Another inevitable consequence of the bankruptcy bill, as noted by Seeing the Forest’s Dave Johnson, is that it will deter entrepreneurship. Starting a new small business generally necessitates incurring a significant amount of personal financial risk, and this new legislation makes such risk even riskier.
Tangentially, entrepreneurship is one of the reasons I have always supported socialized healthcare. In a country like Britain, for example, you don’t have to worry about health insurance. Starting your own company doesn’t mean losing insurance from an employer, nor designating some of the start-up costs for employee coverage. Imagine being able to start your own business without worrying about medical coverage. The rising costs of healthcare and health insurance in America, however, is making it increasingly difficult to start one’s own business. Coupled with making financial risk even more unappealing, owning a business becomes a much tougher proposition in America than elsewhere.
Because new small businesses generate new jobs, disincentivizing starting such businesses are unwise, as it could also have a grave effect on job growth. Poor job growth, higher unemployment, fewer people covered under employer-sponsored healthcare plans and hence dependent on social programs or burdened with high medical bills, more possible bankruptcies… It’s an economic nightmare waiting to happen.
More on the Bankruptcy Bill
The Burden of Cognitive Dissonance
Media Girl’s Matsu, writing on who’s really burdening America:
The ironic thing is that those who are the most irate about spending on the poor have not connected that the money is running dry because they are spending on the rich.Indeed. Nor have they connected that the policies enacted by this administration designed to slowly crush the middle class out of existence are creating more demand on the social services that exist as a safety net for those who have come by various circumstance to depend on them. Not taxing corporations and the very wealthy is directly linked to our social services being taxed by overuse. But we can’t blame those who need them; instead we must turn our attention to the policies that create the need.
Daily DeLay Misdeed Revelation
Something tells me the list of this guys actions not worthy of a congressional investigation would be pretty damn short (link):
An Indian tribe and a gambling services company made donations to a Washington public policy group that covered most of the cost of a $70,000 trip to Britain by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), his wife, two aides and two lobbyists in mid-2000, two months before DeLay helped kill legislation opposed by the tribe and the company.It just goes on and on and on. Read the whole story for the full extent of this revolting opportunism.
The sponsor of the week-long trip listed in DeLay's financial disclosures was the nonprofit National Center for Public Policy Research, but a person involved in arranging DeLay's travel said that lobbyist Jack Abramoff suggested the trip and then arranged for checks to be sent by two of his clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and eLottery Inc.
The dates on the checks coincided with the day DeLay left on the trip, May 25, 2000, according to grants documents reviewed by The Washington Post. The Choctaw and eLottery each sent a check for $25,000, according to the documents. They now say that they were unaware the money was being used to finance DeLay's travels.
[…]
House ethics rules allow lawmakers and their staffs to have travel expenses paid only for officially connected travel and only by organizations directly connected to the trips. The rules also require that lawmakers accurately report the people or organizations that pay for the trips. They prohibit payments by registered lobbyists for lawmakers' travel.
[…]
Abramoff's attorney, Abbe David Lowell, declined to comment. Abramoff, the National Center and the flow of money between them are now being investigated by a federal task force and by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; DeLay was admonished three times last year for infringements of House ethics rules.
To prove an ethics violation, investigators would have to show that DeLay and his staff knew the gambling interests were funding the trip, said Jan W. Baran, a Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP ethics lawyer who often represents Republicans. "If somebody is doing some backdoor financing, how would the member know?"
Abramoff, a member of the National Center's board, joined the DeLays on the May 25 to June 3, 2000, trip, which DeLay's congressional office has said included a stop in London and a visit with Margaret Thatcher, along with the golf outing at St. Andrews, where colleagues say Abramoff has a membership.
DeLay, an avid golfer, listed the purpose of the trip on a report filed with the House clerk as "educational." He was majority whip at the time and brought his wife, Christine, and two top staff members -- Tony Rudy from the whip's office and chief of staff Susan Hirschmann, as well as her husband, David Hirschmann, according to filings with the House clerk that indicated the total cost of transportation, lodging and meals was $70,265.
It’s interesting that the purpose of this trip was “educational,” too, just like his trip to Seoul. Just exactly how much education does this guy need?!
It’s amazing, simply amazing, that this kind of shit continues to go on unfettered, and yet the red staters who slave away at Wal-Mart for minimum wage, no health coverage, and no paid vacation, and who now risk losing their homes if they are forced to declare bankruptcy, still consider the GOP the party of moral values.
