As one may recall, the final year of Bill Clinton’s presidency saw a federal budget surplus. This was accomplished by raising the top marginal tax rate to 39 percent, and avoiding costly wars. George Bush promised major tax cuts that benefited mainly the well-off, declaring that tired and continuously discredited right-wing mantra that these cuts would eventually be paid for by “trickle down” economic growth. After losing the popular vote and “winning” the 2000 election, Bush told us that he “heard” the people and would revisit the tax cut issue, but once in office reversed course and eventually managed to get all of the tax cuts he wanted for himself and his wealthy backers passed in budget reconciliation. As during the Reagan and Bush I years, the “trickle down” propaganda proved to be delusional, and Bush forgot to tell us that he and Tricky Dick Jr. had a war planned for us, and that in smoke-filled backrooms, they and their non-regulators were going to allow their banking and mortgage-lending friends gamble away the economy.
In the year 2010, after a decade which saw one-sixth of U.S. manufacturing jobs disappear, a banking meltdown, massive tax cuts for the rich still in place, a war still raging, and unemployment hovering at 10 percent, the people are wondering why the federal budget cannot be balanced. People want the government to do something for them, which many do not understand means spending money, not reducing spending; of course, the wealthy who don’t need such “help” want to keep more money for themselves, just because it’s theirs and not the people whose backs they made it off of. Not surprisingly, these off-setting, competing and oppositional theologies produced a net worth of receipts applied to federal government coffers only 2/3 that of spending. Of total receipts worth $2.381 trillion was, much less than half—$1.06 trillion—was derived from personal income taxes. Another $222 billion came from corporate taxes, and $158 billion came from sources like customs, excise and estate taxes. This totals out to $1.440 trillion, which technically pays for $2 trillion in non-Social Security, government pension and health care costs. If we subtract the stimulus bill funding and the war, there would be near balance in the revenue/expenditure stream; if we had allowed tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to sunset, we might even have a slight budget surplus.
The other $940 billion in revenue is accounted for from mainly Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Now things become a little tricky. About $1.6 trillion is spent on Social Security, federal pensions and health care services. For the first time, Social Security outputs exceeded inputs, and of course health care costs continue to spiral out of control. This is where the real budget crisis lies. The Congressional Budget Office wrote in a report last summer that in 2035, 92 million Americans will be collecting Social Security, compared to 53 million today. By 2039, it concludes that the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted.
What to do?
Earlier this year, Matt Yglesias at ThinkProgress suggested eliminating the income ceiling on Social Security taxes, in exchange for a graduated benefit for everyone according to what an individual inputted. This would cover 95 percent of shortfalls in funding for the foreseeable future. Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute countered that any ensuing “bubble” of surplus payroll taxes entering into a trust fund amounts to little more than an accounting trick (just ask the Federal Reserve), not real money just sitting in the bank; furthermore, with all that “money” being unused in the short term, the temptation would inevitably arise to use it to cover costs of other government programs. Biggs assumes that employers for wage-earners over the current cap would refuse to cover half the 12.4 percent Social Security tax, and force the employee to cover the full burden—thus raising an already high marginal tax rates for upper-income wage-earners. However, Biggs, like the most of his colleagues on the right, do not offer an alternative solution (well, there is the "Work Till You Die" plan), so their complaints seem more like the mendacious sobbing of the well-off. A study by Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson showed that the “all-in” marginal tax rate for virtually everyone is 40 percent, regardless of income bracket, when one takes into account sales, property and other taxes that generally hit the lower-income harder. For its part, the CBO only suggests a tax increase on Social Security pay-outs to “level out” at 9 percent, and increase the age limit for full benefits.
The present presidential commission seeking ways to reduce the deficit only seeks to reduce Social Security pay-outs mainly by increasing age limits, and cutting “fat” from Medicare; “fat” chance of that given complaints from doctors about already meager payments. Taxes? The commission actually wants to reduce the top marginal rate, to be “off-set” by taxing capital gains and dividends as normal income, and addressing some, but not all corporate tax breaks (some of the largest companies, like Exxon and GE, managed to pay no taxes at all in 2009). Otherwise, the only suggestion is to cut social programs. Like other attempts to address the budget deficit, like the farcical “Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,” it is all hokum to fool the masses.
The U.S. has 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but 30 percent of its millionaires and 40 percent of its billionaires. The U.S. also has one of the widest—perhaps the widest—income disparities of any industrialized country. Yet even a newspaper in an allegedly liberal city like Seattle for months raged against an extremely modest state income tax on the wealthiest residents proposed by the father of Microsoft mega-billionaire Bill Gates; the Seattle Times didn’t just editorialize against it, but repeatedly issued highly debatable “factoids” that revealed alleged sinister “secrets” that you might not know about. Of course, this was all greedy blather from the Blethen family and the right-wingers on its editorial board. After the defeat of that initiative and the passing of an initiative blocking the sales tax increase on junk food and beverages, the Times opined about what the state was going to do now with even less revenue and even more gutting of education and health care.
Mendacity, mendacity—always mendacity, to quote Big Daddy, when it comes to taxes and budget deficits.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Obama appeasing the Republicans is more like Lincoln surrendering to the Confederacy
Many if not most Democrats are outraged by President Barack Obama’s caving in to Republican demands for extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and a lightening of estate taxes for multi-millionaire heirs to fortunes they didn’t earn themselves--especially in a time of deepening budget deficits and many people remaining in economic distress. This cannot be gainsaid in the face of the new reality that the coming Tea Party Republican House wants to gut or eliminate social safety net programs. What Obama received in “return” only exacerbates the problem: an extension of unemployment benefits and tax cuts for businesses. To increase tax cuts and add to government pay-outs only does one thing: cause the budget deficit to inflate still further. The budget problem, as the deficit reduction task force concluded, can only be addressed through a combination of tax hikes and budget cuts; not allowing at least some of the Bush tax cuts to sunset is simply insane and irresponsible. The Republicans are simply paying debts to their wealthy paymasters. Obama says that this is no time to “play politics.” The sad reality is that this is exactly what he and his Republicans “friends” are doing.
