Last week I watched Twenty Feet from Stardom, a brilliant documentary on some of the greatest American backup singers. If you have not seen the film, stop what you’re doing and order up a copy from Netflix. Seriously. We’ll wait…. Ok. All of these women will knock your socks off, guaranteed, but for the moment we’ll focus on Lisa Fischer, who was a complete revelation to me. There is a point in the film when Mick Jagger goes on about how he and Keith decided in the midst of recording that they needed a female voice on account of how they were all masculine and stuff so they had someone bring this woman in in the middle of the night. What he doesn’t say is that they didn’t need a woman, they needed this woman because suddenly they had one of their biggest hits. So this is a Rolling Stones video, but you really want to pay attention at about 2:30 min. And go get that movie.
I don’t imagine that I’m alone in my puzzlement in re the antics of the political world these days. I don’t pretend to understand (or even want to, I’m thinking) the subterranean motivations that clearly are designed to induce as much irrational FEAR of anything and/or everything in the minds of certain segments of the population (read: Republicans, Right Wingers, Tea Partiers). Still, I doubt few can deny the unfortunate reality that FEAR is one of the most effective political motivators out there. Brings to mind a remarkably prescient article written by Paul Krugman in 2006, halfway through the G.W. Bush administration’s second term. Krugman wrote (highlights mine):
“In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was — an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary — the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.
“Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up – perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general. And the base is looking for a candidate who shares this fear.
“Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself — the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America’s two great political parties.“
Nothing has changed, except maybe the focus of the fear-induced wrath. Below are three publicly published citizen comments, also from 2006. The writers are clearly of right wing persuasion, but I have a sneaking hunch that were they commenting today on current events their collective attitude might be a wee bit different?
“Recent poll numbers show President Bush’s popularity at an all-time low of 32 percent. I would like to be counted as a staunch Bush supporter and a member of 32 Percent Club. In my eyes, no matter how educators, the press, TV commentators and so-called ‘experts’ twist the facts, distort the news and bash my president with accusations and blame, you can not obscure reality and that is: the economy is solid; Osama bin Laden is holed up in a rathole somewhere, and Iraq is doing its best to shake off the shackles of terrorism while reaching out for a piece of freedom and democracy. ~Kenneth Server, Prescott Valley, AZ, in a letter to the Ed., Arizona Republic, April 28, 2006
“Our president has sworn to uphold the Constitution and to protect its citizens. The National Security Agency’s program to wiretap international communications of some Americans, without a court warrant, is one of those protective measures.” ~Ben Swank, Glendale AZ, in a letter to the editor published by the Arizona Republic, August 21, 2006
“I have had it with Sen. John McCain and his new political gambit. He is directly undermining the president of the United States, intelligence agencies and our national security for his own political gain. The next attack on the United States is on him and Sens. John Warner, Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham. If we can’t get information from our prisoners by means that have been successful in the past, we will be attacked in the future. Sen. McCain and the others want to protect the rights of the terrorists and make America less safe. Benedict Arnold was an American hero and ended up being a traitor for the British during the American Revolution. Sen. McCain was an American hero during the Vietnam War and now is a traitor for the terrorists.” ~Robert R. Jacobs, Glendale AZ; September 20, 2006 ‘letter to the editor’ published in the Arizona Republic
So. Times have changed. No more bin Laden, no more distorting of the news, no more bashing of the President, and with McCain now largely relegated to multiple appearances on the Sunday talk circuit, all is well. Right? I mean, the NSA’s warrantless spying on citizens is STILL protecting us . . . something like that. All of which means that today, there is no reason for the Republican base to fear anything!! Right? Right.
No matter how much some things change, the more they remain the same. I read that somewhere. In this crazy world, it all makes perfect sense.
There is, however, another world “out there”, and it’s different. It’s not ugly. It’s beautiful. And the critters are not to be feared. The emergent gun and fear-based “Stand Your Ground” idiocy is, ‘out there’, as worthless a concept as it is anywhere else, even in Florida. Fear? Nah. Fear is mostly a political thingee, a product of intellectual darkness. But yet, and even in spite of current human faux-reality, there still remains that other option . . . ‘out there’ . . . where, when the ‘eyes’ have it . . . well, the beat goes on and on and on.
Here’s the proof, thanks to my old friend of fifty-plus years, naturalist/photographer par excellence Denny Green, and his most recent photos of waterfowl — each one of which apparently finds the Gilbert (AZ) Water Ranch to be its home.
Note that amongst the eyes (‘ayes’??) there is not one . . . single . . . “nay” — ergo message apparent: subtract humans, subtract politics, subtract ugly . . . and ‘see’ then that ‘out there’ everything is, in a word, Beauty — which is, to each bird (and to the occasional poet), aka Truth.
Emily Dickinson summed it all up some 150 years ago when she wrote,
The Bird her punctual music brings And lays it in its place — Its place is in the Human Heart And in the Heavenly Grace — What respite from her thrilling toil Did Beauty ever take —
And then came politics.
*Spit*
Ugly defined. But still and in spite, ‘out there’ remains unencumbered. Mostly. The Beauty of ‘out there’ — it’s everywhere, but especially it is . . .
Well, dear readers, it seems that Republicans do support a jobs bill. That’s what Defense Spending is all about: jobs. It’s not about giving the military what it wants and needs. It’s about making things the military doesn’t want, doesn’t need and doesn’t work. Because it keeps people employed. And those people in turn continue to re-elect their representatives, no matter what they do to this country.
