Two NFL notes;
First, ESPN's Kevin Seifert had a blog post suggesting Mike Tice had settled the Chicago Bears Offensive Line. Apparently they had a good game against the NY Jets and that proves that they are settled. Ignore the fact that the lead the league in sacks allowed or that they have the worst o-line rating in the NFL when considering sacks, penalties, and QB hurries and knock downs. In related news Joe Webb is the second coming of Tom Brady.
Second, Chris Johnson is only 1,175 yards short of the 2,500 he said he thought he could achieve this year. The good news is he can break two records in one day if he does run for 1,175 yards against the Colts this Sunday. He would have the highest single game total and the most yards in a single season. I got the under on this one.
Friday, December 31, 2010
If Republicans want to have an "adult conversation" they first need to act like adults
Prior to the November elections Republicans were out in force spreading the word that to fix the US we would need to have an "adult conversation". The problem is Republicans don't seem to understand what that means. Being the adult means making tough choices that "the kids" will not like. As a parent you don't just give your kids everything they ask for because you are smarter and know better. He is an example. Tonight at midnight Massachusetts will eliminate it's state tax on alcohol. They have essentially decided that alcohol is a necessity not a luxury. This will cost the state $100 million in revenue. This means less money for public programs and less public employees. That is unless the state raises another tax to make up the difference. But that won't happen because our politicians are not the adults they claim to be. They are the parent that wants to be the kids friend and fails to parent.
To put it in terms that Republicans should appreciate, imagine if a business owner let his employees decide their pay rate, work hours, and vacation time. While that might work for some very small companies with a highly motivated and dedicated staff, the majority of companies will see a huge drop in production because most Americans don't understand what is best for them.
My point is that we have a lot of very important issues that need to be addressed but no one is willing to take on popular programs or increase taxes because they want to be liked and Americans are too stupid to make the right choices.
Having an adult conversation makes no difference if you aren't going to act like an adult when tough decisions need to be made.
To put it in terms that Republicans should appreciate, imagine if a business owner let his employees decide their pay rate, work hours, and vacation time. While that might work for some very small companies with a highly motivated and dedicated staff, the majority of companies will see a huge drop in production because most Americans don't understand what is best for them.
My point is that we have a lot of very important issues that need to be addressed but no one is willing to take on popular programs or increase taxes because they want to be liked and Americans are too stupid to make the right choices.
Having an adult conversation makes no difference if you aren't going to act like an adult when tough decisions need to be made.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Hey New York - Public Employees Plow the Roads
There has been a lot of talk over the past few days about how bad the snow removal has been in New York city. Setting aside my disdain for the over exposure New York gets for everything, it should be noted that government employees are the ones who plow the snow and lay down the salt. Thanks to the tax cuts that Republicans forced down our throats for the super rich and even some for the rest of us, there are less employees to drive the trucks. There is less salt to be spread. And there are less employees to maintain the equipment. All of this adds up to slower travel for New Yorkers. This will only get worse, as the new year brings a new round of layoffs to New York.
Keep in mind, this is not unique to New York. This is happening in your community too. Your tax dollars pay for things like firefighters, police, and roads. Less tax money means less public service. And this means slower response times for firefighters. It means less criminals being caught by less cops. And yes it means less snow removal and less safe roads. Thank the Republicans who convinced you that less is more, except for the times when less is actually less.
Keep in mind, this is not unique to New York. This is happening in your community too. Your tax dollars pay for things like firefighters, police, and roads. Less tax money means less public service. And this means slower response times for firefighters. It means less criminals being caught by less cops. And yes it means less snow removal and less safe roads. Thank the Republicans who convinced you that less is more, except for the times when less is actually less.
Highway Trust Fund (gas / fuel tax) under attack by Republicans
Republicans continue to claim a need to reduce the deficit yet at every turn they do things to the contrary. Their new idea to reduce the deficit? Steal money from the Highway Trust Fund to fund other programs that they do like. So how does that reduce the deficit? It doesn't.
The fuel tax like Medicare and Social Security are targeted taxes that when collected only go to pay for the programs they tax for. Imagine if your SS payments when to fund welfare. Think of the outcry. We are already underfunding the maintenance of our roads and stealing money from the Highway Trust fund will only make things worse. Additionally, less money for roads means less infrastructure spending and less jobs. Not exactly what Republicans ran on this fall.
The claim is that there are no sacred cows when looking to cut the budget. That is fine but this tax was put in place to specially fund the roads. It was a tax increase. If you would like to cut money from the Highway Trust Fund then cut my taxes by lowering the gas tax. If you don't have enough money to fund another program then increase taxes accordingly. This tax is completely independent of any other taxes and therefore does not qualify as a sacred cow. Military spending is spending using general fund money. Refusing to cut military spending (actually military spending was increased by 13%) is having a sacred cow because that is discretionary spending. The Highway Trust Fund is not.
This is why the Highway trust Fund had been solvent for it's first 50 years until Republicans changed the rules forcing the Trust Fund to act like the irresponsible Americans that Republicans love to chastise. In 1998 Republicans forced the Highway Trust Fund to spend all of the money it gets. This was fine until the recession hit and funding dropped drastically. Instead of having a rainy day fund as it did before Republicans changed the rules, the Highway Trust Fund became a spend everything you make entity. It's almost like the Republicans wanted the Fund to fail. And stealing money from it now to save military contract jobs in their states only proves that Republicans say one thing and do another. Adding to the Deficit in the name of tax cuts for the super rich while cutting already low spending on the roads that working Americans need.
The fuel tax like Medicare and Social Security are targeted taxes that when collected only go to pay for the programs they tax for. Imagine if your SS payments when to fund welfare. Think of the outcry. We are already underfunding the maintenance of our roads and stealing money from the Highway Trust fund will only make things worse. Additionally, less money for roads means less infrastructure spending and less jobs. Not exactly what Republicans ran on this fall.
The claim is that there are no sacred cows when looking to cut the budget. That is fine but this tax was put in place to specially fund the roads. It was a tax increase. If you would like to cut money from the Highway Trust Fund then cut my taxes by lowering the gas tax. If you don't have enough money to fund another program then increase taxes accordingly. This tax is completely independent of any other taxes and therefore does not qualify as a sacred cow. Military spending is spending using general fund money. Refusing to cut military spending (actually military spending was increased by 13%) is having a sacred cow because that is discretionary spending. The Highway Trust Fund is not.