A note to Christians who vote red: the King James Bible contains over 100 verses relating to the poor. And none of them suggest screwing over the poor (among others) to play golf in Scotland.
Hackery Comes to D.C. (Again)
In the ongoing story, “Loyalty Trumps Competence,” our newest chapter may be the most egregious example yet. Forget a lack of competence; how about a complete and utter lack of qualifications?
Okay, let’s get this out of the way first. The post has been vacant since last summer?! Forget for a moment that nowadays no PR campaign in the universe has much chance of overcoming the faltering image of America abroad based on the debacle that is our foreign policy, because the administration believes it’s possible…in which case, it seems wholly nuts to have left the role of designing such a campaign vacant for almost a year! Good lord.President Bush will nominate one of his closest longtime advisers to a key State Department post in an effort to help repair the United States' image abroad, especially in the Arab world, a senior administration official said Saturday.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the announcement that Bush has selected Karen Hughes to be undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs will be made early next week, possibly as early as Monday. The position requires Senate confirmation.
The official said that Hughes, 48, will spearhead the administration's campaign to promote democracy in the Middle East.Hughes, who for years has had a major voice in crafting Bush's domestic message, is a former counselor to the president who left the White House in 2002 to move her family back to Texas.
She has little experience in foreign affairs but enjoys the confidence of the president and is close to the new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.
Since leaving Washington, Hughes, a former Texas television reporter, has continued to advise the president from her home in Austin.
As undersecretary, Hughes' main responsibility will be to repair the image of the United States which was badly tarnished abroad by anger over the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow its government.
She will be responsible for improving U.S. diplomats' face-to-face contact overseas and will oversee an array of programs, such as radio broadcasts that place American ideas and news before foreign audiences.
The post has been vacant since last summer.
Secondly, and generally, what the hell?! She has little experience in foreign affairs but enjoys the confidence of the president and is close to the new secretary of state. Oh, bully for her. My grandfather was NYPD; he and I were very close and I always thought his job was really interesting. Does that mean I can get a tin badge and a gun and start arresting people?
And finally, Hughes, who has been nicknamed “High Prophet” by the President, is an inveterate ideologue and disturbingly devoted supporter of the president:
Hughes had become unsettlingly close to her boss long before journalism or outsiders began to take note. In fact, her worst critics have accused the presidential counselor of living almost vicariously through Bush. His goals and political ideology have been so inculcated into Hughes' consciousness that she may no longer be able discern between her own thinking and the president's. This undoubtedly is an odd characterization to make of two of the world's most powerful adults. There is, however, no shortage of evidence to prompt the speculation.More troubling is her relationship with the truth:
The first time I noticed an indication of a radio frequency bouncing between the brains of Bush and Hughes was during Gov. Bush's initial State of the State speech in Texas. Still a simple press hack, Hughes did not take to the riser in the Texas House of Representatives, instead standing off to the side, behind the shiny brass railing rimming the chamber's floor.
[…]
As Gov. Bush read the text of his speech from a teleprompter, his communications director was silently mouthing the words along with him. The synchronized delivery suggested a parent sitting in the audience of an elementary school pageant while mouthing forgotten lines as her child stood dumbstruck onstage.
[…]
In the ensuing years of Bush's political development, Hughes was spotted many times as she pursed her lips and moved her jaws to each word her employer was stammering in the front of the room.
Hughes wrote in Bush's "A Charge to Keep: My Journey to the White House" that he "continued flying with his National Guard unit for many years." Bush and Hughes both knew that was not true, and documents the White House released in March proved the opposite.She has even been outed by a resolute Righty such as Tucker Carlson as a pathological liar:
Carlson's story described how Bush swore freely and mocked condemned death-row inmate Karla Faye Tucker. He told Salon that he was astonished by how Hughes responded to his article in Talk.Certainly, this is not the picture of someone who should be holding a key State Department post. But in Bush’s world, someone who will unquestioningly do his bidding, lie when needed, and cares more promoting a make-believe version of America than addressing the reality of our foreign policy is no doubt a perfect person for the job.
"It was very, very hostile," Carlson said. "The reaction was: You betrayed us. Well, I was never there as a partisan to begin with. Then I heard that [on the campaign bus], Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard -- that I watched her hear -- she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane. I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness."