Too bad we can’t employ those same people to make solar panels, to make desalinization plants and pipelines to move water from water-soaked regions to drought regions.
But building infrastructure to help America compete well into the future doesn’t make permanent jobs. Building weapons that don’t work, that the military doesn’t want and doesn’t need – those are permanent jobs. Why? because they help keep those in power, in power.
It seems former Representative Tom DeLay (R-Greed), who ran for Congress because he felt the banning of DDT would unfairly hurt his pest control business, has been sniffing his bug-spraying chemicals again. In a recent interview with Pastor Matthew Hagee, (we all know Major) Tom claimed that God wrote our Constitution, and that it was based on Biblical principles. You know, that part of the Bible that said that if you wanted to amend the Bible, you needed the consent of two-thirds of the Congress, and three-fourths of the states. And gay men can be stoned. He also bragged about sealing off the Capitol Rotunda so that Members of Congress could pray together. I don’t think Tommy understands the concept of Separation of Church and State. Among other concepts.
Please believe me when I tell you that there is absolutely no truth to the David-Barton-fueled rumor that the United States, under its current Constitution, was founded as a Christian nation. None whatsoever. The United States is, and was since the day the U.S. Constitution was ratified (a document written by, and for, men; okay, white men; okay, white land-owning men; but not by any god), a secular nation. Let no one tell you differently. Especially if they’ve made a career of inhaling bug-spraying chemicals, and liked it.
This is our daily open thread. Feel free to discuss Tom DeLay, bug sprays you’ve inhaled, or any other topic you wish.
Okay, it’s not on a par with Governor Chris Christie’s ever-spiraling George Washington Bridge scandal, nor is it anywhere close to Governor Pat McCrory’s Duke Energy woes, but it’s our scandal, so…
This one involves State Senator Greg Ball (R-NY40), who is no stranger to embarrassing controversies, whether it’s his stance on torture, or his “girlfriend” issues. This time, though, Senator Ball (who is, BTW, a “friend” of Sean Hannity and Fox News) may have committed Joe Biden’s nemesis: PLAGIARISM.
It seems that Senator Ball’s recently proposed legislation, which would prohibit any of New York’s “aquariums or sea parks” from exhibiting killer whales, contained language that appears to be lifted from at least one other source (and possibly a second.) What’s funny/silly/crazy about this is that one source was a teenaged student whose post on this subject originally appeared on The Huffington Post. Naturally, HuffPost has the goods on Ball’s latest pecadillo. Here’s an excerpt regarding the pertinent wording in the proposed bill:
From Senator Ball’s bill:
“In the United States, dolphin and marine animal parks, like SeaWorld, have become a part of an $8.4 billion industry. Accustomed to living in the ocean, and having an infinite amount of space to swim in, dolphins and whales are actually faced with several health problems that shorten their life span and cause insanity when they are place [sic] in captivity.”
From 17-year-old Donald Rapier’s original guest post on HuffPost:
“In the United States, dolphin and marine animal parks, like SeaWorld, have become a part of an $8.4 billion industry. Accustomed to living in the ocean, and having an infinite amount of space to swim in, dolphins and whales are actually faced with several health problems that shorten their life span and cause insanity when they are placed in captivity.”
Senator Ball is blaming a staffer, who has since been fired. This did not prevent City & State, a website devoted to NY politics, from naming Senator Ball to the “Losers” half of their “Winners and Losers” list/poll for this past week. And while this is certainly not the most serious scandal in the world, I trust that the “plagiarist” label will stick to Senator Ball for decades to come, just like it did to Vice-President Joe Biden.
Yeah, right, who am I kidding? This scandal will never plague State Senator Ball in the future, because IOKIYAR.
As an aside: Along Route 22 near the Pawling/Patterson town line, there’s been a billboard up for (what seems like) a couple of years, picturing head-shots of Senator Ball with his beloved Weimaraner. At some point in time, someone ripped off Ball’s entire face, leaving a big blank with some hair. The dog’s picture remains intact. I wish I knew who did it – it had to be deliberate – so that I could thank them for the laugh I get every time I notice it.
This is our daily open thread–discuss whatever you want!
1. If you follow the Western media, it is about Ukraine wishing to “join the EU” (quotes because there are many sources of this over-simplification) and the coverage is dumbed down to this one point time and again. But the EU trade agreement Yanukovych refused to sign after promising to in his manifesto, is only the catalyst, the problems lie much deeper than that.
2. This is part of the Neo-Cold War, pitting American power against the Czar of All the Russias and his part-dictatorship, part-kleptocracy. If you read the full transcript of the intercepted Nuland phone call two weeks ago, there is no question the US is picking sides, and picking which opposition horse to back, the whole point of which seems to be, to use the violence in Ukraine to win ground in a wider struggle. And for his part, Putin, by blaming ‘entirely, the terrorists and radicals’ for the violence, is shamelessly backing his client, Yanukovych, just like he has backed Syria’s Assad. It seems the US and Putin are both ‘playing cards’ and the people of Kiev are doing the dying.
3. The third thesis is that what we are watching is the Occupy movement of Ukraine. Ukraine’s government is controlled by a very small number of hyper-rich Ukrainians who owe their riches to a perpetuation of the same style of oligarchy and kleptocracy that Vladimir Putin sits atop in neighbouring Russia. They want the massive income inequality and lack of social justice to continue – its good for business. But you won’t hear this in the Western media. That kind of discussion is too close to home and would remind people of what Occupy Wall Street was all about. When Yanukovych returned to power, in 2010, as president (in an election the EU certified as fair), mainly because the Orange Revolution had stalled in the world depression after the financial crisis, he changed the constitution away from the 2004 constitution: more power to him and his cronies. Corruption blossomed again. You know the formula: billionaires, owning politicians for favours, closing and selling off factories, looting the old industries where ordinary people made a living and punishing dissent. The Kochs and Waltons would love these people.
