Conservatives Do Not Believe In States’ Rights

The most conservative judges on the Supreme Court since the 1930s issued a decision yesterday that said police could racially profile people in Arizona.  Some of the writings and statements made yesterday were overtly political – exactly what judges should not be.  The politicization of the Supreme Court by right wing extremists has reached new heights with this group.  That was the state of affairs forecasted to occur by non-partisan experts asked to comment on President Bush’s unqualified nominees.  And that is the state of affairs that has developed.  Based on the aforementioned writings, the conservative judges defended the so-called “right” of Arizona to “defend” itself against people that those in power don’t want in the state: brown people.

Is the immigration system broken?  Yes.

Are most government systems broken?  Yes.

Why are they broken?  Because those same right-wing extremists have put policies and personnel in place to ensure the systems don’t operate as they were designed.  The more they can wreck things, the truer their complaints that government doesn’t work rings true.  It’s called fulfilling their own prediction.

But hold on one moment.  Those same so-called “pro-states’ rights” folks are equally silent on the right of Montana to enforce a 100-year old law to keep corruption out of government.  Folks used to publicly pay for legislators – including U.S. Senators – to get the policies they individually wanted implemented.  The people of Montana stood up to that kind of nonsense.  Alito, Romney, Limbaugh and all the other right-wing nuts out there didn’t say word one about Montana’s right to pass a state law in the absence of national laws and a broken election system.

There are dozens of corporate media articles proclaiming Romney’s unwavering belief that states’ rights are paramount.

Except that it isn’t.  The corporate media is part of the problem.  If they sold themselves as stenographers, dutifully copying down everything fed to them by whatever source they could dredge up, that would be one thing.  But they continue to try to pass their industry off as legitimate.  The results?  Declining participation in a democratic process.  Disapproval of all branches of government.  These conditions won’t last forever.  Movements will arise and succeed in putting the ship back on course.  The wealthy and powerful won’t like it, but that’s not the real issue.

At the end of the day, conservatives believe in states’ rights.  Except when they don’t, which is more often than when they do.

Mike Rosen: Forgetful Or Deceitful?

I try not to pay too much attention to people whose view of reality is in stark contrast to obvious facts – Mike Rosen is one of those people.  His columns for the Denver Post are usually so absurd, I read them instead of the comics.

Today’s column crosses a line, however.  This is the linchpin of his argument today [emphasis mine]:

Another covetous complainer, disparaging “absurdly ridiculous” sports salaries, argued that Manning’s salary could, instead, have gone to pay for school buses, textbooks, free lunches, teachers’ pay and other societal needs. In fact, the degree of our compassion and commitment to governmental largess on such items is already measured by $15 trillion of federal debt and more than $100 trillion in unfunded government liabilities.

As usual, extremists like Rosen over-reach to “make their case”.  Rosen wants readers to believe in his fantasy that the $15 trillion of federal debt is 100%, completely due to governmental largess and compassion (Rosen invokes disdain of the mythological welfare queens here).

Really?

Isn’t it interesting that St. Ronnie, the patron saint of modern Teabaggerism, was responsible for $3 trillion of federal debt.  Not only that, but St. Ronnie charged up that debt in 8 short years, tripling the debt of the previous 200 years.  How much compassion and commitment to governmental largess did St. Ronnie have again, Mr. Rosen?

Furthermore, Bushes Sr. and Jr. threw their weight into the federal debt explosion that Teabaggers like Rosen want to pile onto the shoulders of Democrats.  Did Rosen ever write a column taking Bush Jr. to task for invading and occupying two sovereign nations without making sure the budget accommodated such activitie?  No, he did not.n  You see, it’s alright for Teabaggers to rack up $13+ trillion of federal debt.  It’s not alright for a Democrat to rack up $1-2 trillion of federal debt (Clinton was actually paying the debt down in the late 1990s).

