The Complainer

Debate Reveals: Romney's Magic Underwear

2012-10-16T22:41:00.002-04:00

NEW YORK — Regardless of who one thinks won presidential debate II—and we think it was a draw—it dig reveal two very important things. 1) President Obama secretly supports breast cancer research and women's health (see right) and 2) Gov. Willard Mitt Romney's "magic underwear" is sometimes visible beneath the cuffs of his shirts (see below). Silly? Maybe.
But, definitely revealing.

For the record, we despise the use of religion in politics and strongly believe that Mormons the vast majority of Mormons are outstanding, charitable, and caring community leaders. Our issue is with Mr. Romney, whom we believe to be a lying, job-killing, money-exporting, consistently misleading bloviator. Thus, when he ends his debate performance with several unabashed lies:

I care about 100 percent of the American people. I want 100 percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future. I care about our kids. I understand what it takes to make a bright and prosperous future for America again. I spent my life in the private sector, not in government. I’m a guy who wants to help with the experience I have, the American people.

Then proceeds to conclude with an emphatic statement of his faith, we believe that his use of faith is as fair game as his consistently misleading words:

My — my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God. And I believe we’re all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I — I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I’ve sat across the table from people who were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times.

Indeed, we believe that Gov. Romney is devout in his religious beliefs. If anyone doubts this faith, they only need to look at the pictures below, which clearly illustrate his adherence to his faith's doctrines regarding undergarments.

However, Gov. Romney has avoided the specifics of his faith for the two decades of his political career. His religion is important to him. And, we applaud his faith. The issue is that he dances around it in front of more conservative audiences, because all too many evangelicals despise the Mormon church, often deriding it as a "cult." Thus, we believe it was actually quite brave of him to wear his sacred garments in such a visible way in the debates.

At the same time, his campaign has, through surrogates—and Romney's silence—consistently mocked President Obama's "otherness." Whether it be through an incessant, unprecedented questioning of the President's birth certificate or the constant allusions to his father's Muslim faith, Willard "Mitt" Romney has all too often stood silent, as surrogates, superpacs, and the right wing media machine spin deceitful attacks on the President's "true faith," "origin," or "allegiance to the United States." Thus, this "gotcha" is, in our eyes, fair game, especially when his very recent attempts to ground his campaign in "faith" are most likely the function of a seriously cynical strategic decision to leverage "faith" as a way to quietly cast aspersions on the President's ethnic heritage.

Indeed, the GOP and the Romney campaign, through their proxies across the right-wing media-juggernaut have consistently sought to question President Obama's faith, his Christianity, and the origin of his birth. For his part, Gov. Romney has stood mute, time and again, as the GOP media elite's sought to plant large seeds of doubt in the minds of impressionable voters about whether or not the President is Muslim, and thus, in their eyes "foreign" and "un-American." Indeed, Gov. Romney's speeches to his partisans have consistently tried to paint the President's policies, values, and goals as "foreign." This, of course is simply and extension of the "Southern Strategy" crafted by Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign to leverage the racism, or at least fear of that which is "other" to extricate white working class voters from an uneasy Democratic coalition in rural and southern states.

With some success, this strategy continues to work in many battleground districts across Middle America, particularly in areas where the economy continues to stagnate or even decline. Here, the Romney campaign and its superpac surrogates, sow doubts about the President's economic, social, and foreign policy agendas by incessantly questioning the American-ness of his psyche by casting odd allusions to the "legitimacy" of his birth certificate, while building an imaginary spiritual bridge to Kenya, and thus, "Islam," while their less direct surrogates suggest in blog after blog that President Obama's true agenda is to "place America under Sharia law."

Unfortunately, if Gov. Romney continues to refuse to refute the brash and untrue tidings set forth by his surrogates, his party, and his supporters, it is completely fair to point out that he is indeed a man wholly devoted to his own, very distinctive "faith." For the curious observer, please look closely beneath the cuff on the left of the photos below.

The Bain of Our Existence

2012-08-24T12:57:00.000-04:00

New York — With the release of the "Bain Files," Gawker proves to be on the verge of becoming a legitimate news source. With major pick-ups by major news organizations across the globe, we hope that Gawker pursues more of this kind of content, while limiting the nude photos of dead gun men. That said, "The Bain Files" demonstrate that the true goal of today's investment firms is not to build and support "business-building" in the traditional sense, but to help hyper-wealthy clients to profit from the misery of others.

Through short-sales, default swaps, and overly leveraged buyouts, firms such as Bain bet against American business and innovation, while minimizing (to the extreme) the tax liability of the firm's partners.

One wonders how much these schemes have contributed to the national debt and our annual state, federal, and local budget deficits, as the wealthiest among us seek to pay lower rates than their landscapers, cooks, and maids.

A TRASHY, EXPENSIVE IDEA: Bloomberg's East Harlem Marine Transfer Station is DOUBLE the Cost of Current System

2012-06-02T02:08:00.002-04:00

NEW YORK—Such a boondoggle! At the request of Councilmember Jessica Lappin, THE CITY OF NEW YORK INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE prepared a scathing, nonpartisan indictment of Mayor Bloomerg and Council Speaker (and likely mayoral candidate) Christine Quinn's ridiculous plan to achieve "environmental justice" by aggregating all of Manhattan's residential trash and processing and containerizing it on a so-called "marine transfer station" to be located just two hundred yards from East Harlem/Yorkville's public housing projects and immediately adjacent to a public park used annually by more than 1 million New Yorkers.

Council Member Jessica S. Lappin
Council of the City of New York
250 Broadway
Room 1762
New York, NY 10007

Dear Council Member Lappin:
At your request, the Independent Budget Office has prepared an estimate of the cost of constructing and operating the East 91st Marine Transfer Station (MTS) compared to continuation of the interim plan of exporting waste to transfer stations in New Jersey under short-term contracts. Based on IBO’s analysis, the present value of the twenty-year cost of exporting under interim contracts to transfer stations in New Jersey is $218.9 million, compared with $554.3 million for export at the East 91st MTS. We estimate that the cost per ton in the first year the new facility could be operating is $90 for the interim plan and $238 for the East 91st MTS....

PLAIN AND SIMPLE, Bloomberg and Quinn's plan represents an INCREASE of 153% increase in the total cost of trash export or an extra $335.4 million, which could have gone to homeless programs, low-income housing, or education over the next 20 years. This is NOT environmental justice, this is government WASTE.

An Unfair Way to Handle Trash

2012-05-30T16:09:00.000-04:00

NEW YORK — For some strange reason, the Mayor of New York, The NYC Sanitation Department, and The New York Times believes that putting a massive two-acre, 10-story, 24-hour trash transfer station adjacent to four public parks, several low-income housing projects, a major (primarily low-income) public hospital, several primarily low-income public schools, numerous churches and synagogues, a major Islamic center, and the most densely populated section of all New York City constitutes some bizarre form of "environmental justice."