This is why the Highway trust Fund had been solvent for it's first 50 years until Republicans changed the rules forcing the Trust Fund to act like the irresponsible Americans that Republicans love to chastise. In 1998 Republicans forced the Highway Trust Fund to spend all of the money it gets. This was fine until the recession hit and funding dropped drastically. Instead of having a rainy day fund as it did before Republicans changed the rules, the Highway Trust Fund became a spend everything you make entity. It's almost like the Republicans wanted the Fund to fail. And stealing money from it now to save military contract jobs in their states only proves that Republicans say one thing and do another. Adding to the Deficit in the name of tax cuts for the super rich while cutting already low spending on the roads that working Americans need.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Fox News only tells the parts of the truth that makes Democrats look bad
Today Fox News has as its feature story, a piece on the a NASA program that even though canceled due to a belief that the technology is out of date and unnecessary, is being forced to proceed by congressional action and cost the American tax payers $500 million. Here is the wording by Fox News:
It’s the frustrating result of an ongoing political battle that stretched throughout this year. With the potential cancellation of Constellation looming, lawmakers inserted clauses into NASA’s 2010 budget to protect Ares I jobs in their home states, effectively preventing NASA from shutting down the program pending a new budget from Congress.
So who would have caused such waste just to save jobs in their district? Fox News fails to produce any names. Why would that be? Shouldn't we be mad at the people who are wasting tax payers money. Doesn't this drive up the deficit and Fox News hates increases to the deficit. Isn't this big government evil stimulus spending? The reason Fox News doesn't mention the congressmen who inserted the pork is because it is Republican Richard Shelby.
Fair and Balanced? I guess that statement is based on the belief that the US is a center right country. That means it is fair and balanced from a right leaning perspective. Screw the truth. Report propaganda.
It’s the frustrating result of an ongoing political battle that stretched throughout this year. With the potential cancellation of Constellation looming, lawmakers inserted clauses into NASA’s 2010 budget to protect Ares I jobs in their home states, effectively preventing NASA from shutting down the program pending a new budget from Congress.
So who would have caused such waste just to save jobs in their district? Fox News fails to produce any names. Why would that be? Shouldn't we be mad at the people who are wasting tax payers money. Doesn't this drive up the deficit and Fox News hates increases to the deficit. Isn't this big government evil stimulus spending? The reason Fox News doesn't mention the congressmen who inserted the pork is because it is Republican Richard Shelby.
Fair and Balanced? I guess that statement is based on the belief that the US is a center right country. That means it is fair and balanced from a right leaning perspective. Screw the truth. Report propaganda.
Fox News is fear mongering to benefit Republicans
I found the following poll on Fox News today:
Are you planning to travel for vacation in 2011?
No -- The uncertainty of the economy is going to keep me close to home.
Maybe -- I'd like to, but with the economy in its current state and rising gasoline prices, I can't be sure.
Yes -- The purpose of a vacation is to get away, and that's exactly what I intend to do.
Notice the negative connotations to all of the possible answers. I think the No statement and the Maybe statement show a slight lean but the Yes statement proves the fear mongering conservative bias of Fox News. It suggests that things are so bad that you need a vacation to escape the misery and oppression that President Obama has forced down our throats with his failed economic policies (Fox narrative not Furriners). They could have easily said something like the downturn in the economy has not affected me and I will be traveling. This would keep in line with their "economy" theme of the first two statements. After all the rich are richer than ever and I'm certain they have no reservations about taking a vacation or two this year. Unfortunately they will probably vacation abroad which will have little impact on the US economy. Way to keep things Far from Balanced Fox News.
Are you planning to travel for vacation in 2011?
No -- The uncertainty of the economy is going to keep me close to home.
Maybe -- I'd like to, but with the economy in its current state and rising gasoline prices, I can't be sure.
Yes -- The purpose of a vacation is to get away, and that's exactly what I intend to do.
Notice the negative connotations to all of the possible answers. I think the No statement and the Maybe statement show a slight lean but the Yes statement proves the fear mongering conservative bias of Fox News. It suggests that things are so bad that you need a vacation to escape the misery and oppression that President Obama has forced down our throats with his failed economic policies (Fox narrative not Furriners). They could have easily said something like the downturn in the economy has not affected me and I will be traveling. This would keep in line with their "economy" theme of the first two statements. After all the rich are richer than ever and I'm certain they have no reservations about taking a vacation or two this year. Unfortunately they will probably vacation abroad which will have little impact on the US economy. Way to keep things Far from Balanced Fox News.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Best argument ever against calling the US a Christian Nation
On December 28th 2010 Iran hung a man for "being an enemy of God".
Crazy is all about perspective
NPR reported that much of the Muslim population in Nigeria refuses to get vaccinated for polio. Why would they do this you might ask? Well apparently these people believe that the "polio vaccine is a western plot to sterilize Muslim women or spread the AIDS virus." Crazy right? What proof do they have?
In a related story, I recently offended a co-worker of mine when I mocked his concern that the Chinese would soon own America. In his words "we will all be working for Chow Chi Chung for 26 cents an hour." Crazy right? What proof does he have?
Crazy is all about perspective. The ability to understand how someone else thinks. Unfortunately I find that many conservative positions show a severe lack of understanding of the other sides position. Muslims think Americans are evil and so they don't trust us. Americans burn the construction equipment that is being used to build a mosque and are then surprised that Muslims in the rest of the world are skeptical when we suggest we have their best interests in mind. Crazy?
In a related story, I recently offended a co-worker of mine when I mocked his concern that the Chinese would soon own America. In his words "we will all be working for Chow Chi Chung for 26 cents an hour." Crazy right? What proof does he have?
Crazy is all about perspective. The ability to understand how someone else thinks. Unfortunately I find that many conservative positions show a severe lack of understanding of the other sides position. Muslims think Americans are evil and so they don't trust us. Americans burn the construction equipment that is being used to build a mosque and are then surprised that Muslims in the rest of the world are skeptical when we suggest we have their best interests in mind. Crazy?
Monday, December 27, 2010
Proof that Republicans are clueless
For some reason, someone from my high school graduating class forwarded the following political email:
It just hit me!! My dog sleeps about 20 hours a day. She has her food prepared for her. She can eat whenever she wants, 24/7/365. Her meals are provided at no cost to her. She visits the Dr. once a year for her checkup, and again during the year if any medical needs arise. For this she pays nothing, and nothing is required of her. She lives in a nice neighborhood in a house that is much larger than she needs, but she is not required to do any upkeep. If she makes a mess, someone else cleans it up. She has her choice of luxurious places to sleep. She receives these accommodations absolutely free. She is living like a queen, and has absolutely no expenses whatsoever. All of her costs are picked up by others who go out and earn a living every day. I was just thinking about all this, and suddenly it hit me like a brick in the head,
My dog is a Democrat!
