by Rich Miles
Back in college, back during the last Ice Age, we used to sit around in someone's dorm room discussing the most arcane shit - deep-level discussions, or so we thought, on stuff that no one else had ever thought of, or so we thought. We actually used to do this without the aid of intoxicants most of the time. It was kinda fun to reduce shit to its lowest possible intellectual common denominator. Or at least it was back then. Or at least, we thought so. Back then.
Apparently, somebody still likes to do this sort of thing, except that they do it in ways that have the potential to harm or even kill other people. The method they use to do this is the executive order now commonly referred to as the "Conscience Clause".
It's one of those messes we knew we'd have to clean up after Shrub left office. He put it in place with one foot out the door, within the last weeks of his term, and quietly so no one would know about it till he was well and truly gone. What it means is this:
If a doctor or other medical practitioner is asked to perform a procedure or provide medical care or medicine, and that practitioner believes it would offend his/her moral precepts to perform the procedure, the doc may refuse to involve him/herself in the procedure, and the executive order in essence lets the medico off the hook for any consequences of the refusal - like, if the patient dies or something. You know - consequences.
I think this concept sucks.
Y'see, I didn't become a doctor because I didn't want to be confronted with such moral dilemmas. (Among other reasons - like, I'm skeeved out by the sight of blood and guts). But my objection to MY participating in such behaviors is not moral in nature, nor is it a function of my conscience. No, it's a choice I made many years ago - not to be a doctor.
And it's my belief that those who DO make the choice to be a medical practitioner make in that same breath a choice to do ANYTHING that's required to be a medical practitioner. Not just the parts of it that are fun, or easy, or don't cause one moral qualms. ALL of it.
And if one does choose to be a doctor (or more to the point, a pharmacist) and then at some future point refuses to do some part of his/her legitimate practice, then that person should lose his/her license to practice medicine. Lose one's RIGHT to be a doctor or other practitioner.
That's my opinion - what's yours? How many patients have to die or suffer other serious consequences of such a refusal before this stops even being an issue? Before one may not accept a state-granted license to practice medicine at any level, and then refuse to provide this care?
The short answer to this quandary is, if you have such strong moral beliefs that you could actually do that, refuse to provide any measure of medical care including the rendering of pharmaceuticals to a person whose illness you are unlikely to know with certainty, to anyone, then you should not go into the business of providing medical care of any kind to anyone.
That's my opinion - what's yours?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Come Home, America
by Rich Miles
I don't usually recommend books on this site, mainly because my reading tastes tend toward ancient history (pre-1700), but also because reading choices are such personal things, and I don't wish to impinge on what you like with what I like.
(Also, I don't often find books I like well enough to suggest that you read them.)
But today, I've come across a book that I AM going to recommend to you, even though I myself haven't read it. My only contact with this book is a lengthy interview on NPR's "Diane Rehm Show" today, in which the author, without even trying, managed to convince me that he thinks just like me! Or nearly so, at any rate.
He says the things I try to say here - the obvious stuff about why America is falling apart in spots, and what should be done to stop the decline and get our country's international pre-eminence back on track for reasons that apply today and are not holdovers from our "imperial era", over a hundred years ago. Which is a long time for a country that's not much over 200 years old.
So at any rate, here's the book I want to call to your attention today:
"Come Home America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) Of Our Country" by William Greider.
It's available on Amazon.com, and if you Google it, you can get several reviews of the book and reader discussions as well.
If Greider's on-air discussion of his beliefs is anything like what the book has to say, we should all have a copy.
I'm not going to try to review the book - there are professional examples of this available all over the Web.
But I recommend you take a look at this book, because it's not just flag-waving and "Rah, rah America" kind of stuff. It's the author's ideas of what we've done wrong, and how we might benefit from doing those things a different way.
I don't usually recommend books on this site, mainly because my reading tastes tend toward ancient history (pre-1700), but also because reading choices are such personal things, and I don't wish to impinge on what you like with what I like.
(Also, I don't often find books I like well enough to suggest that you read them.)
But today, I've come across a book that I AM going to recommend to you, even though I myself haven't read it. My only contact with this book is a lengthy interview on NPR's "Diane Rehm Show" today, in which the author, without even trying, managed to convince me that he thinks just like me! Or nearly so, at any rate.
He says the things I try to say here - the obvious stuff about why America is falling apart in spots, and what should be done to stop the decline and get our country's international pre-eminence back on track for reasons that apply today and are not holdovers from our "imperial era", over a hundred years ago. Which is a long time for a country that's not much over 200 years old.
So at any rate, here's the book I want to call to your attention today:
"Come Home America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) Of Our Country" by William Greider.
It's available on Amazon.com, and if you Google it, you can get several reviews of the book and reader discussions as well.
If Greider's on-air discussion of his beliefs is anything like what the book has to say, we should all have a copy.
I'm not going to try to review the book - there are professional examples of this available all over the Web.
But I recommend you take a look at this book, because it's not just flag-waving and "Rah, rah America" kind of stuff. It's the author's ideas of what we've done wrong, and how we might benefit from doing those things a different way.
Monday, April 06, 2009
What the 'estate' tax really does
by Rich Miles
Sometimes a blogger experiences that bane of our existence, the comment that explains the thesis better than the original post did. Or really, it's not a bane, it's just mildly embarrassing - if we're so smart, why didn't we say it that well to begin with?