Showing divisions between Ukrainians on foreign policy, 48% said Ukraine should reconsider its rejection of an EU partnership, but 40.3% said it should not.
Asked if the protests should continue, 48% said yes and 45.1% said no.
These divisions have an ethnic and geographic element to them – west is more likely to be ethnic Ukrainian and east and south more Russian. But like the American south, the Russian-leaning part is voting for more income inequality, more Russian-style “democracy”. But Ukrainians seem to distrust the EU only a little less than Russia, especially when it comes to helping them now. It seems to me they feel like they are on their own.
OK, so all this geopolitics aside, you just have to look at the faces of the people in the streets and in the makeshift hospitals to get an idea of which of these theses is closest to the truth and it is complicated, even if I am getting some coaching. 🙂 That ordinary Ukrainians just want the freedom to have their government represent them and protect their freedoms from foreign powers (all of them!) and from their own “entitled” citizens and corporations. Just spend some time on the blogs (helpfully translated on request and forwarded to people like me by friends). You will see what I am seeing and hearing directly.
Take a look at two of Putin’s “radicals and terrorists.”
Finally, and I wish it was finally, this article I was sent today goes roughly like this: A former policeman has come to Kiev to find his 19-year-old son, a student in Kiev. Like all fathers he wished his son did not go to the protests, but as a Ukrainian he was proud of his son to go. He holds in his hand the helmet he wore, covered in blood, a single sniper bullet hole in the helmet where his forehead was. Facebook posts are full of pictures of young people like this….
And yes, like Zooey said Thursday, this could be us too, someday soon.
There’s an environmental atrocity pending (yes, I know, one of what, thousands? tens of thousands? more? . . . More, probably, but . . . ), etc.
The Pebble Mine. Alaska. Upstream from Bristol Bay. Gold. Copper. Detritus. Tons of detritus. Detritus in amounts projected to be somewhere in the neighborhood of ten BILLION TONS; stated another way, an amount of some 1.5 TONS of crud per EVERY PERSON ALIVE TODAY ON THE PLANET. All for a smidge of gold, of copper along with the MONEY implicit in the complete and total destruction of a corner of paradise . . . all of that . . . to satisfy the whims of only those few . . .monied . . . leaches.
Anti-Pebble Mine advocate Robert Redford ably sums it all up:
“No matter how you look at it, the Pebble Mine is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. This colossal mine would be built at the very headwaters of our planet’s greatest wild salmon river systems. If it pollutes them, it will take down not only this world-renowned sockeye salmon fishery but also the awe inspiring ecosystem that depends on it.”
Please . . . all who care about this earth, the natural environment implicit therein along with the future of all who live here . . . and their descendents . . .Click Here. . . and sign your name in support of forever preserving what little beauty and wildness still persists . . . even as you PROTEST the already programmed destruction of yet one more small corner of that which remains . . . a destruction which serves absolutely nothing but greed, lust for power, and stupidity. Note that the “worldwide campaign has already generated more than one million petitions against the Pebble Mine” and as of this day, only ONE company — Canada’s Northern Dynasty Minerals — remains in the hunt to destroy Bristol Bay and environs.
In an earlier post, this author discussed the relevancy of Amendments 1-4. We now visit a few more:
——————————————————————————–
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
——————————————————————————–
Ok, this one’s pretty much optional. What began under Bush has been dramatically expanded under Obama, without much protest. Two words: DRONE STRIKES.
Now, “due process of law” consists of the Unitary Executive deciding you’re an enemy of the State, you cannot be captured, therefore you must be killed. Judge, jury & executioner, all wrapped up into one neat little package.
Any gun nut who seriously thinks he can take up arms against the United States, as his 2nd Amendment Right, is not playing with a full deck, regardless of the number of rounds in his magazine. Joe Militia isn’t going to stop a drone. And, by taking up arms against the U.S. he fulfills the criteria used to order drone strikes against U.S. citizens abroad.
——————————————————————————–
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Speedy trial? Yeah, right. The courts are backlogged, and it’s not getting any better. Oh, and if you have a civil matter, well, you have no right to a speedy trial. Your case will get bumped from the calendar because criminal cases take precedence, thanks to the 6th Amendment.
Oh, and see the comment about Drone Strikes if you still think every accused will be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, etc. before the drone hits.
——————————————————————————–
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
For some reason, the Founding Fathers never bothered to add a clause indexing this to inflation. Nonetheless, try getting a jury in Small Claims Court. And the number of jurists varies by State.
——————————————————————————–
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I think it was Justice Scalia who put this to rest. If you’ve not been convicted, water boarding is not ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’
Putting his money where his mouth is... retired hedge fund executive willing to spend up to $100 million this year to challenge climate deniers running for office, according to this article from the New York Times.
“A billionaire retired investor is forging plans to spend as much as $100 million during the 2014 election, seeking to pressure federal and state officials to enact climate change measures through a hard-edge campaign of attack ads against governors and lawmakers.”
West Virginia take me home… but don’t drink the water. Another coal slurry spill. As much as people hate fracking and oil drilling, coal is the most environmentally disastrous energy source in the world. There isn’t even a close second. John Denver, are you sure you want to go there?