I wonder if the Senate Dems will confirm another unqualified hack without much fanfare at all or whether they’ll put their collective foot down on nominating a mouthpiece of the president to a position that should surely be filled by someone objective (if the job is to be done well). Long odds on the latter.
Self-Determination: Give Credit Where It's Due
Left Behind Child, in discussing a recent New Republic editorial called Grudging Respect, has a few problems with the key assertion of the piece:
More immediately, liberals must realize that they have to be willing to support the Bush administration in the Middle East if they want to have anything to say about democracy elsewhere in the world.LBC makes some good points about the fallaciousness of this notion, with the help of Fareed Zakaria, and I would like to add my two cents about why liberals don’t need to realize anything of the sort.
Because it’s fucking racist.
Denying the efficacy of the peoples of the Middle East in favor of the illusory “domino effect” of Bush's policies is to suggest that it never would have happened without western (i.e. white) involvement. And that is something with which I refuse to go along—and so should any other liberal with a lick of sense. The notion that a country with a brown-skinned population will never see an organic growth of democracy within its borders is exactly the kind of bullshit contention that leads Bush and his cronies to believe they need to be the stormtroopin’ saviors of the Middle East in the first place. As I recall, there was no small amount of tut-tutting from Lefties when President Bush said:
[Some] people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that.Why were we annoyed by that? Because we wanted to know to whom, exactly, he was referring—what strawman was the alleged purveyor of such nonsense?
I certainly didn’t expect that it would be the New Republic to fill the role so adeptly.
A Few Clarifications
The Dark Wraith has a few things he’d like to clear up:
Saddam Hussein was, indeed captured exactly the way the Pentagon said he was; all of those trees in the photos whose fruit and foliage were from another season were blossoming because the Coalition Forces had set them free.Thank you, Dark Wraith.
American military forces kill and wound journalists to make America safer.
The minimum wage hike bill was defeated by Republicans who knew that working poor people would just go out and squander the extra pay on enough gasoline to get to work.
Scott McClellan gave Jeff Gannon day passes to the White House daily press briefings for two straight years only because he wanted to give a young, ambitious fellow a crack at the big league (of journalism).
The recent windfall profits being made by oilmen have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that many of those good ol' Texas boys are former business associates of George W. Bush II. If Mr. Bush really were involved in the deal, everybody would be financially ruined by now like every other time he's tried his hand at actually running a business.
And finally, before her recent official trip to Europe, Condoleeza Rice told her tailor she wanted "low" boots to wear; it wasn't her fault the hard-of-hearing tailor gave her Ho Boots to wear, instead.
There. That ought to set people straight on a few matters.
The Dark Wraith awaits the expressions of gratitude for those clarifications.
Sigh
Is it just me, or does this post (from today) read like it was written by someone who maybe should have been reading any one of the Lefty blogs that don’t get a gazillion hits a day? Because this is exactly what we’ve all been saying for, oh, four years, give or take three months:
Once upon a time, it was easy for the American Right to smear its opponents on the left -- they could simply equate them with the nation's communist enemies. It didn't matter that the American "left" (Democrats) had more in common with the Right than international communism, the smear was useful.Now go see who wrote it.
Now, however, our international enemy -- Islamic radicalism -- is actually the polar opposite of what liberals stand for -- their actions on women rights are deplorable, they insist on theocracy, they loooveee torture and the death penalty, they demand to control the culture (TV, movies, music), they rail against rampant sexuality, they seek to spread their ideology via force, and they have a well-defined black-and-white sense of truth.
Remind you of a certain American party?
[…]
In fact, they are exactly what we see in the Republican Party as the GOP continues to consolidate power -- creeping theocracy, moralizing, us versus them, embrace of torture, the need to constantly declare jihad on someone, hysterics over football-game nipples, control over "decency" on the airwaves, lyrics censorship, hostility to women freedoms, curtaling of civil liberties, and so on.
So it's pretty obvious -- we don't love terrorists. We don't want them to win. For them to win would be to realize our greatest fears. The muslim terrorist is truly the anti-liberal. Like matter and anti-matter.
Republicans, on the other hand, hate the terrorists because they're Muslim. But aside from that, they've got far more in common than they'll ever admit to themselves.
And it's high time we started to make that connection more forcefully.
Action Alert for Political Bloggers
Tell the FEC to protect political bloggers’ rights. Sign the Online Coalition’s letter to Scott Thomas, Chair of the FEC. (I was #1111.)
