McDonald's and Nigel Haskett

Last year while working at a McDonald's in Arkansas, Nigel Haskett attempted to protect a customer and as a consequence was shot multiple times.

According to newspaper accounts and Haskett's lawyer, Philip M. Wilson, Haskett was working at the McDonald's at 10201 Rodney Parham Road last August when he interceded to stop a man who was beating a woman in the restaurant. The assailant, later identified as Perry Kennon, went outside. Haskett also stepped outside and stood at the door to keep Kennon from re-entering the restaurant. Kennon retrieved a gun from his car and shot Haskett – “multiple times,” according to Wilson. Haskett, now 22, underwent three abdominal surgeries and still carries part of a bullet in his back, according to Wilson. Haskett's medical bills exceed $300,000, Wilson said.

Is Haskett a hero? Hell yes he is.

Kennon was arrested a few days after the shooting and charged with first-degree battery. At his arraignment, where he pleaded innocent, District Judge Lee Munson lectured Kennon about his long criminal record, and lauded Haskett: “Here is this young man working for minimum wage, coming to the aid of a woman.” Munson passed the case on to Pulaski Circuit Court, and he and his court reporter each contributed $100 to a fund for Haskett that was set up by Twin City Bank.

Well....McDonald's doesn't think too highly of Haskett's actions. In fact, they don't want to pay for Workers Compensation.

Haskett filed a claim with the state Workers Compensation Commission. Misty Thompson, a claims specialist with McDonald's insurer, Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing, said in a letter to the Commission that “we have denied this claim in its entirety as it is our opinion that Mr. Haskett's injuries did not arise out of or within the course and scope of his employment.”

How nice. Remember, McDonald's doesn't particularly care about workers but this is pushing things to a whole new level of shitty behavior. It is almost Wal Mart-ian.

Below is a television news report about Haskett and his actions.





Hungry today? Why not give McDonald's a pass.

Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose steps down

After taking heat from the offensive email he sent, Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose has now announced that he is stepping down as Mayor.

Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose issued a statement Thursday saying he is sorry and will step down as mayor at the City Council meeting on March 2.

Grose came under fire for sending the picture to what he called "a small group of friends." One of the recipients, a local businesswoman and city volunteer, publicly scolded the mayor for his actions.

Grose says he accepts that the e-mail was in poor taste and has affected his ability to lead the city.

While still maintaining ignorance about the racist stereotype about watermelons, Grose stated:

"Bottom line is, we laugh at things and I didn't see this in the same light that she did," Grose told the AP. "I'm sorry. It wasn't sent to offend her personally -- or anyone -- from the standpoint of the African-American race."

Congratulations to the people of Los Alamitos. That is one less dumbass to embarrass you.

Colorado Republicans say stupid things

The Colorado State Senate was working on a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women. Clearly, the idea is that if a woman unknowingly has HIV or AIDS then the doctors will be able to provide treatment immediately to protect the baby.

Republican State Sen. Dave Schultheis, however, disagrees.

"...Sexual promiscuity, we know, causes a lot of problems in our state, one of which, obviously, is the contraction of HIV. And we have other programs that deal with the negative consequences — we put up part of our high schools where we allow students maybe 13 years old who put their child in a small daycare center there.

We do things continually to remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior, quite frankly, and I don’t think that’s the role of this body...."

Later, State Sen. Dave Schultheis clarified his position:

"What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that," he said. "The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior."

Yep. He seriously stated that he has no problem with babies having AIDS because it will teach those promiscuous parents a gosh darn lesson.

This is the same Colorado State Senate where earlier another Republican state Senator, Scott Renfroe, compared homosexuality to murder when speaking against a bill that would extend health benefits to same-sex domestic partners of state employees.

After quoting Scripture to call homosexual behavior a "detestable act," the Greeley Republican said it would be “an abomination according to Scripture” for the Legislature to “(take) sins and (make) them to be legally OK.”

He continued: "I’m not saying (homosexuality) is the only sin that is out there. Obviously we have sin — we have murder, we have, we have all sorts of sin, we have adultery, and we don’t make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal."

I don't know how many people from Colorado read this blog, but please let me know what the hell you are feeding your Republicans in that state. Whatever it is, I want to avoid it to make sure I don't come down with a virulent case of being an asshole like these guys.

Mayor Dean Grose is ignorant

Christopher at From the Left recently wrote about something that should be getting more attention.

Apparently, while the media has been focusing on Bobby Jindal or whatever idiotic tripe comes out of Alan Keyes' mouth, Los Alamitos’ Republican Mayor decided to send out an email.

The mayor of Los Alamitos is coming under fire for an e-mail he sent out that depicts the White House lawn planted with watermelons, under the title "No Easter egg hunt this year."

Local businesswoman and city volunteer Keyanus Price, who is black, said Tuesday she received the e-mail from Mayor Dean Grose's personal account on Sunday and wants a public apology.

"I have had plenty of my share of chicken and watermelon and all those kinds of jokes," Price told The Associated Press. "I honestly don't even understand where he was coming from, sending this to me. As a black person receiving something like this from the city-freakin'-mayor - come on."

Here is the image:

Grose confirmed to the AP that he sent the e-mail to Price and said he didn't mean to offend her. He said he was unaware of the racial stereotype that black people like watermelons.

...which is clearly horseshit. If Mayor Grose was truly ignorant of the racist stereotype about watermelons...what would be the point in the email? It would be completely nonsensical to send out an email about our first black President having a White House lawn full of watermelons if the watermelons signified nothing at all.

I have written about the racism Obama's election has sparked in the past...but this, coming from an elected official, is just offensive on a whole new level.

Citizens of Los Alamitos...I'm sorry your Mayor is a dumbass.

UPDATE: Mayor Dean Grose is stepping down

Some thoughts on the death penalty

As of this writing, 130 death row inmates in 26 states have be released from prison since 1973 due to evidence of their innocence.

That is 130 people who were almost killed even though they were innocent. Dale Johnston was one of them.

Nineteen years after he walked off of Ohio's death row and out of prison, Dale Johnston may finally be in a position to clear his name.

