Mid Terms

Here's my quick thought: we threw the Republicans out because they trashed the economy and fucked everything up. We elect Obama but he can only get so much done thanks to Republican obstruction and wishy-washy Democrats. So we decide to put the Republicans one of the Houses, even though they've explictly stated they aren't going to change their stripes (tax cuts! deruglation!) and probably won't cooperate with Obama (unless cooperation = doing what the Republicans want).

I have little faith that things will be any better in two years, after more obstruction, bullshit investigations (I'm 50-50 if they'll try to impeach Obama before 2012) and gridlock.  Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Republicans will act responsible (and this time they really mean it when they say they'll be fiscally responsible!!!)

I'm somewhat bemused by a bunch of my Republican friends on Facebook who, after two years of bitching about Obama and socialism, are upset that they might face budget cuts at the schools where they work.  Well done.

People are in trouble. Foreclosures, 10% unemployment... and our solutions seems to be cutting medicare, social security and other "entitlement programs".   Awesome. That'll sure stop the misery (but onward in Afganistan! Maybe we should also attack Iran!). 

My only solace is that I don't think that there's anyone credible the Republican's can put up against Obama. Plus, in the primary, the Republicans are going to have to run hard to the right (Birtherism, Christianism, etc) but that won't fly in the general.

And hey, at least Harry Reid won... right? Harry Reid? Whooo?

Liberal Red Meat

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Neat

So remember that letter to the editor I wrote awhile back? Someone read it.

Mr. Cox - Good letter to the editor. Keep speaking out- your comments matter. Sherrod Brown

More Mosque

It's all politics. And it's shameful. I'm pissed at Republicans for being assholes and I'm pissed at Democrats for caving to these assholes.

What Digby said:

All afternoon I've been listening to reporter after reporter reassure the audience that Republican strategists are very upset about all this Muslim trash talk and that they really just wish everyone could get back to an elevated discussion of the economy.

That's very convenient, don't you think? Their lunatics are out there fanning the flames of racism and xenophobia for the neanderthal base, while they tut-tut on TV about civility. I think they are quite happy to have it both ways. Right now they are dominating the news cycle with this ugly nonsense, which is all they care about.

August hissy fits usually fade once they've done their job, which is gin up the GOP base with red meat politics (swiftboats, death panels, Ground Zero Mosque) and turn the Democrats into pretzels, making them look like they don't know their assess from their elbows.

Ugh. I don't disagree. Shit like this is why people get turned off to politics. The endless outrage. Meanwhile, these folks (the Obama's, the Republicans, the Deans, the Palins) are allegedly the people who are running the country (or want to). This is a distraction.

Meanwhile, this cracks me up:

PLANS to build a state-of-the-art library next to Republican catastrophe Sarah Palin are causing outrage across mainstream America.

Campaigners have described the project as insensitive and a deliberate act of provocation by people with brains.

The issue is forming a dividing line in advance of November's mid-term congressional elections with candidates being forced to declare whether they have ever been to a library or spoken to someone who has books in their home.

Meanwhile President Obama has caused unease within his own Democratic party by endorsing the library and claiming that not everyone who reads books is responsible for calling Mrs Palin a fuckwit nutjob nightmare of a human being.

But Bill McKay, a leading member of the right-wing Teapot movement, said: "Sarah Palin is a hallowed place for Americans who can't read.

and that's not The Onion (via Balloon-Juice).

Frankly, I'm impressed they found another 9/11 issue before the election

The Ground Zero Mosque is neither a mosque nor located at ground zero. Awesome. None of this shit surprises me anymore.

Shockingly, I really enjoyed The Daily Show's take:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mosque-Erade
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

I'd like to say I couldn't care less about the mosque/community center but that's not quite true (since, well, I am writing about it). I care about the people trying to make hay out of it. As for the actual mosque itself... meh. It doesn't really affect me.

To me, this is fairly straightforward. The local New York zoning boards have all signed off on it, the group, Park51, seems to have jumped through all the requisite hoops, we still have religious freedom in this country, the Bush Administration used this group in the past to promote tolerance, there's another mosque near to Ground Zero already and the World Trade Center site isn't exactly "hallowed ground" (there's going to be a mall in the new site!!). Let these non-Al Queda affiliated Muslims build their community center and leave 'em alone (and god forbid we'd talk to a Muslim about this).

