Intellectual freedom is the only guarantee of a
scientific - democratic approach to politics, economic development, and
culture.
-Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov-
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin-
Mark Adams is [in no particular order] a Lawyer, Restauranteur, Husband, Father, Grandfather, Landlord, Singer, Guitarist, Political Scientist, Amateur Historian and Rhetorician with no sense of reverence for anything except the freedom to speak one's mind. To visit Mark's Family Law Website
The resonating point John Edwards wanted to make in last night's debate
certainly was that Dick Cheney wanted to reward "wealth, not
work" It is a fundamental difference in approach between liberals
and conservatives summed up in one neat sound byte.
Indeed, I've often heard this debate point turned on it's head by the
likes of Rush Limbaugh who insists that liberals want to punish
success. Yes the better you do, the more a progressive tax system
will tax you, based on the theory that your fair share of the burden of
running a government is proportionally larger because not only have you
taken better advantages of the nation's opportunities, but you are
better able to carry that disproportional weight.
Any time you hear George Bush talk about "simplifying" the tax code and
making it more fair, remember that they want to make it more fair for
those who pay that higher percentage of taxes, the wealthy.
Yes there is some merit to the idea that under some circumstances
lowered taxes does increase revenue to the government because at a
certain point the marginal rate of return decrease as you raise
taxes. But this "law of diminishing returns" only works when you
reach a certain threshold below which just plain common sense takes
over and the tax system behaves logically, lower rates resulting in
lower revenue. The tipping point is finding that mythical level
(which changes daily) where for every percentage point of tax increase
or decrease, the revenue received for that change also reacts
proportionally in consort with the rate of return. This maximizes
the overall average effect of the tax rate system. To date I have
never seen tax rates approach this level, but jump all around it like
the tax system does when treated like a political football.
Rewarding "wealth not work" themes by democrats are also attacked by
conservatives because by taxing the rich more, it makes it harder for
those who actually create jobs to create more. Again this is a
sliding scale and tries to quantify individual hiring decisions on a
macro scale. At one point, where your business is producing at
capacity or at least adequately meeting demands, the additional income
provided by a tax cut will not translate into more jobs but merely a
windfall lining the pockets of ownership.
In other words, conservatives welded to their religion of tax cuts,
deny once again the law of diminishing returns, that there is a tipping
point where tax policy does not provide the result intended. In
each case where the marginal return on the policy is reached or
exceeded, it is not the wealthy or successful who are punished, but the
burden is shifted to the middle class who find that maintaining that
status is harder and harder, yet when taxes are increased, especially
on the wealthiest citizens, they, unlike regular working people, can
pass that additional tax burden along to their customers, once again
the middle class.
We've had four years of tax cuts sold for diametrically opposed
reasons. Because there is a surplus, because there is recession,
because it will create more jobs, because we are still losing jobs
despite last year's or the year before's tax cuts, and of course
deficits don't matter. The jobs are still not there although
corporate America has done fantastic under Bush's "corporatism."
The bottom line is that the burden of keeping this nation going will
always be the middle class whether directly or by the wealthy
passing their burden on. Anything designed to help the middle
class helps this nation as a whole and has the added benefit of being
populists. Yet I have never seen a thoughtful cost benefit of tax
policy in the middle of a campaign. It, like so many other things
is used as a was to divide Americans into the haves and
have-nots.
What a shame. But I understand the appeal. Other than
references to John Edwards, the googlable references to "wealth not
work" involve get
rich quick schemes which have the same appeal as GOP tax strategies.
UPDATE: Train wreck of typos fixed. (Hope I got 'em all)
ADDENDUM: I guess I'm not the only one thinking along these lines, and they not only say it much more elequently than I, they have the credentials to back up their conclusion that Bush's economic policies are an imminent disaster.
Sensible and farsighted economic management requires true discipline, compassion, and courage – not just slogans.
Juan Cole's site is usually one of the most informative places on the web for Middle Eastern analysis of the news. Today there is an extraordinary treatment of who the real enemy is in the muslim world and an explanation of John Kerry's stance on the war in a guest editorial by Professor Joseph White,
Director of the Center for Policy Studies at Case Western Reserve University
Well worth the read. Professor White answers the question:
Why invading Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, but, once the U.S. is there, trying to win may be the best among bad choices.
Just as an exersize, I'm writing this as the Cheney/Edwards debate gets
underway. If you're reading this, I actually got through it
without too many interruptions.
1st question: On Iraq, for Cheney, not enough troops, link
between Saddam and Zarquari? Ennhhhh..Wrong answer, there are no
freaking links.
Broken record time? "Wrong war, wrong place wrong time" twice, $87
Billion four times in first 15 minutes.
Wow, they're both excellent, Cheney twists Edwards' words without
effort, Edwards objects like a Defense attorney smelling hearsay
evidence.