We are not sure what happened since June of last year, when The Times took into account the objections the residents of the Stanley M. Isaacs Houses, whose public housing sits adjacent to the proposed trash transfer station:

Lorraine Johnson says she remembers the garbage trucks that lined up near her housing project on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, to unload trash at a marine sanitation station on the East River. They made noise, spewed diesel fumes, attracted rats and smelled bad — “like dead bodies,” she said.

“I have nightmares just thinking that there’s a possibility that they might come back,” said Ms. Johnson, 66, a disabled resident of the Stanley M. Isaacs Houses, at 94th Street and First Avenue.

The proximity of public housing figures prominently in a battle by Upper East Side residents to derail a city plan to reactivate a waste transfer station on the East River at 91st Street. In lawsuits, rallies and lobbying in the State Legislature, they argue that economically disadvantaged residents, already struggling, should not be saddled with additional problems.

“How can you ignore the fact that the closest community is 80 percent minority?” said Anthony Ard, president of the Gracie Point Community Council, a neighborhood group that was founded to fight the plan.

While The Times article also brought the environmental justice arguments of those outside Manhattan into the discussion, they previously gave voice to the residents most affected by the proposal.

Indeed, we staunchly disagree with the rationale behind this project. The 91st Street Marine Transfer Station will not improve "environmental justice" within New York City. Instead, this floating garbage dump will:

Dramatically increase air pollution and asthma risk throughout one of New York's worst neighborhoods for air quality
Increase traffic and safety risks to children, bicyclists, and other pedestrians as garbage trucks to drive through and idle in one of New York City's most densely populated residential areas 24-hours-a-day and up to 7-days-a-week
Reduce the quality of life for many working class, elderly, and disabled New Yorkers through its close proximity to numerous public housing projects, subsidized apartments, and special needs care facilities
Decrease the accessibility and desirability of numerous parks, public schools, and houses of worship located within several blocks of the proposed facility
Violate FAA guidelines by placing trash facility just three miles from one of America's busiest airports
Increase the risk of interference with take-offs and landings a LGA, by stimulating population growth among the area's scavenger bird population, according to “Miracle on the Hudson” pilot Chesley Sullenberger,

We call to task The New York Times, the mayor's office, City Council Speaker (an likely mayoral candidate) Christine Quinn for the blatantly political framing the of location of the proposed two-acre, ten-story 91st Street Marine Transfer Station as the "Upper East Side," when in reality the neighborhood, identified by New York City's own maps as "Yorkville," and the proposed facility is actually adjacent and will dramatically affect East Harlem.

Yes to environmental justice, but all Manhattan neighborhoods are not created equal
Yes, environmental justice is critically important to societal fairness. However, in looking at the problem at the borough/macro level, Mayor Bloomberg, heir apparent Christine Quinn, and The New York Times are missing the impact on the micro/neighborhood level.

Yorkville, with the highest population density in New York (as illustrated on the map above left) sits between one of the nation's wealthiest neighborhoods and one of the city's poorest. With the proposed trash facility located across from Yorkville's massive public housing projects, and straddling the border of East Harlem and New York's largest concentration of public housing (as illustrated by the bubbles in the map on the left), the 91st Street Marine Transfer station hardly fits the greater ideal behind "environmental justice."

Other alternatives?
If the mayor, Speaker Quinn, and The New York Times really want to achieve environmental justice by placing a trash transfer station in Manhattan, they ought to consider building it as far from public low-income housing as humanly possible.

Why not the West Side?
Perhaps they should consider placing the Marine Transfer Station along the Hudson at Donald Trump's "Trump Place" development, bringing the barges closer to likely destinations in New Jersey and the station closer to the wealth required to inject environmental justice into the discussion.

BYE-BYE TO GSA MOB BOSS JEFF NEELY!? Taxpayers to Front 100k Annual Comp!!!

2012-05-25T15:43:00.001-04:00

"Prophetic, ain't it?" GSA's Jeff Neely in Hawaii. Photo: Deb Neely/Picasa

WASHINGTON — It took about six months, and it looks like taxpayers will be footing the bill for his $100,000 a year pension, but the GSA's Pacific Rim "Mob Boss" Jeff Neely is FINALLY GONE! The Complainer wonders why it took so long. AND, WHY wasn't this creep fired for cause?!!! “The guy set up a fiefdom....Not since Jack Abramoff has someone walked with such swagger,” stated Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN) during the second House hearing on the GSA debacle. The Washington Post further notes: "Neely had planned for the 2010 employee conference to be 'over the top,' according to the inspector general’s report. The event included a magician and a $75,000 bicycle-building exercise, and questionable contracting practices. For instance, a GSA event planner had used a hotel locator service without allowing for competitive bidding on the contract."

We wonder why the Bush-appointee lasted so long in the first place. According to the WashPo:

Employees at the Pacific Rim region office described Neely as confident but arrogant and often abrasive in his management approach. One employee told GSA investigators that Neely “squashed like a bug” a regional director who questioned his spending on conferences and travel, GSA Inspector General Brian Miller told lawmakers during the congressional hearings.

With revelations like these, we wonder why Congress, and the Post, haven't dug any deeper. Indeed, we were surprised our discovery of Deb Neely's then-publicly available Picasa albums didn't lead to further investigation by the Post or any other major news sources. That said, the Post reports that "Immediately after the scandal broke, GSA Acting Administrator Daniel Tangherlini canceled 35 scheduled conferences, and the fallout has extended throughout the government.... The Obama administration has placed new restrictions on all federal travel and meetings." Perhaps, future Deb Neely's will be more more careful about where they post their vacation photos.

Mitt Romney, Cranbrook, and Besmirching Our Good Name

2012-05-12T00:51:00.001-04:00

Bloomfield Hills, MI — Cranbrook School is a very special place. Its motto, "Aim high" beckons students to seek a life beyond the ordinary. Cranbrook asks of its students a higher standard for achievement, a higher standard in life. Cranbrook's song speaks of common "service," "unity," "loyalty," and a "generous hand." It is in this spirit, Willard "Mitt" Romney betrayed the honor, trust, and opportunity offered to him as a son of Cranbrook. It is in this spirit, his horrifying assault on John Lauber in 1965, as detailed in The Washington Post; his mocking, homophobic, sexist taunts in class; and his dreadfully insensitive treatment of a blind English teacher, call into question the depth of his character—and his broader understanding of our alma mater below:

Cranbrook Song
O God of Light and Universal Truth!
Thou patient Guide and Friend of Joyous Youth
Before Thee now we humbly stand and pray
To guard our steps and rule our lives always.