With his double murder conviction overturned, Johnston, formerly of Xenia, was freed in 1990 but never exonerated by the state.

Then in December 2008, Chester McKnight pleaded guilty to the crimes and was sentenced to 20 years to life. Another man, Kenneth Linscott, is scheduled to stand trial later this year for his alleged role.

His 1984 conviction and death sentence delivered catastrophic losses to Johnston: He lost his marriage, his freedom, his 53-acre farm and dream house, and any faith he had in the justice system.

With 130 freed due to innocence, one has to wonder how many weren't. How many innocent people have been put to death for crimes they didn't commit?

So why do 36 states (and the Federal government and the military) still have the death penalty? Some claim that it is a crime deterrent. Unfortunately, the statistics do not back this up. At all.

Recent studies in Oklahoma and California failed to find that capital punishment had a deterrent effect on violent crime and, in fact, found a significant increase in stranger killings and homicide rates after the death penalty had been reinstated. (William Bailey, "Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty," Criminology, 1998; Ernie Thompson, "Effects of an Execution on Homicides in California." Homicide Studies, 1999)

Need another example?

The murder rate in Canada has dropped by 27% since the death penalty was abolished in that country in 1976. (Amnesty International)

How about this fact:

The five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty average 21.6 murders per 100,000 people. The five countries with the highest homicide rate that do impose the death penalty average 41.6 murders for every 100,000 people. (United Nations Development Program)

Even if you happen to agree with the penalty of death, the system is flawed enough that we should stop executions and fix the system.

While they make up only 12% of the population, African Americans account for 43% of current death row inmates. ("Death by Discrimination – The Continuing Role of Race in Capital Cases."—Amnesty International, April 24, 2003)

Since 1977, blacks and whites have been the victims of murders in almost equal numbers, yet 80% of the people executed in that period were convicted of murders involving white victims. (Bureau of Justice Statistics)

In North Carolina, the odds of receiving a death sentence were 3.5 times higher among those defendants whose victims were white. (Prof. Jack Boger and Dr. Isaac Unah, University of North Carolina, 2001)

Odds of receiving the death penalty in Philadelphia increased by 38% when the accused was black. ("The Death Penalty in Black and White"—Death Penaly InformationCenter, 1998)

Any system with that level of institutional prejudice is a system that is impossible to support.

But the problems aren't simply racial. Often the difference of whether or not a convicted person will receive the death penalty is based on the location of the crime.

About one-quarter of Ohio’s death row inmates come from Hamilton County (Cincinnati), but only 9% of the state’s murders occur there. (R. Willing and G. Fields, Geography of the Death Penalty, USA Today, Dec. 20, 1999).

Baltimore City had only one person on Maryland’s death row, but suburban Baltimore County, with one tenth as many murders as the city, had nine times the number on death row. (L. Montgomery, Md. Questioning Local Extremes on Death Penalty, Wash. Post, May 12, 2002).

An investigation by seven Indiana newspapers in 2001 found that the death penalty depended on factors such as the views of individual prosecutors and the financial resources of the county. Two Indiana counties have produced almost as many death sentences as all of the other Indiana counties combined. (S. Bend Trib., Oct. 21, 2001).

In 1995, President Bill Clinton spoke at Michigan State University. In reference to the Oklahoma City Bombing, he stated the following:

...But there is no right to resort to violence when you don't get your way. There is no right to kill people who are doing their duty, or minding their own business, or children who are innocent in every way. Those are the people who perished in Oklahoma City. And those who claim such rights are wrong and un-American.

Timothy McVeigh was later executed for that crime. The problem is that this sends a seriously mixed message: how can one emphatically claim that there is no right to resort to violence, there is no right to kill people, and those who claim such rights are wrong and un-American...and then turn around and kill the people responsible. How does the un-American act of murder culminate in the totally American act of killing the person responsible for the un-American act of murder? That is completely illogical.

If murder is wrong, then it is irrelevant who commits the murder. Murder is wrong whether it is committed by an individual or committed by a government. Wrong is wrong.

Bill O'Reilly and the Children of the Mountains

Earlier this month, ABC News aired a special entitled Children of the Mountains that profiled four children living in the Appalachians. ABC followed them for over two years.

The special was touching and outlined how difficult it can be to live in poverty and yet how strong many of those people can be.

Bill O'Reilly, however, has no patience for them.

Yep. It shouldn't shock you...but Bill O'Reilly is kind of a dick.

I submit to you that the culture in Appalachia harms the children almost beyond repair...Kids get married at 16 and 17. Their parents are drunks. I'm generalizing now. There's a lot of meth. There's a lot of irresponsibility...Look, if I'm born in Appalachia, the first chance I get, I go to Miami. Because that's where the jobs are...“I gotta tell you, people have to help themselves, you know? They have to wise up and they have to see that there's a culture of poverty there, a culture of ignorance there....

Thankfully, most people aren't like Bill O'Reilly. They aren't stubbornly judgmental and callous. They actually have souls.

Since the show aired, numerous viewers found the kindness to pitch in and help.

Shawn, the 18-year-old football player from Flat Gap, Ky., who believed he had to move away from home to keep his dreams on track, received scholarship offers from three local universities. He's chosen the respected Union College, the school he has always wanted to attend. His dorm room is ready, and he starts classes on Monday. He's also received several employment offers, ranging from coal mining to a position at UPS to a management training job at a supermarket in New York. He says it's an amazing second chance at his dreams and "an opportunity to go for it."

Another young man featured, Jeremy, has received good news, too. A viewer offered to give the soon-to-be father of two a baby shower.

With Obama signing the stimulus bill, Kentucky is hoping that the money will help even more.

I would like to extend my respect and admiration to all of the people in America who aren't Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for caring about others and thanks for being willing to assist others especially in this time of economic crises.

Alan Keyes needs attention

Back in November, Paul Broun called Obama a Marxist. Now, needing some attention, Alan Keyes has decided to take it up a notch and call Obama a "radical communist".

Also, apparently Alan Keyes is crazy.

No, Obama is not a Socialist nor is he a Communist.

No, not everyone "realizes it's true" because most of the rest of us aren't batshit crazy. Well, I think Gary Busey might be...but even he doesn't believe shit this crazy.