Even today they don't know the "extent" (or even existence) of an
Iraq/al Queda connection, but it was good enough for a war,
unbelievable, we went to war to get Zarquari? Wasn't the military
stopped from getting this guy at his camps before the
invasion......draw that connection because for me it doesn't grok.
"Haliburton", I lost count ho many shots I owed for each time it was
mentioned and have decided just to keep drinking steadily. "No
bid," has me buying a couple rounds. . .
OH NO, Cheney took the bait!! Actually went back to Hali (burp)
ton! The old man couldn't resists, really made no defense but
just used it as a platform for a nasty crack about Johnny being absent
from the senate, then agreed essentially with Edwards on
Israel/Palestine (which was what the question was about. Edwards
came back swinging and just plain nailed Cheney on his congressional
votes: Plastic gins, head start, meals on wheels, MLK and Nelson
Mandella. Nice Job Johnny.
Domestic issues: Cheney non responsive on jobs and poverty, Edwards
points it out slickly and lays our the numbers. Cheney has
numbers too and counters effectively with a zinger about not being able
to take four more years of this kind of experience-- again they're both
good.
Qwen couldn't resist the gay marriage question. Good for
her. Cheney outright deceived on what the Massachusetts Supreme
Court did, but otherwise swallowed the hypocrisy well. Edwards
also misleads on the recognition of marriage from state to state under
the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Tort lawyers, feh! Us
family lawyers don't get rich but we sure help people get on with their
lives. Why Edwards is wrong is because the issue has come up in
the context of "common law" marriages going back to the establishment
of this nation.
Can't speak on Edwards "fix" for malpractice cases. Ohio has been
doing that right along and even adds a step, mandatory
arbitration. Hasn't helped the rise in medical cost or
malpractice premiums.
The personal questions were so revealing in distinguishing the two men,
not in what they said but how they said it. Edwards was charming
and laughing, Cheney hunched over and grumbled.
Flip Flopping: The administration being "Back and forth" was a
nice reference by Edwards, Ack! "$87 Billion" and "Wrong war, Wrong
place, wrong time" again. What else ya got Dick?? Edwards
again has Cleveland numbers on top of national numbers. The boy
(yeah I know he's 50, but look at him) does do his homework.
Cheney gave a broken record of his stump speech on flip flopping, a
soft ball for him which he had a chance to swing for the fences and
bunted instead.
Uniter not a divider, "Biggest disappointment?" says Cheney but we'll
keep working at it, By getting ZELL involved more!!?? WTF.
Gimme a break. Softball for Edwards, who swings well but changes
the subject, goes back to health care, fine, but he didn't run out the
play when he could have at least got a double. Ennhhhh!
Cheney's summation was far better than Edwards' tale of his dad, but
then again while Edwards was in college, Dick was running this nation
or multinational corporations.
Final thoughts, once again, as it was in 2000, the GOP must wish their
ticket were switched. Cheney did fine next to Edwards, who also
did well. Both in glaring contrast to Bush's performance (or lack
thereof) Thursday night.
Why on earth would anyone be sceptical of the Bush administraiton and congressional republicans insistance that there will be no draft should Bush get reelected. Who would ever doubt the word of these guys? Except for the fact that we may not have any choice if we want to finish the job in Iraq right.
What's intriguing about the draft rumor isn't whether it's true or false--though on key points it's clearly false.
What's intriguing is the warmth with which the Republicans deny it and must deny it. The gap in public opinion between support of the draft and support of the war requires such a denial and reveals something else that ought to leave them vexed:
When the question really hits home, not many Americans believe in our mission in Iraq enough to put their lives or family members' lives on the line for it.
Mind you if you want to read some of the draft rumor propaganda from my leftist friends, read this alarming post at Kos. But don't forget to have a "dispassionate" glace at this factcheck Doc provided at no extra charge from Ara
We were changing in this country long before
9/11. Those that had been waging a silent war for the minds of
America merely used the tragedy to accelerate their decades long agenda.
I am an advocate and make no apologies whatsoever for promoting a
particular point of view. You don't have to guess my hidden
agenda, and if you can get past that and actually put some thought into
what I have to say, maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.
Better yet you might be persuaded that even a liberal can be "right."
Facts may be facts, in other words, but they still have been
selected by a biased mind. The only remedy is to admit that everything
we call journalism is the continuation of opinion by other means.
What's required is that our media stop the hypocrisy of pretending to
inform and wade into the argument with all biases blazing. LA
Times
Some right leaning media outlets have lost all
sense of perspective because they insist that they are somehow above
human nature. Indeed, some of their fellow travelers in Blogtopia
do even more damage to their cause by resurrecting discredited partisan
Swiftboaters to tell their so-called "exclusive" when they couldn't
otherwise get a booking on O'Reilly. You tend to figure that a
"source" is no longer worthy of your time when only Hannity, Limbaugh
and Dean Esmay will give them a free forum. Is it really a
surprise that a vocal member of the Swift Liars, Van O'Dell, has time
for Mr. Esmay in between getting as many free lunches and frequent
flyer miles as possible from a gullible public and assorted
Billionaires for Bush?
