It is tragic that there are people who apparently have no hope and are so hollow inside that they will spend huge amounts of money to spread their misery to others (”Atheist group spreads word on billboards,” Nov. 12). I guess it makes them feel better to make others just as miserable as they are.
In all fairness, I really didn’t know I was miserable until I read Mr. Wallace’s letter.
All these years I’ve lived in ignorance and happiness without the undue burden of accommodating the unknown whims of some invisible person in the clouds. I suppose I must now stop reading, writing, hiking, running, mountain climbing, photography, and discard my significant other, because all of those things have been making me happy, and thereby ruining my misery.
Over the last few days, there has been much ado about the state and future of the Republican party and the “conservative” politics it holds so dear. However, I would like to note that there is a significant difference between the classic conservative politics of people like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley—people whose political ideology was based on bare logic and reason, with consistency of vision the hallmark, regardless of topic.
This, of course, is juxtaposed by the modern incarnation of the “conservative” movement which has been the embodiment of opposition to classic conservative principles.
Where true conservative principles advocate fiscal conservatism, Republican leadership in Congress and the White House in the last 8 years have racked up the biggest deficits in history, approved pork-barrel spending with abandon, and championed fiscal policies that advantaged the pharmaceutical, health care, and energy industries, while utterly failing to implement any sort of fiscal policy—besides irresponsible tax cuts—to benefit the citizenry as a whole.
Where true conservative principles have called for consistency of restraint and justification in both the implementation of new spending as well as cutting existing spending, Republicans have irresponsibly advocated for tax cuts, regardless of the impact of such cuts, or advocated for the abolishment of federal programs based on ideological adherence, regardless of the real impact.
Where true conservative principles hold true to core constitutional principles, such as the separation of church and state, Republicans have sought to openly court evangelical Christians, erode the wall of separation between church and state, and undermine America’s religiously pluralistic heritage through support of issues such as intelligent design/creationism, school vouchers, abstinence-only reproductive education, and faith-based government initiatives.
Where true conservative principles seek to keep government out of the lives of ordinary citizens, Republicans have sought to insert government into the lives of ordinary citizens through advocacy of legislation to ban gay marriage, ban adoption/fostering by gays and lesbians, ban abortion, and ban the use of contraceptives.
And most importantly, where true conservative principles have been about addressing mundane issues, such as internal fiscal policies, inflation, micro/macroeconomics, and government efficiencies, Republicans have made hay with hysterical and hyperbolic rhetoric, baseless nationalism and patriotism, cultural division, and focusing on hot-button issues which have little, if any benefit for any citizen.
Thus, to the modern “conservatives,” I ask:
How dare you call yourself a conservative? You’re nothing close to being a conservative. What you and your ideology actually are is theocracy incarnate. You want government to run according to the dictates of your bible, not the secular, conservative principles of Goldwater and Buckley—both of whom regarded true conservatism as representing a conservative fiscal policy and social libertarianism. More succinctly, a conservative (read: limited) government is one that stays OUT of people’s lives and their personal decisions, not inserting itself INTO people’s lives and their personal decisions.
I was a Republican at one time. That was, until the religious nuts started taking over the Republican party, perverting the ideals of conservatism, and co-opting a political party to further a religious aim. This election should serve as a complete and thorough repudiation of any concept that the Republican party has anything to do with so-called conservative values.
Modern “conservative” politics always amount to the same thing: a paean to a god and a lamentation that not everyone adheres to a blind, ridiculous faith. Please don’t offer any platitudes about “we conservatives.” You know very little about true political conservatism.
Q. What Broomfield, CO resident has no fucking idea what he’s talking about? Answer: Charles W. Wooten.
From the Rocky Mountain News’ Letters to the Editor, we get this parade of ignorance:
Palin better qualified than Obama, Biden
Charles W. Wooten, Broomfield
Questions regarding the national security of the United States and the foreign policy expertise of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin:
What is America’s first line of missle interceptor defense that protects the entire United States? Answer: the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard.
What is the only National Guard unit on permanent active duty? Answer: the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard.