And my classmate made the following statement at the beginning of the email:
regardless of your political party affiliation, this is cute..........
How clueless can you be? I'm a Democrat and not only do I not find this cute, I find it childishly simple minded and insulting. How can someone think that I would find it funny to be compared to a dog. Its no wonder Republicans get so mad at Democrats. Apparently they really think important social decisions can be summed up in one kitschy paragraph.
On a positive note I suppose I find it preferable to be compared to a Democratic dog than being of the same beliefs as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
UPDATE:
Found this and thought it was too cute not to pass along to everyone I know. If you somehow find this offensive you must be a terrorist.
It just hit me!!! My cat is paranoid and overreacts to the slightest sign of trouble. She even freaks out at absolutely nothing. She is only concerned about herself and only seeks attention when it benefits her. She only spends time with a very small select group and runs in fear when anyone outside of that group appears. She lives a life of excess and expects everyone else to clean up after her. When anything gets changed she is completely flummoxed and takes for ever to adjust. I was just thinking about all this, and suddenly it hit me like a brick in the head.
My Cat is Douche Bag Republican.
Cute, right!
It just hit me!! My dog sleeps about 20 hours a day. She has her food prepared for her. She can eat whenever she wants, 24/7/365. Her meals are provided at no cost to her. She visits the Dr. once a year for her checkup, and again during the year if any medical needs arise. For this she pays nothing, and nothing is required of her. She lives in a nice neighborhood in a house that is much larger than she needs, but she is not required to do any upkeep. If she makes a mess, someone else cleans it up. She has her choice of luxurious places to sleep. She receives these accommodations absolutely free. She is living like a queen, and has absolutely no expenses whatsoever. All of her costs are picked up by others who go out and earn a living every day. I was just thinking about all this, and suddenly it hit me like a brick in the head,
My dog is a Democrat!
And my classmate made the following statement at the beginning of the email:
regardless of your political party affiliation, this is cute..........
How clueless can you be? I'm a Democrat and not only do I not find this cute, I find it childishly simple minded and insulting. How can someone think that I would find it funny to be compared to a dog. Its no wonder Republicans get so mad at Democrats. Apparently they really think important social decisions can be summed up in one kitschy paragraph.
On a positive note I suppose I find it preferable to be compared to a Democratic dog than being of the same beliefs as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
UPDATE:
Found this and thought it was too cute not to pass along to everyone I know. If you somehow find this offensive you must be a terrorist.
It just hit me!!! My cat is paranoid and overreacts to the slightest sign of trouble. She even freaks out at absolutely nothing. She is only concerned about herself and only seeks attention when it benefits her. She only spends time with a very small select group and runs in fear when anyone outside of that group appears. She lives a life of excess and expects everyone else to clean up after her. When anything gets changed she is completely flummoxed and takes for ever to adjust. I was just thinking about all this, and suddenly it hit me like a brick in the head.
My Cat is Douche Bag Republican.
Cute, right!
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Stop out of control government spending!
The Tea Party loves to complain that the government is spending too much money. While we are running a deficit, the deficit includes a LOT more information than just how much the government spends.
Having said that, to some extent I agree with the idea that our government spends too much money. The problem is that the austerity measures government agencies have undertaken are the absolute wrong way to go about making things better. An example of this is recent backlash against government employees.
Many complain that they make too much yet most lag behind their private sector counterparts and unlike the private industry public employees don't receive huge bonuses based on how much they have ripped off the general public. Additionally state and local employees like police, firefighters and teachers have seen a reduction of around 400,000 jobs over the last year while Federal employees have increased by around 82,000. Of those 82,000; 27,000 were in defense, 25,000 in veterans affairs, and 13,000 in homeland security. By supporting cuts in government spending we have made our homes and cities less safe and instead are using our tax dollars to defend the world.
Also consider that the largest increase in government spending over the past year was in the defense budget where spending increase by a little over $100 billion. Not only do we spend five times as much on defense as the next largest spending country (China) but our one year increase alone would rank as the second largest spending nation in the world (behind ourselves). The list would go like this:
US 2009 defense spending - $795 billion
US 2009-2010 increase of defense spending - $101 billion
China 2009 defense spending - $98 billion
Yes, we increased spending in one year by more than any other nation spends. This $101 billion increase also represents the largest increase in spending in the entire federal government budget. So yes, government spending is out of control but don't blame it on high government employee wages or earmarks. The fear mongering from the right and the insistence on being the world police are the reasons we have huge deficits. Unless we tax accordingly, we will never control our national debt until we reign in defense spending.
Having said that, to some extent I agree with the idea that our government spends too much money. The problem is that the austerity measures government agencies have undertaken are the absolute wrong way to go about making things better. An example of this is recent backlash against government employees.
Many complain that they make too much yet most lag behind their private sector counterparts and unlike the private industry public employees don't receive huge bonuses based on how much they have ripped off the general public. Additionally state and local employees like police, firefighters and teachers have seen a reduction of around 400,000 jobs over the last year while Federal employees have increased by around 82,000. Of those 82,000; 27,000 were in defense, 25,000 in veterans affairs, and 13,000 in homeland security. By supporting cuts in government spending we have made our homes and cities less safe and instead are using our tax dollars to defend the world.
Also consider that the largest increase in government spending over the past year was in the defense budget where spending increase by a little over $100 billion. Not only do we spend five times as much on defense as the next largest spending country (China) but our one year increase alone would rank as the second largest spending nation in the world (behind ourselves). The list would go like this:
US 2009 defense spending - $795 billion
US 2009-2010 increase of defense spending - $101 billion
China 2009 defense spending - $98 billion
Yes, we increased spending in one year by more than any other nation spends. This $101 billion increase also represents the largest increase in spending in the entire federal government budget. So yes, government spending is out of control but don't blame it on high government employee wages or earmarks. The fear mongering from the right and the insistence on being the world police are the reasons we have huge deficits. Unless we tax accordingly, we will never control our national debt until we reign in defense spending.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Top 1% are not rich, they are Super rich
As a Democrat I was disappointed that we lost the message on one important part of the tax compromise that was recently signed into law. For some reason the middle class feel that they will someday be rich and therefore they fight to keep taxes low, even for this elite group. I think it would help to change the message and instead of calling them "the rich" we refer to them as "the Super Rich". This should make them harder to identify with and allow for a repeal of these taxes in 2 years when this debate occurs again.