Biosolids contain more harm? Duke University researchers are looking in the the effects of anti-microbial chemicals are having on soil decomposition. Biosolids are what your sewage treatment plant spreads on parks, farm land fields or bag as fertilizers for sale. They are supposed to be tested by federal regulation for pathogens and heavy metals but chemicals are a different story. It is expensive and complicated to test the right now, but some may contain chemicals harmful to he environment. Read on.
I’m sure that I’m not the only one among us Critters and Zoosters who received this email survey from Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) asking, “What should Congress focus on in 2014?”
Which issue matters most to you in 2014?
__Keeping Our Promise to Seniors by Protecting Social Security & Medicare
__Strengthening Our Manufacturing Economy
__Raising the Minimum Wage
__Protecting Women’s Health and Freedom
__Tax Reform That Rewards Hard Work
__Working to Lower Healthcare Costs
__Supporting Small Business Startups
__Investing in Innovation, Science, Research and Technology
Other:
I went with “Other”, more or less:
While most of the above are important issues in my view (“Protecting Women’s Health and Freedom” and “Investing in Innovation, Science, Research and Technology” in particular), I believe that the single most important issue that impacts the future of this country is EDUCATION. We need children who are taught critical thinking, in order to have the ‘Innovation, Science, Research and Technology’ in which to invest. Stressing the basics in: reading (especially reading comprehension); spelling (because words are spelt the way they are for good reason); vocabulary (because words mean what they mean due to their evolution through history); math skills; and the basics in the sciences and technologies, are all paramount. Investing in the future means investing in schools, teachers, and (most importantly) young citizens’ minds.
Really, with all of the problems that our country faces, there are so many important issues to be addressed that it’s impossible to say which is MOST important. And some issues which I would have thought were important are not even on the list, i.e, gun control, environmental issues (climate change, fossil fuel pollution of several sorts, etc.), our failing infrastructure…(sigh) I could go on, but you get the idea.
How would you respond to Senator Baldwin’s survey?
This is our daily open thread–you can answer the survey if you wish, or talk about whatever you want!
Cats and I went to the Oregon Asian Celebration on Saturday, and had a great time wandering around the various exhibits. We had words written in Chinese calligraphy on squares of red paper. Mine reads “good health,” and Cats’ says something similar to “thumbs up.”
We watched a group of ukulele players having fun singing Hawaiian songs. Did you know “ukulele” means “jumping flea?” Well, now you do!
After the jumping flea players, it was announced that there would be Balinese dancing. We decided to stay, since we’d never seen Balinese dancing. All I could say is wow! We saw the same dance as in the video above, which is called a Gabor Dance, which is a sacrificial dance for the gods, wherein the dancers themselves are offerings.
I love learning new things!
This is our daily open thread — What did you learn today?
If you’re like me, you probably never heard of Tom Perkins before this week. And you’re sitting at your computer naked. Tom Perkins, it turns out, who I’m sure has never heard of you or me, is what they call a “venture capitalist.” They invest in other companies, sometimes saving them and turning them into profitable companies, sometimes stripping them of their assets and taking the money for themselves, and sometimes they provide seed money for companies that eventually become hugely successful behemoths like Amazon and Google, which is what Tommy’s little venture capital firm did. And he got rich…er. We know this is true by virtue of the fact that Tommy is still, to this day, a venture capitalist. Otherwise he’d be what we call “broke.” And because he made so much money doing whatever the hell it is that he does, he thinks he’s better than you or me. So much better that he actually wrote to the Wall Street Journal to tell them that the “attacks” on the top 1%-ers were just like Kristallnacht, except for the bloodshed and the part where the top 1%-ers were gunned down in the homes into which they were forced to move. But otherwise just like that. Which is absolutely ridiculous as evidenced by the fact that he’s alive to bitch and moan about how he’s treated.
I missed it at the time (not being a consumer of the Rupert Murdoch Propaganda Dissemination Machine), but he apparently took a lot of flak for those comments. The flak must not have bothered him because in a recent interview with Fortune’s Adam Lashinsky, he told the audience that “I think the parallel holds.” (He neglected to add “minus the bloodshed and gunfire.”) This happened at a Q&A session titled “The War on the 1%.”
Asked to offer one idea that could change the world, Perkins proposed a change to Americans’ voting rights: “You don’t get to vote unless you pay $1 in taxes…If you pay $1 million in taxes, you should get a million votes. How’s that?” (In an interview after the forum, Perkins said he was simply “trying to be outrageous.”)
In all fairness when you watch him say that, he does kind of sort of look like he’s trying to be a little over the top, but he also reminds me of “Victor/Victoria,” the story of a woman, pretending to be man, pretending to be a woman. He meant it, but he was only joking, but he really did mean it. And he would be surprised to learn just how wrong he is, too.
You see, he’s wrong because he thinks such a proposal (as given) would take away the right to vote for the 47%-ers, the ones the RW capitalists think pay no taxes at all because they pay no federal income taxes. And they pay no federal income taxes because they earn too little to have to pay federal income tax. But that doesn’t mean they pay no taxes at all. If they drive they buy gas, and so they pay gasoline taxes. They also pay sales taxes on at least some of their purchases throughout the year. So it’s quite plain that they pay at least “$1 in taxes,” so they would still get to vote under the Perkins Plan. But that’s not the only thing he was wrong about.