Who is the commander in chief of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard? Answer: Gov. Sarah Palin.
Which U.S. governor is routinely briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security and counterterrorism? Answer: Palin.
Which U.S. governor has a higher classified security rating than the Democratic Party’s presidential or vice presidential candidates? Answer: Palin.
The obvious conclusion? Sarah Palin is better qualified for high office than either Barack Obama or Joseph Biden.
First, this letter to the editor is nothing more than a verbatim cut/paste job from an Internet message forum, and has been subsequently re-posted in numerous right-wing blogs.
The assertions, however, are completely unsubstantiated and the fail utterly under any degree of scrutiny.
Missile Interceptor Defense? Do you mean Star Wars? Or a Patriot missile battery? As it breaks down, the U.S. has three primary “front lines” of defense: one in Alaska, one in Europe, and one in Canada (for those missiles that would come across the North Pole/Arctic Circle). All of these “front lines” are legacy Cold War deployments for a threat that ceased to exist almost 20 years ago. Yes, Russia is still a threat, but they now pose a very different threat than what we knew back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
She’s “Commander in Chief” of the AK Nat’l Guard? Yes. But as others have noted, their primary (and most often performed) duties include search and rescue along the Alaskan coast, and cold-weather research and training for military units expected to operate in cold weather environments. The primary responsibilities of the missile battalion involve monitoring RADAR for airborne threats–they don’t even get to monitor movements of Russian missile batteries. The monitoring of Russian ground forces is the responsibility of the U.S. (federal, not state) intelligence agencies (the DoD, NSA, and CIA). Palin only gets that information which is relevant to Alaska.
Do you honestly think that Palin is the only governor briefed on national security issues? Yes, Alaska is sooooo critical. But New York, Florida, Texas, California? … Screw ‘em.
Palin has a higher security clearance? Please. Biden and Obama both serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You’re asserting that the Gov. of AK has a higher security clearance than the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Foreign relations don’t involve just champagne soirees and black-tie affairs, a la James Bond. From the committee’s website:
“The committee has oversight over the foreign policy agencies of the U.S. gov’t, … the State Department … and international treaties and legislation relating to U.S. foreign policy.”
So just what is the “terroristic threat” to which Alaska would be exposed that Sarah Palin would need briefing on counterterrorism efforts?
Of all the places where terroristic threats are of concern, Alaska has to rank in the bottom 1% of the list. Alaska has no national landmarks like the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, Sears Tower, or Golden Gate Bridge. Although it is home to Denali, the highest peak in North America.
The only viable target in Alaska is the Alaskan pipeline, and it is more likely to succumb to wear/tear/age/weather than to terrorist activity. Terrorists want to instill fear in the population and draw attention to their cause. In this respect, they would get more mileage from bombing a day care center or office building (i.e., Timothy McVeigh or 9/11) than the Alaskan pipeline. Besides, the Alaskan Pipeline has already been deliberately blown up once (Feb. 1978) and ruptured by a gunshot from a drunken hunter (Oct. 2001). Impact to our national energy infrastructure? Nil. In addition to the above referenced incidents, the pipeline has been shut down several times for maintenance and reconstruction with no visible impact.
What else would terrorists do? Scale Denali and blow its peak off? Kudos to them if they can accomplish it.
“Joe the Plumber,” (a.k.a., Sam Wurzelbacher) has brought the topic of taxes to the political table in a fashion that has long been necessary. Not that “Joe” has made any sort of a valid point—and regardless of whether or not he has a plumber’s license or his affiliation with the McCain campaign. No, Joe’s comments illustrate the abject stupidity of the GOP/Neocon mantra about lower taxes, keeping what you earn, and our obligation to the country.
Joe’s question to Obama was this:
Joe: I’m getting ready to buy a company, it makes about … about $270, $280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it? … I’m getting taxed more and more while I’m fulfilling the American dream.
After an extended explanation by Obama and some follow up questions from Joe, Obama summed up with this:
Obama: I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.
… and it is this comment that has the Republicans squealing in agony, because “taxes are bad.”