Grant us to do our daily task with zeal,
May all our work a common service seal,
From base design, from selfish aim set free
Mould Thou our lives, O Lord, in loyalty.

Give strength to tread the rugged path of Right,
To falter not, but wage a noble fight,
To know a friend, to live the words "Aim High,"
To play the man, and fearlessly to die.

Cranbrook! Whose sculptured stone and iron shaft
Bespeaks the skillful hand of every craft,
One perfect Unity shall ever stand
To bless the purpose of a generous hand.

Cranbrook! Thy name a glowing symbol live!
To future sons an inspiration give.
Tho’ eyes grow dim, tho' strength be past, yet we
Till life is done shall ever cherish Thee. Amen.

"Aim High!" Cranbrook's alma mater exalts. For Miles Levin, the 2007 graduate whose heart-rending commencement address preceded his untimely demise from a rare form of muscle cancer, this higher calling is self-evident. Urging his class "to make the most of their lot in life, and do what they can to help others along the way," Levin embodies the spirit of all that Cranbrook was and is intended to be:

"Being an operative for the greater good is rarely fun or easy, but it is gratifying....Where we draw the line is both personal and circumstantial, but I beg you give your life some reflection....We cannot be blamed for the things we cannot control, but that does not excuse us for not taking control of the things we can."

Mitt Romney may have become a good and decent father and husband. He may have sought service to country over the lifelong pursuit of ever greater wealth. But, the episodes of abuse detailed in The Washington Post––and other media outlets––and his reaction to the horrifying revelations of assault, homophobia, and the gravest insensitivity, call into question his capacity for caring, his empathy, and the true depth of his character.

Writing for Time, Joel Klein well details a much better response than Romney's forgetful non-denial:

He could have said, “You know, I’ve been troubled by the Cranbrook episode for most of my life, and I feel relieved, in a way, that it’s come out now. I did a really stupid and terrible thing. Teenage boys sometimes do such things and deserve to be punished for them. What I most regret is that I never apologized to John and won’t be able to now that he’s gone, but let me apologize to his family and friends. Bullying is unacceptable under any circumstances. It is especially unacceptable when prejudice — against one’s race, ethnicity or sexual orientation — is involved. If elected President, I will try to atone for my teenage behavior by campaigning against bullying all across this country. What I did back then should be an example of how not to behave. I hope we can all learn from this. I know I have.”

No stranger to reporting questions of political scandal and personal character, Mr. Klein's free advice to Mr. Romney is spot-on. Presidential candidates are held to a higher standard. They cannot so easily sweep childish indiscretions under the proverbial rug. They cannot shirk off so quickly their responsibilities to demonstrate a higher standard. Mr. Romney ought to reflect ever so deeply upon young Mr. Levin's seemingly prophetic admonition: "I beg you give your life some reflection....We cannot be blamed for the things we cannot control, but that does not excuse us for not taking control of the things we can."

Our alma mater calls out, Mr. Romney:

To know a friend, to live the words "Aim High,"

"Play the man," we beg of Mr. Romney. And we further ask that he consider, that he heed the 2007 commencement words ABC's Bob Woodruff, whose good works and heroic recovery from his the critical injuries he sustained during his coverage of the Iraq War in 2006 place him high among the best of Cranbrook's alumni:

"All those years ago, I wondered what is that aim high statue on campus....It's not about the hardness of the arrow or the strength of the bow. It's the place and the target you decide to shoot at.... It is in your ultimate impact and victory. So, aim high my friends."

"Aim high!" This is the essence of a Cranbrook education.

Many of us may have wasted the Cranbrook experience. We might not have fully appreciated the dedication of the faculty, staff, and our fellow students. But, few among us assaulted others. And, it is doubtful we can find more than a handful fellow alumni who were not touched powerfully by our experience of Cranbrook and not challenged by its motto to "Aim high."

Mr. Romney's youthful indiscretions may have taunted, may have haunted, other students for life. But, Mr. Romney also besmirched the good name of Cranbrook.

Mr. Romney not only owes apologies to the late Mr. Lauber and his family, he also owes reflection and amends to the others he hurt as a student and to Cranbrook—and its alumni. He ought "Aim high" and take the lead in efforts to end bullying, as suggested by Mr. Klein of Time.

The world is watching.

We Thought These Guys Were Supposed to be 'Secret': 2nd Gen Secret Service Agent David Chaney Publicly Leers on Facebook

2012-04-20T05:20:00.001-04:00

Secret Service Agent David Chaney "Protects" Gov. Palin

WASHINGTON — The plot thickens. With the release of second generation Secret Service agent (and supervisor to the Colombian prostitute scandalizers) David Chaney's leering Facebook musings about Gov. Palin, we wonder who hired these people? Who manages these people? And, what happened to the sense of honor, of gravitas, that is supposed to be part of our nation's elite protective service?

At The Complainer, we find this behavior absolutely SICKENING. That a second generation SUPERVISOR in one of America's most prestigious branches of public service would post ANYTHING about his work on a Facebook page is a serious breach of public trust, if not national security. Worse, if the agent in question actually allowed himself to be distracted from his duty by fantasizing about Gov. Palin, we wonder if he might have potentially ignored a major threat to her safety. Indeed, we wonder how what percentage of our nation's Secret Service agents have allowed such breaches of public trust and secrecy in the past.

These are delicate, challenging times. The safety of our president, our vice president, and those who are in a position to be elected to these offices, is NEVER to be taken lightly. When senior agents are allowed to behave with such complete disregard for their absolutely grave and important duties, we wonder if this is part of a larger culture of debauchery and disrespect at the Secret Service. We hope that the President, Congress, and the Department of Justice will launch an exhaustive investigation to root out the causes for this unseemly behavior and reorganize the service in such a way that similar incidents will NEVER occur in the future.

GSA MOB BOSS JEFF NEELY: A Fetish for Hot Tubs and Wife Publicly Posting His Grinning Mug! To Deborah Neely Goes Our Very First Imelda Marcos Award

2012-04-18T09:44:00.002-04:00

Samoa, Maui, Las Vegas — Deborah Neely, the wife of GSA mob boss Jeff Neely really doesn't get it. Public officials are NOT supposed to spend a ton of time snorkeling or in hot tubs on the public's dime(s).