Hilzoy over at Washington Monthly has had this happen to him/her, though at this writing, I'm not sure he knows it yet, unless he's an early riser. He offers a quite cogent, yet rather technical explanation of the ins and outs of the estate tax, and then, a person calling herself Jennifer comes along, and in essence says, "This is what Hilzoy really meant." She's not snarky about it - she just says it a little better and a whole lot funnier than Hilzoy did. Here's Jennifer's comment, in its entirety because I laughed out loud at the observation in the last sentence:
The estate tax was imposed in the first place because there was a recognition that over-concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands is ultimately detrimental to the economy. The estate tax is one means the government has to put the brakes on over-concentration of wealth; progressive income taxes and capital gains taxes are the others. All of those have been slashed to the bone and guess what? The utterly predictable thing happened - too few people now control too much of the money, the rest of us have had to borrow from them just to stay afloat the past 10 years, and a lot of people can't pay it back - leading to the credit crisis.
The "death tax" tripe has always irritated me no end. Dead people don't write checks - they're dead, and they could care fuck-all about anything at that point. They use this terminology to boost their ridiculous argument that it's somehow "unfair" that the money "gets taxed twice". Uh, no, it doesn't - it's treated like every other dollar in the economy - it's taxed when it changes hands. Such as when rich dude dies and the money goes to his heirs. At base, the argument is that Paris Hilton shouldn't have to pay any taxes, even though she's very wealthy without ever having worked, but you and I should pay full freight on every dollar we earn doing actual useful work. Paris' daddy or granddaddy isn't being "taxed twice" because it's not his money anymore. Paris isn't taxed twice because the money belonged to someone else when it was taxed before. Just like I pay income taxes on my earnings, then spend some of my money at the grocery store, where I pay sales taxes, then when the cashier at the store gets a paycheck in part underwritten by money I spent at the store, she pays taxes on her income as well.
In short, the Republican argument (and make no mistake, Miz Blank IS a Republican in all but name) is one that only makes sense to stupid people who have no idea how the estate tax works. Since stupid people are the natural constituency of the Republican Party, expect this moronic argument about the "unfairness" of "death taxes" to continue ad infinitum.
Since stupid people are the natural constituency of the Republican Party...Wow. I wish I'd said that. It is precisely le mot juste (or is it les mots justes?)
It's particularly important in both Hilzoy's and Jennifer's words to note this fact: the "inheritance tax" was first imposed to keep the rich from becoming richer to an obscene degree, and they (the rich) have never gotten over it. It is amazing how entitled one thinks oneself to be when one has money, and ONLY money, never having contributed to anything by the sweat of one's brow or the work of one's hands or mind.
Seriously, this redistribution of wealth upward MUST be curtailed, and soon. I mean, the question I've always had about the concept is, if the rich people get all the money, and the rest of us starve, what are the rich people going to do for servants?
I'm kidding, of course. It will come to an American storming of the Bastille long before that.
And remember, rich bastards: to most of us, the guy who makes $500K a year is just as much a plutocrat as the guy who makes $250 million. And will be dealt with just as harshly when the Revolution comes.
Sometimes a blogger experiences that bane of our existence, the comment that explains the thesis better than the original post did. Or really, it's not a bane, it's just mildly embarrassing - if we're so smart, why didn't we say it that well to begin with?
Hilzoy over at Washington Monthly has had this happen to him/her, though at this writing, I'm not sure he knows it yet, unless he's an early riser. He offers a quite cogent, yet rather technical explanation of the ins and outs of the estate tax, and then, a person calling herself Jennifer comes along, and in essence says, "This is what Hilzoy really meant." She's not snarky about it - she just says it a little better and a whole lot funnier than Hilzoy did. Here's Jennifer's comment, in its entirety because I laughed out loud at the observation in the last sentence:
The estate tax was imposed in the first place because there was a recognition that over-concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands is ultimately detrimental to the economy. The estate tax is one means the government has to put the brakes on over-concentration of wealth; progressive income taxes and capital gains taxes are the others. All of those have been slashed to the bone and guess what? The utterly predictable thing happened - too few people now control too much of the money, the rest of us have had to borrow from them just to stay afloat the past 10 years, and a lot of people can't pay it back - leading to the credit crisis.
The "death tax" tripe has always irritated me no end. Dead people don't write checks - they're dead, and they could care fuck-all about anything at that point. They use this terminology to boost their ridiculous argument that it's somehow "unfair" that the money "gets taxed twice". Uh, no, it doesn't - it's treated like every other dollar in the economy - it's taxed when it changes hands. Such as when rich dude dies and the money goes to his heirs. At base, the argument is that Paris Hilton shouldn't have to pay any taxes, even though she's very wealthy without ever having worked, but you and I should pay full freight on every dollar we earn doing actual useful work. Paris' daddy or granddaddy isn't being "taxed twice" because it's not his money anymore. Paris isn't taxed twice because the money belonged to someone else when it was taxed before. Just like I pay income taxes on my earnings, then spend some of my money at the grocery store, where I pay sales taxes, then when the cashier at the store gets a paycheck in part underwritten by money I spent at the store, she pays taxes on her income as well.
In short, the Republican argument (and make no mistake, Miz Blank IS a Republican in all but name) is one that only makes sense to stupid people who have no idea how the estate tax works. Since stupid people are the natural constituency of the Republican Party, expect this moronic argument about the "unfairness" of "death taxes" to continue ad infinitum.
Since stupid people are the natural constituency of the Republican Party...Wow. I wish I'd said that. It is precisely le mot juste (or is it les mots justes?)