Lovie Smith the new Big Buck aka Wayne Fontes
Following their 2006 Super Bowl appearance the Chicago Bears have had two 7-9 seasons and a 9-7 season. Going into this year Lovie Smiths job was in jeopardy. As A Lions fan I am excited that the Bears, contrary to my preseason prediction, have put together another winning record. This means Lovie Smith gets to keep his job another year. The Bears under Lovie Smith are eerily similarly to the Lions under Wayne Fontes. They win in the years when the competition is inferior and lose when they have to play good teams. This year the Bears have managed to beat two teams with winning records while facing the 8th easiest schedule. In addition they have lost very little time to injuries and have not had to put a single stater on IR this year.
I think the Bears will be one of the worst teams in the playoffs and I would be surprised if they manage one win in the playoffs this year let only two. This is unfortunate since next year the Bears will struggle to get to 8 wins and without a good playoff run Lovie could again be on the hot seat.
If Lovie is smart he will send Mike Martz, Rod Marinelli, and Mike Tice on vacation around the NFL draft because those three guys (the first two in particular) are awful talent evaluators.
Good Luck Big Buck.
I think the Bears will be one of the worst teams in the playoffs and I would be surprised if they manage one win in the playoffs this year let only two. This is unfortunate since next year the Bears will struggle to get to 8 wins and without a good playoff run Lovie could again be on the hot seat.
If Lovie is smart he will send Mike Martz, Rod Marinelli, and Mike Tice on vacation around the NFL draft because those three guys (the first two in particular) are awful talent evaluators.
Good Luck Big Buck.
Monday, December 20, 2010
John Stossel's list of Politicians top 10 promises gone wrong.
When I was a kid I remember seeing John Stossel on 20/20 and thinking he had some good points. Then I grew up. As a Fox News contributor John Stossel has taken to only presenting half of the story. This is true with his most recent report: Politicians top 10 promises gone wrong.
10. Cash For Clunkers.
John stands in a junk yard breaking things to acting like he is creating stimulus. Well to some extent he is. An environmental consulting firm recently reported that cutting down Christmas trees was a better than owning a fake one. One of the big reasons? It creates jobs to destroy perfectly good trees. Rather than putting out facts to support his point Stossel takes on Paul Krugam'sstatement that the 9/11 attacks will be good for the economy. Stossels view: you think it creates jobs because you can see the jobs it creates. John Stossel actually believes that Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman is just making an off the cuff statement about the economic impact of destruction. John you are no economist and you embarrass yourself with this mind numbingly simple minded belief.
John goes on to claim that the increase in used car prices proves it was bad. Really? So keeping house prices high is good while car prices should be low? You can't have it both ways John.
Cash for Clunkers created jobs and put money into the economy. Was it the best stimulus program ever? No. But it was better than the Estate Tax cut or the tax cut for the super rich. Yes.
9. Minimum Wage
John makes the argument that having a minimum wage is bad and finds people ordinary people who either start off making less than minimum wage or want to hire people at less than minimum wage as his proof. John, these people have a stake in this. They are not reliable sources. The real problem here, which John repeats a couple of times on this list, is he uses the results of the legislation to show that we don't need it. What I mean by this is similar to Glenn Beck claiming we have the safest food in the world and uses that as proof why the government should stay out of food safety. The food is safe because of the FDA, not in spite of it. Similarly, American wages are higher because of minimum wage, not in spite of it.
John points out that more people would be working it companies could just pay less. Apparently John is OK with corporate greed where big business overcharges just as long as none of those profits are handed down to the working class. After all only the super rich deserve a big bonus.
If John was right and having no lower limit was good then the foreclosure epidemic in the US is a good thing. Just ask people who need to sell their house how the foreclosures have affected their ability to move and take a new job.
8. Title 9
John claims that the women's movement has already take care of any inequality issues, after all, his college had gone co-ed a full three years before title 9. Hey John, isn't is possible that your school saw what was coming and acted proactively because of title 9? Also to suggest that everything would be equal void of title 9 shows a complete lack of connection with reality given that women are still behind in many areas including pay for the same job. Weird that a white male wouldn't see the value of title 9.
Clearly this legislation has some issues but don't we want our elected officials to make improvements as issue arise? Do you really expect perfection right out of the gate?
7. New stadiums using tax payer money will increase jobs
I imagine there is some small amount of truth to this idea but the funny thing here is that Mr. Stossel blames politicians for this. This shell game was created by the super rich who want someone else to pay for a stadium they will use. The only reason politicians get involved is because pushing the agenda of the super rich is good for their political career. All John does is further the Fox News narrative that government is bad and business is good by blaming a big business idea on politicians.
6. Tax breaks for farmers
John finds a bunch of people who are taking advantage of the situation by being rich and looking for a way to get a tax break. Odd that John would chastise a tax cut for rich people looking to hide their money. The tax cut is not designed for these people. It is designed for small farmers to compete with industrial farms. I'm not sure if it is good legislation but John is really distorting the truth with this one. John is all for less taxes and this legislation does that. I actually agree with John that this legislation should be fixed. The only problem is that the beneficiaries of this legislation are the rich and that means the Republicans will block any changes and claim that it is a tax hike or kills jobs.
5. Credit Card bill
John claims that thanks to the credit card legislation less people have access to credit cards and interest rates are higher. This is like an abusive parent blaming the kids for their abuse. The credit card companies have many unsavory methods of making money. That is their free market right. The government is fighting to protect the abused by limiting some of the worst practices. But when the abusive company find a different way of abusing their customers John makes the argument that the government is acting poorly? This is complete lunacy.
4. Health Care for all
Again John is making the case for the abuser. Medicare has lower costs than private insurance. That is a fact. Private insurance companies raising rates and dropping participants doesn't prove that health care for all is bad. It proves that private insurance companies put wealth above health. That is the free market system so I don't blame them. But John Stossel should know better. These are issues with the private insurance companies and if Republicans hadn't fought against the public option we could have eliminated some of these issues. John is completely wrong here. Not only does he blame the abused for being abused but his support for the conservative stand made the problem worse.