He also said that “if Germany had American gun laws, there would have never been a Hitler.” Now, if by that he meant that had Germany had a Constitution which guaranteed some kind of right to own and carry (i.e., “keep and bear”) guns, then maybe he would be right. Maybe. But like many gun rights advocates, Perkins probably falsely believed that Hitler took away gun rights. Actually, the opposite is true. Hitler expanded gun rights and only took them away from a few. And considering that the German army had more than just guns (they had tanks, planes, and, for a while at least, submarines), it’s hard to believe the Jews could have fought their way out of Germany to find a home elsewhere. This is just lazy, NRA-style thinking.
He was also wrong when he defended Capitalism by saying, “Look, free-market capitalism, it’s what has created most of the wealth in the world, and it’s the only way to proceed. Free. Market. Capitalism.” That’s really a stupid thing to say when you apply some thought to it. You’re using a measuring rod (wealth) that only applies to one system (Capitalism) to measure how well that system (Capitalism) does at this one measure (creating wealth.) That’s like saying “American-style football is the best way to score touchdowns.” Other economic systems do not have excessive wealth as one of their goals, so naturally you won’t find many people excessively wealthy in those systems. And that’s actually a good thing and a goal we should have here in the United States. You see, Capitalism only works when money circulates throughout the system. When I sell you something, I use part of the money you give me to pay the vendor from whom I purchased what I sold you. I also use part of it to buy something for myself from another vendor. That vendor, in turn, pays his vendor for what I bought from him, and uses the leftover money to buy something else for himself. And so on and so on. (I’m not an Economics professor, so we’re not going to go into all the complicated things rich people exploit to increase their cut of these transactions.) Somewhere along the way, sometimes at many places along the way, people in the top 1% get their cut of these transactions. Except they’re not spending their cut, because they already have so much money they don’t need to spend it. As Nick Hanauer explained in his TED talk, those who make a thousand times as much money each year as you do not buy a thousand times as many things as you.
Perky also tried to gain sympathy for people in his wealth stratosphere saying, ”I don’t think people have any idea what the 1 percent is actually contributing to America.” To that I need only say two words, “Koch Brothers.”
To which Perky would answer that they’re suffering from “persecution,” and that our nation’s progressive tax code is “persecution” of the wealthy. Not at all. When this country had a real progressive tax code (back when we had the last fiscally conservative Republican President, a man known as Dwight David “Ike the Spike” Eisenhower), high tax rates kept income inequality in check. When we hear the rich paid 91% in taxes back in 1960, it wasn’t 91% on every dollar they earned. It was 91% on every dollar they earned above $300,000. It was 83% on income between $100,000 and $150,000. [For proper perspective, a head of household paid 20% tax on income up to $2,000, and it went up about 1-4% for every $2,000 for a while. Then the cutoff levels increased between tax brackets until you reached 91% on all income above $300,000. On a total income of $2,000, you would pay $400 in income tax, leaving you $1,600 for your other expenses in life. People actually lived on that kind of income back then. On total income of $400,000 (and there were people making that kind of money, and even more), you would pay $326,480 in income taxes, leaving you a mere $73,520 on which to support your family. And remember, you could get by on only $1,600, so there was really no reason to bitch and complain because an additional $100,000 of income brought you only $9,000 after taxes. At that point, you could already have anything you wanted – short of what the super-duper-uber-rich had – and you probably didn’t even notice that extra money.] It may sound like punishment if you were the type who felt you should have every dollar of income you “earned,” but in reality it helped keep our country back then from turning into what our country has become now – a land where having billions of dollars puts you in control of practically everyone else’s lives. Back in 1960, we decided that you, as an individual not elected to govern, should not have that much power over people’s lives. We weren’t going to take everything, but we were also going to make sure you didn’t end up with everything. Because then the money wouldn’t flow and the economy would collapse.
And speaking of income inequality, Perky wouldn’t go there. After calling the government “a giant beast which has to be fed,” he claimed taxes would have to go “up and up and up.” (Really? Did his accountant tell him how much less in taxes he started paying when Bush cut taxes in 2001?) But when he was reminded that government financing helped create the Internets (“It’s a series of tubes.”) that helped make him wealthy, he shot back, “Adam, you’re barking up the wrong tree. I’m not going to go there.” You see, there are incredibly wealthy people, like Tom Perkins, who think that they owe nobody for the vast amount of wealth they’ve managed to accumulate in life, one way or another. They think of themselves as “self-made millionaires.” The reality is that there is no such thing in this country as a self-made millionaire. Whether you did it legally or illegally, every dollar you earned was done within the framework of a Liberal Society that provided both the foundation and some of the building blocks that make it possible for you to make that money. You didn’t build the roads you used to move your goods around. You didn’t hire, train, and headquarter the police forces you relied on to protect you and your business. You didn’t create the education system and hire the teachers it uses to train the people you would hire to do the things you can’t do yourself. You didn’t get rich by yourself; you did it with our help. So you are not entitled to “every dollar you earned.” In fact, when your other business ventures failed before this one took off, you didn’t end up on your own. We were there to help you out, even to help you get started on the business that did make you rich.
And you rich people are not the true job creators, a myth the Republican party you bought and own has been spreading for decades. You don’t create jobs, you create businesses that supply consumers (most of them middle class) with goods or services they want. (And sometimes people who have nothing start those businesses.) If consumers don’t want what you have to offer, you’re not going to keep employing people to do nothing, so you’re going to fire them. That doesn’t make you a job creator at all. So stop acting like the country owes you a favor.
So to all you Tom Perkins in the world, get over yourselves. You’re not more important than the rest of us, and you don’t deserve to have more of a say in who governs this country than we do. You get one vote. We all get one vote. And whether or not you choose to believe it, the world can get along just fine without you, Tom Perkins. Do you really think you can get along without us?