It's particularly important in both Hilzoy's and Jennifer's words to note this fact: the "inheritance tax" was first imposed to keep the rich from becoming richer to an obscene degree, and they (the rich) have never gotten over it. It is amazing how entitled one thinks oneself to be when one has money, and ONLY money, never having contributed to anything by the sweat of one's brow or the work of one's hands or mind.
Seriously, this redistribution of wealth upward MUST be curtailed, and soon. I mean, the question I've always had about the concept is, if the rich people get all the money, and the rest of us starve, what are the rich people going to do for servants?
I'm kidding, of course. It will come to an American storming of the Bastille long before that.
And remember, rich bastards: to most of us, the guy who makes $500K a year is just as much a plutocrat as the guy who makes $250 million. And will be dealt with just as harshly when the Revolution comes.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Limbaugh propaganda kills 3 cops
by Rich Miles
Update below: Corrects my remarks about Pres. Obama's statements on guns and gun control, and also adds information about the deaths of 4 policemen in California several weeks ago.
In Pittsburgh today (April 4th), 3 police officers were killed by a gun nut who claimed he heard President Obama was going to take away everyone's guns. (Unlike most such nuts, the guy didn't kill himself, and survived the firefight he started with only wounds to his legs. He was wearing a bulletproof vest.)
Do you wonder where he got that idea, that the president was going to take away everyone's guns? I do, since Pres. Obama has at NO time I'm aware of EVER made any statement about what he was going to do concerning private ownership of firearms. He's never said he wanted to take everyone's guns away from them. In fact, he's never said ANYthing about them, pro, con, or neutral.**
Do you want to know who has been saying that Pres. Obama plans to take away everyone's guns?
Right-wing talk radio nuts. Like Limbaugh. Michael Savage. Any number of other fanatical nimrods of their ilk, whose names escape me because I don't listen to that kind of tripe. In fact, the only reason I know that these morons say these things is that I have read about them doing so in various and sundry national and local publications, and heard it mentioned on some LEFT-wing broadcasts.
They (the right wing propagandists) have frightened weak-minded people. They have made up a supposed position of Pres. Obama's, and preached that position to their weak-minded followers, and this is the result: three dead cops.
Rush Limbaugh is just as responsible for the deaths of those three cops as the guy who pulled the trigger. All those nutcases on the radio and TV are responsible.
But will they ever be brought to task for their crime? No, I rather assume not.
If they had any conscience at all, any honor at all, they'd take responsibility for their actions without prompting. I rather assume that won't happen either.
My deepest sympathies to the family and colleagues of those three dead cops. Look to your supposed "friends" in right-wing radio for the reason behind this horrific event.
**Update: Revised Article
Update below: Corrects my remarks about Pres. Obama's statements on guns and gun control, and also adds information about the deaths of 4 policemen in California several weeks ago.
In Pittsburgh today (April 4th), 3 police officers were killed by a gun nut who claimed he heard President Obama was going to take away everyone's guns. (Unlike most such nuts, the guy didn't kill himself, and survived the firefight he started with only wounds to his legs. He was wearing a bulletproof vest.)
Do you wonder where he got that idea, that the president was going to take away everyone's guns? I do, since Pres. Obama has at NO time I'm aware of EVER made any statement about what he was going to do concerning private ownership of firearms. He's never said he wanted to take everyone's guns away from them. In fact, he's never said ANYthing about them, pro, con, or neutral.**
Do you want to know who has been saying that Pres. Obama plans to take away everyone's guns?
Right-wing talk radio nuts. Like Limbaugh. Michael Savage. Any number of other fanatical nimrods of their ilk, whose names escape me because I don't listen to that kind of tripe. In fact, the only reason I know that these morons say these things is that I have read about them doing so in various and sundry national and local publications, and heard it mentioned on some LEFT-wing broadcasts.
They (the right wing propagandists) have frightened weak-minded people. They have made up a supposed position of Pres. Obama's, and preached that position to their weak-minded followers, and this is the result: three dead cops.
Rush Limbaugh is just as responsible for the deaths of those three cops as the guy who pulled the trigger. All those nutcases on the radio and TV are responsible.
But will they ever be brought to task for their crime? No, I rather assume not.
If they had any conscience at all, any honor at all, they'd take responsibility for their actions without prompting. I rather assume that won't happen either.
My deepest sympathies to the family and colleagues of those three dead cops. Look to your supposed "friends" in right-wing radio for the reason behind this horrific event.
**Update: Revised Article
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The cockroaches are crawling out of the woodwork
by Rich Miles
I have to confess that I'm surprised we haven't seen more of this:
An idiot on the radio named Tammy Bruce has embarrassed all white people, all broadcasters, and all racists (yes, I meant that too) with an on-air tirade in which she repeatedly referred to the Obama family as trash in the White House. There is much to be said for not giving Ms. Bruce the publicity that comes with making her actions known, but here it is. This hurts my heart even to present it to you, but I think it needs to be done:
Tammy Bruce Acts Out Like Total Racist Slag She Is
I sometimes despair of my country. This is one of those times.
If you can stomach it, read some of the comments.
My poor, bleeding nation.
I have to confess that I'm surprised we haven't seen more of this:
An idiot on the radio named Tammy Bruce has embarrassed all white people, all broadcasters, and all racists (yes, I meant that too) with an on-air tirade in which she repeatedly referred to the Obama family as trash in the White House. There is much to be said for not giving Ms. Bruce the publicity that comes with making her actions known, but here it is. This hurts my heart even to present it to you, but I think it needs to be done:
Tammy Bruce Acts Out Like Total Racist Slag She Is
I sometimes despair of my country. This is one of those times.