Unfortunately, Mrs. Neely has a seemingly sociopathic penchant for photography--posting over 200 pictures of Mr. Neely's frighteningly smirking mug in 30 publicly available PICASA album(s).... Yeeps!! While The Complainer hopes that the feds download the contents for the National Archives, we are wondering what in the world the GSA's very own Imelda Marcos thought her husband was supposed to be doing for a living. Moreover, we are wondering if Mr. Neely's unseemly use of public funds is part of an overarching culture of corruption at the GSA, which seemed to crescendo with the resignation of Lurita Doan, the former government contractor appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006. Ms. Doan, now a conservative pundit, went to great lengths to slash funding for the GSA's oversight staff, while providing sweetheart deals for cronies. Eventually forced to resign ostensibly for violations of the Hatch Act, Ms. Doan is known for her attempts to use the GSA as a political cudgel during the 2007/2008 election cycle for briefing staff with a PowerPoint presentation entitled "How can we help our candidates?"

Politico reports that internal spending soared dramatically during the Bush era, but we're wondering just how badly twisted the culture had become, when the wife of a regional director could so boldly brag through photography how much she and her husband were benefiting from the public's dime(s). The public deserves better. Period.

The Complainer wonders how much the public spent on this trip to Samoa with Mrs. Neely in April 2008?!!!

Prophetic.... Samoa, April 2008...

All photos courtesy of Deborah Neely's Picasa Albums.... Congrats on receiving our very First Imelda Marcos Award. If you can get us first class tickets to Paris and a 3-bedroom suite at the Georges V, we'll present it to you in person!

JUST GROSS: GSA Mob Boss Jeff Neely Living Large on Our Dime(s)

2012-04-18T09:11:00.003-04:00

Las Vegas — What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, NOT! Glitterazzi posted pictures of the GSA's Pacific Region mob boss Jeffrey Neely living it up on the public's dime. Champagne in the hot tub. NOT PRETTY. The Complainer wants to know how this guy got his job and who and why made him BOSS!

Gannett and L.A. Times Go for BROKE! Will It Mean 'Bust'?

2012-02-25T05:35:00.001-05:00

NEW YORK—Amidst a major, industry-wide slump in print and online advertising revenues, the Los Angeles Times and Gannett, the publisher of USA Today and 80 daily newspapers ranging from The Detroit Free Press to The Des Moines Register, plan to begin gating their content for non-print subscribers, with the exception of USA Today, behind paywalls. While the Los Angeles Times and the entire Gannett system are clearly hurting for revenues, they are delusional if they really think that they can price access to their content in the same manner as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. At The Complainer, we view this as the final death blow to America's local newspapers—and, for lower income Americans, a dramatic reduction in access to non-broadcast local and regional news.

The United States of America was founded on "freedom of the press." But, for most of our 236 years, the "press" hasn't been "free." Since the days of Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine, arguably the first titans of American media, our need for news has come with a price tag (or two). And, in the days prior to the Internet, the news of the day came through several main sources: the local newspaper, national and regional trade publications and journals, national and regional magazines, and later, radio, and television. Print media were sold at newsstands (or on the street) or delivered via US Mail by paid subscription, and further subsidized by advertising. The advent of radio and television disrupted the model by offering "free" news and information to listeners and viewers, whose access to current affairs was paid-for through constant exposure to advertising.

The advent of the Internet crushed the existing models for news dissemination, providing free news and information, with less overall advertising distraction than the broadcast media. For readers, especially those who reside outside of major, global cities, the results have been profound. Free content has driven readers online, forcing cutbacks, bankruptcies, mergers, and ultimately, closures at countless local newspapers. From hundreds of local papers to The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and even The New York Times, the growth of online news has caused layoffs, early retirements, and countless permanent job losses.

To grow revenue, and attempt to retain the strength of their print subscriber base, The New York Times established a softer version of a paywall, offering non-subscribers free direct access to 20 articles per month—and up to 25 articles per day, if accessed through a search engine (such a gift to Google). Print subscribers receive total access to The Times, including archival searches reaching as far back as 1851. For Times, the experiment has proven relatively successful. Revenues have increased, print subscriptions have stabilized. But, like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, their paywall has proven successful because they have affluent, global, subscriber bases, whose need for good, proprietary news and analysis often provides benefits beyond personal enjoyment. And, most important, The Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times, are global opinion leaders and shapers; they, to a large extent, set the tone for news across multiple categories ranging from politics to international relations, to business, and even the arts.

We are willing to go out on a limb when we predict that overall traffic will fall significantly when Gannett—and the LA Times—introduce paywalls. Instead of charging readers (for what many believe is less-than-exceptional content), they should have looked at ways to improve advertising revenue by increasing traffic and engaging more out-of-region readers in their online communities.

The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal might be able to get away with digital subscriptions because they have become a truly global newspapers/news-sources of record, with strong, proprietary content driving traffic for global readerships. Few of Gannett’s papers (or, the LA Times) can come close to matching anything close to that level of content—or community. Expect to see growth for the NY Times and the WSJ.

We’ll be shorting Gannett.

What is He Huffing? Tom Friedman Calls for Third Party Presidential Bid

2012-02-19T01:48:00.000-05:00

NEW YORK — In last week's Sunday Review section of the New York Times, Thomas "The Flathead" Friedman called for the Republican Party to regain some sanity, regroup, and provide a serious alternative to the Democrats. Mr. Friedman unfortunately ignored the fact that the GOP's highly successful interpretation of Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" of splintering America's middle and working class voters with social, religious, and racial wedge issues ranging opposition to abortion, feminism, affirmative action, immigration, "welfare," environmentalism, gay rights, gun rights, and states' rights has effectively won countless local, state, and federal elections.

The readers of the New York Times basically called him insane, with hundreds of comments detailing how out of touch Mr. Friedman is with the the American political process. His reaction? "ALL IN." And, thus, Mr. Friedman has now declared that our long-term federal deficit can only be addressed by having a third party candidate step in, deficit hawk, Trilateralist, and Republican/Independent former US Comptroller, David M. Walker, and debate President Obama and the eventual GOP nominee (be it Gov. Willard "Mitt" Romney, Sen. Rick Santorum, or a brokered nominee to be named later) in order to shift the debate from our present day need for economic growth to a longer range discussion of revamping Social Security, Medicare, and the various programs that comprise our ever-fraying social safety net in tandem with a discussion of tax simplification and simultaneous tax increases.

What on Earth are you huffing, Mr. Friedman?

Inquiring minds want to know. Seriously.

Mr. Friedman, do you sincerely believe that third party candidates EVER effectively move the discussion toward their direction? Let us review. Did Ralph Nader effectively move Al Gore or John Kerry to the left? No.He did, however, help to elect George W. Bush in 2000. Did Ross Perot move George H. W. Bush toward radical deficit control in 1992? No, but he did hurt Bush enough to possibly help to elect Bill Clinton (who made deficit reduction a priority, in large part, because it was one of the few things that he and the Republican-dominated Congress could agree on). Finally, did John Anderson force the Republican Party to the center in 1980? No, but he possibly helped to elect Ronald Reagan by hurting President Carter with moderate Democrats.

