then admits to not knowing “how many public assistance clients left Minnesota.” A) I would not refer to public assistance recipients as “clients”, and B) if you have no knowledge of how many of those on public assistance left the state in 2007, perhaps you ought not to bring it up- it may look like the point of your entire column was overcome. If communities could recover lost funds spent on no-bid military contracts and redirect that spending toward K-12 education, by paying more for talented teachers rather than those whose union protects their own inadequacies, the unfortunate link between a lack of an education and employment prospects could be in part resolved, which would alleviate some of the crime committed by those who are woefully uneducated. You wish to deny the connection between an uneducated populace and the amount of criminal activities they are involved in? Good luck. Yes, I turned the topic from social services and tax vetoes to education and crime- you will have to live with that. (Note: When I refer to crime- I am not talking about white collar crime; we all know that is an inestimable amount- any calculator I’ve ever owned only goes to eight digits.)
**** A Time/Rockefeller Foundation Survey found that 66% agreed that “even if you work hard and play by the rules, you can no longer expect to afford health care, college and a secure retirement.” (Time- July 28, 2008, pg. 41) That question did not include all of the other necessary costs that people forget about, heating oil, gas, home maintenance, financing weddings, paying for the furnace to be fixed, new siding, youth hockey, etc. It should also be noted that the percentages as broken down indicated that those making less than $20k were at 76% and those making more than $100k were at 56%. The most significant percentage to me was that the broadly defined middle class, those making between $50k and $99k came in with a percentage that matched the overall number- 66%.
***** My words, not Biden’s.
****** Depending on which interpretation you would like to believe- that she is a racist and sexist judge because of her well-chronicled comments about bringing her life experiences into play, as a latina woman, before deciding a case, or that her brand of intellectual empathy is just what the court needs, one thing is certain, there is no shortage of things that need to be interpreted where the Constitution is concerned, so why not have another justice whose divining powers are not beyond reproach weighing in on cases that barely affect anyone anymore.
******* Given that both the fairy tern and the federal government both have ADHD of dissimilar classification********, I would trust the tern’s ability to cope with their version of the neurobehavioral developmental disorder, even should they only be charged with using their beak to redistribute federal funding appropriately.
******** A footnote in a footnote again- the government suffers from ABDHD- attention budget deficit hyperactivity disorder- which compels the federal and state fundraisers to, impulsively and inattentively, funnel large dollar amounts to projects of which the taxpayer does not approve.
********* A book that is just barely less important to the social and political landscape as da Vinci’s 1,120 page Codex Atlanticus is historically. The Codex contains drawings and writings from 1478-1519 on topics such as flying machines, weapons, mathematics and botany.
********** I was going to go with a reference to Boss Hog, the white-suit wearing big-boned fellow from The Dukes of Hazzard—after all, I have an 80s-themed rebuttal going here.
*********** Anyone realize I just made a number of A Few Good Men references in that paragraph? I know, AFGM is not from the 80s and is not a television show. Just my version of Where’s Waldo- with words.
************ A fund-raising event held at Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, California implicated former vice-president Al Gore. The event was organized by DNC fund-raisers. "It is illegal under U.S. law for religious organizations to donate money to politicians or political groups due to their tax-exempt status. The U.S. Justice Department alleged Hsia facilitated $100,000 in illegal contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign through her efforts at the Temple. Hsia was eventually convicted by a jury in March 2000. The DNC eventually returned the money donated by the Temple's monks and nuns. Twelve nuns and employees of the Temple refused to answer questions by pleading the Fifth Amendment when they were subpoenaed to testify before Congress in 1997." Google Gore and campaign finance issues and you will eventually navigate to that result. And how perfect- that those who contributed the money illegally,would be protected by the Constitution.
************* Not the band- the World Health Organization.
************** Personally, the loss of Farah Fawcett is just as terrible. Sure, discovering who is next in line to the throne of The King of Pop will occupy us for weeks, but the loss of the woman who had the most famous nipples on the planet is far more daunting. Besides, I always thought it was strange that carbonated beverages needed to seat a monarch.