No, Obama is not going to single-handedly destroy America forever. He probably isn't the great savior that his rabid followers made him out to be...but he isn't going to be the cause for America's destruction either.

No, we don't need to "stop him". He is the President. He won it fair and square...unlike his predecessor. The man has been President for a little over a month. Why not give him a little time before making insane pronouncements about Obama?

No, Obama isn't an "abomination". When a man wins 52.9% of the popular vote, he is by definition emphatically not "greatly disliked or abhorred".

No, Obama is not ineligible to be President due to his place of birth. He was born in Hawaii.

Yes, Alan Keyes just might be fucking nuts.

Thoughts for Sunday

Hillary Clinton and China's human right record

After chastising China over its human rights record in 1995, freshly minted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to China.

And has apparently stopped giving a shit about human right violations.

Making her first trip abroad as secretary of state, Clinton said three of her top priorities in Beijing will be addressing the global economic crisis, climate change and security challenges such as the North Korean nuclear weapons program.

"Now, that doesn't mean that questions of Taiwan, Tibet, human rights, the whole range of challenges that we often engage on with the Chinese, are not part of the agenda," Clinton told reporters in Seoul before flying to Beijing. "But we pretty much know what they are going to say.

Oh. OK. As long as we "know that they are going to say" then I guess we can just ignore rampant human right violations.

Because why bother taking a stand when we "know that they are going to say"?

Oh yeah...because of ethics. Morals. Integrity.

All those things the country has been missing for eight years. Those things that were supposed to be restored with the new administration.

I guess...not so much.

"We have to continue to press them but our pressing on those issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises," she added. "We have to have a dialogue that leads to an understanding and cooperation on each of those."

Really? Honestly? The global climate change crises has more value that upholding human rights? Really?

That's kind of fucked.

Question: would Hilary Clinton put the global climate change crises over...say...the Nineteenth Amendment? How about the Thirteenth Amendment? Is that less important than global warming? How about the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp human rights violations? Are those less important that global warming?

Just wondering.

I guess I didn't realize that China had such a sterling and impressive record with greenhouse gases that we can completely overlook their atrocious human rights record. Who cares about little things like China censoring the internet, Tibet, their horrendous record on religious freedom, jailed political dissidents, etc. when they are working on their carbon footprint...right?

The government should be moral and brave enough to do what is right regardless of politics.

Goldman Sachs, Burger King, and bailout money

After losing billions of dollars, Goldman Sachs converted itself from an investment bank to a bank holding company. Why? To get some of that fat bailout cash.

Goldman Sachs is a major investor in Burger King. A report by released by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) illustrates why this should matter to you.

The report finds that one of Goldman Sachs' major investments, Burger King, costs taxpayers more than a quarter billion dollars a year as Burger King employees are forced to rely on public health and income support programs as a result of the lack of affordable employer health coverage and sub-poverty wage levels at Burger King.

Meanwhile, Burger King chief executive John Chidsey took home $5.4 million in 2008 and Goldman Sachs accepted $10 billion in taxpayer bailout money ¾ then paid out $6.5 billion in bonuses. Goldman paid the highest per employee bonus average among top banks reporting so far, and the firm's bonuses were nearly double the average bonus on Wall Street. If Goldman Sachs had used the $6.5 billion it paid in corporate bonuses to help Burger King's 360,000 workers instead, each worker would have received $18,000.

Not only has Goldman Sachs decided that it would be better to pay bonuses to the same idiots who lost them money than it would be to raise wages for Burger King workers...but just like their competitor McDonald's, Burger King has been spending huge amounts of money to lobby against the Employee Free Choice Act.

Between 2006 and 2008 Burger King has spent $319,648 on lobbying, including lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act, a measure that would ensure workers the freedom to form a union for a voice for improved wages, benefits, and working conditions. Burger King also spent $180,000 to hire lobbyists to fight pro-worker legislation, including an increase in the minimum wage in 2006 and 2007.

Below is a video from War on Greed which outlines the Burger King situation.

GM cuts more jobs

Throughout 2008, automobile sales fell. Unfortunately, 2009 isn't looking to be much different. At least not yet.

Auto sales tumbled 38% in January, plunging even more than expected to their worst levels since 1982 as a pullback in purchases by rental car companies became the latest problem for the troubled industry.

General Motors reported that its sales plunged 49% from a year ago. Ford Motor said sales fell 39% at its Ford, Lincoln and Mercury brands, and 40% overall when including sales at Volvo, which Ford is trying to sell. Chrysler LLC reported a 55% drop in sales.

Back in December, GM claimed they needed at least $18 billion in government financing to stay afloat. Having received $13.4 billion instead, GM is now announcing more job cuts.

General Motors Corp., presenting a dire outlook for the future, said Tuesday it may need $30 billion in total government financing to weather the economic downturn and would cut 47,000 jobs worldwide and shutter five more U.S. factories in a massive restructuring plan.

The job cuts, which would take place by the end of this year, include 10,000 salaried and 37,000 blue-collar positions, amounting to 19 percent of the company's current global work force.

I have heard and read many people claiming that GM is responsible for most of its own problems. If this were a simple case of shitty management and nothing else, then it should predominately be affecting GM and pretty much nobody else.

But this isn't the case.

The sales slump is affecting even the largest global automaker: Toyota.

Hit by the standstill in auto sales, Toyota Motor Corp. announced Wednesday that it plans to further suspend domestic output in April, while Mitsubishi Motors Corp. said it will effectively cut its long-standing ties with Chrysler LLC.

The latest streamlining steps by the two Japanese car makers reflect the dark days ahead for the auto industry as demand continues shrinking. In January, industrywide sales dropped by over 20% in the U.S., Europe and Japan.

A Toyota spokesman said that the car maker will halt production at 11 of its 12 plants in Japan for three days in April, reducing total operating time during that month to 17 days...

...Toyota's latest production cutback comes after its decision last week to offer job buyouts to all 25,000 of its North American workers and to cut the workweek by 10% at some U.S. factories in a bid to bring output levels down to meet sluggish sales.