If you can stomach it, read some of the comments.
My poor, bleeding nation.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Bad habit overcome - for the moment
by Rich Miles
I have had a very bad habit in my life - failing to see and take note of significant events in the news, etc.
The best, or one might say the worst, example of this happened when the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was taken over by militant students in 1979 - an event that almost certainly toppled a U.S. regime, and had many other far-reaching ramifications to it over its 444 days' duration, and far into the future after it was over.
I didn't understand it.
Or rather, it might be more accurate to say that I didn't realize how important it was.
I remember thinking, when I first heard of the seizing of the embassy, "Well, there goes another U.S. embassy - not the first, certainly not the last, but no big deal."
It's pretty clear today how wrong I was back then.
I've done this many times before and since - just simply failed to notice how important an event was, and thus failed to learn anything from it, among other things.
But today, I am here to announce that I actually got out in front of one: I was a day ahead of the national outrage over the bonuses at AIG, and I am very proud of myself for having done so. Frankly, when I wrote that piece on the 13th, I thought it might just cause a little flameout, and then would disappear, as do so many such stories in recent months. In fact, AIG was at the center of another story about the payment of bonuses late last year, and that one did fizzle and die after a few days.
I don't think this one is going away so fast, and I'm glad of it. And glad for any little part I may have had in the story growing legs. I'm under no illusion I am responsible for it, but if I've been able to prop up the legs a little from my little corner of the world, that's great.
So AIG is getting a bit of its own back - that's great, too. I sincerely hope the bigwigs at AIG keep trying to make excuses for themselves. It will only make them look worse and worse. And then, I want to see a bunch of the ol' boys working behind the counter at Arby's or some such. All of 'em - 6 bucks an hour or so. I want these morons who've been making 6 figures or better since 4th grade to learn what it's like to have to sweat a bit to make ends meet.
I don't really expect that to happen - but I'd sure love it. As someone important said, payback's a bitch!
Ain't it?
I have had a very bad habit in my life - failing to see and take note of significant events in the news, etc.
The best, or one might say the worst, example of this happened when the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was taken over by militant students in 1979 - an event that almost certainly toppled a U.S. regime, and had many other far-reaching ramifications to it over its 444 days' duration, and far into the future after it was over.
I didn't understand it.
Or rather, it might be more accurate to say that I didn't realize how important it was.
I remember thinking, when I first heard of the seizing of the embassy, "Well, there goes another U.S. embassy - not the first, certainly not the last, but no big deal."
It's pretty clear today how wrong I was back then.
I've done this many times before and since - just simply failed to notice how important an event was, and thus failed to learn anything from it, among other things.
But today, I am here to announce that I actually got out in front of one: I was a day ahead of the national outrage over the bonuses at AIG, and I am very proud of myself for having done so. Frankly, when I wrote that piece on the 13th, I thought it might just cause a little flameout, and then would disappear, as do so many such stories in recent months. In fact, AIG was at the center of another story about the payment of bonuses late last year, and that one did fizzle and die after a few days.
I don't think this one is going away so fast, and I'm glad of it. And glad for any little part I may have had in the story growing legs. I'm under no illusion I am responsible for it, but if I've been able to prop up the legs a little from my little corner of the world, that's great.
So AIG is getting a bit of its own back - that's great, too. I sincerely hope the bigwigs at AIG keep trying to make excuses for themselves. It will only make them look worse and worse. And then, I want to see a bunch of the ol' boys working behind the counter at Arby's or some such. All of 'em - 6 bucks an hour or so. I want these morons who've been making 6 figures or better since 4th grade to learn what it's like to have to sweat a bit to make ends meet.
I don't really expect that to happen - but I'd sure love it. As someone important said, payback's a bitch!
Ain't it?
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Idle Threats
by Rich Miles
There's an article in today's New York Times that, in essence, makes it clear that, come Hell or high water, AIG is going to pay $165 million in bonuses to executives of its financial services division, despite the obvious truth that these morons drove the company into the ground, and have had, so far, to be bailed out by the government to the tune of about $170 BILLION.
The basic premise of the article is that AIG HAS to pay these bonuses, because of contractual obligations entered into before the company's collapse. Well, that all sounds right and honorable, until you read the part about this money being "retention bonuses", to get the executives to stay at the company. Which brings to my mind at least the two following questions:
1) Why would you want to retain executives that killed your company, and damn near took the entire national economy down the toilet as well? Let 'em go, fer cryin' out loud, and
2) Where are these mugs going to go? If you refuse to pay their "retention bonuses", and they quit in a fit of pique, WHERE ELSE CAN THEY GO in this market atmosphere to do any better? Who's going to hire the architects of one of the greatest financial collapses in the history of the WORLD, much less America? I mean, can you imagine their resumes? "I took down one of the biggest companies in America. Let me do the same for your company!"
So obviously, as usual I'm missing something here. What *I* think I'm missing is the "old boy network camaraderie", that will cause these guys to take care of each other no matter how big fuckups they are.
Yeah, you can't let a former classmate at Yale or Harvard or whatnot fall by the wayside just because he's an incompetent boob. I mean, that would ultimately harm ALL incompetent boobs. And might even lead to the imprisonment of one or two of them. Like, for instance, GWB II. He was/is the ultimate incompetent boob raised to a level far above his competence. Can't have HIM called to task for his mistakes. God knows what that will mean to the rest of them.
The average American taxpayer (whatever "average" means in that context) is being reamed up the ass with a hot poker, and all these idiots can think about is "retention bonuses".