It cannot be denied that Obama has been a major disappointment for many people on the left and even in the center. It is apparent that what Obama meant by “change” was not a shift away from regressive policies and shift toward progressive policies that address long-term issues such as energy, the environment, easing international tensions and to detoxify the toxic atmosphere of social discord that the Bush administration went out of its way to fan the flames of. If one be honest, all this was part of Obama’s stated agenda; the problem was the foolhardy way he was going to go about accomplishing these objectives. We did not know that instead of ignoring the attacks from the right that began even before he officially took office, and forcefully defending a new direction that a majority of voters expected him to take, he was going to bend over backwards trying to accommodate the Republicans. Obama refused to understand that his relatively lightweight resume required that he now show the Republicans that he was no pushover; he had to show strength and courage. Taking Bill Clinton’s “advice” and compromising whatever principles he claimed to possess was a mistake; Clinton had a Republican-controlled Congress to deal with, and Obama had 60 votes in the Senate. He didn’t need to be everybody’s “friend.” He only needed to layout specific goals and push Democratic legislators to achieve it, or he wouldn’t sign off on it. Instead, he didn’t layout specific goals that he would not back away from under any circumstances, and simply allowed Congress to make things up as they went along, which was a recipe for disaster. There was the entirely pointless tax cut included in the stimulus package, which lower-income people like myself barely noticed and only increased the deficit, just to get votes from one or two “moderate” Republicans to make things appear “bi-partisan.” Then there was the year-long disorder that was the health care reform bill; the only thing that Obama needed to do was force a public option to be passed. The very existence of a public option would have forced the health insurance industry to reform its own self without having to create that jumbled, confusing mess of a bill.
Being an Illinois-based politician, it was natural that Obama’s “hero” was Abraham Lincoln, who is generally regarded as the country’s greatest president; Lincoln brought together people from across the spectrum for a common cause in a time of the nation’s greatest peril. What Obama failed to realize is that during the Civil War, there was a tangible enemy, and that enemy was the Confederacy and its reactionary, backward-thinking political, economic and social philosophy. Obama did not realize that today the “Confederacy” was the Republican Party, which was hell-bent to destroy his presidency and divide the country, and made no secret of it. Instead of being a “partner” in solving the country’s problems, the Republicans only sought to be disruptive and destructive; not one single piece of major legislation did the Republicans not vote en mass against. Not once did the Republicans offer any constructive ideas to solve the economic or health care dilemma; all of their ideas that were incorporated not only were destructive, they did not even gain their support for those bills.
Those of us on the left have criticized these efforts to compromise with Republicans and conservative Democrats because it not only compromised progressive principles, but it made a mockery of the mantra of “change.” Obama had a mandate, and he blew it. What did trying to be friends with the Republicans get him? It got him a bigot like Rush Limbaugh continuously calling him a “racist” for no comprehensible reason, and O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity and Coulter and the rest of that Fox News cast of funny farm characters calling him a communist, Marxist, socialist and a terrorist. That’s real “fair and balanced” stuff. Interestingly, Republican senators want to deal with Obama in the lame duck session perhaps because they know the once the new House is sworn-in, the potential for nothing getting done is strong given the fanaticism of House Republicans—particularly Tea Party types who have no sense of reality; in due course, Republicans receiving richly deserved blame as the party of no, which they escaped in 2010 because of disappointment with Obama, should become more apparent in 2012.
But I have little hope, given the evidence up to this point, that Obama will have learned from his mistakes. He has wrecked much of his credibility with the Democratic base after his latest dance with the Republicans. He has to find a way to rebuild it if he expects to win reelection in 2012. If we believe the rhetoric of incoming Republicans in the next House session, it will be near to impossible for Obama to accomplish anything constructive in the remaining two years unless he plays hardball with them. He has to go on the offensive, which means he has to maintain a steady attack on the regressive nature of their proposed policies and how they will affect the country and individuals negatively. Obama has to make the veto threat mean something, that he will not sign just anything put before him. He must have the political will and courage to tell Congress that his “principles”—such as they are—will not be compromised for mere political expediency; of course, he must first stop deceiving himself by denying that he has done so repeatedly. He must recognize the overwhelming fact that the Republicans are his enemy: they would even destroy the country just to destroy him.
It cannot be denied that Obama has been a major disappointment for many people on the left and even in the center. It is apparent that what Obama meant by “change” was not a shift away from regressive policies and shift toward progressive policies that address long-term issues such as energy, the environment, easing international tensions and to detoxify the toxic atmosphere of social discord that the Bush administration went out of its way to fan the flames of. If one be honest, all this was part of Obama’s stated agenda; the problem was the foolhardy way he was going to go about accomplishing these objectives. We did not know that instead of ignoring the attacks from the right that began even before he officially took office, and forcefully defending a new direction that a majority of voters expected him to take, he was going to bend over backwards trying to accommodate the Republicans. Obama refused to understand that his relatively lightweight resume required that he now show the Republicans that he was no pushover; he had to show strength and courage. Taking Bill Clinton’s “advice” and compromising whatever principles he claimed to possess was a mistake; Clinton had a Republican-controlled Congress to deal with, and Obama had 60 votes in the Senate. He didn’t need to be everybody’s “friend.” He only needed to layout specific goals and push Democratic legislators to achieve it, or he wouldn’t sign off on it. Instead, he didn’t layout specific goals that he would not back away from under any circumstances, and simply allowed Congress to make things up as they went along, which was a recipe for disaster. There was the entirely pointless tax cut included in the stimulus package, which lower-income people like myself barely noticed and only increased the deficit, just to get votes from one or two “moderate” Republicans to make things appear “bi-partisan.” Then there was the year-long disorder that was the health care reform bill; the only thing that Obama needed to do was force a public option to be passed. The very existence of a public option would have forced the health insurance industry to reform its own self without having to create that jumbled, confusing mess of a bill.