It's not looking good out there for auto workers. Even though I don't think the new $787 billion stimulus bill is the best possible package, it is signed now so hopefully it can do some good for the many who are out of jobs...or are facing future unemployment.

The Sock Drawer of the Mortgage Business

Kathy Lovelace lost her job and was about to lose her house, too. But then she made a seemingly simple request of the bank: Show me the original mortgage paperwork.

Yup, you guessed it. These banks and companies (that are so great about buying each other out, knowing who owns what, and helping bring an economy to its metaphorical knees) can't handle....filing.

During the real estate frenzy of the past decade, mortgages were sold and resold, bundled into securities and peddled to investors. In many cases, the original note signed by the homeowner was lost, stored away in a distant warehouse or destroyed.

Organization at its best.

Granted, there could be worse things....

How many homeowners (in the mortgage process, or outright owners) know where the Deed to their home is?

Depending on where you live, the homeowner may have it, the local board of records may have it, or, in some cases the bank/mortgage company you got your mortgage through may have it (you hope).

During times like these, it is necessary to have a copy of all important documents. Don't just assume that it is in a file somewhere.

Although notice that none of these firms have difficulty in keeping track of who deserves a bonus. Excuse me, award.

The Cure for Our Broken Political Process: a review

Disclosure: The Cure for Our Broken Political Process is a book that showed up in my mailbox a week or so ago. Well, it wasn't magic. Somebody from Planned Television Arts contacted me and inquired as to whether or not I would be interested in reviewing the book. Apparently, they are a book publicity company and it is their job to hunt down people like me and give us free stuff in the hopes that we will say glowing things about them. I just want to be clear and honest that this was something I received for free and was asked to review it. We don't review things for money here at TML and we don't want to be dishonest about the reasons for a review either.

Now that I have that disclosure out of the way...onto the book review!

The Cure for Our Broken Political Process is written by Sol Erdman and Lawrence Susskind. Both Mr. Erdman and Mr. Susskind have extensive experience in mediation and resolving political conflict. Mr. Edrman is the president of The Center for Collaborative Democracy (CCD).

The book is broken down into three sections. The first section, Politics At Its Best provides examples of how mediation can and has settled political disagreements. Even disagreements where the two opposing sides have been at war with each other for years (figuratively speaking, of course. Not literal war). It outlines an interesting way to find a happy medium between any two parties using a simple grid that finds the one or two solutions that are most amenable to all parties involved.

The second section is entitled Why Our Lawmakers Betray Us. This section introduces the fictional character of Tom Hennessey who runs for Congress when his representative steps down due to health issues. Once he has won, we travel to Washington and meet Cassie Rivera, Tom's Chief-of-staff, and Jeffrey Lazlo, Tom's idealistic legislative aide. Much of this section is a Socratic dialogue between the Washington insider Cassie and the idealistic and progressive Jeffrey.

In this section, our two fictional protagonists Jeffery and Cassie lay out (while arguing with each other) what is wrong with our current system of representation. And they aren't wrong. The argument is that any given Congressional district is composed of white collar, blue collar, and...well...no collar citizens. Any single Congressman or Congresswoman can't possibly represent his or her entire district as the citizens which encompass the district don't even agree with each other. Consequently, Congress never takes a stand on any serious or controversial issue as it is a virtual guarantee that doing so will seal their fate. No matter what stand a representative takes on an issue, he/she is guaranteed to anger a large proportion of his/her constituents and as such deals a death blow to any chance of re-election. So generally...they don't. They just nibble around on non-controversial issues and the real serious problem just lay around gaining no ground at all because the political cost of dealing with them is just too high.

The third section, How To Get Politicians We Can Believe In proposes a solution to all the problems outlined in the previous section. Then the story flashes forward 10 years where the successful implementation of PAR has made the U.S. government run smoother. Both of our main fictional protagonists, Cassie and Jeffrey, have become congresspeople in the new PAR elected and represented government. Idealistic? Yes. Utopian? Possibly.

So what is this grand solution? Well, this particular book proposes Personally Accountable Representation. Basically what PAR (which is how I will abbreviate it so save typing time for myself) means is that each representative would become more directly responsible to a specific group of citizens who all share his or her political outlook. For the most part. You see, a large ballot would comprise all the candidates for office. The voter would be able to vote for a few, or just one if he or she chooses, in the order of preference. When it came time to tally the votes, they would be counted incrementally. If your first choice candidate came dead last, he or she would be dropped and your second choice would now be counted as your vote. The vote tabulation process would obviously be longer than it currently is, but the potential upside is more accurate representation based on voter preferences.

To do so, each district would need more than one representative so it wouldn't be a zero sum game like the system is currently. The proposal calls for enlarging each district to have three representatives. The book makes the claim that ideally that would cover the spectrum. On average, there would be a liberal rep, a conservative rep, and a moderate rep for each district.

Now, this system has a few holes but they are fleshed out in the book and possible solutions are proposed. You will have to read the book. I can't explain all of that here.

The book is a relatively quick read with the bulk of the text being a little under 200 pages long. There are 15 Appendixes which make up another 40 pages or so. The Appendixes further amplify the historical and theoretical aspects of the conversations between Cassie and Jeffrey and while you could skip them, I wouldn't recommend it. There is some really good material there.

Now the criticisms:

As Cassie and Jeffrey bicker and the author's proposal begins to take form, a small systematic bias begins to rear it's head.

Page 106 (hardcover edition):

"Sure," says Cassie. "Let's start by supposing that each district had three lawmakers. Then, to win a seat, a candidate would have to draw about a third of the voters. That means candidates on the fringes couldn't win...."

To me, creating a "solution" that has a built in fail-safe to prevent so-called fringe candidates from having a viable shot doesn't sound like much of an improvement. And more than a little undemocratic.

In the course of the back and forth conversations between Cassie and Jeffrey, Jeffrey proposes getting rid of districts entirely and having all state citizens vote for a larger amount of candidates to represent them. Cassie slams this plan as too open to the dreaded "fringe" elements.

Who are these "fringe candidates"? The only example given is...Socialists.