If you really must read Mr. Esmay
gush over his chance at the "big time" interview with an man whose
35 year grudge has cost him the ability to separate his conveniently
remembered personal animosity for John Kerry from his distant and
unsubstantiated memories of events so long ago, and so far away;
remember that he has changed his tune several times over the last
several months, and this is but the latest example. No
documentation offered, no rebuttle to the Navy who concluded an
investigation supporting Kerry's version of events and not the
Swifties. No story, just a grudge a determined hack wishes to
resuscitate to further damage a candidate he doesn't like.
But there is a larger context which disturbs me
beyond the personal pleasure I get from watching the "Defender of the
Liberal Tradition" fall further into the abyss of partisan demagoguery
he so vocally loathes. The media, it seems, is out of
control. Everybody has a horse in this race and it's showing in
interesting ways.
That Fox News is showing it's bias in favor of the administration is no
surprise. They have behaved like a wholly owned subsidiary of
Bush, Inc. for years. What is astounding is that there were
boundaries which even Fox thought in
hindsight they had crossed.
Troubling times when an Attorney General is called out of retirement to
head an investigation into the source of a bogus source's info and
documents. Who the hell does that? That never happens,
WTF. Then you have CNN's Crossfire regulars Paul Begala
and James Carville advising the Kerry campaign verbally sparring on a
daily basis the man credited yet not subpoenaed for outing a CIA agent,
Bob "Duke of
Douchebaggery," Novak, or when neither he or Tucker is available,
G. (Fucking, No Way!) Gordon Liddy (Way!) who is still defending
Watergate. (Why is it there are no former felons representing the
liberals like Liddy and Ollie North? -- Oh yeah, the repugnicans put
them in jail and kept them "detained."
At least Rush Limbaugh finally admitted to being an official
consultant for the GOP. Admitting there is a problem is the
first step for curing an addict.
The double standard really is highlighted by the case of Wall Street
Journal reporter, Farnaz Fassihi.
While Carl Cameron is told "down boy" as you would to any good attack
poodle, you still don't want to break his spirit since he's on the
right (far right) side, yet Fassihi will no longer be sharing his
insights from inside Baghdad until after the election.
Fassihi's. e-mail
to friends
seemed at first to be yet another in a long line of tales of woe from
Iraq we've
all but become accustomed to. Thing have gone from bad to worse,
death
and destruction reign, more of the same. Why Farnaz's story
stands out
is that it was not (from my understanding) meant for publication.
Yet
now we find out that even expressing private concerns are subject to
suppression when critical of the administration's efforts. Even
when
true. Falsehood makerss keeping with the "party line," much like
the
pranksters at abu Ghraib, should not be given too much grief.
Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is
like being under virtual house arrest.
* * *
It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning
point' exactly began. Was it April when the Fallujah fell
out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi
declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr City,
home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield
for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began
spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most
of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a
disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the
Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a
foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to
come.
* * *
Not exactly the usualy opinion published in WSJ,
nor what the movers and shakers want to read. But Farnaz doesn't
write op/ed's, he's a reporter on a very dangerous beat. Over
there the Iraqi's call the chaos and bloodshed a "situation."
What they mean by situation is this: the
Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are
several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and
injuring scores of innocent people, the country's roads are
becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of landmines
and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are
assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation,
basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110
people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The
numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was
attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers
-- has now stopped disclosing them.
Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.
The violence struck close to Farnaz, missing friends, close calls with
car bombs, he doesn't go outside, doesn't travel without armor, doesn't
investigate incidents, and is more concerned with his personal security
and that of his stringers than getting any story.
America's last hope for a quick exit? The
Iraqi police and National Guard units we are spending billions of
dollars to train. The cops are being murdered by the dozens every
day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their
ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated
$6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to
get rid of them quietly.
* * *
Forget about democracy, forget about
being a model for the region, we have to salvage Iraq before all
is lost."
One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those
of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could
salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism,
chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of
American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.
The full text of the "vacationing" WSJ reporter, Farnaz Fassihi's email
is found at: Poynter Online - Forums
Now wrap your brain around this: Cameron
makes stuff up, a joke at the expense of the Democrats, which is
published on their official web page, and there are no
consequences. Fassihi does not publsh his truthful yet private
e-mail, which somehow gets back to his employer, the WSJ, and is suspended/vacationed
because the truth he reports of the conditions in Iraq will hurt Bush's
reelection efforts. Does he need and deserve a rest?