This is our daily open thread. Feel free to discuss any topic you wish.
On Tuesday, the Kansas House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a measure designed to bring anti-gay segregation—under the guise of “religious liberty”—to the already deep-red state. The bill, written out of fear that the state may soon face an Oklahoma-style gay marriage ruling, will now easily pass the Republican Senate and be signed into law by the Republican governor. The result will mark Kansas as the first state, though certainly not the last, to legalize segregation of gay and straight people in virtually every arena of life . . .
In addition to barring all anti-discrimination lawsuits against private employers, the new law permits government employees to deny service to gays in the name of “religious liberty.” . . .
So. One defined ‘category’ of American citizens is now, by legislative mandate, about to be “legally” denied the rights ALL American citizens are presumably guaranteed. Why? Fear. Fear of . . . something, something based in the dark and psychotic depths which tend to define human insecurity, human fear. Reminds me of a couple of other quotes I’ve run across over the years:
“There is a point at which the law becomes immoral and unethical. That point is reached when it becomes a cloak for the cowardice that dares not stand up against blatant violations of justice. A state that supresses all freedom . . . and which by imposing the most terrible punishments, treats each and every attempt at criticism . . . and every suggestion for improvement as plotting to high treason, is a state that breaks an unwritten law.”
And this one too, speaking of ‘fear’ and the apparently time-honored means of politically encouraging it, of employing it as a tool to suppress:
“The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don’t ask for their love; only for their fear.”
I could go on, but won’t. Attributions of the above quotes should satisfy any urges for further comment. The top quote appeared, as per the link, on Slate.com yesterday, February 13 2014.
The second quote was courtesy of Kurt Huber, head of the White Rose Society (a German non-violent, intellectual resistance group) who was killed by the Nazis in 1943.
The third: Ted Cruz? Rand Paul? A random Tea Partier? Maybe someone from Kansas? Nope.
Those were the words of Heinrich Himmler.
Kansas can now, this very day, feel free to celebrate the fact that, in their own special Tea Party and God-fearing fashion, they did indeed manage to beat, by one day (but not by much else), the sixty-ninth anniversary of yet another cultural atrocity: the Allied firebombing of Dresden. In that vein I do hereby . . . sort of and with back turned eastward . . . (being polite here) “bow” . . . in their general direction. Etc.
Across the entire of human existence, only abomination seems to forever endure and forever repeat.
Amidst the rampant political insanity running loose “out there” one occasionally runs across an item or two where the insanity is actually challenged, sometimes with hints of possible success built into said challenge(s). Ran across one just the other day courtesy of an article entitled Panel says federal wolf plan used unproven science. Here are some enlightening excerpts from the article, plus a few (potentially snarky) comments and observations (highlights added).
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — A proposal to lift federal protections for gray wolves across most of the U.S. suffered a significant setback Friday [Feb 7 2014] as an independent review panel said the government is relying on unsettled science to make its case.
Federal wildlife officials want to remove the animals from the endangered species list across the Lower 48 states, except for a small population in the Southwest.
The five-member U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service peer-review panel was tasked with reviewing the government’s claim that the Northeast and Midwest were home to a separate species, the eastern wolf.
If the government were right, that would make gray wolf recovery unnecessary in those areas.
But the peer reviewers concluded unanimously that the scientific research cited by the government was insufficient.
Imagine it: something cited by the government was insufficient. First time for everything, I suppose.
That could make it difficult for federal officials to stick with their proposal as it now stands, further protracting the emotionally charged debate over what parts of the U.S. are suitable for the predators.
Now wait a minute. Exactly what parts of the U.S. are suitable for the predators?? In a country wherein the most dastardly and devastating ‘predator’ on the loose virtually EVERYWHERE is the idiot human armed with a loaded gun, perhaps the answer to that question is obvious: to control and reduce the numbers of dastardly predators, REPEAL OR REWRITE THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!
“The [peer review] process was clean and the results were unequivocal,” said panel member Steven Courtney, a scientist at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California in Santa Barbara. “The science used by the Fish and wildlife service concerning genetics and taxonomy of wolves was preliminary and currently not the best available science.”
So maybe the government’s claim that the Northeast and Midwest were home to a separate species, the eastern wolf was a wee bit off, that it was the endangered Canis lupus after all rather than some formerly undefined but obviously not endangered . . . ?? Sometimes the faux-science that drives major segments of this country’s politic begins to impose itself never as a good thing, but always as just one more untenable burden. Why is that? The article continues:
Wolves were added to the endangered species list in 1975 after being exterminated last century across most of the Lower 48 states under government-sponsored trapping and poisoning programs.
Hunting for wolves already is allowed for roughly 5,000 wolves in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes, where protections were lifted in 2011. More than 900 of the animals have been shot or caught by trappers in the two regions during this winter’s hunting season.
. . . The release of the peer review findings opens another round of public input on a proposal that has received more one million comments. . . . Carlos Carroll, a wolf researcher at the Klamath Center for Conservation Research in Orleans, Calif., said the problems highlighted by the peer-review panel had been raised previously by others. He said he hoped they would now get more attention from wildlife officials.
“This gives them a chance to re-evaluate their strategy and say it’s time to listen to the science,” Carroll said.