Later on the same page:

"But that's not how it would play out," Cassie replies. "Because in addition to the mainstream candidates, some extremists would also end up in Congress. After all, if a typical state held one preferential election for its nine House seats, an extremist would need to draw just one-ninth of the voters to win. So in most states, a socialist would likely win, as would someone further on the militant right than we see right now...."

So Socialism is equated with "the militant right" as fringe and extremist...even admitting that "in most states, a socialist would likely win". It isn't fringe if the party would have a shot at winning.

But who represents this "militant right"?

On page 187 (hardcover edition) a list is made of potential candidates for the 2008 Presidential election for a proposed preferential ballot. The list is:

John McCain
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Mike Huckabee
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
Mike Bloomberg
Rudy Guiliani
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
Bob Barr
Ralph Nader

So the candidates for Libertarian Party (Bob Barr), the founder of the libertarian political organization "Campaign for Liberty" (Ron Paul), and Ralph Nader who garnered ballot access with Natural Law Party and the Peace and Freedom Party...these are implicitly not fringe or extreme.

Note the absence of Socialist Party USA candidate Brian Moore, Party for Socialism and Liberation candidate Gloria La Riva, Socialist Workers Party candidate Róger Calero, and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. We already know that Socialists are labeled both fringe and extremist so one must assume that Greens are lumped in there too based on the ballot omission.

So if Libertarians aren't fringe, then what exactly is the right-wing parallel to the dreaded extremist Socialists? You also have to question the underlying prejudices in the system being proposed here.

That being said, the system proposed here isn't a bad system. The method, however, is geared to insure the prevailing two party system and continue to keep those pesky third party candidates out of the running. Unless they are Libertarians. They can stay, I guess. Just none of those darn lefty Socialists.

It feels like the way of implementing the PAR system proposed in the book isn't a way to make government more productive, per se, but more of a way of making the two party system more productive. And personally, I think the two party system is responsible for the bulk of the problems in government. Making it more effective isn't a valid goal to me. Breaking down the control the two parties have is a better goal.

The authors and I agree on one important point: the average person would have more of a voice in government if that citizen had more control over who represented him or her. Where we differ is that I don't want a broader spectrum of Republicans and Democrats. I want more parties with different ideas.

Basically, I do think it is an interesting and extremely informative read. I will say that the Socratic dialogue got a little annoying at times. I understand that the book is intended to reach all audiences and not read like a textbook, but at times I felt the authors leaned too far in the opposite direction and it was almost demeaning. I highly doubt an eight year old is going to pick up the book so it doesn't need to talk down quite to that level...and it kinda did in parts.

All those criticisms aside, I am glad I read this book. On balance, I really enjoyed it. I had never really given much thought to a Personally Accountable Representation style structure and it does have much to recommend about itself. Our elected leaders should be more accountable to us. We should have more say in who we get to vote for and who has a viable shot to hold office. But ultimately, that is what disappointed me about the book. The authors don't seem to want that open goal. Their system seems to allow for slightly more liberal Democrats and slightly more conservative Republicans...and nothing further. I don't want a choice between slightly liberal Democrat A and not-really-liberal Democrat B. I already have that choice most of the time. I want a more inclusive system.

After reading this book I think Personally Accountable Representation might be a good option for forming that more inclusive system. But to do so, some adjustments would have to be made to the exact system proposed by the authors.

You can learn more about the book and the philosophy behind it at GenuineRepresentation.org

You can purchase The Cure for Our Broken Political Process at Powells Books.

Who needs big government?

When even Forbes is running articles promoting Nationalizing banks you have to wonder why people still decry "big government".

But people still do. And they are still wrong.

GovernmentIsGood.com has put together the following video to outline the benefits to big government...and the stupidity of pushing for a small government.

GovernmentIsGood.com is a project by Douglas J. Amy, a Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College, with the following stated purpose:

I have been researching and writing the material for this online resource for the last four years. I have been motivated primarily by my increasing frustration with the attacks on government being waged by those on the political right. The criticisms of government offered by these conservatives are often at odds with much of what we know about government through research. Moreover, I have seen the damage done in my own community when taxes have been slashed and programs cut back. And while the web is full of attacks on government, there seem to be few sites devoted to defending government – to making the case that this is a valuable and indispensable institution that deserves our support. This site is intended to balance out the debate over government and to set the record straight about this much maligned institution.

It is an interesting and informative website. If you have some spare time, I recommend giving it a read. Douglas Amy also has another site about proportional representation elections which is interesting reading too. Check them both out.

Thoughts for Sunday

Peace comes from being able to contribute the best that we have, and all that we are, toward creating a world that supports everyone. But it is also securing the space for others to contribute the best that they have and all that they are. - Hafsat Abiola

There is no trust more sacred than the one the world holds with children. There is no duty more important than ensuring that their rights are respected, that their welfare is protected, that their lives are free from fear and want and that they grow up in peace. - Kofi Annan

True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Either war is obsolete or men are. - Buckminster Fuller

The real and lasting victories are those of peace, and not of war. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Human Beings, indeed all sentient beings, have the right to pursue happiness and live in peace and freedom. - HH the 14th Dalai Lama

The goal toward which all history tends is peace, not peace through the medium of war, not peace through a process of universal intimidation, not peace through a program of mutual impoverishment, not peace by any means that leaves the world too weak or too frightened to go on fighting, but peace pure and simple based on that will to peace which has animated the overwhelming majority of mankind through countless ages. This will to peace does not arise out of a cowardly desire to preserve one's life and property, but out of conviction that the fullest development of the highest powers of men can be achieved only in a world of peace. - Robert Maynard Hutchins

Republicans put "on notice"

After breaking with his party to support President Obama's stimulus package, Republican Senator Arlen Specter is now claiming that other Republicans wanted to support it, but were fearful of political backlash.

"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"

Yep. They were more concerned with re-election than the were with doing what the felt was the right thing.

The really shitty thing....they probably weren't wrong.

A GOP group is putting Republican lawmakers "on notice," threatening to campaign against anyone who breaks ranks to vote for the more than $800 billion economic recovery package.

The National Republican Trust PAC put out a statement Tuesday claiming it would provide financial support for primary challengers to any stimulus-supporting Republican in the next election.