Perhaps the ONLY recent instance of a third party candidate successfully changing the positioning of a major party would be George Wallace, whose campaign in 1968 successfully broke moved a large portion of conservative Southern Democrats into the welcome arms of Richard Nixon—and the Republican Party. And, there they have remained for nearly half-a-century.

Mr. Friedman, you are playing with fire here. First, deficit reduction, while important, is not going to fix an economy vying for life in our "ever-flattening world." And, radical deficit reduction would have been possible if the Republicans were simply willing to do things like raise revenues in exchange for spending cuts. Second, a third party candidate (unless it is someone like Donald Trump or Sarah Palin) is more likely to draw more from President Obama's fragile path to electoral victory than from the GOP nominee. Is a President Santorum what you really want?

Consider this safer, more considered path, Mr. Friedman

Perhaps, Mr. Friedman, you might throw your support behind Mr. Walker's potential run for Sen. Joe Lieberman's Senate seat. A Connecticut GOP primary might be an interesting sounding board for Mr. Walker's ideas. Wait. One problem. He's a Republican who abhors the deficit enough to raise taxes. Here's a better idea. Have Mr. Walker run for the same seat as a Democrat. Connecticut does have a long history of electing fiscally conservative Democrats to the Senate. And, until the Senate abolishes the filibuster and the anonymous hold, a deficit hawk such as Walker could really make a difference. Oh, wait. He has one small problem: Mr. Walker made a max-out individual contribution to Republican presidential hopeful Willard "Mitt" Romney in December 2011. Well, Mr. Walker could certainly run for Senate in Connecticut as an independent. They always have a strong history of electing former Democrats who back Republican presidential candidates, who then turn independent.

Alas, Mr. Friedman, you really don't understand the US political system, do you?

Tom Friedman Just Doesn't Understand: We Don't Need a 'Second Party,' We Need Blue State Secession—Or, At Least, Greater Urban Representation

2012-02-14T16:21:00.001-05:00

NEW YORK — Yikes! Tom Friedman once again proves that he just doesn't get it. In his New York Times op-ed, "We Need a Second Party," Mr. Friedman suggests Republican presidential primary voters can't agree on a candidate because they are ideologically "out of date," arguing:

"The [GOP] has let itself become the captive of conflicting ideological bases: anti-abortion advocates, anti-immigration activists, social conservatives worried about the sanctity of marriage, libertarians who want to shrink government, and anti-tax advocates who want to drown government in a bathtub.....[Y]ou can’t address the great challenges America faces today with that incoherent mix of hardened positions."

True. Unfortunately, Mr. Friedman then suggests that what is really necessary is "a third party to break open our political system." Friedman realizes "that’s a long shot." But, then he proposes something altogether absurd:

"What we definitely and urgently need is a second party — a coherent Republican opposition that is offering constructive conservative proposals on the key issues and is ready for strategic compromises to advance its interests and those of the country..... We need a 'Different Kind of Republican' the way Bill Clinton gave us a “Different Kind of Democrat.'"

First, why is "coherent opposition" necessary at all? In what way would a "second party" help the social, technological, economic, and environmental advancement of these United States of America? Doesn't Mr. Friedman understand that, while intrinsic to our republican form of government, learned, rational opposition is not, generally, what creates good public policy? Rather, our most sweeping policy changes are usually the result of overwhelming political realignments, in which the Senate, the House of Representatives, the White House, and the Judiciary are controlled, albeit briefly, by one political party.

Second, we wonder how Mr. Friedman can believe that "A Different Kind of Republican" is even possible—even if this year's GOP nominee is "crushed" in November and "the party is forced into a fundamental rethink?"

Mr. Friedman, Republican primary voters are NOT frustrated because their field of candidates isn't "moderate" and "compromising" enough. If that were the case, Jon Huntsman would have led the pack. No. GOP primary voters are frustrated because they lack a candidate who possesses "the total package"—one who combines the charisma of Mr. Herman Cain, the pro-life fervor of Sen. Rick Santorum, business savvy of Gov. Mitt Romney, the creative intensity of Speaker Gingrich, the energy of Rep. Michelle Bachmann, with the independent spirit of Rep. Ron Paul.

GOP voters want the resurrection of Ronald Reagan—but this time, they prefer he speak with a “country” drawl.

This is the crux of the problem, the GOP has become, with few exceptions, an increasingly Southern/Great Plains/rural party. Have a look at any county-by-county map of election results; and the view is striking. The rural and exurban areas vote Republican and the urban areas vote Democratic. This is no accident. The Republican alliance is simply an extension of the Nixon campaign's 1968 "Southern Strategy," which saw the potential to leverage staunch anticommunism and social/civil rights issues to shear off the socially conservative, primarily southern, wing of the Democratic Party in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As the economy stagnated in the late 1970s, candidates such as Ronald Reagan added taxes to the GOP narrative, while intensifying the their "pro-faith," anticommunist, anti-tax, anti-regulatory, and increasingly anti-government rhetoric in an effort to solidify support in rural America.

America's great divide is not between rich, poor, and middle class; it’s sectional and micro-sectional. And, herein lies the problem. The Red States (and counties) tend to have resource and extraction-based economies, where agriculture, ranching, mining, drilling—and the engineering, processing, and trading of such resources—form the local revenue stream. Conversely, the Blue States (and counties) are generally driven by knowledge production, manufacturing, design, finance, and education.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

Thus, in the rare instances that MAJOR policy is effected in a truly bipartisan manner, regional and sectional alliances most often come into play. Indeed, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was bipartisan but entirely sectional, as northern Democrats and Republicans came together in support of President Johnson's efforts, while Southern Democrats and Republicans almost universally opposed it.

Note to Tom Friedman: Our regional divisions have existed since the founding of our United States of America. The problem is that our "flattening world" is aggravating our rural/urban divide—and our Constitution only amplifies the dilemma by providing the agriculture, resource, and extraction states with an over-representation in both the Senate and the Electoral College. What may be good for the fine citizens of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana, might not necessarily good so for the people of Michigan, New York, California, and Massachusetts. And, yes, while Democrats are elected from Red States and Republicans are elected from Blue States, with rare exceptions, these occurrences are becoming fewer and fewer.

Mr. Friedman, please read some electoral maps, such as the one above. Ironically, when viewing the results of Election 2008 on a county-by-county basis, it appears that John McCain, and not Barack Obama, won in a landslide.

We don't need a "Second Party," Mr. Friedman. We need Blue State Secession—or, at least greater urban representation.