Today's Question
Okay, it's far, far in the future (like 3 years), and all the politicians have become so corrupt that Hollywood looks like a bastion of moral fortitude by comparison. The GOP are running infamous Republican Hollywooders Clint Eastwood (who won't have a chance after Million Dollar Baby pissed off the Jesuslanders), Arnold Schwartzenegger (come on, it is a ridiculous hypothetical to begin with--don't play the Constitution card on me), Bruce Willis (why, why a GOP-er when I love him so?), and Charlton Heston (who thinks he's up for an Oscar).
Our candidates are Tom Hanks, Susan Sarandon, Rob Reiner, and Oprah (with Tim Robbins slated to be VP no matter who wins the nomination). Sean Penn is running as an independent.
For which Hollywood Dem are you casting your primary vote and why?
(No fair picking Paul Newman--I purposely left him out because otherwise he'd have gotten all the votes. He's OUT OF THE RUNNING! So are Alec Baldwin and Ben Affleck, for being sucky.)
Fancy a Date?
From the Make of It What You Will files… Riding Electra brings us a most interesting botany lesson. Read the whole thing—trust me. (Via 42.)
Feeling Blue
Here they are: your pro-bankruptcy bill Democratic Senators. All eighteen of them:
Max Baucus
Evan Bayh
Joe Biden
Jeff Bingaman
Robert Byrd
Tom Carper
Kent Conrad
Daniel Inouye
Tim Johnson
Herb Kohl
Mary Landrieu
Blanche Lincoln
Ben Nelson
Bill Nelson
Mark Pryor
Harry Reid
Ken Salazar
Debbie Stabenow
Liebertwat didn’t vote for it, but our Senate Minority Leader did. Awesome.
(Dear Bayh: Thanks a lot. Love, Your Pissed Off Constituent, Shakespeare’s Sister.)
Becoming a Right-Wing Pundit
Gee, I wish I knew how they did it. The brilliant pearls that spew from Anne Coulter's equestrian jaw. The lovely nuggets that drop from Jeff Gannon's blow hole (tee-hee!). How do right-wing pundits come up with the creative bullshit they so regularly produce?
Well now we have a lovely guide to point us in the right direction. Follow these steps and you'll be trading "pithy" comments with Bill O'Reilly in no time. Two of my faves:
Now get out your Bible. With your Sharpie, black out all the sections which do not specifically mention homosexuality. Now print the remaining passages on a three-by-five inch note card. This is your new Bible. Have it laminated.
Pose nude and post the pictures on the internet. Start a male escort service. Do not attend journalism school and do not pay your taxes. Change your name. Congratulations, you are now qualified to be a White House press correspondent. If anyone has the audacity to question your qualifications or the process by which you received your White House press credentials, he or she is clearly a raging homophobe. And, quite obviously, a slandering, treasonous liberal. If you can find any patriotism within this person (which is unlikely, considering the fact that all liberals are French-terrorist-communists who hate America) be sure to publicly question its authenticity.
Yummy
President Bush demonstrates the Rovian technique for spoon-feeding bullshit to the American public: "Zoooooom! Here comes the airplane!"
(Thanks for the pic, Pam.)
Porno-a-Go-Go
Who loves ’em some pornography? Well, yes, I know you do, but guess who else does?
Congress! (Link via Atrios.) In particular, the money stuffed in their coffers by pornographers. As it turns out, the 11 Representatives and 4 Senators who have accepted campaign contributions from purveyors of porn are also the ones who claim to most revile it.
Surely not, Shakespeare’s Sister, you might be thinking. It couldn’t be that upstanding members of our dignified Congress would be such wanton hypocrites.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but looks like we might just have a few wankers (in both senses of the word) on our hands (and the government payroll). The report completed by CREW included, in part, the following:
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback – who equivocates pornography with crack cocaine – accepted $17,000 from porn peddlers.Ooh la la.
Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman – who has long campaigned against the growing coarseness of our culture – along with renown gambling addict William Bennet, handed out "Silver Sewer" awards to those who made immoral videos, and who has criticized MTV for having porn stars on the air, accepted over $16,000.Foxy!
Cong. Fred Upton, who leads the charge against indecency, accepted over $56,000.Oh yeah, right there, baby.
Arizona Senator John McCain, who claimed to be the "anti-porn" presidential candidate in ads that ran prior to the South Carolina primary, pocketed $46,000 from corporations and executives who profit from porn.That’s what mama likes.
Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director referred to Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) as "the biggest hypocrite of all" for having written a letter to former Vice President Al Gore demanding that he return a contribution from an adult entertainment web site and for sanctimoniously ranting at Viacom executives that they cared more about profits than morality, despite accepting $47,000 in porn profits.I am spent. That is the hottest hypocrisy I’ve seen in a long time. Anybody got a cigarette?
Friday Limerick
The week offered much to enrage
And little to please or assuage,
But Saddam’s remove
Did finally prove
The world really is all a stage.
Friday Bookishness
(Just-before-midnight edition. I figured I’d better strike while the Blogger iron was lukewarm.)
This week, instead of recommending a book, I’m recommending a film: Bob Roberts. I’m not even going to tell you anything about it (except to keep your eyes peeled for a young Jack Black!)—just get your hands on it and watch it immediately.
If you’ve already seen it and want to discuss in comments (I do!), please issue spoiler warnings if need be, just in case.
Must Reads
Pam’s got two great posts up, the first on global lesbian-baiting attempts to stifle women's activism and the second on how when it comes to women, sports and sexism, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Both are highly recommended.
Bye, Blue?
I’m going to do it. I’m going to ask the question We Dare Not Ask. And it might piss some people off, and it might inspire others to ask me if I’ve lost my gourd. But it needs to be asked, and I’m going to be the one to do it.
Why the hell are we sticking with the Dems?
I don’t know about you, but I invested time, energy, and money into the Democratic Party during the last election, and I’m not getting much of a return on my investment. In fact, lately I’ve been feeling like the party to whom I’ve been loyal for my entire life is giving me the finger.
The confirmations of Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzales, and Michael Chertoff … the slow response to broaching voting accountability legislation … the passage of a measure to limit class-action lawsuits … the bankruptcy bill … the constant move toward the center … and on and on and on. I complain about the idiocy of the Dems almost as much as I do the Republicans, and I’m starting to get more than a little pissed off.
I once wrote about how the red-staters who vote against their own best interests don’t seem to understand their leadership, but that we on the Left seem to suffer from the opposite problem—our leadership doesn’t understand its base. The problem is only getting worse; I feel increasingly alienated from the Democratic leadership in Washington, and by the looks of things across the Lefty blogosphere, I’m not alone.
If you are, like me, a true progressive, you’re being let down by the Democrats. They can’t pull together an effective opposition, they can’t deliver a concise message, and they sell out liberal interests in a heartbeat as they make a break for a muddy middle, which they inexplicably remain convinced will help them win elections. I’m finding myself increasingly required to defend positions (such as gay rights or legal abortion)—to other Dems—that shouldn’t even be in question. And to boot, many career Dems are just as beholden to special interests as the GOP and are motivated little by the needs of the people they are meant to represent.
Historically, we’ve insisted on sticking with the two-party system for understandable reasons. If we split the liberal vote, then the GOP will get control of everything. Well, look where our determined solidarity has gotten us. They control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and a large swath of the judiciary, with the Supreme Court looking to go more conservative in short order as well. So how much sense does it make, I wonder, to continue compromising on what we really want, only to end up with what we really feared.
After the election, when the Dems decided not to push for any kind of investigation into voter fraud, Marc Sanson, co-chair of the United States Green Party issued a statement that I described at the time as a siren song for disillusioned Democrats:
If Senate Democrats allow George W. Bush's victory based on questionable numbers to stand, the Green Party will tell Democratic voters: you have wasted your votes and your campaign contributions on a party that will not defend your right to vote. Regardless of whether the recount effort or a challenge from Senate Democrats overturns Mr. Bush's 2004 election, Americans need to see that corrupt elections will not be tolerated. At the very least, a challenge will advance some sorely needed reforms: auditable paper records of all computer votes; equitable distribution of election equipment; assurance that legitimate votes aren't obstructed; removal of biased partisan officials from supervision of vote counts; clean election laws. This is what the Green Party stands for. Where do the Democrats stand?I think we’ve wasted our votes and our campaign contributions on a party that refuses to defend more than just our right to vote. Yes, there are brief glimpses of what we shorthand as “balls,” but they are too few and far between. As an entity, the Democratic Party is not serving us well.
So why are we continuing to serve them? Why continue to throw money at an investment that offers diminishing returns?
Money talks. Maybe we need to stop buying blue and buy green instead. The biggest obstacle to an effectual third party is my unwillingness to support them.
Just a thought. Open for debate…