Being an Illinois-based politician, it was natural that Obama’s “hero” was Abraham Lincoln, who is generally regarded as the country’s greatest president; Lincoln brought together people from across the spectrum for a common cause in a time of the nation’s greatest peril. What Obama failed to realize is that during the Civil War, there was a tangible enemy, and that enemy was the Confederacy and its reactionary, backward-thinking political, economic and social philosophy. Obama did not realize that today the “Confederacy” was the Republican Party, which was hell-bent to destroy his presidency and divide the country, and made no secret of it. Instead of being a “partner” in solving the country’s problems, the Republicans only sought to be disruptive and destructive; not one single piece of major legislation did the Republicans not vote en mass against. Not once did the Republicans offer any constructive ideas to solve the economic or health care dilemma; all of their ideas that were incorporated not only were destructive, they did not even gain their support for those bills.
Those of us on the left have criticized these efforts to compromise with Republicans and conservative Democrats because it not only compromised progressive principles, but it made a mockery of the mantra of “change.” Obama had a mandate, and he blew it. What did trying to be friends with the Republicans get him? It got him a bigot like Rush Limbaugh continuously calling him a “racist” for no comprehensible reason, and O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity and Coulter and the rest of that Fox News cast of funny farm characters calling him a communist, Marxist, socialist and a terrorist. That’s real “fair and balanced” stuff. Interestingly, Republican senators want to deal with Obama in the lame duck session perhaps because they know the once the new House is sworn-in, the potential for nothing getting done is strong given the fanaticism of House Republicans—particularly Tea Party types who have no sense of reality; in due course, Republicans receiving richly deserved blame as the party of no, which they escaped in 2010 because of disappointment with Obama, should become more apparent in 2012.
But I have little hope, given the evidence up to this point, that Obama will have learned from his mistakes. He has wrecked much of his credibility with the Democratic base after his latest dance with the Republicans. He has to find a way to rebuild it if he expects to win reelection in 2012. If we believe the rhetoric of incoming Republicans in the next House session, it will be near to impossible for Obama to accomplish anything constructive in the remaining two years unless he plays hardball with them. He has to go on the offensive, which means he has to maintain a steady attack on the regressive nature of their proposed policies and how they will affect the country and individuals negatively. Obama has to make the veto threat mean something, that he will not sign just anything put before him. He must have the political will and courage to tell Congress that his “principles”—such as they are—will not be compromised for mere political expediency; of course, he must first stop deceiving himself by denying that he has done so repeatedly. He must recognize the overwhelming fact that the Republicans are his enemy: they would even destroy the country just to destroy him.
Keeping "hope" alive for the memory of the other victims
The other day I was on my way to the Laundromat when I observed, after an absence of about a year, the modest memorial for the lives “stolen” by Kent police over the years. I have no idea how long it will remain upright, but the fact is the courage of whoever is responsible in making a statement about an issue that most people seem to have little concern for is deserving of admiration. Meanwhile, a jury convicted several of Maurice Clemmons’ so-called co-conspirators in the Lakewood police case. Clemmons’ brother was acquitted, which apparently disturbed the thirst for "righteous" vengeance from some in the courtroom. Other than the “getaway” driver convicted in a previous trial, an honest assessment seems to suggest that it could not be proven that any of the defendants had foreknowledge of Clemmons’ intentions. One of the defendants was found guilty of “handling” Clemmons gun; his aunt was found guilty of “helping” the killer by treating his wounds. It is certain that because the victims were police officers, the jurors were willing to go beyond the knowable facts and simply convict on “principle.” What these people were really guilty of was a failure to report Clemmons whereabouts, not surprising due to the distrust and enmity of many in the Lakewood minority community toward the police, which no one in the media wants to discuss. Rather than address these issues themselves, the police have only increased their “us against them” mentality.
The mayor of Seattle, Mike McGuinn—who earlier called on the SPD to deprioritize arrests for pot possession—has added his voice to Seattle civil rights organizations in calling on the Justice Department to investigate the SPD for civil rights violations, mainly concerning the out-of-control use of excessive force. The local federal prosecutor seems hardly interested, but it is part and parcel with the cowardice to deal with wrong-doing by local police, as I’ve discussed before. One particularly appalling piece of recent evidence against the police was a video taken in a civilian lobby in one police precinct; a man is taken inside the lobby, and immediately is struck, kicked and beaten by three police officers. While he is on the floor with these three officers on top of him, the victim is seen moving his legs about; during the subsequent “investigation,” these movements are offered as “evidence” that he refused to “cooperate,” and thus their actions were “justified.”
The problem was that the “suspect” was not being “uncooperative” when we see him being led into the lobby; what we see is three officers begin beating and kicking him for no apparent justification. It is only after he is on the ground and all three officers continuing to kick and beat him that we see the victim moving his limbs. These movements are clearly a reflexive response to the beating; if the officers—all who were much more physically-imposing than the victim—had stopped beating him (let alone not beat him at all), the “arrest” would have gone without incident. That there was an “incident” was entirely the creation of the police involved. Later in the video we see the victim with his head bandaged strapped to an ambulance gurney; the police seem to be trying to explain to medics their version of the “incident” with some success, because the medics do not seem to be too concerned about the condition of the victim.