Hope springs eternal, someone once said. Of course, the topic at the time was probably not the implicit and inborn NEED of the human idiot to somehow sate his totally irrational fear of a creature which is clearly and obviously superior to the barrage of two-legged pale skinned freaks that wandered to this continent some 300 years ago. (see below for more detailed description)
Many Republican lawmakers, agricultural interests and hunting groups[exempli gratia] have pushed equally hard for jurisdiction over wolves to be passed to states so they could manage the population through annual harvests.
Those efforts have been motivated in large part by wolf attacks on livestock and big game herds in areas where the predators have recovered.
David Allen, with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, said that after several years of hunting, it’s clear the harvests are not driving down the wolf population too aggressively.
All perfect nonsense. Cattle depredation by wolves typically runs at an annual rate of around 0.2%. Stated another way, if 10,000 cattle were to die each year out on the range from ‘natural’ causes, only 20 of those deaths would be attributable to wolves. And insofar as reduction of game herds is concerned, wolves are not the predator most interested in trophy animals; their sole interest is in the weak, the old, the infirm. If game herds are suffering from lack of “trophy animals,” guess which species is responsible. *Hint* — it is NOT Canis lupus. Try Homo idiotica instead (that’s Latin for ‘human hunters’).
The entire controversy is simple: wolves are not and never have been the problem. The problem is, always and invariably, humans. Mostly Republicans, Wingnuts, Tea Baggers, the marginally intelligent . . . choose your epithet, all are appropriate and equally accurate.
There is hope, however. On Feb. 10th, three days after the peer review noted above was released, I received a letter from the Center For Biological Diversity. It was brief, but informative.
Today the Obama administration opened a second public comment period on its proposal to remove Endangered Species Act protections from gray wolves across the lower 48.
We need you to speak out for wolf protections.
During the previous round of comments, more than 1 million Americans spoke out against gutting protections for wolves — the most comments ever submitted on any endangered species issue.
You’d think the right thing to do would be obvious — but apparently politicians need to hear from us again.
The Fish and Wildlife Service just released the results of a scientific peer review of its delisting proposal, concluding what we’ve been saying all along: Wolves aren’t recovered yet. These iconic animals occupy a mere 5 percent of their former range in the lower 48 and eke out a living at only 1 percent of the numbers they had before Europeans arrived.
Anyone who cares to act, to tell the Fish and Wildlife Service to rescind its plan to strip protections from wolves, and instead help wolves recover across more of their former home, simply Click Here. It only takes a few seconds to send the message.
Tweeter, The Zoo’s Top Investigative Reporter hard at work.
This just in: Congressional Republicans to Introduce Bill to Defund the National Weather Service.
Republicans, let by Rand Paul, intend to introduce a bill to defund the National Weather Service. One aide, who asked to remain anonymous, explained:
The National Weather Service predicts weather, and it’s predictions are 95% accurate. They’ve been predicting “climate change” weather patterns for the past several years, and those predictions have come true. The only way to stop this “climate change” is to stop the predictions. That way, the weather won’t know what it’s “predicted” to do and will revert to normal weather patterns.
Besides, eliminating the National Weather Service will save taxpayer money. It will put an end to “climate change” because no one will know what is happening with the weather apart from sticking their head out of the window to find out if it’s raining or not. And farmers can always rely on their weather vanes.
The bill is expected to gain bipartisan support. It is rumored that at least one Democratic Representative has indicated he will vote for the bill “when Hell freezes over”. With the oncoming ice storm predicted in the deep south, it is also predicted that Hell will freeze over.
It appears that global warming is having just the effect that climate deniers and their exploitation pals want, in of all places Greenland. My suggestion? Trademark the name Brownland. Here they come.
Even though wind power is doing well during this cold snap, put your money on more fracking. Natural gas supplies are down, meaning stocks prices are up. Forget environmental health …follow the money.
And now for some good news (of sorts). When we lived back in Pennsylvania, there was a place about 45 minutes away called Hawk Mountain Sanctuary. It was established in the 1930’s when a rich socialite found out that hunters were indiscriminately killing hawks and other birds of prey that used this flyway just north of Hamburg, PA. She bought the mountain and chased away the hunters.
This year’s Rachel Carson award goes to a National Geographic writer who exposed senseless killing of migratory waterfowl through Albania. Proves one thing -the dumbfucks are everywhere.
So our colder than normal (the new normal that is) winter in the Northeast and Midwest has climate deniers tisk, tisking at enviros. So, let’s see what the explanations is for the Winter Olympics in Sochi. Oh, I know, they mis-named it. Pass the tanning lotion please.
I found this on facebook, and it made me think about how we all care about each other so much, and know each other so well, after so many years on The Zoo and TP — but most of us have never met, and quite possibly never will.
It’s mind-blowing to me that, if there were no internet, I wouldn’t have crossed paths with a single Zooster or Critter on this blog. My life would be so different — and most definitely not in a good way.
This is our daily open thread — What do you think?
According to my dictionary, the definition of “fact” is
n. 1. the quality of existing or of being real; actuality; truth.
2. something known to exist or have happened.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation.
Facts are important. When Reality offers a challenge, you must deal with facts if you’re going to solve the problem. You can’t solve a real problem if you ignore the facts, or worse, try to act as if the opposite were true. Now look at the definition of “belief”:
n. 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to vigorous proof.
3. confidence, faith, or trust.