Would it be nice to fund schools, textbooks and teachers (not administrators!) to the same tune of Manning’s recent contract?  Sure, it would.  It would have been even nicer if more Denver voters had felt the same way when they agreed to build Pat Bowlen (a 1%er) a new stadium for him with our hard-earned tax dollars.  Denver schools would have seen increased funding and Mr. Bowlen would have faced the choice of extorting another city’s taxpayers or staying in Denver and spending some of his riches to keep his stadium up to date.

Denver voters’ commitment to corporate largess is what we need to discuss.  But Rosen would much rather keep convincing readers that the 1%ers are the victims in our society.  Boo-hoo!

This comment by Rosen is simply disgusting to read:

There are only a handful of people on this planet who can do what Peyton Manning does on a football field. There are many millions of people in this country who can do what teachers do in a classroom.  That’s not to demean teachers, just to recognize an economic reality in a free society.

It’s fascinating to read honest statements from extremists like Rosen.  There are many millions of people who can do teachers’ jobs.  That’s exactly what Rosen believes and he sees nothing morally wrong with insulting them.  The difficulty of a job isn’t what we should discuss here either.  What should we discuss?  The value we place on a teacher vs. a quarterback.  Rosen puts zero value in a teacher and millions of dollars’ worth of value in a quarterback.  In his fantasy world, teachers are not needed and quarterbacks deserve the largesse they receive.  Because entertainment is far more important than education!

Sen. Mark Udall’s “Bipartisanship”

How well did Democratic Sen. Mark Udall’s idea that Democrats and Republican Teabaggers sit next to each other during the 2011 State of the Union address?

By any common sense approach, it was an abject failure.  Sure the Senators intermingled for one evening.  Then the Republican Teabaggers threatened to filibuster a record number of bills, nominees for posts were needlessly held up for months on end before being overwhelmingly approved once they allowed votes to come up.  Oh, there was also a “little hiccup” in the economy when those same Teabaggers threatened to not allow a vote to increase the federal debt ceiling, which resultedin a downgrade of the US credit rating.  That’s correct: the same targets of Udall’s goodwill took our economy to the edge of disaster for purely political reasons: if the economy tanks, President Obama would be unlikely to win reelection this year.

So how does Sen. Bipartisanship respond?  By re-issuing his silly call for Senators to sit together again this year and show Americans they can get along.  The Republican Teabaggers want to shut down the government and the economy, Senator Udall.  What is it going to take for you to accept that basic truth?

Senator, if you want to prove to Americans you and your colleagues can do your jobs, pass a jobs bill; pass a federal budget on time; let the Bush tax cuts expire as designed; confirm or deny nominees but make the votes happen.  Somehow I think running a campaign ad that one of your accomplishments was calling for Senators to sit together during a speech while tens of millions of Americans remained underemployed, losing their households and savings and health care and hope for the future, won’t win over too many voters.  Do something tangible, Senator.  No more empty gestures.  No more searching for the Holy Bipartisanship Grail.

Update on OH Democrats

The other day, I ran across a story regarding OH Democrats’ incompetence in the redistricting task for that state and wrote about it here.  They wasted time using volunteers to get petitions signed when a professional outlet was available and ready for work.  But it gets worse than that: Democratic legislators ended up accepting the extremely gerrymandered Republican Teabagger map!  So the volunteer effort was doubly wasted!

Once again, I’ll recap: the map virtually ensures that 16 Republican Teabagger Congresspeople will be elected in 2012 while only 4 Democratic Congresspeople will be similarly elected.  This in a state which decidedly elected President Obama in 2008 – it’s not a Teabagger state at all.  So the good people of Ohio don’t get the appropriate representation for the next decade.  But I guess that’s no big deal.  Do you know why it isn’t a big deal?  Because the fools in charge of the Ohio Democratic Party get to keep their positions!  They remain in power of their moribund establishment while Ohio citizens get screwed!

The problem with all of this, of course, is that the Democratic voters won’t dispose of their party officials.  They’ll buy into the crap that they did everything possible and it was more than enough that “they shined light” on the gerrymandered maps.

Pathetic.

Public Pension Nonsense

A couple of messages to the “capitalists” and “Law & Order” types out there: 1)entities need to honor contracts as agreed to & 2)it’s not the workers’ fault that politicians promise the moon without intent to deliver.