3. Ethanol
This one is a shameless distortion of the facts. ADM wanted increase profits and diversify into renewable energy. They paid lots of money to convince politicians that this was a good thing. The only people ethanol helps is big corn companies like ADM. This has been obvious for quite some time yet people like Chuck Grassly defend it because that is a big chuck of change he stands to lose it the government mandate for ethanol disappears. John, this was big business at work, not bad politicians. It would be nice if you could mention that in your smear campaign.
2. Home ownership
John blames the housing bubble on the push for increased home ownership. This may have started the problem but the blame for the bubble lies at the feet of the big businesses that asked for the ability to prospect in homes, over sell an under educated populous, and create a false reality of housing prices. Flipping houses and artificially increasing value wasn't a result of the home interest tax credit. It may not have hurt, but putting all of the blame on the government misses the whole story.
1. Fiscal responsibility
John claims that we expect our politicans to be fiscally conservative yet they spend more money every year. There is a lot of issues here but this one I actually agree with to some extent. I just wish John would point out that historically this is a problem with Republican Presidents not Democratic ones. The other big problem I have with blaming government for this is that our electoral system relies on outside money and big business buys these "bad deal". Republicans have fought changing how campaigns are funded at every turn so I'm not sure that John gets to complain about the results of a policy his organization supports. Second, the American people support almost all the spending that we currently do. Why? Because every piece of legislation is designed to help someone and who wants to end a program that they benefits from?
I think John would have been better served if he had called this list what it really is: Fox News top 10 slants that make Democrats look bad.
10. Cash For Clunkers.
John stands in a junk yard breaking things to acting like he is creating stimulus. Well to some extent he is. An environmental consulting firm recently reported that cutting down Christmas trees was a better than owning a fake one. One of the big reasons? It creates jobs to destroy perfectly good trees. Rather than putting out facts to support his point Stossel takes on Paul Krugam'sstatement that the 9/11 attacks will be good for the economy. Stossels view: you think it creates jobs because you can see the jobs it creates. John Stossel actually believes that Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman is just making an off the cuff statement about the economic impact of destruction. John you are no economist and you embarrass yourself with this mind numbingly simple minded belief.
John goes on to claim that the increase in used car prices proves it was bad. Really? So keeping house prices high is good while car prices should be low? You can't have it both ways John.
Cash for Clunkers created jobs and put money into the economy. Was it the best stimulus program ever? No. But it was better than the Estate Tax cut or the tax cut for the super rich. Yes.
9. Minimum Wage
John makes the argument that having a minimum wage is bad and finds people ordinary people who either start off making less than minimum wage or want to hire people at less than minimum wage as his proof. John, these people have a stake in this. They are not reliable sources. The real problem here, which John repeats a couple of times on this list, is he uses the results of the legislation to show that we don't need it. What I mean by this is similar to Glenn Beck claiming we have the safest food in the world and uses that as proof why the government should stay out of food safety. The food is safe because of the FDA, not in spite of it. Similarly, American wages are higher because of minimum wage, not in spite of it.
John points out that more people would be working it companies could just pay less. Apparently John is OK with corporate greed where big business overcharges just as long as none of those profits are handed down to the working class. After all only the super rich deserve a big bonus.
If John was right and having no lower limit was good then the foreclosure epidemic in the US is a good thing. Just ask people who need to sell their house how the foreclosures have affected their ability to move and take a new job.
8. Title 9
John claims that the women's movement has already take care of any inequality issues, after all, his college had gone co-ed a full three years before title 9. Hey John, isn't is possible that your school saw what was coming and acted proactively because of title 9? Also to suggest that everything would be equal void of title 9 shows a complete lack of connection with reality given that women are still behind in many areas including pay for the same job. Weird that a white male wouldn't see the value of title 9.
Clearly this legislation has some issues but don't we want our elected officials to make improvements as issue arise? Do you really expect perfection right out of the gate?
7. New stadiums using tax payer money will increase jobs
I imagine there is some small amount of truth to this idea but the funny thing here is that Mr. Stossel blames politicians for this. This shell game was created by the super rich who want someone else to pay for a stadium they will use. The only reason politicians get involved is because pushing the agenda of the super rich is good for their political career. All John does is further the Fox News narrative that government is bad and business is good by blaming a big business idea on politicians.
6. Tax breaks for farmers
John finds a bunch of people who are taking advantage of the situation by being rich and looking for a way to get a tax break. Odd that John would chastise a tax cut for rich people looking to hide their money. The tax cut is not designed for these people. It is designed for small farmers to compete with industrial farms. I'm not sure if it is good legislation but John is really distorting the truth with this one. John is all for less taxes and this legislation does that. I actually agree with John that this legislation should be fixed. The only problem is that the beneficiaries of this legislation are the rich and that means the Republicans will block any changes and claim that it is a tax hike or kills jobs.
5. Credit Card bill
John claims that thanks to the credit card legislation less people have access to credit cards and interest rates are higher. This is like an abusive parent blaming the kids for their abuse. The credit card companies have many unsavory methods of making money. That is their free market right. The government is fighting to protect the abused by limiting some of the worst practices. But when the abusive company find a different way of abusing their customers John makes the argument that the government is acting poorly? This is complete lunacy.
4. Health Care for all
Again John is making the case for the abuser. Medicare has lower costs than private insurance. That is a fact. Private insurance companies raising rates and dropping participants doesn't prove that health care for all is bad. It proves that private insurance companies put wealth above health. That is the free market system so I don't blame them. But John Stossel should know better. These are issues with the private insurance companies and if Republicans hadn't fought against the public option we could have eliminated some of these issues. John is completely wrong here. Not only does he blame the abused for being abused but his support for the conservative stand made the problem worse.
3. Ethanol
This one is a shameless distortion of the facts. ADM wanted increase profits and diversify into renewable energy. They paid lots of money to convince politicians that this was a good thing. The only people ethanol helps is big corn companies like ADM. This has been obvious for quite some time yet people like Chuck Grassly defend it because that is a big chuck of change he stands to lose it the government mandate for ethanol disappears. John, this was big business at work, not bad politicians. It would be nice if you could mention that in your smear campaign.
2. Home ownership
John blames the housing bubble on the push for increased home ownership. This may have started the problem but the blame for the bubble lies at the feet of the big businesses that asked for the ability to prospect in homes, over sell an under educated populous, and create a false reality of housing prices. Flipping houses and artificially increasing value wasn't a result of the home interest tax credit. It may not have hurt, but putting all of the blame on the government misses the whole story.