'What Were They Huffing?' Karl Rove and His GOP Shock Troops Must Have Been Inhaling Too Much Exhaust in Dissing Clint's Brilliant Super Bowl Spot

2012-02-07T18:21:00.001-05:00

DETROIT—"Huffing," the inhaling of noxious fumes ranging from glue to paint to nitrous oxide appears to be on the rise with former Brat-Packer Demi Moore apparently hospitalized from an overdose of nitrous. But, The Complainer is wondering if Karl Rove and his GOP shock troops have been inhaling a bit of NOS themselves in attempting to portray life-long Republican Clint Eastwood's brilliant Super Bowl ad for Chrysler as "Democrat" propaganda.

In his Monday morning quarterbacking for Fox News, Rove made a HUGE tactical error (and gave his opponents a real boost) by igniting a large-scale right-wing furor over an ad that simply celebrates the indomitable, can-do side of the American spirit.

Clearly, Rove was off his game, as he turned what might have been a nonchalant water cooler conversation into viral, internet sensation, providing Chrysler (and, in his eyes, President Obama) with millions in free advertising, which, in turn:

Drew attention to the fact that, three years ago, Willard "Mitt" Romney—and many other Republicans—would "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," in one of America's darker hours
Gave the Democrats—and the Obama campaign—an opportunity to let a conservative icon make the Democrats' case that "Together, we saved not only Detroit, but also America from an economic apocalypse"
Framed the GOP as the "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism," at a time when America really is clamoring for a way out of its economic (and societal) doldrums
Stirred the Republican chattering classes (both the professionals and the folks who post to the comments sections of high profile articles and blogs) into a virulently renewed (and extraordinarily misinformed) anti-auto bailout frenzy at a time when such comments as "Let Detroit DIE!!!" will most assuredly frame the GOP "brand" as "heartless" and "out-of-touch" in the exact states which will (most likely) decide not only the presidential election, but also control of both houses of Congress: Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, and Pennsylvania
Created a powerful, positive, association between Clint Eastwood, a conservative icon for almost five decades, and President Barack Obama—even though Eastwood was against the bailout and had no intention of being perceived as an Obama supporter

To Karl Rove, Richard Selby, and the rest of our friends on the radical right: WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU HUFFING? Seriously.

BUSH APPROVED THE BAILOUTS, KARL!

According to your former boss, President George W. Bush: "The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars."

Indeed, President Bush remarked at the National Association of Automobile Dealers convention: "Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy... and that I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment..... I didn't want my successor to be saddled with an additional economic crisis."

Kudos to you, President Bush! It's nice to know that unlike Mitt Romney and Karl Rove, you didn't want America to suffer through Great Depression II, with many more millions out of work, thousands of small businesses eviscerated, and soup-lines extending from Tennessee to Wisconsin.

Karl? Is that what you really wanted? Karl, are you angry that The Big Three are profitable and hiring, and Chrysler paid back its loans ahead of schedule? Seriously? Did you actually want the economy to become even worse because, as Senator Mitch McConnell declared, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.?" Is power more important than good governance?

NOTE TO KARL ROVE AND THE GOP: Save for 9-11, the Iraq War, the financial crisis, a ballooning deficit, and a few pesky little problems with No Child Left Behind, and a few scandals (including the leaking of an active CIA officer's name), President Bush enjoyed some pretty good years in office. Again, KARL. What on earth are you HUFFING? Is it the NOS from a modified 2012 Dodge Challenger? If President Bush had a hand in saving Chrysler and General Motors from oblivion, it would have been smarter to take credit for the win.

NOTE TO TEAM OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS: Don't gloat. When the Fox News correspondent badgers you at the next press conference, just say: "It's a beautiful Chrysler ad. The President has always been a fan of Mr. Eastwood's. It perfect captures the spirit of America—and we agree: 'This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines. Yeah, it’s halftime America. And, our second half is about to begin.'"

PERSONAL NOTE TO ROVE: Retire, already.

Think Different? Think, Again.... Apple Lost Its Soul

2012-01-26T16:19:00.000-05:00

NEW YORK — Kudos to The New York Times for finally having the GUTS to take on the horrors of outsourcing so much of our manufacturing base to The People's Republic of China, where workers' rights, health, safety, and environmental regulations are virtually nonexistent—and child labor lives on.

As long-time Apple users, we are SICKENED that a company long associated with innovation, creativity, and the progressive sociopolitical "aura" (of its users) is, underneath its sleek exterior, behaving like a venal corporate zombie, no less environmentally and socially destructive as Koch Industries, ExxonMobile, BP, and other well-known corporate denizens.

If, as Mitt Romney says, "Corporations are people, my friend," Then, shame on you, Apple. Shame on YOU, as people.

Apple users deserve better. Apple's strong reputation for innovation, style, quality, and execution is peerless, providing Apple with one of the most intensely loyal customer bases in the world. Indeed, Apple's customers have demonstrated for decades a deep-seated willingness to pay for a big premium for innovation, ease-of-use, and quality. Thus, with typically the most expensive offerings in each product category, Apple's profit consistently ranks among the world's highest in ANY business sector.

There is simply NO REASON that Apple cannot "Think Different" and transform itself into an exemplar of social, environmental, and geopolitical responsibility.

Without passing on additional costs to its consumers, Apple should either bring its production back to the United States, where the new jobs would only add to its corporate, government, education, and individual consumer base; or, it can begin to apply strict US environmental standards and work rules to its operations overseas—or, it can do both.

Otherwise, if Apple continues to allow its subcontractors to expose those who build iPods, iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, and iMacs to brutal, abusive, unsafe working conditions, it risks losing a hard-fought reputation as the digital platform of choice for the world's growing "creative class."

It's not too late. But, Apple needs to become aggressively proactive in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its workers—globally. To survive, Apple must become the global leader, the exemplar of good corporate citizenry, from Cupertino to Shenzhen. For Apple, it's time to "Think different." It's time to make Apple's manufacturing process as inspiring as its products. And, it's time to bring more of it's manufacturing work back home. It's time to stop gutting America's manufacturing base, and its families, in exchange for child labor, environmental degradation, and abusive workplaces.

With revenue rising to a record $13.03 BILLION in net profits on $46.33 BILLION in revenue for the final quarter of 2011—and a valuation of $426 billion—Apple can certainly afford to behave responsibly.

The luster came off The Complainer’s MacBook Pro this week. And, with every keystroke, we can’t help but wonder, “Who paid for this wonderful piece of technology with blood, with environmental degradation, with their life?”As of now, we at The Complainer are boycotting ALL Apple products until they agree to substantially improve their labor, environmental, and trade practices.

Wake up, Tom! The American Dream is Gone (Except for the Truly Exceptional)

2012-01-25T11:55:00.002-05:00

NEW YORK — Tom Friedman is at it again. In "Average is Over," Tom basically argues that, unless you can do something REALLY SPECIAL, your chances of partaking in the American Dream are just about nil.