What can we do about this? I'm open to suggestion. But I'm just sick about this. And you should be too.
There's an article in today's New York Times that, in essence, makes it clear that, come Hell or high water, AIG is going to pay $165 million in bonuses to executives of its financial services division, despite the obvious truth that these morons drove the company into the ground, and have had, so far, to be bailed out by the government to the tune of about $170 BILLION.
The basic premise of the article is that AIG HAS to pay these bonuses, because of contractual obligations entered into before the company's collapse. Well, that all sounds right and honorable, until you read the part about this money being "retention bonuses", to get the executives to stay at the company. Which brings to my mind at least the two following questions:
1) Why would you want to retain executives that killed your company, and damn near took the entire national economy down the toilet as well? Let 'em go, fer cryin' out loud, and
2) Where are these mugs going to go? If you refuse to pay their "retention bonuses", and they quit in a fit of pique, WHERE ELSE CAN THEY GO in this market atmosphere to do any better? Who's going to hire the architects of one of the greatest financial collapses in the history of the WORLD, much less America? I mean, can you imagine their resumes? "I took down one of the biggest companies in America. Let me do the same for your company!"
So obviously, as usual I'm missing something here. What *I* think I'm missing is the "old boy network camaraderie", that will cause these guys to take care of each other no matter how big fuckups they are.
Yeah, you can't let a former classmate at Yale or Harvard or whatnot fall by the wayside just because he's an incompetent boob. I mean, that would ultimately harm ALL incompetent boobs. And might even lead to the imprisonment of one or two of them. Like, for instance, GWB II. He was/is the ultimate incompetent boob raised to a level far above his competence. Can't have HIM called to task for his mistakes. God knows what that will mean to the rest of them.
The average American taxpayer (whatever "average" means in that context) is being reamed up the ass with a hot poker, and all these idiots can think about is "retention bonuses".
What can we do about this? I'm open to suggestion. But I'm just sick about this. And you should be too.
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Wholesale Theft Begins in Earnest
by Rich Miles
There's an article on the front page of today's (March 13th) Courier-Journal that lays out the numbers for how Kentucky's first installment on the Obama stimulus package will be spent.
In essence, David Williams is, as we might have expected, going to get a lion's share of the money. Of the $442 million appropriated, Williams' district is going to get over $80 million - nearly 20%, in a corner of the state where are ensconced something like 3% of the people, and only about 8 percent of the roads - many of which have been recently paved. In fact, in one portion of Clinton county, part of Williams' district, they had so much money for roads and so few roads needing the work that they paved the SHOULDERS of the roads, rather than leave them in gravel as is usually the case. This was BEFORE the recent federal appropriation.
And Jefferson County, the largest and most populous region of the state, got about $36 million. About 7-8%. Less than David Williams' district. Less than the second-largest allocation of funds, $59.5 million to Ed Worley, D-Richmond.
Let me just close by suggesting this: get used to it. Every time the federal government allocates a portion of the stimulus package to our state, just assume that the fat cats will get the biggest piece, regardless of who or where needs it, and the rest of us will get the crumbs.
I suppose that's how it's always been. I just guess I hoped that this huge chunk of change would somehow be allocated a little more honestly.
But as I have mentioned in previous posts, I believe in the Easter Bunny, too.
There's an article on the front page of today's (March 13th) Courier-Journal that lays out the numbers for how Kentucky's first installment on the Obama stimulus package will be spent.
In essence, David Williams is, as we might have expected, going to get a lion's share of the money. Of the $442 million appropriated, Williams' district is going to get over $80 million - nearly 20%, in a corner of the state where are ensconced something like 3% of the people, and only about 8 percent of the roads - many of which have been recently paved. In fact, in one portion of Clinton county, part of Williams' district, they had so much money for roads and so few roads needing the work that they paved the SHOULDERS of the roads, rather than leave them in gravel as is usually the case. This was BEFORE the recent federal appropriation.
And Jefferson County, the largest and most populous region of the state, got about $36 million. About 7-8%. Less than David Williams' district. Less than the second-largest allocation of funds, $59.5 million to Ed Worley, D-Richmond.
Let me just close by suggesting this: get used to it. Every time the federal government allocates a portion of the stimulus package to our state, just assume that the fat cats will get the biggest piece, regardless of who or where needs it, and the rest of us will get the crumbs.
I suppose that's how it's always been. I just guess I hoped that this huge chunk of change would somehow be allocated a little more honestly.
But as I have mentioned in previous posts, I believe in the Easter Bunny, too.
Monday, February 16, 2009
La-di-da, La-di-da
by Rich Miles
Hey, I'm getting better! It's only been 6 1/2 months since I last posted this time. But enough of that, on with the business at hand:
Since I last posted, Barack Obama has been elected and inaugurated. George Bush proved me wrong by not trying to stay in office on some trumped-up emergency basis (and I've never been happier to be wrong), and the Republickin' party has remained its old, steadfast self by engaging in the same treasonous behavior it did before the election, continuing to obstruct the business of the people and do all they can to keep anyone - Democrats, mostly - from doing anything to serve the needs of the American people. And then, they blame everything on the Democrats.
But the really heinous part of this equation is that, with the exception of the President, the Democrats are doing remarkably little to thwart these efforts on the part of the Repugs.
I mean, do you understand it? I don't. All the Repugs seem to have to do is say "boo", and the Democrats will just back down. It was most evident in the recent negotiations for the Big Bailout plan, when people like Lindsay Graham and others made all sorts of accusations of being left out of the process, and instead of Harry Reid telling them what was true, which was in essence "go fuck yourselves", he bent over and greased up again, and gave the Repugs what they wanted. Or more or less so.