That is absolutely pathetic. Lawmakers are supposed to be representing the interest of their constituents...not the interests of the party. When a lawmaker breaks from the party to do what his or her constituents want (whether he/she is Democrat or Republican) that is the right thing to do. There shouldn't be backlash from the party.

As long as this continues to be the case, that is an even stronger argument to get rid of the two party system and allow more voices in government.

Thoughts on the economy

Ok, so let me preface this by saying that I am not an economist. I do not have a vast knowledge of business trends. My only experience with the stock market was a high school Economics project where we had to "buy" stock, watch the market and after 2 months calculate our "earnings". That being said, I think I do have a few advantages on those people who are "specialists". I am an average American. I am not in the top 1% economically. When these people, who make far more than I do, make an educated guess about how I would spend my money in any given circumstance, I think I have a far better idea of how I am going to spend my money.

#1. When the government sees fit to send me back extra money, I pay bills.
#2. If I don't pay bills, I buy necessities, not luxuries (and somehow, most of those "necesities" like socks, or new dish towels, are all made in Hong Kong, so I am not really helping the US economy).
#3. If I don't pay bills, or buy various household items (nothing big, like a new fridge), I spend a little extra on groceries. Which probably does help with the economy.
#4. If I don't follow 1,2 or 3, I put it in savings.

Basically, while I do find it very helpful from my perspective, I don't know how much these little stimulus bonuses really help.

I don't mind paying taxes, really, I don't. I do mind how the government uses that money, or doesn't use it.

Trickle down doesn't work. Make a notation that it doesn't, and move on.

Tax appropriately. Someone who makes $3,000,000 a year can afford to pay $1,500,000 in taxes and still put food on the table (if they can't, maybe they need to liquidate some real estate). Someone who makes $40,000 per year CANNOT afford to pay $20,000 in taxes. Readjust the scale. If the government wants the 99% of the country who are not rich to spend more money and keep the economy afloat, allow them the disposable income to do so.

Most people want jobs, not handouts. Allow people to have some pride in themselves. Help people while they can still help themselves. Two weeks of unemployment benefits and job center assistance is cheaper than 6 months of unemployment.

There is no price tag on doing the right thing.

Wall Street still doesn't get it

We have already written about Wall Street defending bonuses but now they have hit upon a new strategy.

Just don't call them bonuses.

"There will be a retention award. Please do not call it a bonus," said James Gorman, co-president of Morgan Stanley. "It is not a bonus. It is an award. And it recognizes the importance of keeping our team in place as we go through this integration."

Morgan Stanley and Citigroup's Smith Barney are on the verge of merging. The two firms have accepted at least $60 billion in government bailout funds. And they are proud of themselves for giving out bonuses.

Excuse me. I meant "awards".

"I think I can hear you clapping from here in New York," Gorman joked during the call, after announcing that the payments would be linked to '08 performance. "You should be clapping because frankly that is a very generous and thoughtful decision that we have made. We spent a lot of time kicking this around. We could easily have done it from the point of closing, which is obviously going to be somewhere in the latter half of this year or around the middle of the year. But we just decided... that it was right thing to do, to give you that certainty that it would be based off '08. '09 is a very difficult year... So that degree of anxiety, which many, many of you have emailed me about... is now off the table."

Hooray for heroes like James Gorman. Making those tough decisions to reduce anxiety via bonuses awards.

Morgan Stanley spokesman Jim Wiggins believes that the bonuses awards are necessary to boost morale and maintain the workforce. They are called "retention packages".

People who are able to smell bullshit disagree.

"These firms are attempting to continue to pay their people the way they have in the past and in the current job market here in New York, I don't think it is necessary," said Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics. "You certainly don't need to pay people to stay in their jobs right now, because they are praying to Jesus that they just don't lose their job generally."

It must be nice to fuck up the economy which then leads to needing to ask for a bailout from the government...and then turn around and shower yourself with cash for doing such a good job at fucking up the economy. Award indeed.

Republicans still don't get it

After the maelstorm that erupted when Tennessee Republican Chip Saltsman send around a CD with a song entitled "Barack the Magic Negro" on it, you would have thought that Republicans had learned a lesson.

And you would be wrong.

Someone working for Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) has sent out a video that portrays AFSCME union workers as stereotypical ignorant foul-mouthed goons.

WARNING: NSFW language

AFSCME chief Gerald McEntee has responded:

Eric Cantor may think the greatest economic crisis in seventy years is a joke, but we don’t. He should talk to the people in Virginia who are losing their jobs, health care and homes.

And AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has some words, too:

During these tough economic times the last thing hard working Americans need is to be ridiculed by a member of the Republican leadership. Rep. Cantor should apologize for insulting America’s workers with this profane video.

Now Eric Cantor’s spokesperson, Brad Dayspring has apologized for the video:

I would like to apologize for a joke that was in no way an official response from Congressman Cantor, but instead an inappropriate email. I apologize to AFSCME for my inappropriate email containing an old video. Let me be clear, we know people are hurting in these trying times and House Republicans completely agree that we must pass an economic recovery bill that preserves, protects and create jobs for Americans facing these economic challenges.

See? Nobody should be angry. Just like the Obama CD, this was a joke...so that makes it OK. Right?

Republican leadership doesn't care about labor. They will fight tooth and nail to diminish labor and deny the right to a safe workplace and a fair wage.

Prop 8 goes to court

The California Supreme Court has announced that on March 5th it would hear arguments about the constitutionality of Prop 8.

Many have petitioned the court asking that Prop 8 be overturned:

The court has been inundated with friend-of-the-court arguments in the case.

Forty-three groups representing civil rights activists, legal scholars, labor unions, bar associations, state legislators and religious organizations have filed written arguments asking that Proposition 8 be overturned.

The task for opponents of Prop 8 is to formulate a legal argument which would overturn Prop 8 and restore to gays and lesbians the right to marry in California.

Gay rights lawyers and the city of San Francisco contend that the ballot measure was an illegal revision of the state Constitution. It is a novel argument that required the attorneys to try to distinguish Proposition 8 from other cases in which the court rejected revision challenges.