1. Fiscal responsibility
John claims that we expect our politicans to be fiscally conservative yet they spend more money every year. There is a lot of issues here but this one I actually agree with to some extent. I just wish John would point out that historically this is a problem with Republican Presidents not Democratic ones. The other big problem I have with blaming government for this is that our electoral system relies on outside money and big business buys these "bad deal". Republicans have fought changing how campaigns are funded at every turn so I'm not sure that John gets to complain about the results of a policy his organization supports. Second, the American people support almost all the spending that we currently do. Why? Because every piece of legislation is designed to help someone and who wants to end a program that they benefits from?
I think John would have been better served if he had called this list what it really is: Fox News top 10 slants that make Democrats look bad.
Why do the rich get richer? Republicans and Stupid Americans.
President Obama has signed the tax compromise into law and Americans support the action. The problem is that Americans support the bill for all the wrong reasons. There are a number of myths at work here.
1. The tax compromise will create jobs.
This tax compromise should be viewed as the next stimulus, though not a very good stimulus. The biggest problem is that over a third of the tax cuts benefit the top 2% and the CBO recently released are report showing the the job creation of the tax cuts for the super rich is between 0.1% and 0.0%. Basically the super rich will create almost no jobs.
2. The rich create jobs.
We have tackled this issue here before but to rehash, the super rich don't create jobs. They are mainly employed by huge companies or self employed. If the super rich truly did create jobs then we should see a correlation between the unemployment rate of a country and the distribution of wealth in that country. Below is a graph showing the CEO pay ratio by country versus the unemployment rates for those countries.
The graph shows no correlation between the average CEO pay relative to average worker pay and unemployment.
3. The American Dream
There is a long standing belief that in America if you work hard you can become successful. Polls show that 51% of 18-29 year olds believe they will be rich someday. The super rich have sold the middle class on this idea of social mobility as a means of justifying their standing while fooling the working class into working harder. For the American worker, chasing this carrot would have better results in almost every other industrialized country other than Britain and Italy. You have a better chance at upward mobility in countries like Canada, France, Germany and Denmark.
Americans love to equate their personal finances with that of the government. Given this I would like Americans to consider this. In financial terms tax cuts by the government equate to spending less as a private citizen. Clearly this is a good idea in bad times. Conversely tax increases by the government are equivalent to saving by private citizens. This is where we have failed. If taxes had remained at the historicaly low Clinton rates under Bush, we could have had a rainy day fund for the economic collapse that we experienced. Instead the government acted like many Americans and spent beyond their means.
Support the tax compromise for what it does do but realize that failing to hold the super rich accountable for their portion means a higher burden for you. Educate a fellow American so the tax cuts for the super rich get eliminated in two years when the economy has improved.
1. The tax compromise will create jobs.
This tax compromise should be viewed as the next stimulus, though not a very good stimulus. The biggest problem is that over a third of the tax cuts benefit the top 2% and the CBO recently released are report showing the the job creation of the tax cuts for the super rich is between 0.1% and 0.0%. Basically the super rich will create almost no jobs.
2. The rich create jobs.
We have tackled this issue here before but to rehash, the super rich don't create jobs. They are mainly employed by huge companies or self employed. If the super rich truly did create jobs then we should see a correlation between the unemployment rate of a country and the distribution of wealth in that country. Below is a graph showing the CEO pay ratio by country versus the unemployment rates for those countries.
The graph shows no correlation between the average CEO pay relative to average worker pay and unemployment.
3. The American Dream
There is a long standing belief that in America if you work hard you can become successful. Polls show that 51% of 18-29 year olds believe they will be rich someday. The super rich have sold the middle class on this idea of social mobility as a means of justifying their standing while fooling the working class into working harder. For the American worker, chasing this carrot would have better results in almost every other industrialized country other than Britain and Italy. You have a better chance at upward mobility in countries like Canada, France, Germany and Denmark.
Americans love to equate their personal finances with that of the government. Given this I would like Americans to consider this. In financial terms tax cuts by the government equate to spending less as a private citizen. Clearly this is a good idea in bad times. Conversely tax increases by the government are equivalent to saving by private citizens. This is where we have failed. If taxes had remained at the historicaly low Clinton rates under Bush, we could have had a rainy day fund for the economic collapse that we experienced. Instead the government acted like many Americans and spent beyond their means.
Support the tax compromise for what it does do but realize that failing to hold the super rich accountable for their portion means a higher burden for you. Educate a fellow American so the tax cuts for the super rich get eliminated in two years when the economy has improved.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Treat The Cause, Not The Symptoms
A couple of days ago, I, perhaps inartfully, expressed my discontent with Jon Stewart taking such a special interest in the 9/11 First Responders Bill. Yesterday, in the final Daily Show of 2010, Jon basically devoted the entire show to the topic.
It failed to sway my opinion.
In the yahoo! news article linked above, the first sentence is:
Is it not the case that their health care only even needs to be funded via a stand-alone bill is a result of our ridiculous health care system (that does not guarantee health care to all citizens)? Why is Jon Stewart so worked up about this when there are approximately 47 million Americans without health insurance? Studies have shown that the uninsured (remember we're talking about 47 million Americans (at least until ObamaCare fully kicks in in 2014)) live sicker and die younger. This is not a new phenomenom and, yet, only now Jon Stewart is motivated to break the format of his show for a cause?
So, I'll say it again. Let's go Single-payer. Problem solved.
That is my request for you in 2011, J-Stew Beef.
It failed to sway my opinion.
In the yahoo! news article linked above, the first sentence is:
Some have questioned why the Republican effort to block a bill to fund health care for 9/11 first responders hasn't received more coverage on the cable news networks.
Is it not the case that their health care only even needs to be funded via a stand-alone bill is a result of our ridiculous health care system (that does not guarantee health care to all citizens)? Why is Jon Stewart so worked up about this when there are approximately 47 million Americans without health insurance? Studies have shown that the uninsured (remember we're talking about 47 million Americans (at least until ObamaCare fully kicks in in 2014)) live sicker and die younger. This is not a new phenomenom and, yet, only now Jon Stewart is motivated to break the format of his show for a cause?
So, I'll say it again. Let's go Single-payer. Problem solved.
That is my request for you in 2011, J-Stew Beef.
The ultimate irony of the Flip-Flop
Today in Ezra Klein's blog he examines the following statement from former economic speechwriter for George W. Bush, David Frum, regarding Mitt Romney's ever changing views.