But what is even more appalling about this particular incident is the sheer brazenness in which the police involved conducted themselves. They surely knew they were being videotaped. Why didn’t conduct their beating outside instead of inside the lobby? What made them believe that their actions were “appropriate” and “justified,” so much so that they did not fear how their actions would be viewed if exposed? Why didn’t the police who witnessed the activity from behind the safety glass not say anything to stop the beating? These questions and others (such as the John T. Williams killing) are the reasons why the SPD needs to be investigated.
The mayor of Seattle, Mike McGuinn—who earlier called on the SPD to deprioritize arrests for pot possession—has added his voice to Seattle civil rights organizations in calling on the Justice Department to investigate the SPD for civil rights violations, mainly concerning the out-of-control use of excessive force. The local federal prosecutor seems hardly interested, but it is part and parcel with the cowardice to deal with wrong-doing by local police, as I’ve discussed before. One particularly appalling piece of recent evidence against the police was a video taken in a civilian lobby in one police precinct; a man is taken inside the lobby, and immediately is struck, kicked and beaten by three police officers. While he is on the floor with these three officers on top of him, the victim is seen moving his legs about; during the subsequent “investigation,” these movements are offered as “evidence” that he refused to “cooperate,” and thus their actions were “justified.”
The problem was that the “suspect” was not being “uncooperative” when we see him being led into the lobby; what we see is three officers begin beating and kicking him for no apparent justification. It is only after he is on the ground and all three officers continuing to kick and beat him that we see the victim moving his limbs. These movements are clearly a reflexive response to the beating; if the officers—all who were much more physically-imposing than the victim—had stopped beating him (let alone not beat him at all), the “arrest” would have gone without incident. That there was an “incident” was entirely the creation of the police involved. Later in the video we see the victim with his head bandaged strapped to an ambulance gurney; the police seem to be trying to explain to medics their version of the “incident” with some success, because the medics do not seem to be too concerned about the condition of the victim.
But what is even more appalling about this particular incident is the sheer brazenness in which the police involved conducted themselves. They surely knew they were being videotaped. Why didn’t conduct their beating outside instead of inside the lobby? What made them believe that their actions were “appropriate” and “justified,” so much so that they did not fear how their actions would be viewed if exposed? Why didn’t the police who witnessed the activity from behind the safety glass not say anything to stop the beating? These questions and others (such as the John T. Williams killing) are the reasons why the SPD needs to be investigated.
Anniversary of John Lennon's passing cause to contemplate current state of music
Today is the 30th anniversary of the assassination of John Lennon. I was in the Army at the time, stationed in Germany. I was not a Beatles fan then, at least insofar as their music was not frequently heard on the top-40 stations I listened to. “Here Comes the Sun” was then as now a staple on stations whose format focused on the “classic” hits of the 1960s and 70s, and it wasn’t actually a hit but an album cut from “Abbey Road.” I knew the Beatles were “great,” but because “Road” most closely resembled the music I grew-up listening to, it was my sole entry point into their repertoire. I recall that it was big news that John Lennon had just released an album called “Double Fantasy,” his first record of new material in five years; he had the most distinctive voice of all the Beatles, the “intellectual” and political and social activist Beatle. Although I was not a “fan,” listening to the single “Starting Over” making its rapid climb up the charts seemed to have some special significance in the grand music scheme. Nevertheless, Lennon was for me just another icon on another iconic band that I was familiar with almost solely by reputation.
But that would change after December 8, 1980. Even for someone who hadn’t experienced “Beatlemania,” something incomprehensible had occurred; a living legend, someone who had made America his home, had reemerged on the music scene almost immediately to be silenced forever. The whole shocking event received suitable attention on Armed Forces television, and on the radio whole blocks of airtime were devoted to Beatles music. On German radio, a few stations played Beatles music all day for days; it seemed that people had to be reminded how great the band was. All of sudden, the local record store bins were overflowing with Beatles LPs and cassette tapes (CDs were still two years away, and for the Beatles catalogue, another four years). I suddenly discovered I liked not just some of this stuff, but very near all of it; while records by most artists were filler with one or two hits, a typical Beatles album contained so many memorable tunes that any one of them could pass for a decent band’s greatest hits set. Even today, although I have no memory of them when they filled airwaves, pop confections like “Please, Please Me,” “I Want to Hold Your Hand” and the cover of “Please Mr. Postman”—all with Lennon singing lead—are counted among my favorite songs to listen to when I need an emotional lift. Although Lennon’s solo work was not on the same level, his “Imagine” LP is an essential record, its personal poignancy and catchy melodies much more accessible than any of his other post-Beatles output.