California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown also asked the court to overturn the proposition, but on other grounds. He argued that "inalienable rights" cannot be eliminated without compelling reasons, an argument that, if accepted by the court, would make major new law in California.

In an attempt to put a human face on the arguments for the restoration of equality, The Courage Campaign has created the following video.



"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.


If the video moved you (and I honestly don't know how it couldn't have) please think about signing the petition The Courage Campaign has put together to support gay rights in California.

Thoughts for Sunday

There comes a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even tacitly take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to make it stop. - Mario Savio

The question is not what right we have to be speaking, but what right we have to be silent. - Robert McAfee Brown

(dissent) ...is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism, a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals of national adulation. - James William Fulbright

The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself. - Archibald MacLeish

Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate. - Hubert Humphrey

Brad Levenson wins benefits for same-sex spouse

Employees of the U.S. Government are granted health insurance benefits to their spouses. Unless those employees are gay...thanks to the the Defense of Marriage Act.

But the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that health insurance benefits to same-sex spouses of lawyers employed by the U.S. government should be paid.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt stated:

"The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage exercising a legal right afforded them by the state."

The Government had refused to pay benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson. Levenson's application for spousal benefits was denied by the 9th Circuit Executive Office and consequently Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders.

Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, which Reinhardt chairs, with the argument that his office’s dispute resolution plan expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress 13 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. The act identified three objectives: defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions of morality; and preserving scarce government resources.

In his 15-page ruling, Reinhardt debunked the first two objectives, stating that “gay people will not be encouraged to enter into marriages with members of the opposite sex by the government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses.” On the cost-saving objective, Reinhardt deemed the potential savings from discriminating against gays “insignificant” and “founded upon a prohibited or arbitrary ground.”

In ruling that denial of benefits to same-sex spouses amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, Reinhardt struck a blow against intolerance and inequality.

Reinhardt was a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, California Advisory Committee from 1962 to 1974 and was its Vice Chairman from 1969 to 1974. He was appointed to his current position as a circuit judge by President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Obama plans salary cap on executive pay

According to The New York Times:

The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.

Executives would also be prohibited from receiving any bonuses above their base pay, except for normal stock dividends.

Now that's a hell of an idea. Only this isn't the first time this idea has been bandied about. Back in November, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced the "Stop Greed on Wall Street Act".

The legislation was intended to:

Prohibit companies that are receiving a capital injection from the Treasury Department from paying any of their employees more than $400,000 in total compensation — what the President of the United States earns in one year. As the Treasury Department partially nationalizes large parts of the financial services and insurance industry, the employees at these firms should not be allowed to make more in total compensation than the President of the United States.

If any of these companies want to pay their employees more than what the President makes, the companies would be required to give back the money they received from the Treasury Department and that money could only be used to help struggling homeowners stay in their homes.

Senators Barbara Boxer and Blanche Lincoln co-sponsored the bill but it ultimately went nowhere.

Why did it fail? Well, Bernie Sanders is the first self-proclaimed socialist to win a seat in the US Senate...and you know how people react to the dreaded S-word.

Apparently when virtually identical legislation is reintroduced but under the guise of populism or political necessity it has a better shot of passing than when a Socialist introduces it.

Think what you want about Socialism...but in this case the Socialist was far ahead of everyone else in the U.S. Government.

Taxes: the extremely wealthy must pay their share

The New York Times is reporting that in 2006, the wealthiest Americans got wealthier while paying the lowest tax rate in years.

The income of the 400 wealthiest Americans swelled in 2006, soaring nearly 23 percent from the previous year, to an average of $263 million, according to data released Thursday by the Internal Revenue Service. Since 1996, this group has nearly doubled its share of all income earned in the United States.

The top 400 paid just more than $18 billion in federal income taxes in 2006, or an average of $45 million, on a record $105 billion in total income — the lowest effective tax rate in the 15 years since the agency began releasing such data.

That compares with nearly $1 trillion paid by all other individual taxpayers in 2006.

Pissed off yet? It gets better.

“Until recently, we had a financial system that rewarded investors, and we have a tax system that does as well,” said Robert S. McIntyre, the director of Citizens for Tax Justice.

Now wealthy people, he said, pay income tax rates well below those of working-class citizens because of a myriad of tax breaks. A lower capital gains tax, now at 15 percent, down from 28 percent in 1997, benefits investors with big portfolios.

The average adjusted gross income in 2006 of more than $263 million for the top 400 taxpayers compared with an average of $214 million in 2005. It was three and a half times what they earned in 1996, which was $74 million.

And their average tax rate continued to a 15-year low of 17 percent.

Jonathan Tasini wrote a modest proposal for Working Life that bears reading:

With the help of Citizens for Tax Justice, the premier non-partisan organization focusing exclusively on tax issues, I concocted an alternative tax structure: raise the top income tax rates to 40 percent and 45 percent (the top rate is now 35 percent for married taxable income above $351,000), add a top rate of 50 percent for those people with taxable income higher than $1 million and—this is crucial—tax investment income as ordinary income (the proposal also assumes that Congress will fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which costs the Treasury money, as it has in the current stimulus package).

From this plan, we would realize an additional $211 billion in net revenues, with 91 percent of those revenues coming from the richest one percent of Americans (and, the above model should be adjusted to eliminate tax reductions for the higher income earners).

Though the "free marketeers" (yes, the bankrupt philosophy that got us here in the first place) will argue that taxing the rich now is bad for the economy, in my opinion, there are zero--zero--serious arguments to back that up at the levels I'm suggesting. Frankly, the suggested numbers are a relatively modest proposal, given as a taste of reality. We could—and should—easily raise the two new suggested top rates higher, with the top rate for the richest 1 percent set at least at 50 percent. From 1951-1964, the post-war era, which America’s leaders and pundits like to point to as the beginning of a great boom and growth in the country, the top rate was 91% for married couples making $200,000 and up.

Taxes should be more progressive. A tax rate of 50% for those making over a million a year shouldn't be a problem. There is absolutely no valid reason that someone needs more than $500,000 a year. If someone cannot live off that amount...that person needs to do some soul searching and make some serious adjustments to his or her life.