As I have mentioned previously, the language is meant to frame the debate in exceedingly simplistic terms. In the end, it becomes a case where anyone who suggests a tax in any way, shape, or form—or anyone who does not advocate for the abolition of taxes—is a “socialist” or a “Marxist,” advocating “welfare,” the “redistribution of wealth,” an “economic nanny state,” or any other pejorative connotation of government actually providing something more to its citizens than a fire department and national defense.
Thus, people like Glenn Beck make a blanket accusation that Democrats are “Marxists” (via Crooks and Liars):
He’s bringing up these topics in the wrong way. Not as a political strategist or a politician or anything else, just as a guy who says, OK: The problem with all of these guys is they’re all Marxists — they’re all Marxists. They’re all spread the wealth. So look, I’m not going to tie you to these people any more than they have to, but — but — I mean, all the way from Frank Marshall Davis to your Reverend, they all preach Marxism. Now, you say to Joe the Plumber, I’m going to take some of your wealth and give it to somebody else, that’s Marxism.
Oh really?
Since when is it Marxist to suggest that those who benefit from an economic system have an obligation to fund it?
If you really want to live in a law and order society, they you have to pay taxes. There’s no way around it. Government isn’t some sort of economic clown car that you can pull out whatever you want, but put in nothing.
On Wall St., the “dead cat bounce” is what happens to a company goes under. The stock price falls precipitously, as everyone sells, sells, sells. Towards the end, there is a brief, but small spike in the price before slipping off the charts … or a “bounce.”
Those who thought the crash was over after the market rally earlier this week are now gobsmacked as the market had its second greatest one-day point drop in history—the greatest one-day point drop in history occurring just over a week ago.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Wall Street had its worst day since the 1987 stock market crash on Wednesday, as bleak economic data fed worries that all the efforts to unlock credit markets may not stave off a severe recession.
San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Janet Yellen has acknowledged what most economists have said, but few Fed officials would speak before now, using the word “recession” in commenting on the U.S. economy.
“Indeed, the U.S. economy appears to be in a recession,” she said in a speech Tuesday night at the Silicon Valley Chapter of Financial Executives International. She added “This is not a controversial view.”
No kidding?
There is no “bounce” left. Just a dead cat laying in the street.
I generally try to avoid hot button topics like abortion. Really, I do. By and large, abortions are difficult, if not impossible, to justify. By the same token, there is little benefit to anyone n forcing a mother to carry an unwanted fetus to term.
This year, Colorado has an initiative, “Amendment 48,” to make a fertilized embryo a legal “person” under the Colorado constitution. This amendment, if passed, would provide at conception an undifferentiated bundle of cells wth the full rights of citizenship and “due process” due to any person.
Yes, any potential fetus could be another Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln. However, it could also be Ted Bundy, Adolf Hitler, or Josef Stalin. It’s merely a potential person.
Forcing women to be slaves to an accident of biology is offensive in the extreme. Forcing women to risk death is as equally offensive as abortion, if not moreso. An undifferentiated bundle of cells should in no way be considered as having more rights than a living, breathing, independently existing human being.
And I personally don’t care what you think your god has to say on the subject—that’s between you and your god.
News flash: when you’re getting booed by your own supporters, it’s probably time to pack it in.
Republican anger bubbles up at McCain rally
LAKEVILLE, Minnesota (Reuters) - Republican presidential nominee John McCain was booed at his own rally on Friday as he tried to rein in increasingly raw anger among supporters stunned by Democrat Barack Obama’s lead in the polls.
Speaking in a Minneapolis suburb, McCain — who had escalated character attacks on Obama in recent days — found himself in the unlikely role of defending his rival in the face of sometimes hostile questions from frustrated Republican loyalists.
He drew boos from a crowd packed into a high school gymnasium when he insisted to a skeptical supporter that Obama was a “decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared (of) as president of the United States.”
Then again, when you’re being booed by racists and other assorted right-wing psycho-freaks, at least you can take comfort that you’re probably in the majority of normal, sane human beings.