But of course that won't happen. This is an election year.

One of my biggest pet peeves with politics and the media is the idea that everything must be balanced and "both sides do it". That's how you show that you're unbiased; you point out that both sides suck. See, you didn't choose a side or a political party! You're above the fray and principled. Both Democrats and Republicans are awful and that's that (and I don't disagree. I just think they suck for different reasons).

Hell, sometimes this is even true. But other times, notsomuch.

A political football from both parties? Spare me. Republicans, and the right more generally, have spent weeks demonizing the proposed mosque. They've painted it as treacherous, insensitive, and a menace to American values. Fox News has been been running the outrage machine 24/7. A-list pundits and top elected officials have joined in. But when, finally, Barack Obama steps in with a modest statement of support for religious freedom, both parties are now equally inclined to demagoguery? Give me a break.

Yup. It's fairly obvious that the Democrats want nothing to do with this but the Republicans are flogging it for all it's worth (could you imagine how they'd freak out if Obama told a church congregation where they could or couldn't build a church?).

What kills me is, in the grand scheme of things, this isn't important. Whether or not a mosque or mosque-like-thing is built near to Ground Zero isn't really a pressing issue. The country is at 9.5% unemployment, there's immigration reform, financial reform and a host of other pressing issues and all our media can focus on is the political fall-out from the mosque that isn't a mosque.

Awesome.

Something I'll never have to worry about

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet say billionaires should give away half their money:

On Wednesday, the Giving Pledge -- a movement spearheaded by Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates -- revealed the names of 40 individuals and families who are taking up the challenge to give away at least half of their net worth during their lifetime or at death. Along with a commitment, the philanthropists all posted a letter explaining why they were taking the plunge. Analyzing their remarks offers a rare glimpse into the minds of the richest of the rich: how they view their fortunes and where they think their money should go after they die.

The most common philosophy: That a life of monetary excess can be an empty life if the wealth does nothing to advance a greater cause.

This seems pretty neat right? And I certainly don't disagree with the rich donating their money to charity.

And right now, with the economy the way it is (and state governments hemorrhaging money and Congress fighting over how to pay for unemployment extenstions) it's certainly not a bad idea for the wealthy to be donating their money (and it's certainly good PR).

But I tend to agree with Peter Wilby of the Guardian (via):

Salute Buffett who says his children won't inherit "a significant proportion" of his wealth. The filthy rich, or some of them, have shown they have a heart.

But let's be clear. Money paid to charity is exempt from tax; the US treasury already loses at least $40bn (£25bn) a year from tax breaks for donations. So billionaires, not the democratically elected and (at least theoretically) accountable representatives of the people, get to decide on the good causes.

[snip]

we should welcome the Gates-Buffett initiative and applaud those who have joined it. Generous, public-spirited billionaires are preferable to mean ones. But remember that two-thirds of US corporations contrive to pay no federal income tax at all and that transfer pricing alone – a legal device, used, for instance, by Ellison's Oracle Corp, that converts sales in one country to profits in another where tax liabilities are low – deprives the US treasury of $60bn annually. Such sums, which pile more taxes on the poor and reduce funds for government projects that advance the public good, dwarf what the 40 billionaires propose to give away.

If the rich really wish to create a better world, they can sign another pledge: to pay their taxes on time and in full; to stop lobbying against taxation and regulation; to avoid creating monopolies; to give their employees better wages, pensions, job protection and working conditions; to make goods and use production methods that don't kill or maim or damage the environment or make people ill. When they put their names to that, there will be occasion not just for applause but for street parties.

Exactly. With the government trying to figure out how to pay for school teachers, cops and firefighters (and their pensions) and California looking to (gasp!) legalize pot, the billionaires could help a lot by just paying their taxes. (I dunno, if these guys can afford to give away have their money, I'm pretty sure they can afford higher taxes).

I know, it's weird. But taxes pay for stuff. Like bridges (remember that bridge that collapsed in Minnesota? There's 756 more that received the same grade) and libraries and schools and a whole bunch of things that are important. Unfortunately, we seem to be going the other way.

And sure, it's easy for me to say "hey, just tax the rich" but ya know what? They're fucking rich. Tax them at 90% and they're still be way richer than myself. They can still be rich and we can have pensions for teachers.

Win-win.