Today, judging from what the “kids” listen to these days, it’s unlikely they would understand what I’m talking about. There is very little “uplift” of a positive nature in music today, and worse is the lack of variety. Back in the day, Top 40 radio consisted of songs from many genres—rock (soft and hard), pop, soul, R&B, folk, alternative and even a country song here and there—and the playlist changed at least every two months. In the coffee and ice cream parlor I frequent, the kids behind the counter have the radio tuned to a so-called contemporary hits station. I can’t say that I find much enjoyment in listening to it, but the song selection is remarkable in the fact that the same ten songs have been played over, and over, and over again ad nauseum for at least a year. One song eventually grew on me: Gnarls Barkley’s “Crazy,” which sounds like it could have been a hit in 1973. I wasn’t the only one who remembered what a great song was, either; “Crazy” was number one on Rolling Stone magazine’s “50 Best Songs” of the past decade. The problem was that song was a hit back in 2006, and I was still hearing it ten times a day on this radio station; it was great, but not that great. This song should have had its day in the sun for a few months then moved on to occasional airplay; instead there is such a dearth of new music that this song remained one of a handful of “contemporary” songs deemed worth playing. The music industry complains that illegal downloads are destroying profitability; the real issue is the failure to diversify the listening experience, and its collusion with radio to milk the same songs over and over again to death before introducing new songs. The industry can only grow if new sounds are allowed to inspire new listeners. And frankly, the music scene needs to lighten-up a bit; positive and idealistic messages are the kind that inspire people to do positive things.
The Beatles were successful because they were masterful at inspiring positive, uplifting and creative impulses; albums like “Revolver,” “Sergeant Pepper,” the “White Album” and “Abbey Road” showed a band striving to go beyond the expected, and still making the listening experience a positive one for as many people as possible. That is something that the current crop of artists—and the music industry—could learn from.
But that would change after December 8, 1980. Even for someone who hadn’t experienced “Beatlemania,” something incomprehensible had occurred; a living legend, someone who had made America his home, had reemerged on the music scene almost immediately to be silenced forever. The whole shocking event received suitable attention on Armed Forces television, and on the radio whole blocks of airtime were devoted to Beatles music. On German radio, a few stations played Beatles music all day for days; it seemed that people had to be reminded how great the band was. All of sudden, the local record store bins were overflowing with Beatles LPs and cassette tapes (CDs were still two years away, and for the Beatles catalogue, another four years). I suddenly discovered I liked not just some of this stuff, but very near all of it; while records by most artists were filler with one or two hits, a typical Beatles album contained so many memorable tunes that any one of them could pass for a decent band’s greatest hits set. Even today, although I have no memory of them when they filled airwaves, pop confections like “Please, Please Me,” “I Want to Hold Your Hand” and the cover of “Please Mr. Postman”—all with Lennon singing lead—are counted among my favorite songs to listen to when I need an emotional lift. Although Lennon’s solo work was not on the same level, his “Imagine” LP is an essential record, its personal poignancy and catchy melodies much more accessible than any of his other post-Beatles output.
Today, judging from what the “kids” listen to these days, it’s unlikely they would understand what I’m talking about. There is very little “uplift” of a positive nature in music today, and worse is the lack of variety. Back in the day, Top 40 radio consisted of songs from many genres—rock (soft and hard), pop, soul, R&B, folk, alternative and even a country song here and there—and the playlist changed at least every two months. In the coffee and ice cream parlor I frequent, the kids behind the counter have the radio tuned to a so-called contemporary hits station. I can’t say that I find much enjoyment in listening to it, but the song selection is remarkable in the fact that the same ten songs have been played over, and over, and over again ad nauseum for at least a year. One song eventually grew on me: Gnarls Barkley’s “Crazy,” which sounds like it could have been a hit in 1973. I wasn’t the only one who remembered what a great song was, either; “Crazy” was number one on Rolling Stone magazine’s “50 Best Songs” of the past decade. The problem was that song was a hit back in 2006, and I was still hearing it ten times a day on this radio station; it was great, but not that great. This song should have had its day in the sun for a few months then moved on to occasional airplay; instead there is such a dearth of new music that this song remained one of a handful of “contemporary” songs deemed worth playing. The music industry complains that illegal downloads are destroying profitability; the real issue is the failure to diversify the listening experience, and its collusion with radio to milk the same songs over and over again to death before introducing new songs. The industry can only grow if new sounds are allowed to inspire new listeners. And frankly, the music scene needs to lighten-up a bit; positive and idealistic messages are the kind that inspire people to do positive things.
The Beatles were successful because they were masterful at inspiring positive, uplifting and creative impulses; albums like “Revolver,” “Sergeant Pepper,” the “White Album” and “Abbey Road” showed a band striving to go beyond the expected, and still making the listening experience a positive one for as many people as possible. That is something that the current crop of artists—and the music industry—could learn from.
Monday, December 6, 2010
The Vikings can keep Tavaris, Favre will always be a Packer to this fan
To listen to most commentators and some fans, Buffalo Bills rookie linebacker Arthur Moats did the work that the Minnesota Vikings coaches were loath to do—put Brett Favre’s fundament on the bench and “see what you have” in Tavaris Jackson. Now, Viking fans endured three years observing what they had in Jackson before Favre’s entry into the picture. He was Brad Childress’ man, because Childress did not want a real quarterback, just someone who did as he was told, and hand-off to Adrian Peterson. I watched Jackson play against Green Bay as a rookie late in the 2006 season. The Packers were mostly ineffective on offense, failing to score a touchdown; fortunately for the Packers, the Vikings fielded this quarterback who one commentator would describe as a “poor man’s Kordell Stewart.” He was not very good, if one be honest; in fact he was terrible. The Packers won the game on a late field goal, 9-7, and if you were a Packer fan, who probably had to thank Childress for leaving that Tavaris guy in there.
During the next two years it wasn’t that Jackson didn’t on occasion show flashes of competence at his position; he once threw four touchdown passes in a 2008 game against the Cardinals—on just eleven passes completed. However, Peterson and Chester Taylor did most of the work, compiling 231 yards rushing between them. But mostly TJ appeared to be just an appendage, and this may have been the reason that induced certain bad habits like failure to prepare and lack of initiative. On Sunday against the Bills, Jackson did seem to benefit, at least at first, by having a fresh body and the failure of the Bills’ defense to game plan against him. One might nit-pick by pointing out that Sidney Rice made two spectacular grabs that easily could have been interceptions (Jackson’s fourth pass of the game was a pick-six), but this was the kind of play the Vikings were expecting from Rice all season, just before he inexplicably decided he needed hip surgery a just before the season started. In the second half, we saw “vintage” TJ—3 for 5, 17 yards and 2 interceptions.