Anyone who has had a brush with conservative economic or political principles will readily recognize the language that is used to communicate such simplistic ideas. “Taxation” becomes “redistribution of wealth”; structured tax brackets become “punishment for success”; social welfare programs become “the government teat”; and anything less than laissez-faire capitalism becomes “socialism.”
These terms are great for framing the position, but they entirely misrepresent the reality of the underlying ideas. What “redistribution of wealth” is taking place?
Capitalists are eager to point out that nothing is free. And it’s true. But they ignore the hidden costs of the “invisible hand” of capitalism.
Any economic system—be it capitalism, communism, socialism, or some derivative thereof—requires attendant systems to settle disputes and provide for a consistent, equitable basis for trade. If you sell a widget, you want to get paid a fair amount for that widget. Who sets the fair basis for valuation? I could offer a whatsis in exchange for your widget, but how do you know how much the whatsis is worth? And how do I know that a widget is worth one of my whatsises? So we have money, banks, and the Uniform Commercial Code.
What if I take your widget and say “fuck you” and walk away without paying? Don’t say that you’d come after me to enforce your own law … because I’ll enforce my own law right back. So how do you propose to ensure that I pay for the widget I just took from you? There would need to be an independent mechanism to settle disputes, such as a judiciary, and a set of laws that could be consistently enforced … otherwise we’re back to some sort of enlightened anarchy.
And those are all functions of government. And since government is not a commercial enterprise, the funding has to come from somewhere—that “somewhere” is called “taxes.” If you don’t want to pay taxes, then explain to me how a government runs for free. I’m sure that economists across the globe and throughout history would be interested understanding how that is accomplished.
From where will your fire and police services come? Who will pave your roads, build your bridges (to nowhere or somewhere), and settle your disputes? Who will provide you with a consistent basis for fair trade/exchange? Who will make sure that your water is clean and your foods free of toxic chemicals? Who will educate your children? Who will defend the country in the event of invasion?
If you think taxes are okay, but don’t want to pay anything more than your “fair share,” then tell me what your “fair share” really is.
If you think government spending is wasteful, then tell me which government spending we can do away with.
If you want to argue that our government is not in the business of welfare—as I recently heard from a retrograde intellectual—then show me were our constitution provides for it:
We as a country did fine before WW1 and income taxes. Then some folks wanted to give some welfare, so they started calling us a Democracy in stead of the Constitutional Republic that were are. You see, our Constitution has no allowance for welfare.
Oh really?
Income taxes were implemented via a constitutional amendment, which makes them … gasp! … constitutional.
But let’s not stop there. There’s also the comment that, “our Constitution has no allowance for welfare.” No? The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution says, verbatim: “We the People of the United States, in order to … promote the general Welfare, … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Granted, social welfare initiatives like Social Security & Medicare are also responsible for a significant part of the overall national debt. But they are also necessary … necessary because of the conservative economic policies that focus on individual accumulated wealth without regard to the consequences on the rest of us.
For all the hullabaloo the last week over how to bail out the financial markets, and amid John McCain’s “Country Clubs First” meme, and Bush’s dire warning and call to stabilize the markets before things get much worse, you’d think that today would be the day that Congress would pull together after a weekend’s worth of overtime hammering out a deal to throw out a lifeline.
Of course, you’d be wrong.
And never missing an opportunity to be a pissy little bitch, John Boehner runs to the steps of the Congress and plays his best, “Mama, they’re picking on me!!”
House ignores Bush, rejects $700B bailout
…
Republicans blamed Pelosi’s scathing speech near the close of the debate — which attacked Bush’s economic policies and a “right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation” of financial markets — for the vote’s failure.
“We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House,” Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi’s words, the Ohio Republican said, “poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south.”
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi’s speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.
Usually, I’d tell you that Barney Frank is as full of shit as Boehner is a whiny bitch. But this time, he hit the nail on the head.
Frank said that was a remarkable accusation by Republicans against Republicans: “Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country.”
And there you have the priorities of the GOP in a nutshell. “GOP first, and the rest of you can go fuck yourselves.”