Public pensions were part of contracts that parties negotiated and signed in good faith in the past.  After American citizens worked in their careers for 30, 40 years and in some cases beyond in jobs that private sector folks chose not to pursue because there is no glory or fortunes in them, public sector workers deserve their earned and due benefits.

Meanwhile, private corporations off-loaded their pension plans by privatizing them and putting their management in the hands of respective workers.  You know, the “personal responsibility” and “freedom” mentality at work.  Wall St. turned itself into the biggest group of casinos in the world, betting on those privatized accounts (as well as others) while its lobbyists successfully deregulated the financial markets.  The result?  The 2007 financial collapse and subsequent economic disaster that has unfolded.

Also during this time period, one of the puppets of crony capitalists, Grover Norquist, successfully led a national campaign to ensure politicians cut taxes on the richest Americans.  As a result, local, state, and national governments find themselves in nearly perpetual debt.  Now, crony capitalist supporters are criticizing public workers (in just one more way) for their foresight to secure a solid retirement.  The capitalists’ method didn’t work out so well and the socialists’ were more successful (not completely, obviously).  Again, entities need to execute signed contracts in good faith – public workers more than deserve their pensions (they held up their end of the bargain for decades), they deserve the respect of the rest of us for their choice in life path and adherence to the rules during their careers.  Critics with sour grapes don’t have a legitimate complaint against those workers.

This is just a small part of the Occupy Wall Street movement.  While financial titans have seen their tax rates decimated and their bonuses skyrocket, often at the expense of workers’ jobs by the way, public sector employees have continued to earn less in salary per year than their private sector counterparts for similar work.  It’s a classic example of the 99% vs. the 1%.  Polarizing rhetoric of the past 30 years continues: private sector workers are turning their ire from being duped and taken for the ride their lives on those same public sector workers instead of the 1% who engineered the entire situation.

If they fight among themselves, workers can’t and won’t hold the 1% accountable for their actions.  So much for “Law and Order”, personal responsibility and responsible capitalism.

Homicidal White Supremacist Case Begs A Question

After reading the story of a then 14-year old Californian white supremacist that shot a middle school classmate at school because of alleged “unwanted sexual advances” (the shot teen was gay), I want to ask the lawyers and society at large something.  Just a little more detail on the story, then the question.

The shooter pleaded guilty to 2nd-degree murder after a jury was unable to decide a verdict in the case earlier in the year.  “Brandon McInerney, in a fit of homophobic rage, killed classmate Larry King because he was offended by King’s dress and how the victim interacted with him. “

“King, 15, was openly gay, and McInerney’s attorneys argued he made sexual advances against their client.”

And now the question: does anybody seriously think a heterosexual woman would be offered a plea deal due to a hung jury if she killed a man because he made unwanted sexual advances against her?

Vitter Tries To Bribe Sec. Salazar; Ed Schultz Silent

Self-described “liberal” talk show host Ed Schultz helped engineer Rep. Weiner’s resignation due to Weiener’s sexting habits.  Schultz spent a considerable amount of time wringing his hands as hard as he could in the days following Weiner’s sexting revelation.  My question, as well as that of plenty of other liberals is, “What about Sen. David Vitter, Ed?”  I first wrote about this last week and am following up on the story now that new news has come to light.

What’s happened is this: Sen. David Vitter made a bribery offer to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (whom I have no love for, as evidenced by my writing history, by the way): Vitter will stop holding up $19,600 of Salazar’s pay raise vote if the Interior Secretary can somehow increase the rate of exploratory drill permits for the Gulf of Mexico.  Money for action = bribe.

This news came out at ~1:30P ET today as CREW filed an official complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee.  Unsurprisingly, I didn’t find any reference to Ed Schultz issuing commentary on the subject yet today.  I don’t expect I’ll find any such reference tomorrow or next week.  Schultz has left Sens. Vitter, Ensign and Coburn untouched during their respective ethics violations and well-documented illegal behavior.