In the past, workers with average skills, doing an average job, could earn an average lifestyle. But, today, average is officially over. Being average just won’t earn you what it used to. It can’t when so many more employers have so much more access to so much more above average cheap foreign labor, cheap robotics, cheap software, cheap automation and cheap genius. Therefore, everyone needs to find their extra — their unique value contribution that makes them stand out in whatever is their field of employment. Average is over.

Agreed. And this is even more frightening:

Yes, new technology has been eating jobs forever, and always will. As they say, if horses could have voted, there never would have been cars. But there’s been an acceleration. ....“In the 10 years ending in 2009, [U.S.] factories shed workers so fast that they erased almost all the gains of the previous 70 years; roughly one out of every three manufacturing jobs — about 6 million in total — disappeared.”

And you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Last April, Annie Lowrey of Slate wrote about a start-up called “E la Carte” that is out to shrink the need for waiters and waitresses: The company “has produced a kind of souped-up iPad that lets you order and pay right at your table. The brainchild of a bunch of M.I.T. engineers, the nifty invention, known as the Presto, might be found at a restaurant near you soon. ... You select what you want to eat and add items to a cart. Depending on the restaurant’s preferences, the console could show you nutritional information, ingredients lists and photographs. You can make special requests, like ‘dressing on the side’ or ‘quintuple bacon.’ When you’re done, the order zings over to the kitchen, and the Presto tells you how long it will take for your items to come out. ... Bored with your companions? Play games on the machine. When you’re through with your meal, you pay on the console, splitting the bill item by item if you wish and paying however you want. And you can have your receipt e-mailed to you. ... Each console goes for $100 per month. If a restaurant serves meals eight hours a day, seven days a week, it works out to 42 cents per hour per table — making the Presto cheaper than even the very cheapest waiter.”

No kidding, Tom. YIKES!! But, none of this is anything new. Tom has been saying that "average is over" for quite a while. The problem is that half the population has a "below-average" IQ. What can they possibly do to become "above average?" Smile a little harder (through whatever untreated physical or emotional pain they are experiencing) as they clean a .01-percenter's toilet? Or, sing a little tune as they change an elderly 1-percenter's sleeping diapers? Or, work 3 minimum wage jobs just to pay for their spouse's dental work? Wait, are we sure we want them to smile? it might reveal their rotted teeth (from a lifetime without good nutrition or dental care)... COME ON, TOM. Not everyone is an artisan, an "Iron Chef," or a Mother Teresa.

REAL PEOPLE ARE HURTING. We've shredded their safety net, while simultaneously vaporizing the jobs that "average people" used to do.

Moreover, of the other half of the population who are "above-average," only about 5% have seen any increase in income growth over the past couple of decades. Why? Well, being above-average isn't enough in our increasingly winner-take-all society. It's not. With RARE exceptions, our society is only working out for those who are lucky enough to be born physically and emotionally healthy to married, healthy, telegenic, college-educated parents (preferably with advanced degrees), who earn more than $300,000 (enough for the children to afford a vibrant, safe neighborhood, and elite pre-K through grad/med/law school educations—including tutoring, gifted programs, music, art, and dance lessons, and athletic coaching); and access to a strong social network of business, finance, and educational connections. Wake-up, Tom. For all but a few, The American Dream is just that—a dream. Our survival, as a nation, is going to require something more than nostrums to "The 95%" on how they need to be exceptionally exceptional at something "The 1%" wants and needs.

Our society is going to need either a safety net for the 95% of the population whose lives and livelihoods are becoming more tenuous by the moment—or, we are going slide deeper into the Third World abyss of hyper-stratification, in which 95% of the population lives in impoverished servitude, enslaved to an inter-generational ownership class of landed-gentry and the like.

Tom, it's time to be creative. We need to start thinking about how our society can leverage its wealth to the benefit of the larger society and not just the real "lucky duckies" born with the ergonomic, hypoallergenic, certified organic spoons in their mouths. We need to think about ways to use our productivity to create more time for family, education, and faith.

Perhaps, Tom, you ought to wax poetic on the 30-hour workweek; or, extended family leave (with pay); or, LOWERING the retirement age to allow more workers into the wage pool; or, INCREASING social security benefits for the many, by eliminated it for those who don't need them, and thus, encouraging older workers to retire EARLIER. What about a sliding scale for college tuition, with the .00001-percenters like Mitt Romney paying $1 million for Harvard tuition, so that a middle class family can pay $1000?

Quit whining, Tom. Become part of the solution. Yes, we need to provide more job training; increased access to outstanding pre-K through grad/med/law school educations—including the aforementioned gifted programs, music, art, and dance lessons, and athletics. But, the 95% also needs better access to good, consistent nutrition, low/no-cost medical and dental care; affordable, safe housing; reliable, efficient transportation; and healthier family environments, in which the stress of economic survival doesn't inhibit child development.

It's easy to read to your kids, if you're a Romney. It's a lot tougher when you're working three jobs to pay the mortgage on an overpriced home that you bought in order keep your kids in a "good" school district—or, paying off the student loans you took out to finance your third career (nursing), because the first two were outsourced out of existence.

BTW, Tom, your current work, is just about "average." If you were truly "above average," you would think a whole lot bigger. Wake up and smell the Fair Trade coffee, Mr. Friedman—most of us can't afford it, especially those of us who didn't marry into multibillion-dollar fortunes.

****

Noto bene: If you want more of our running critique of Mr. Friedman, please see: "Wake up, Tom. Your Head is Flat...."

Born Rich: Mitt Romney and The Real 'Entitlement to Opportunity Society'

2011-12-26T13:18:00.000-05:00

NEW YORK — Writing so eloquently on Christmas Day, Thomas B. Edsall, of Columbia University and the The New York Times, elegantly eviscerates the overblown, right-wing, "anti-entitlement" rhetoric of Mitt Romney's December 19 USA Today op-ed. Edsall argues: "Mitt Romney wants to stigmatize most “safety net” spending – the array of social insurance programs from Medicare to food stamps to unemployment compensation to free school lunches — as a form of welfare that is 'cultivating government dependence.'"
Romney's USA TODAY screed is no different than most of the Republican rhetoric promoted over last five decades---as especially well-documented in Edsall's "Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics" (Norton, 1992).
But, what makes Romney's thinly veiled racism and classism so horribly galling is that he is the scion of "opportunity" he did not create. The product of great fortune, a private education (financed not by his own hard work or student loans, but by his father); telegenic good looks; and the social and political connections of his family, Romney has no frame of reference for what it is like to struggle to gain "opportunity" in our society. If every child in America was born with a multimillion-dollar trust fund, perhaps we could discuss "how" they either make the most of their "opportunity" or fall back on the "entitlement" of their trust funds.