4. a religious tenet or tenets
Notice the difference between these two words. Facts have the quality of being real and actual, where beliefs do not require any reality or actuality. You can believe something with all your heart but it won’t make it a fact if it’s not actually true. Beliefs can be wrong (and often are), but facts, by their very definition, cannot be wrong, because they are what is true, what actually happened. When it comes to education, you cannot treat belief as equal to fact. You cannot give an opinion or conviction equal weight with something real, actual or true. It may, in the long run, turn out that what someone believes is true, but that doesn’t justify teaching it as an actual fact, reliable as anything based on scientific evidence or experiment. Just because you believe something to be true, it doesn’t mean everyone else should be taught your belief as it were an actual fact. Especially, and I cannot emphasize this enough, if your belief is a religious one.
There are many Americans (far, far too many, IMHO) who believe that The Bible is factually true, that it is literally the Word of God, and that it should be taught in public schools. I have yet to hear any of these proponents specify which version of the Bible should be considered “The” Bible, and this, in itself, is problematic for me. Not so much that people can’t decide which version of the Bible they want taught in public schools, but that there are so many versions of the “literal Word of God” in the first place from which a choice must be made. They’re all different in some way or else there wouldn’t be different versions. But how can any one of them claim to be the literal Word of God if they differ? And just because King James I commissioned a new version of The Bible which he hoped would replace the one then currently in widespread use, why should that version be given any more credibility than any other version? It’s not because the King said so, as James did not make any order or proclamation that this version of The Bible be used in place of any other. It might interest you to know that the Geneva Bible, the one eventually supplanted by the KJV, was even more popular among the Pilgrims than the KJV. So when enthusiastic Conservative Christians claim America was founded on the principles of “The Bible,” it’s important to know which version they mean. But I digress.
In Missouri, Republicans want belief to be given equal authority to fact. A second-term State Representative, Rick Brattin (R-Harrisonville), has introduced a bill that would allow parents to pull their children out of classes where evolution is being taught. “What my bill would do is it would allow parents to opt out of natural selection teaching,” Brattin explained. “It would not prohibit the child from going through biology from learning about cell structure, DNA and the building blocks of life.” Mr. Brattin has been trying for several years to get Intelligent Design taught in high school science classes as an alternative theory to Darwin’s theories about Natural Selection. This despite the fact (there’s that important word) that courts have consistently ruled against public schools teaching Intelligent Design as Science because it’s nothing more than Creationism dressed up in a sexier framework. [A quick word about Natural Selection. Its advocacy of “survival of the fittest” does not, as its opponents often say, mean “survival of the strongest.” Rather it means survival of the species most suited – i.e., “fit” – for a given environment. If the edible leaves on the plants are higher up on the tree, the species that can reach them are more likely to survive and pass on their physical characteristics to their offspring than the ones who can’t reach them as easily. It has nothing to do with strength, but with suitability to one’s environment. The species that thrive, survive, and the ones that don’t, won’t.]
No matter how they try to disguise it, Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creationism, and Creationism is nothing but Religion, and Christianity in particular. And it’s a violation of the First Amendment to require publicly financed schools to adhere to any particular religion, even Christianity. It doesn’t matter that it’s the most popular religion in the United States, it’s still a religion and it still violates the Separation of Church and State to endorse any one over the other. You might believe it’s true, but you can’t prove it through any scientific methods, and that’s the primary reason it has no place in a Science class room. Evolution, on the other hand, has testable hypotheses and is constantly being confirmed by new findings and evidence. If you have to infect the minds of the young with something as ridiculous as Intelligent Design (its main argument seems to be that you can’t prove it’s wrong, and the fact that you can’t explain every aspect of Evolution somehow proves that Intelligent Design is right, as if the only two choices were a 100% understanding of everything that ever happened or blind acceptance that a God designed and made everything and that this is the reason you can’t understand it), then a Philosophy or Religion or Study Hall class might be the more appropriate place. But you do not teach Creationism as Science when it is anything but. People should be free to believe it if they wish (though they’re wasting their time and lives doing so), but it shouldn’t be public policy that every child in school be taught that this particular Religion is as true as Science.
But if you think that the Science class is the only place where Republican Christians want their religious beliefs to decide all aspects of our lives, think again. Not only does Mary Helen Sears of Houghton Count, Michigan, claim that Darwin’s evolutionary theory “gave rise to Hitler’s Third Reich, Mussolini’s Italy and Stalin’s Russia,” but she also believes homosexuals prey on children, that “Satan uses homosexuality to attack the living space of the Holy Spirit” and that Republicans “as a party should be purging this perversion and send them to a party with a much bigger tent.” Why does it matter what she thinks? Because she’s a candidate for a Michigan seat in the Republican National Committee. And she would join a man the party chairman asked to resign “for the good of the party” for his anti-gay comments. He would not do so, and due to specific party rules about representation on the national committee, a seat for only a woman was opened when a woman on the committee stepped down to concentrate on her Senate campaign. The funny thing about this anti-homosexual strain in today’s GOP is that there is no universal agreement on whether not the Bible bans homosexuality. Listening to the anti-gay crowd, you’d think the Bible was filled cover-to-cover with anti-homosexual pronouncements, but in truth there are only seven passages in the Bible that mention the subject, and not one of them is associated with Jesus! (Nor Satan, for that matter.) Why these folks think the Bible is more concerned with male homosexuality (lesbianism is not actually condemned outright anywhere in the Bible) than it is with income inequality or helping the poor is beyond me, and it is dangerous for America if they are given any kind of political power. Having your opinion influenced by Biblical teachings (whatever they may be) is one thing, but having those beliefs carved in stone by them is something altogether different. And it’s dangerous for Americans to put people who think this way in positions of political power in the secular United States of America.
This is our daily open thread. Feel free to discuss anything you want.
TheZoo 