Absolutely. Will he be giving any interviews? Absolutely
not if he wants to keep his job.
I'm seeing a pattern and I really don't like it. Name the GOP
sympathizer in the media who has been under the gun as much as Howard
Stern or Dan Rather. Geraldo draws a map of troop movements . . .
nothing. Novak, come on, somebody has got to put Novak in front of
a grand jury. Bob Woodward is getting personal White House tours
by Bush instead of getting the goods on Bush. Clear Chanel radio
broadcasts RNC talking points 12 hours a day (or more) and all this if
"fair and balanced."
What the hell happened to the fourth estate? I suspect they
didn't even know the coup occurred until it was too late. Al
Franken saw it as an insurgency and has drawn the line in the sand, so
have I. What we realize and you might someday, unless you think
you're part of the right revolution, is that over the last twenty years
a small yet determined group of ideologues have been working hard to
transform America into something you will not recognize by the time
they are done.
Hat Tip: Hellblazer
UPDATE: You want some llinks to back up what is purely my opinion just so you have more bile to throw at me? Fine, here's some more links.
Main Entry: glob·al Pronunciation: 'glO-b&l Function: adjective 1 : SPHERICAL 2 : of, relating to, or involving the entire world : WORLDWIDE (global warfare) (a global system of communication); also : of or relating to a celestial body (as the moon) 3 : of, relating to, or applying to a whole (as a mathematical function or a computer program) (a global search of a file) - glob·al·ly /'glO-b&-lE/ adverb
Try this instead:
Kerry wanted to say "smell test" or "sniff test," but had a quick flashback of a sweaty Terasa after a "steam," thought it wasn't dignified and in that split second substituted "Global" for "Sniff".
He should have stuck with "Smell Test" to emphasize how Bush stunk things up.
Ah, I see there are some grown-ups at Fox News who, after rival CNN
picked up Cuticle
Carl's idea of a joke, issued this
statement informing the brats who run the place for Mr. Murdoch
that if any more shenanigans happens which embarrasses the network
heads will roll. Like Peter Jennings said, "occasionally
you'll get caught in something like this . . . it's
tough." (At least he didn't say, "It's hard.)
Of course, that was not before the hooligans in the backroom at Fox
issued a bogus
statement that Carl Cameron had been sacked. They also issued
"regrets"
for the "Commies for Kerry" crap. Now I wonder if they'll ever
get around to an accurate account of Kerry's
record
of passed legislation. I'm not holding my breath.
I doubt that anyone at Fox took the reprimand seriously. Nothing
was done to dispell the culture of pure unprofessionalism and bias
there. After all, relatively few people were actually exposed to
the fun and games these numbskulls engaged in. No harm no
foul. They can resume without interruption their quest to
transform this Nation into a bastion of corporate greed and excess
supported on the backs of the ignorant they ridicule.
Even this "high and mighty, hypocritical, DNC talking point spouting bloviator." knows the limits of proper political discourse. This picture just is too much. I simply cannot support an organization which publishes a picture which clearly exaggerates and distorts the buldge in Senator John Kerry's pants.
Terrible, just terrible
The
Political Wire seems to think that unlike so many other forgettable
Vice-Presidential debates, this one coming up tuesday may be more
important that ususal. While the conventional wisdom holds that
people vote for presidents, not vice presidents. As John Boy
demonstrates over on the side, there is very little separating the
candidates in the polls. This thing is that close. (OK, go ahead
and fill in your own caption. My mind stayed in the gutter too
long to even try after seeing this picture.)
If this one is about style and charm, Edwards toasts Cheney, unlike the
debate between their bosses where Kerry upstaged Bush on all counts --
yes even the "global test" thing you doinks, if you actually care to
take his statement IN context and wrap your brain around the
full concept that foreign policy includes relations and perceptions of
-- foreigners.
Nations that conduct military, economic and ecological action without
regard for international consequences are considered rogue nations by
consensus. We should have achieved all (yes all) of the stated
objectives of our war in Iraq without resorting to war, or if war was
inevitable, with international support not scorn. That is not a permission
slip; that is diplomacy. If you don't have the patience to engage
in meaninful relations with the rest of the world you will soon lose
your position as its leader.
However, if the Cheney/Edwards debate is a technical and detailed
policy discussion, the old man will eat John Boy for dinner.
Edwards will not be up against the bumbling fool who stammared his way
into the Oval Office, but the power behind the thrown, the wizard
himself who took the most inept man he could find and actually made him
president. Cheney is not someone to be trifled with.
However, if the Cheney/Edwards debate is a technical and detailed
policy discussion, the old man will eat John Boy for dinner.
Edwards will not be up against the bumbling fool who stammared his way
into the Oval Office, but the power behind the thrown, the wizard
himself who took the most inept man he could find and actually made him
president. Cheney is not someone to be trifled with.