See, here's how it goes: the Repug leadership tells its guys when to jump and how high, and those ol' boys just DO IT!!! That's why NOT ONE House Repug voted for the recovery plan, and then they had the nerve to complain about being left out of the process! And don't you know Middle America (gor bless their little pointed heads) hears that, and says, "Yeah well our good ol' Repug boys put down them smartass Demmiecrat boys up in Washington, and didn't yield to them one time ever!"
But while not many middle Americans gave this much thought, the fact is, every single Repug who voted against the bill WAS TOLD TO DO SO BY THEIR PARTY LEADERSHIP!!None of them, not ONE, read the bill, and after careful consideration decided that it was a flawed bill, and their conscience would not let them vote "Aye". Lindsay Graham said that the bill "stinks the place out". Others said similarly over-the-top things. I mean, is this the behavior of an adult, a member of one of the supposed greatest deliberative bodies on the planet? Daddy tells you what to do, and you do it without question, without actually DOING any of that deliberating you're supposed to be famous for, just because to do so will defeat the evil Democratic president, will start him on the road to un-reelectability in 4 years. All they have to do is make him politically impotent for four years, and he won't be reelected, and we (the Repugs) will have another go at fucking up the country again!!! Isn't that exciting?
And no one - not even Pres. Obama, who was starting to look like he was not going to allow this kind of nonsense with his "are these people kidding?" remark a while back, called them on such ludicrous remarks.
When are we going to call these fools on their shitty behavior? When are we going to stand up in their faces, and say, "You're morons. Among other moronic behavior, you're accusing us of the exact same bad behavior that YOU committed for 8 years under Bush, and called it logic and party loyalty and probity. And it resulted in the country being more fucked up than it hsa been since the Depression!"
People are FED UP with this crap. I can only hope that the general intelligence of the American people has risen a bit, and more Americans are seeing this for what it is: obstructionism, pure and simple. Not obstructing for a reason, just - obstructing.
But frankly, I have little faith in the intelligence of the American people. It was a little better when they elected Obama by such a hefty margin, but now we're right back where we started from on 9/11 - scared little rabbits who will let the Repugs frighten us into doing their bidding.
Except that Obama is whuppin' them this time. He's just doing it so subtly and quietly that they don't see it for the ass-whuppin' it is. God grant that he remains able to pull the wool over their eyes for another 8 years.
Thanks for your time and attention. As always, I'll try to get back here a little sooner next time. I mean, you'd think I'd have plenty to say these days, wouldn't you?
Hey, I'm getting better! It's only been 6 1/2 months since I last posted this time. But enough of that, on with the business at hand:
Since I last posted, Barack Obama has been elected and inaugurated. George Bush proved me wrong by not trying to stay in office on some trumped-up emergency basis (and I've never been happier to be wrong), and the Republickin' party has remained its old, steadfast self by engaging in the same treasonous behavior it did before the election, continuing to obstruct the business of the people and do all they can to keep anyone - Democrats, mostly - from doing anything to serve the needs of the American people. And then, they blame everything on the Democrats.
But the really heinous part of this equation is that, with the exception of the President, the Democrats are doing remarkably little to thwart these efforts on the part of the Repugs.
I mean, do you understand it? I don't. All the Repugs seem to have to do is say "boo", and the Democrats will just back down. It was most evident in the recent negotiations for the Big Bailout plan, when people like Lindsay Graham and others made all sorts of accusations of being left out of the process, and instead of Harry Reid telling them what was true, which was in essence "go fuck yourselves", he bent over and greased up again, and gave the Repugs what they wanted. Or more or less so.
See, here's how it goes: the Repug leadership tells its guys when to jump and how high, and those ol' boys just DO IT!!! That's why NOT ONE House Repug voted for the recovery plan, and then they had the nerve to complain about being left out of the process! And don't you know Middle America (gor bless their little pointed heads) hears that, and says, "Yeah well our good ol' Repug boys put down them smartass Demmiecrat boys up in Washington, and didn't yield to them one time ever!"
But while not many middle Americans gave this much thought, the fact is, every single Repug who voted against the bill WAS TOLD TO DO SO BY THEIR PARTY LEADERSHIP!!None of them, not ONE, read the bill, and after careful consideration decided that it was a flawed bill, and their conscience would not let them vote "Aye". Lindsay Graham said that the bill "stinks the place out". Others said similarly over-the-top things. I mean, is this the behavior of an adult, a member of one of the supposed greatest deliberative bodies on the planet? Daddy tells you what to do, and you do it without question, without actually DOING any of that deliberating you're supposed to be famous for, just because to do so will defeat the evil Democratic president, will start him on the road to un-reelectability in 4 years. All they have to do is make him politically impotent for four years, and he won't be reelected, and we (the Repugs) will have another go at fucking up the country again!!! Isn't that exciting?
And no one - not even Pres. Obama, who was starting to look like he was not going to allow this kind of nonsense with his "are these people kidding?" remark a while back, called them on such ludicrous remarks.
When are we going to call these fools on their shitty behavior? When are we going to stand up in their faces, and say, "You're morons. Among other moronic behavior, you're accusing us of the exact same bad behavior that YOU committed for 8 years under Bush, and called it logic and party loyalty and probity. And it resulted in the country being more fucked up than it hsa been since the Depression!"