I sometimes imagine that Romney approaches politics in the same spirit that the CEO of Darden Restaurants approaches cuisine. Darden owns Olive Garden, Longhorn steakhouses, and Red Lobster among other chains. Now suppose that Darden’s data show a decline in demand for mid-priced steak restaurants and a rising response to Italian family dining. Suppose they convert some of their Longhorn outlets to Olive Gardens. Is that “flip-flopping”? Or is that giving people what they want for their money?
Likewise, the “pro-choice” concept met public demand so long as Romney Inc. was a Boston-based senatorship and governorship-seeking enterprise. But now Romney Inc. is expanding to a national brand, with important new growth opportunities in Iowa and South Carolina. A new concept is accordingly required to serve these new markets. Again: this is not flip-flopping. It is customer service.
You may say: But what does Romney think on the inside? Which of his positions is the “real” Romney? I’d answer that question with another question. Suppose an Olive Garden customer returns to the kitchen a plate of fettuccine alfredo, complaining the pasta is overcooked. What should the manager do? Say “I disagree”? Explain that it’s a core conviction to cook pasta to a certain specified number of minutes and seconds, and if the customer doesn’t like it, she’s welcome to take her patronage elsewhere? No! It doesn’t matter what the manager “really” thinks. What matters is satisfying each and every customer who walks through the door to the very best of the manager’s ability.
While Ezra takes issue with the actual analogy it struck me as funny given the term flip flopper was used by the guy Mr. Frum worked for to retain his job. I'm certain David Frum was a firm believer in rigidity that George W. Bush exhibited and was more than happy to chastise John Kerry as a flip flopper. Obviously seeing that the guy he backs now makes John Kerry look as stubbornly obstinate as, well, George W. Bush, he has decided to spin flip flopping and make it a positive.
While I have always supported the idea that a President should constantly evaluate every decision and make adjustments if necessary, Mr. Frum is advocating that Mitt Romney is doing this not because the change of heart represents what is best for Mitt Romney's constituents but rather what is best for Mitt Romney. There is a huge difference and the fact that David Frum doesn't realize that or chooses to ignore it, only proves that contrary to their stance as the party of morals, Republicans are willing to do anything for money and power.
I sometimes imagine that Romney approaches politics in the same spirit that the CEO of Darden Restaurants approaches cuisine. Darden owns Olive Garden, Longhorn steakhouses, and Red Lobster among other chains. Now suppose that Darden’s data show a decline in demand for mid-priced steak restaurants and a rising response to Italian family dining. Suppose they convert some of their Longhorn outlets to Olive Gardens. Is that “flip-flopping”? Or is that giving people what they want for their money?
Likewise, the “pro-choice” concept met public demand so long as Romney Inc. was a Boston-based senatorship and governorship-seeking enterprise. But now Romney Inc. is expanding to a national brand, with important new growth opportunities in Iowa and South Carolina. A new concept is accordingly required to serve these new markets. Again: this is not flip-flopping. It is customer service.
You may say: But what does Romney think on the inside? Which of his positions is the “real” Romney? I’d answer that question with another question. Suppose an Olive Garden customer returns to the kitchen a plate of fettuccine alfredo, complaining the pasta is overcooked. What should the manager do? Say “I disagree”? Explain that it’s a core conviction to cook pasta to a certain specified number of minutes and seconds, and if the customer doesn’t like it, she’s welcome to take her patronage elsewhere? No! It doesn’t matter what the manager “really” thinks. What matters is satisfying each and every customer who walks through the door to the very best of the manager’s ability.
While Ezra takes issue with the actual analogy it struck me as funny given the term flip flopper was used by the guy Mr. Frum worked for to retain his job. I'm certain David Frum was a firm believer in rigidity that George W. Bush exhibited and was more than happy to chastise John Kerry as a flip flopper. Obviously seeing that the guy he backs now makes John Kerry look as stubbornly obstinate as, well, George W. Bush, he has decided to spin flip flopping and make it a positive.
While I have always supported the idea that a President should constantly evaluate every decision and make adjustments if necessary, Mr. Frum is advocating that Mitt Romney is doing this not because the change of heart represents what is best for Mitt Romney's constituents but rather what is best for Mitt Romney. There is a huge difference and the fact that David Frum doesn't realize that or chooses to ignore it, only proves that contrary to their stance as the party of morals, Republicans are willing to do anything for money and power.
Fair and Balaned? More like Far from Balanced.
Last year around this time the Fox News spin machine was in full force trying to convince Americans that the scientific community was lying about the mountain of evidence that confirms global warming. Their basis for these claims was when the email accounts of a number of climate scientists were hacked into and published. Noted Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin made the following statements:
The crimes revealed in the e-mails promise to be the global warming scandal of the century — and have massive bearing on the climate change legislation being considered by our lawmakers here at home.
Then earlier this week internal Fox New emails from Washington Bureau Chief, Bill Sammon, were leaked showing a clear company wide goal to influence the opinions of viewers against global warming and health care reform. Fox News' official narrative on global warming as provided by Mr. Sammons was as follows:
"refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."
While I don't mind the opinion guys on Fox New having an opinion I hate to think that they espouse that opinion not because they believe it but because that is the company line. Having said that, if Global Warming is a hoax and these emails prove it than why design a corporate narrative, just do like other news sources and release the proof.
And to rally support against the public option in the health care reform bill Mr. Sammon issued a statement that the Fox News wording for this program be changed to "government option".
I'm not sure how slanting the opinions of your viewers qualifies as "Fair and Balance". Fortunately for Fox News, they understand their audience and realize that reality and facts are not important to them, they just want an opinion they can believe in.
The crimes revealed in the e-mails promise to be the global warming scandal of the century — and have massive bearing on the climate change legislation being considered by our lawmakers here at home.
Then earlier this week internal Fox New emails from Washington Bureau Chief, Bill Sammon, were leaked showing a clear company wide goal to influence the opinions of viewers against global warming and health care reform. Fox News' official narrative on global warming as provided by Mr. Sammons was as follows:
"refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."
While I don't mind the opinion guys on Fox New having an opinion I hate to think that they espouse that opinion not because they believe it but because that is the company line. Having said that, if Global Warming is a hoax and these emails prove it than why design a corporate narrative, just do like other news sources and release the proof.
And to rally support against the public option in the health care reform bill Mr. Sammon issued a statement that the Fox News wording for this program be changed to "government option".