As Tasini pointed out, until 1964 the top rate was 91%. The top rate reached a high of 94% during WWII. The rate of 91% was actually a decrease. After 1964 it was decreased to 70% and then again to 50% in 1981. And contrary to the fears of flat tax proponents and various other people who think we are taxed too much...when it was 91% the world didn't fold in on itself. Time did not reverse itself and no black whole were spotted in Manhattan. People simply paid their taxes and moved on.

But Tasini isn't alone in thinking the tax laws are disproportionately aiding the extremely wealthy. The economic platform of the Socialist Party USA (the real Socialists, not like Obama) declare the following:

...We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum. We oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes...

...We call for the restoration of the capital gains tax and luxury tax on a progressive, graduated scale...

Now, with even more people in the top earning brackets they pay less taxes which, of course, puts a greater burden on the lower income citizens. We need a return to a more progressive income tax with the addition of a progressive capital gains tax.

To make our economy get better, to make the country better, everyone has to do their part. Even the rich guys.

Blogroll Amnesty Day

Today is Blogroll Amnesty Day. Apparently the rules are that each blog picks 5 blogs with less traffic. Not having any idea what the traffic is for other blogs, we decided to choose 5 blogs we visit regularly that aren't behemoth famous sites like DailyKos or Think Progress.

Jolly Roger at Reconstitution added TML to his list which we thought was very nice. Clearly we cannot add him to our list as we can't both have less traffic than each other. That would open some weird liberal black hole or something.

So now...onto our own list (in no particular order):

Last Person Left - With book reviews, news, and personal essays, this blog covers the liberal gamut. Well worth reading.

The Feminist Underground - Politics, news, and reading lists from a Feminist perspective.

Counterhegemonic - Most essays about current events mixed with political ideology this blog is coming from a Socialist perspective and can be a fascinating read even if you aren't a Socialist. They even have the occasional recipe. How many blogs do you know do that? If the answer is "a lot" then maybe I need to read more blogs or something.

The End of Capitalism - The blog itself states its purpose as This is a website dedicated to those who see injustice in the world and cannot ignore it, for those who know suffering and must commit themselves to pull its roots from the ground, for those who work towards a new world, every single day. and that is pretty accurate. Personal commentary and news. Always interesting.

Liberal Rapture - Politics from a decidedly personal standpoint.

In all honesty, probably all of those blogs garner more traffic than TML does at this time...but whatever. That's the list. Enjoy your reading.

Wall Street doesn't understand Socialism

Earlier this week, noting that Wall Street had given themselves nearly $20 billion in bonuses, President Obama called them "shameful".

“There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses,” Mr. Obama said during an appearance in the Oval Office with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. “Now’s not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner to send to them.”

In an article entitled It’s Theirs and They’re Not Apologizing the New York Times describes the hostility on Wall Street to Obama's condemnation of excessive bonuses.

“I think President Obama painted everyone with a broad stroke,” said Brian McCaffrey, 55, a Wall Street lawyer who was on his way to see a client. “The way we pay our taxes is bonuses. The only way that we’ll get any of our bailout money back is from taxes on bonuses. I think bonuses should be looked at on a case by case basis, or you turn into a socialist.”

That, indeed, was a recurring equation: Broad strokes + bonuses = socialist.

“It’s a very slippery slope to go down,” said another insurance broker as he waited to be seated for lunch at Cipriani Downtown. “A blanket statement like that borders on” — you guessed it — “socialism.”

Actually, no. When you are part of the reason the economy cratered...you don't deserve a bonus. If your company is begging the government for bailout money...you shouldn't be giving out bonuses. It is about ethics, not Socialism.

Later in the article Larry Meyers states:

Meanwhile, around the corner, Larry Meyers and Gerard Novello, who work for an Italian securities firm, ducked into a Mexican cantina for a drink. It was Mr. Meyers’s 43rd birthday, and he ordered the tequila.

“On Main Street, ‘bonus’ sounds like a gift,” he said. “But it’s part of the compensation structure of Wall Street. Say I’m a banker and I created $30 million. I should get a part of that.”

That isn't how Capitalism works.

See here's the thing Larry...If you believe that when workers create wealth for their company they should then be entitled to some of that wealth...you are leaning towards Socialism.

When people read about companies giving multimillion dollar bonuses after receiving bailout money...those people get a little pissed. That isn't Socialism. That is just righteous indignation.

For instance:

American International Group Inc. said it is paying retention bonuses as planned to employees in the unit that sold credit default swaps, the risky contracts that caused massive losses at the insurer.

According to news reports, approximately $450 million is being offered to a group of about 400 employees in the financial products unit. That averages to about $1.13 million per employee.

Now AIG has been the biggest recipient of the bailout fund. They originally receiving a loan of $85 billion but that was later increased to $150 billion. And now they are giving out $450 million in bonuses. How can a company that needs a federal bailout be solvent enough to give out bonuses? You see...shit like that has a tendency to piss people off. Not Socialists. Not Anarchists. Everybody. Well, everybody that isn't getting a bonus. I'm sure those people are fine with it.

Before throwing around the dreaded S-word...take the time to learn what the hell Socialists really stand for. Obama isn't a Socialist. It isn't Socialist to chastise people for giving themselves $20 million in bonuses after appealing to the government for a $700 billion bailout fund. It is about ethics. Ethical people don't fuck up the economy, ask for a bailout, and then hand themselves a bonus.

Thoughts for Sunday

Politics is the art of postponing decisions until they are no longer relevant. - Henri Queuille

This is how change happens, though. It is a relay race, and we're very conscious of that, that our job really is to do our part of the race, and then we pass it on, and then someone picks it up, and it keeps going. And that is how it is. And we can do this, as a planet, with the consciousness that we may not get it, you know, today, but there's always a tomorrow. - Alice Walker

The work of the political activist inevitably involves a certain tension between the requirement that position be taken on current issues as they arise and the desire that one's contributions will somehow survive the ravages of time. - Angela Davis

The peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country -- when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right. - Carl Schurz

When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it? - Eleanor Roosevelt

A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future. - Leonard Bernstein