A Democrat sending pictures of his junk?  Schultz feels compelled to hammer home his opinion because TMZ reported on it.

Republicans violating laws and breaking ethics rules?  Schultz ignores them because he thinks he can’t generate ratings if he covers them.

Ed Schultz is an entertainer first and a liberal second (at best).

Liberal Failures Of 2009-2010 & Why They Happened

In catching up from a weekend getaway, I was happy to catch Chris Bowers’ Sunday post entitled, “Think Big: Choosing the fights that build progressive power“.  It detailed some things that have been rattling around in my head for a while.

First, liberal policy failures of 2009-2010:

Congress passed no significant legislation on climate change or immigration. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were extended. Even a watered down version of the Employee Free Choice Act went nowhere. The public option was defeated. The laws passed on reproductive rights were actually regressive. Congress accomplished nothing in response to a Supreme Court ruling that sent campaign finance law backward, and no progress was made on the partisan composition of judicial appointments to the federal bench. Expanding overseas military deployments went unchecked, as did the reduction of civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

Chris also wrote this, and I believe it to be the primary reason why those policy failures occurred:

Specifically, a majority of legislators and candidates believe their electoral chances suffer more if they oppose conservative policy goals than if they oppose progressive ones. That was even the case in 2009-2010, when Democrats held massive majorities in Congress. As long [as] the majority of candidates and members of Congress continue to believe that veering to the left hurts them electorally, progressives will continue to see their public policy goals go largely unachieved even when Democrats are governing.

Liberals do not hold their elected officials accountable.  It has nothing to do with “purity tests”.  The faux-pragmatism approach pushed by those defending CorporateDems have shown us how false that argument is with their resounding lack of results when they were in charge.

The reason Chris outlined above is why I didn’t vote for a number of so-called Democrats in 2010.  Votes need to be earned.  Fear-mongering about what Republican Teabaggers might do if elected no longer works as a tactic for me.  I’ve seen what CorporateDems do when they’re elected and it’s not different enough to talk about.

Keep electing CorporateDems or “the lesser of two evils”, Democrats.  All you’re doing is delaying the inevitable, not preventing it.

Climate Change Action: Focus on U.S. Cities

Thinking and writing about all of the looming climate-related crises headed our way can get depressing.  As part of an effort to pull myself out of the muck, I want to start focusing some attention on things that are being done to prevent or adapt to climate change.  Both will have to be engaged with increasing resources in the future.  As with all planning, it’s best to start with where we are today.  To that end, I want to present some work I found and get other folks thinking and writing about it.

A Dr. Boyd Cohen has put together a top-10 list: “Top 10 Climate-Ready Cities in the U.S.“.  Now, I hate most top-10 lists, especially those dealing with pop culture topics.  That’s mostly because I seem to disagree with the specific placement of entries to the list.  Most of the time, nobody knows how a top-10 list was assembled.  What criteria were utilized to generate the list?  Well, in this case, the criteria are at least presented by Dr. Cohen.  Whether you and I agree with the inclusion of the criteria doesn’t matter, mostly because it’s not our list.

Will The Economy Grow Or Slow?

Generally, good economic discussion occurs at this blog.  There is a little too much commentary regarding what other folks are saying at other blogs (put another way, too much navel gazing and chest thumping).  The comparison between the first blog’s authors and others is especially silly when the following two statements were made in the same blog post:

In other words, the blogospheric Doomgasm has been prompted by fears that the economy will grow 1% more this quarter than last quarter!

For the record, I still see a slowdown or stall this quarter and/or next.

Look, either you think the economy will grow or slow this quarter.  It can’t do both at the same time.  Make a prediction based on what data you think you have that can support that prediction.

I don’t, for instance, write that I think the next 10 years will be hotter than the last 10 in one sentence, then write that I think cooling will occur.  It always amazes me how people slam climate science predictions (which have been correct more often than not, by the way) but let economists and economic commentators get away with double-speak.  Economists are not infallible gods.

By the way, I think I’ll listen to what Paul Krugman has to say about the potential future state of the U.S. economy.  He has earned a Nobel Prize, after all.