As for Brett Favre, an MRI revealed a sternoclavicular joint sprain to add to his other injuries. I can’t think of any other player, let alone a quarterback, become a walking M.A.S.H unit and still be expected to play. Does he want to play? Knowing Favre’s MO, he will waffle at first, but as game time nears he can’t resist the temptation to beat-up his body some more. The Vikings should, for history's sake, allow Favre to finish the season out if he wants to. Still, the quicker the season ends the better for him and me, because the closer the time comes to when Favre finally leaves the stage, the closer I come to abandoning the Vikings ship, just as I jumped off the Jets ship two years earlier. I felt no emotional connection to the Jets and heartily despised the Vikings in the past; when Favre played for those teams, I wanted to see him do well and disprove the legion of petty, envious naysayers, and if the team did well, that was something that had to be tolerated. I’ve been a Packer fan for 40 years, and most of those years were exercises in frustration and embarrassment before Favre arrived on the scene; whether the Green Bay faithful like it or not, Favre will join Lombardi as the most recognizable name in team lore. When Favre retires (at last), the hurt feelings can start the mending process.
During the next two years it wasn’t that Jackson didn’t on occasion show flashes of competence at his position; he once threw four touchdown passes in a 2008 game against the Cardinals—on just eleven passes completed. However, Peterson and Chester Taylor did most of the work, compiling 231 yards rushing between them. But mostly TJ appeared to be just an appendage, and this may have been the reason that induced certain bad habits like failure to prepare and lack of initiative. On Sunday against the Bills, Jackson did seem to benefit, at least at first, by having a fresh body and the failure of the Bills’ defense to game plan against him. One might nit-pick by pointing out that Sidney Rice made two spectacular grabs that easily could have been interceptions (Jackson’s fourth pass of the game was a pick-six), but this was the kind of play the Vikings were expecting from Rice all season, just before he inexplicably decided he needed hip surgery a just before the season started. In the second half, we saw “vintage” TJ—3 for 5, 17 yards and 2 interceptions.
As for Brett Favre, an MRI revealed a sternoclavicular joint sprain to add to his other injuries. I can’t think of any other player, let alone a quarterback, become a walking M.A.S.H unit and still be expected to play. Does he want to play? Knowing Favre’s MO, he will waffle at first, but as game time nears he can’t resist the temptation to beat-up his body some more. The Vikings should, for history's sake, allow Favre to finish the season out if he wants to. Still, the quicker the season ends the better for him and me, because the closer the time comes to when Favre finally leaves the stage, the closer I come to abandoning the Vikings ship, just as I jumped off the Jets ship two years earlier. I felt no emotional connection to the Jets and heartily despised the Vikings in the past; when Favre played for those teams, I wanted to see him do well and disprove the legion of petty, envious naysayers, and if the team did well, that was something that had to be tolerated. I’ve been a Packer fan for 40 years, and most of those years were exercises in frustration and embarrassment before Favre arrived on the scene; whether the Green Bay faithful like it or not, Favre will join Lombardi as the most recognizable name in team lore. When Favre retires (at last), the hurt feelings can start the mending process.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
A message from a "friend" of the working man and woman
There is a political advertisement floating about the web, mainly on major newspaper sites like the Los Angeles Times. It displays a picture of a grim-faced Barack Obama (well, mean-faced anyways) that warns the reader about some nefarious design that he and the Democrats have planned before your Republican saviors arrive to save the day next January. What is this evil scheme? Click on the link and you will find out:
"Dear Concerned American,
With new pro-Right to Work Congressmen and Senators forced to wait until January to be sworn in, Big Labor's allies are set to ram every item on the union bosses forced dues wish list into law within the next few weeks.
You and I cannot let this happen!
If this bill passes, it will force public safety workers, such as your policemen and firefighters, under union boss control and would eventually spread to all public sector jobs.
Constituent's Petition to:
My U.S. Senators
I am writing to encourage you to oppose the draconian policies being pushed by Big Labor. These union bosses are seeking to subject workers to intimidation and strip them of their rights, all in an effort to increase their own power and influence.
It is vital that you oppose all legislation that strips workers of their rights, or expands the oppressive power of Big Labor.
Whereas: Police and firefighters are to "Serve and Protect" the citizens of their community and, therefore, should NOT be controlled by Big Labor; and
Whereas: Union boss control of police and firefighters will tend to drive out the best men and women who refuse to knuckle under to union militants' demands for illegal strikes, featherbedding, and forced dues; and
Whereas: The Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill could force our nation's police and firefighters under union boss control, and is just the first step toward forcing all state and local public employees under Big Labor's thumb; and
Whereas: Passage of this bill would override existing state and local laws and lead to skyrocketing budgets and higher taxes;
Therefore: In the interests of freedom and our country's economy, I urge you to cast your vote against the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill -- or any other bill designed to expand Big Labor's power over American workers during the "lame duck" session of Congress.”