People are FED UP with this crap. I can only hope that the general intelligence of the American people has risen a bit, and more Americans are seeing this for what it is: obstructionism, pure and simple. Not obstructing for a reason, just - obstructing.
But frankly, I have little faith in the intelligence of the American people. It was a little better when they elected Obama by such a hefty margin, but now we're right back where we started from on 9/11 - scared little rabbits who will let the Repugs frighten us into doing their bidding.
Except that Obama is whuppin' them this time. He's just doing it so subtly and quietly that they don't see it for the ass-whuppin' it is. God grant that he remains able to pull the wool over their eyes for another 8 years.
Thanks for your time and attention. As always, I'll try to get back here a little sooner next time. I mean, you'd think I'd have plenty to say these days, wouldn't you?
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Have you filled up a Ford lately?
by Rich Miles
Wow!!! I'm going to have to disappear for 8 months more often! Since I posted the other day, I've received no fewer than 9 "Welcome Back!" messages, one of them from someone highly placed in the state Democratic Party, and one from someone I thought was very angry with me and wouldn't bother to say anything to me, much less anything of a welcoming nature. Thanks to all of you who had such kind things to say to me, and especially to you, Joe Sonka, who not only welcomed me back on MY blog, but did so on YOUR blog as well. It's nice to know people noticed!
Anyway, on to the topic at hand: the massive stupidity of the Ford Motor Co.
Recent news stories will tell us all that Ford has finally seen the light, and is going to stop making massively oversized, overpowered, gas-guzzling automotive monsters, and start making smaller cars that get better gas mileage - some models up to 40 mpg.
It's a good thing to read that. Ford has corporately contributed more to global warming and gas shortages than almost any other car company in the world, consistently year in and year out, and learning that they seem finally to have learned their lesson and are going to get with the program is good.
That's the SURFACE reality. But as you may suspect, I don't DO "surface".
Come with me back to late 1973-early 1974, when OPEC and their pals made their FIRST naked grab for power, or at least the first one I had ever had occasion to take notice of. I was in college back then, and driving 500 miles back and forth from school to home 6-8 times a year. I drove an Austin America which got perhaps 30-35 mpg, but even at that I was spending more than I had on gasoline.
Because, you see, gasoline had gone from about 25 cents a gallon (no, I am NOT insane, it really was that price) up to 43-50 cents a gallon in the space of about a month or two - an increase equivalent to going from $2.00 to $4.00 a gallon in relative terms - relative to its damage to my budget and yours in any case.
Well, there was panic, there was weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth across the nation, and over the course of the next few years, all sorts of things of a more or less salutary nature came to pass: President Carter, who came to office in January of 1977, signed an executive order lowering the speed limit on interstate highways nationwide to 55, thereby saving some-odd gazillions of gallons of fuel over the next several decades, not to mention tons of air pollution. Car companies (including Ford, I have to say in the interest of full disclosure and fairness) started making small, more or less fuel-efficient cars like the Pinto, the Vega, and others that I have mercifully forgotten. I say mercifully forgotten, because despite Detroit's efforts to cater to consumers who had started to notice that our cheap gas wasn't necessarily going to last forever, they never did do it quite right - it was sort of like they were creating stopgaps, because they anticipated that the demand for gas sippers was temporary, so they didn't have to do a particularly good job of making them because they were going to get to STOP making them in not too many years,
And to a certain degree, they were right in that assumption: here we are, 34 years or so later, and we've had 70+ mph speed limits for several years, the SUV has become the vehicle of choice for the affluent (and any of the rest of us who can afford it) despite its extremely low gas mileage, and while there are numerous high-mileage models from nearly as numerous auto makers, these are generally loss leaders, unless you're one of those tree-huggers who has ordered your Prius or something. In short, while we've known for years that we need to watch our mileage, we still (Americans at least - most of the rest of the world are smarter than us in this regard) loves us some SUVs, and some humongous Ballbuster sedans (with apologies to Hunter S. Thompson). Fuel efficiency bedamned, we were AMURRICANS, gawdammit, and we could suck up and burn as much fuel as we wanted to. And so, like the average dog, we did it cuz we could.
And to add insult to injury, we are also paying our tax dollars to companies like Ford and GM and Chrysler for keeping their factories open and their workers working, and their very poor corporate planners planning, whether any of this benefits the American people or not. Because the leaders of these companies can get the government to bail them out every few years, and give them tax breaks, and so on and so forth, so we don't have to pay the social costs of all those unemployed auto workers (witness the dead, stinking corpse that was Detroit.)
But it didn't have to be that way. We had plenty of advance warning. 34 years of advance warning, to be precise.
So for now, we can pretend that this whole fuel crisis sneaked up on us - there was nothing we could do, it just came out of nowhere, etc. etc - but those of us who either lived through it or have some sense of history know better: we had PLENTY of warning, and even heeded some of it for a minute or two.
So it only remains to be seen if this time, it will really stick.
I urge you to go to Europe, or Great Britain, or if you can't go because you haven't the money because of fuel prices and the costs of travel they cause, look at some pictures of their roads on BBC America or somewhere: over there, they got the message some years ago. Almost NO ONE drives a car with more than 4 cylinders, and they're pretty peppy little cars at that. Only the extremely wealthy drive gas-guzzlers, and on the average day of driving you probably won't see a half-dozen of them. And also, the air is cleaner. Surely that counts for something.
Do they pay more for fuel over there than we do over here? Damn right they do. But they also understand that they simply CANNOT drive gas guzzler cars, not only because of the cost of the fuel but because of the damage it does to their environment. So, just about everyone, or at least everyone like you and me, drives what we in America would call a "small car" or a "sub-compact" - because it makes sense. Because it's smart to do so. Because they're not stupid.