I'm not sure how slanting the opinions of your viewers qualifies as "Fair and Balance". Fortunately for Fox News, they understand their audience and realize that reality and facts are not important to them, they just want an opinion they can believe in.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
I Propose A Trade
Last night, I happened to catch a bit of The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. He had on Meghan McCain to talk about the House's latest attempt to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Ms. McCain again reiterated her strong support for repeal of DADT and for marriage equality for the LGBT community.
As I watched it, I could not help but think a trade is in order... would not everyone be happier if the Democrats/liberals & progressives swapped Harold Ford, Jr. to the Republicans/conservatives & teabaggers for Meghan McCain?
Would Meghan make a good Democrat? No, absolutely not. But neither does Mary Landrieu or Blanche Lincoln and certainly neither does Harold Ford, Jr.! Mr. Ford is what we refer in the fantasy sports world as "expendable" (it is also what Dick Cheney calls U.S. soldiers... allegedly).
This would be the best trade I have made since acquiring Patrick Jeffers early in the 1999 fantasy football season.
Ms. McCain again reiterated her strong support for repeal of DADT and for marriage equality for the LGBT community.
As I watched it, I could not help but think a trade is in order... would not everyone be happier if the Democrats/liberals & progressives swapped Harold Ford, Jr. to the Republicans/conservatives & teabaggers for Meghan McCain?
Would Meghan make a good Democrat? No, absolutely not. But neither does Mary Landrieu or Blanche Lincoln and certainly neither does Harold Ford, Jr.! Mr. Ford is what we refer in the fantasy sports world as "expendable" (it is also what Dick Cheney calls U.S. soldiers... allegedly).
This would be the best trade I have made since acquiring Patrick Jeffers early in the 1999 fantasy football season.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
We Are All Worthy, Jon!
Earlier this very day, my Furriners colleague seemed to take a little shot at Jon Stewart. Just by coincidence, I also have a qualm with the esteemed host of The Daily Show. (And this is a post which I reckon will not win me any fans... unlike my many Derek Anderson posts which, by the way, are award eligible.)
In the past couple weeks, Mr. Stewart has had (for a lack of better phrase) a little burr in his bonnet about the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 - commonly known as the 9/11 First Responders Bill. Mr. Stewart has called it "literally the least we could do."
Fair enough...
...however, I could not help but recall an interview from last summer that Jon had with Bill Kristol regarding our nation's health care system. The topic came up of how veterans are covered under the V.A. (socialized medicine) and that they receive this as a benefit for their service to the country.
It included this excerpt:
As Mr. Kristol said that, literally a gasp came over the audience at how outrageous is to say that the general public is not worthy of the same quality of health care as soldiers.
Hmmmm... I get the feeling I am not making a persuasive argument...
so let me put it another way.
I assume that most of these First Responders have health insurance, correct? Safe assumption I think we'd all agree (and even if they didn't, this would presumably fall under Work Comp for most). So why is there even a need for such a bill to cover the medical expenses of these men and women? Should not their respective health insurance companies be picking up the tab on these expenses? What... are these expenses too much of a drag on their profits so we have to go to the taxpayers to pay these bills?
So, okay... fair enough. I am actually fine with some of my tax dollars going to cover medical expenses of our nations populice - but I just wish I could get in that myself. Single-payer... Medicare For All...or even Public Option... whichever form it takes, I would just like people to recognize that all of our citizens, living our lives, doing the best we can, are also worthy of having our medical needs met.
And, by the way, yes, I am uninsured. By choice. Because I don't want to give money to the any of the greedy, morally bankrupt (and very much not financially bankrupt) private insurance companies.
In the past couple weeks, Mr. Stewart has had (for a lack of better phrase) a little burr in his bonnet about the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 - commonly known as the 9/11 First Responders Bill. Mr. Stewart has called it "literally the least we could do."
Fair enough...
...however, I could not help but recall an interview from last summer that Jon had with Bill Kristol regarding our nation's health care system. The topic came up of how veterans are covered under the V.A. (socialized medicine) and that they receive this as a benefit for their service to the country.
It included this excerpt:
Jon: Are you saying that the American public shouldn't have access to the same quality health care that we give to our better citizens?
Bill: Yes. To our soldiers? Absolutely. I think if you become a soldier, you deserve...first class health care.
As Mr. Kristol said that, literally a gasp came over the audience at how outrageous is to say that the general public is not worthy of the same quality of health care as soldiers.
Hmmmm... I get the feeling I am not making a persuasive argument...
so let me put it another way.
I assume that most of these First Responders have health insurance, correct? Safe assumption I think we'd all agree (and even if they didn't, this would presumably fall under Work Comp for most). So why is there even a need for such a bill to cover the medical expenses of these men and women? Should not their respective health insurance companies be picking up the tab on these expenses? What... are these expenses too much of a drag on their profits so we have to go to the taxpayers to pay these bills?
So, okay... fair enough. I am actually fine with some of my tax dollars going to cover medical expenses of our nations populice - but I just wish I could get in that myself. Single-payer... Medicare For All...or even Public Option... whichever form it takes, I would just like people to recognize that all of our citizens, living our lives, doing the best we can, are also worthy of having our medical needs met.
And, by the way, yes, I am uninsured. By choice. Because I don't want to give money to the any of the greedy, morally bankrupt (and very much not financially bankrupt) private insurance companies.
Jon Stewart running for President in 2012?
Recently Jon Stewart and the Daily show have been moving to the right. This has made the show rather vanilla. It makes you long for the times of George W. Bush when Jon was an unabashed Liberal. That version of the Daily show pointed and relevant while the post Rally to Restore Sanity Daily Show is measured and tepid.
This unexplainable shift got me thinking to another John who suddenly moved right - John McCain. And then it dawned on me. Jon Stewart is planning a run for President as a Republican. It makes perfect sense given that the Tea Party has forced the Republicans so far right that the constraints of Democracy has them bordering on a becoming a Dictatorship movement. This leaves a huge void for right leaning independents, which Jon apparently plans to fill. All that is left is to secure the services of Joe Lieberman as VP and Jon can toss his hat into the ring.
This unexplainable shift got me thinking to another John who suddenly moved right - John McCain. And then it dawned on me. Jon Stewart is planning a run for President as a Republican. It makes perfect sense given that the Tea Party has forced the Republicans so far right that the constraints of Democracy has them bordering on a becoming a Dictatorship movement. This leaves a huge void for right leaning independents, which Jon apparently plans to fill. All that is left is to secure the services of Joe Lieberman as VP and Jon can toss his hat into the ring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