Um, OK. Now who is “I,” you might ask? Why, that tireless friend of the working man and woman, Steve Forbes. You know, the publisher of that magazine that advises impoverished billionaires how to avoid paying taxes and how not to appear too conspicuous in flaunting their wealth? Forbes’ target here is rather curious, to say the least—or maybe not so: along with the Teamsters, police and firefighter unions are among the most powerful unions in the country. Other unions do not have anywhere near the ability to intimidate their employers into submission, and naturally the existence of a few powerful unions like that sets a “bad” example for the others. As I‘ve suggested numerous times on my blog, police unions are powerful because cops need them to be. Police unions are useful in blackmailing local governments whenever the call for accountability arises after episodes of abuse of lethal force, as well as shielding police from criminal prosecution and providing them with semi-believable scenarios to explain suspiciously criminal acts in the absence of video evidence.
Now, perhaps if Forbes’ “point” was that police (and firefighter) union power needs to be curbed in order to allow greater accountability to the public they serve, I would agree with him. But that is not his point at all. Forbes opposes the notion of unions even as a concept; unions have hardly a fraction of the power of corporate money, and what Forbes and his ilk really oppose is any effort to make it easier and less subject to business management intimidation for workers to unionize. Forbes the businessman, right-wing ideologue and collector of unneeded wealth despises unions because their very existence implies that workers actually have a right to a decent livelihood that he and his corporates cohorts cannot ignore at will. There may be a few police officers who don’t want to pay union dues, but the emphasis is on the word “few”; no police officer wants to be left out in the cold after he commits an outrageous violation of civil rights (such as “life”) just because he didn’t want to pay union dues; it is well worth the price for him (or her) to do so.
Forbes trumpets the “right to work” mantra that is one of the euphemisms employers and right-wing politicians like to con the public with. Sounds swell, doesn’t it? Again I might have agreed with Forbes, if we were talking about the same thing. The positive aspect of “right to work” is that discrimination doesn’t as often play a role in hiring practices. At the airport, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon or astrophysicist to tell the difference between a union and a “right to work” crew; let’s just say that a non-union outfit is more “diverse," nor do they behave like morons engaging their juvenile revenge fantasies (UAL), or taunting people who are just trying to get by in the world as best they are permitted. The pay and benefits are not, um, good (or at least not as good as union), and sometimes you are treated like a child (the latest pronouncement is that we are not allowed to wear a wet weather hood while driving an exposed tug in a heavy downpour because our vision might be impaired). “Easy to hire, easy to fire” maybe a double-edged sword, but at least you are given an opportunity; when I worked at a sports apparel warehouse, I was given the opportunity to be the shipping clerk (I have a college degree, you see), and worked three years in that position until I left the company, when I probably would have been deemed not competent enough for the job in another environment.
But when Forbes and his ilk talk “right to work,” what they mean is the ability of employers to squash workers like insects. Workers have no rights that an employer is bound to respect, so to speak. The only “rights” that a worker has is the ones that are mandated by annoying government regulations and statutes that set minimum wages. Workers have no individual identity; they are merely a formless mass that can be shaped and picked apart at whim. There is no concern or even comprehension about how workers lives are effected by toppermost decisions that determine what their lives are worth. All this in the name of profits, and more profits—and most of it going to the few people who did the least to create that wealth. These are the issues that belonging to a union is supposed to minimize; whether or not they still have sufficient support to do so is a matter of debate.
There is a word that comes to mind when reading Forbes’ manifesto--hypocrite, and a rather bald-faced one at that. Forbes thinks of himself as a smart man, and he may be. But he missed the mark wildly on this one. A fearless champion of the rights of working people? We know him better than that: The utter contempt he has for working people comes through loud and clear.
"Dear Concerned American,
With new pro-Right to Work Congressmen and Senators forced to wait until January to be sworn in, Big Labor's allies are set to ram every item on the union bosses forced dues wish list into law within the next few weeks.
You and I cannot let this happen!
If this bill passes, it will force public safety workers, such as your policemen and firefighters, under union boss control and would eventually spread to all public sector jobs.
Constituent's Petition to:
My U.S. Senators
I am writing to encourage you to oppose the draconian policies being pushed by Big Labor. These union bosses are seeking to subject workers to intimidation and strip them of their rights, all in an effort to increase their own power and influence.
It is vital that you oppose all legislation that strips workers of their rights, or expands the oppressive power of Big Labor.
Whereas: Police and firefighters are to "Serve and Protect" the citizens of their community and, therefore, should NOT be controlled by Big Labor; and
Whereas: Union boss control of police and firefighters will tend to drive out the best men and women who refuse to knuckle under to union militants' demands for illegal strikes, featherbedding, and forced dues; and
Whereas: The Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill could force our nation's police and firefighters under union boss control, and is just the first step toward forcing all state and local public employees under Big Labor's thumb; and
Whereas: Passage of this bill would override existing state and local laws and lead to skyrocketing budgets and higher taxes;
Therefore: In the interests of freedom and our country's economy, I urge you to cast your vote against the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill -- or any other bill designed to expand Big Labor's power over American workers during the "lame duck" session of Congress.”
Um, OK. Now who is “I,” you might ask? Why, that tireless friend of the working man and woman, Steve Forbes. You know, the publisher of that magazine that advises impoverished billionaires how to avoid paying taxes and how not to appear too conspicuous in flaunting their wealth? Forbes’ target here is rather curious, to say the least—or maybe not so: along with the Teamsters, police and firefighter unions are among the most powerful unions in the country. Other unions do not have anywhere near the ability to intimidate their employers into submission, and naturally the existence of a few powerful unions like that sets a “bad” example for the others. As I‘ve suggested numerous times on my blog, police unions are powerful because cops need them to be. Police unions are useful in blackmailing local governments whenever the call for accountability arises after episodes of abuse of lethal force, as well as shielding police from criminal prosecution and providing them with semi-believable scenarios to explain suspiciously criminal acts in the absence of video evidence.