And because they're not Americans, who believe it is their god-given right to drive any great huge gas-gulping monster they wish.
One day, we here in America are going to have to join the rest of the world, and stop being so selfish. You think you'll live to see it?
I'm not sure I will.
Wow!!! I'm going to have to disappear for 8 months more often! Since I posted the other day, I've received no fewer than 9 "Welcome Back!" messages, one of them from someone highly placed in the state Democratic Party, and one from someone I thought was very angry with me and wouldn't bother to say anything to me, much less anything of a welcoming nature. Thanks to all of you who had such kind things to say to me, and especially to you, Joe Sonka, who not only welcomed me back on MY blog, but did so on YOUR blog as well. It's nice to know people noticed!
Anyway, on to the topic at hand: the massive stupidity of the Ford Motor Co.
Recent news stories will tell us all that Ford has finally seen the light, and is going to stop making massively oversized, overpowered, gas-guzzling automotive monsters, and start making smaller cars that get better gas mileage - some models up to 40 mpg.
It's a good thing to read that. Ford has corporately contributed more to global warming and gas shortages than almost any other car company in the world, consistently year in and year out, and learning that they seem finally to have learned their lesson and are going to get with the program is good.
That's the SURFACE reality. But as you may suspect, I don't DO "surface".
Come with me back to late 1973-early 1974, when OPEC and their pals made their FIRST naked grab for power, or at least the first one I had ever had occasion to take notice of. I was in college back then, and driving 500 miles back and forth from school to home 6-8 times a year. I drove an Austin America which got perhaps 30-35 mpg, but even at that I was spending more than I had on gasoline.
Because, you see, gasoline had gone from about 25 cents a gallon (no, I am NOT insane, it really was that price) up to 43-50 cents a gallon in the space of about a month or two - an increase equivalent to going from $2.00 to $4.00 a gallon in relative terms - relative to its damage to my budget and yours in any case.
Well, there was panic, there was weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth across the nation, and over the course of the next few years, all sorts of things of a more or less salutary nature came to pass: President Carter, who came to office in January of 1977, signed an executive order lowering the speed limit on interstate highways nationwide to 55, thereby saving some-odd gazillions of gallons of fuel over the next several decades, not to mention tons of air pollution. Car companies (including Ford, I have to say in the interest of full disclosure and fairness) started making small, more or less fuel-efficient cars like the Pinto, the Vega, and others that I have mercifully forgotten. I say mercifully forgotten, because despite Detroit's efforts to cater to consumers who had started to notice that our cheap gas wasn't necessarily going to last forever, they never did do it quite right - it was sort of like they were creating stopgaps, because they anticipated that the demand for gas sippers was temporary, so they didn't have to do a particularly good job of making them because they were going to get to STOP making them in not too many years,
And to a certain degree, they were right in that assumption: here we are, 34 years or so later, and we've had 70+ mph speed limits for several years, the SUV has become the vehicle of choice for the affluent (and any of the rest of us who can afford it) despite its extremely low gas mileage, and while there are numerous high-mileage models from nearly as numerous auto makers, these are generally loss leaders, unless you're one of those tree-huggers who has ordered your Prius or something. In short, while we've known for years that we need to watch our mileage, we still (Americans at least - most of the rest of the world are smarter than us in this regard) loves us some SUVs, and some humongous Ballbuster sedans (with apologies to Hunter S. Thompson). Fuel efficiency bedamned, we were AMURRICANS, gawdammit, and we could suck up and burn as much fuel as we wanted to. And so, like the average dog, we did it cuz we could.
And to add insult to injury, we are also paying our tax dollars to companies like Ford and GM and Chrysler for keeping their factories open and their workers working, and their very poor corporate planners planning, whether any of this benefits the American people or not. Because the leaders of these companies can get the government to bail them out every few years, and give them tax breaks, and so on and so forth, so we don't have to pay the social costs of all those unemployed auto workers (witness the dead, stinking corpse that was Detroit.)
But it didn't have to be that way. We had plenty of advance warning. 34 years of advance warning, to be precise.
So for now, we can pretend that this whole fuel crisis sneaked up on us - there was nothing we could do, it just came out of nowhere, etc. etc - but those of us who either lived through it or have some sense of history know better: we had PLENTY of warning, and even heeded some of it for a minute or two.
So it only remains to be seen if this time, it will really stick.
I urge you to go to Europe, or Great Britain, or if you can't go because you haven't the money because of fuel prices and the costs of travel they cause, look at some pictures of their roads on BBC America or somewhere: over there, they got the message some years ago. Almost NO ONE drives a car with more than 4 cylinders, and they're pretty peppy little cars at that. Only the extremely wealthy drive gas-guzzlers, and on the average day of driving you probably won't see a half-dozen of them. And also, the air is cleaner. Surely that counts for something.
Do they pay more for fuel over there than we do over here? Damn right they do. But they also understand that they simply CANNOT drive gas guzzler cars, not only because of the cost of the fuel but because of the damage it does to their environment. So, just about everyone, or at least everyone like you and me, drives what we in America would call a "small car" or a "sub-compact" - because it makes sense. Because it's smart to do so. Because they're not stupid.
And because they're not Americans, who believe it is their god-given right to drive any great huge gas-gulping monster they wish.
One day, we here in America are going to have to join the rest of the world, and stop being so selfish. You think you'll live to see it?
I'm not sure I will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)