Now, perhaps if Forbes’ “point” was that police (and firefighter) union power needs to be curbed in order to allow greater accountability to the public they serve, I would agree with him. But that is not his point at all. Forbes opposes the notion of unions even as a concept; unions have hardly a fraction of the power of corporate money, and what Forbes and his ilk really oppose is any effort to make it easier and less subject to business management intimidation for workers to unionize. Forbes the businessman, right-wing ideologue and collector of unneeded wealth despises unions because their very existence implies that workers actually have a right to a decent livelihood that he and his corporates cohorts cannot ignore at will. There may be a few police officers who don’t want to pay union dues, but the emphasis is on the word “few”; no police officer wants to be left out in the cold after he commits an outrageous violation of civil rights (such as “life”) just because he didn’t want to pay union dues; it is well worth the price for him (or her) to do so.
Forbes trumpets the “right to work” mantra that is one of the euphemisms employers and right-wing politicians like to con the public with. Sounds swell, doesn’t it? Again I might have agreed with Forbes, if we were talking about the same thing. The positive aspect of “right to work” is that discrimination doesn’t as often play a role in hiring practices. At the airport, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon or astrophysicist to tell the difference between a union and a “right to work” crew; let’s just say that a non-union outfit is more “diverse," nor do they behave like morons engaging their juvenile revenge fantasies (UAL), or taunting people who are just trying to get by in the world as best they are permitted. The pay and benefits are not, um, good (or at least not as good as union), and sometimes you are treated like a child (the latest pronouncement is that we are not allowed to wear a wet weather hood while driving an exposed tug in a heavy downpour because our vision might be impaired). “Easy to hire, easy to fire” maybe a double-edged sword, but at least you are given an opportunity; when I worked at a sports apparel warehouse, I was given the opportunity to be the shipping clerk (I have a college degree, you see), and worked three years in that position until I left the company, when I probably would have been deemed not competent enough for the job in another environment.
But when Forbes and his ilk talk “right to work,” what they mean is the ability of employers to squash workers like insects. Workers have no rights that an employer is bound to respect, so to speak. The only “rights” that a worker has is the ones that are mandated by annoying government regulations and statutes that set minimum wages. Workers have no individual identity; they are merely a formless mass that can be shaped and picked apart at whim. There is no concern or even comprehension about how workers lives are effected by toppermost decisions that determine what their lives are worth. All this in the name of profits, and more profits—and most of it going to the few people who did the least to create that wealth. These are the issues that belonging to a union is supposed to minimize; whether or not they still have sufficient support to do so is a matter of debate.
There is a word that comes to mind when reading Forbes’ manifesto--hypocrite, and a rather bald-faced one at that. Forbes thinks of himself as a smart man, and he may be. But he missed the mark wildly on this one. A fearless champion of the rights of working people? We know him better than that: The utter contempt he has for working people comes through loud and clear.
Minnesota governor's election shows Republican desperation for power
One may recall how Minnesota Republican die-hards attempted to rob former Saturday Night Live comic and Air America host Al Franken of the U.S. Senate seat he legitimately won; for months after the election, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman—who won his seat after his opponent, Sen. Paul Wellstone, died in a plane crash a week before the 2002 election—and his partisans filed one frivolous court challenge after another for many months. Now, the state Republicans are conducting another outrageous challenge to the obvious victory of Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party gubernatorial candidate, and former senator, Mark Dayton. With the recount largely complete, Dayton leads his Republican challenger Tom Emmer by 9,000 votes, a seemingly insurmountable margin. But Republicans think that suggestions that Dayton has won the Minnesota governorship is “premature.” Their volunteer ballot counters have challenged thousands of ballots in Hennepin County, a Democratic stronghold that includes the city of Minneapolis.
County commissioners have deemed the ballot challenges “frivolous”--although, ironically, "frivolous" is the term state law uses to describe an invalid ballot. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune’s website posted nine examples of ballots Republican volunteers challenged. To say that the challenges are themselves “frivolous” is probably not accurate; “ridiculous” is more suitable. One arrives at the conclusion that the ballot challengers are either blind, mentally-challenged or desperately trying to fulfill their quota of challenged ballots; perhaps these “volunteers” are being paid for the number of ballots they challenge. Of the nine examples, only ballot # 7 is even open to “question,” and again only if you are in desperate need of eyewear. The oval next to Dayton’s name is “only” two-thirds filled, as are the rest of the markings; since the voter showed a clear preference for DFL candidates, the intent of the voter is not open to question.
If Republicans are so desperate for power and control that they will go to the most absurd lengths to deny the power of the (majority of) people to choose who they wish to represent them, we can well imagine the nature of voter suppression that occurred in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 to insure Republican victories.
County commissioners have deemed the ballot challenges “frivolous”--although, ironically, "frivolous" is the term state law uses to describe an invalid ballot. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune’s website posted nine examples of ballots Republican volunteers challenged. To say that the challenges are themselves “frivolous” is probably not accurate; “ridiculous” is more suitable. One arrives at the conclusion that the ballot challengers are either blind, mentally-challenged or desperately trying to fulfill their quota of challenged ballots; perhaps these “volunteers” are being paid for the number of ballots they challenge. Of the nine examples, only ballot # 7 is even open to “question,” and again only if you are in desperate need of eyewear. The oval next to Dayton’s name is “only” two-thirds filled, as are the rest of the markings; since the voter showed a clear preference for DFL candidates, the intent of the voter is not open to question.
If Republicans are so desperate for power and control that they will go to the most absurd lengths to deny the power of the (majority of) people to choose who they wish to represent them, we can well imagine the nature of voter suppression that occurred in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 to insure Republican victories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)