          Indeed, at every turn in life, Romney benefited from being "well-born." He, and his ilk, are really the ones who live in the "entitlement" society. From extraordinary prenatal care to early childhood education; to extra tutoring for academics and additional coaching for athletics, dance, and the arts; to legacy admissions at the most elite universities; to access to the best extracurricular activities, internships and employment opportunities; to the best medical care, "The Entitlement to Opportunity Class," has advantages few of us could ever even imagine. Indeed, for the rest of us, the only "entitlement" is to struggle, truly struggle, to garner "opportunity" from the moment we are born to the last of our breaths.
          Shame on Romney for playing the same old Republican game of demonizing the less-fortunate to leverage the fears and frustrations of the same white middle class whose jobs they continue to eliminate through outsourcing, off-shoring, technology, and greed, while he and his fellows enjoy the full advantages of "entitlement" and the good fortune their "opportunities" bring.
          Indeed, Mitt Romney has NEVER been a net "job creator." Nor, has he been an opportunity builder (for anyone other than his fellow scions of great wealth).
          If Romney wants to be taken seriously, he needs to come clean on who he really is, and stop hiding the sources of his growing wealth. He needs to reveal that depth and breadth of opportunity extended to him not because of what he has accomplished, but because of the "opportunities" he has been given. Only then, should he feel free to criticize an American safety net created in reaction to a depression caused, in large part, by generations of greed; and fraying by the moment, due to the ignorance and insensitivity of his ilk. The "Mitt" Romneys of this world are "opportunity destroyers," benefiting from the economic, social, and educational advantages proffered to them at birth. Some, make the most of them, others do not. But, few of us ever experienced anything close to the "opportunities" enjoyed in being born to the Romney family, the Walton family, the Koch family, or the Lauder family.

'Time to Write-Off The Charitable-Giving Deduction?' NO WAY! It's The Only Thing That Ensures The 0.1-Percent Does SOMETHING for the Public Good!

2011-12-18T20:44:00.001-05:00

Ronald Lauder, photographed for the New York Times, November 27, 2001

NEW YORK — In this time of increasingly onerous budget cuts, the idea, proposed by Jack Shakely in the Los Angeles Times, eliminate the federal income tax deduction for charities (including schools, colleges, hospitals, medical research, and the arts) borders on the sinister. While most taxpayers “give” regardless of deductibility, many larger donors would be tempted to either reduce their giving, or eliminate it entirely, without the added benefit of tax deductibility.

Indeed, some of our greatest philanthropists leverage “giving” as a way to significantly reduce their tax burden. For billionaires-by-birth such as Ronald Lauder, this form of "tax avoidance" may be one of the few ways direct large sums of inherited wealth to "the public good," as little of their wealth is eversubject to taxation. Indeed, many of the largest gifts to education, the arts, and scientific research are often the result of sophisticated tax planning.

Are we, as a nation, willing to sacrifice more than $1 trillion in annual giving—$10 trillion over the next decade—to save just $250 billion in federal tax revenue? Even if just 10% of such giving is dependent upon the current form of deduction, the amount we risk is four times what we would save.
If you really want to eliminate the deficit, raise taxes on the 1 percent—especially their capital gains.

STARVING FOR DEMOCRACY: Occupy DC's Hunger Strike for Congressional Representation

2011-12-17T01:08:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON — As winter slowly makes its way into the northern hemisphere, members of the Occupy DC are engaged in a hunger strike to achieve congressional representation for the 600,000-plus residents of our nation's capital.
It is SICK that DC residents pay federal taxes and submit to federal laws and suffer the inconvenience of the security required of our government offices. THE COMPLAINER offers our full support to OCCUPY DC Hunger Strikers and their very simple, very American demands:

DC now has 600,000 taxed, yet voiceless, citizens. Not a Senator to hear them at the Hart Building, no voting representative in the House to stand for their concerns.

Based on the founding principles of our democratic nation, we the signees demand that Washington, D.C. have the long-overdue freedoms of:

Full budget autonomy. Congress is overburdened and often stalemated by its responsibilities to the rest of the country. Yet, the D.C. Government cannot spend its own tax dollars without the approval of Congress. A bill proposed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) would free DC’s local budget from Congressional control. We urge Congress to pass this bill free of any “riders” restricting how DC spends its own money. Letting D.C. take control of its own budget would free time for Congress to attend to national issues, while giving D.C. the local democracy that is a given to every other American.

Full legislative autonomy. Eliminate the requirement for congressional review of new District laws. This red tape subverts democracy and adds bureaucratic inefficiency to the processes of both Congress and D.C. government. We urge Congress to pass the District of Columbia Legislative Autonomy Act of 2011, H.R. 506.

Full representation and voting rights in Congress. The people of D.C. do not have a vote in the House or in the Senate. This deprives more than 600,000 Americans of an empowered voice in our national legislature. This unjust situation has allowed members of Congress who were not elected by the people of the District of Columbia to impose policies upon the citizens of D.C. that are not supported by the people. We urge Congress to pass H.R. 266, the District of Columbia Equal Representation Act of 2011.

Politicians have attached riders related to abortion funding and gun ownership to past bills that would expand real democracy for D.C. residents. These riders ultimately divert the dialogue from democratic representation and further disenfranchise Washingtonians. We demand that any such riders attached to the legislation above be presented not as mandates, but as referendum proposals up for vote by the citizens of Washington, D.C.

Our prayers and hopes are with you, Occupy DC.
There is no reason that Wyoming, with 50,000 less residential population should have 3 electoral votes, a congressperson, two senators, and political sovereignty over their own affairs. This is democracy in action. Let us pray that Congress takes the requested action before any of the hunger strikers do serious damage to their bodies.

Facebook Gets Sentimental: Do I Really Want My Frat Seeing The Baby Pics My Mother Posted to Embarrass Me on Mother's Day?

2011-12-16T11:30:00.003-05:00

NEW YORK — Facebook positioned itself as a "social utility." However, they don't seem to understand how people truly interact in RL (real-life).

Who among us really wants our high school, college, or grad school friends, our business associates (or potential clients or employers), our significant others—or, most importantly, potential significant others—to have an excruciatingly detailed portrait of our distant past?

America has always been about reinvention—the high school dork who becomes an internet billionaire; the sharecropper's grandson who becomes a Supreme Court Justice; the polio victim who becomes a renowned plastic surgeon; the child of welfare who becomes a Wall Street titan. Some of us wear our pasts as a badge of honor. Yet, for many others, the past is something we prefer not to expose—the abuse victim, who seeks to escape completely from their past; the thirty, forty, or fifty-something whose life didn't quite pan out.

In real life, many of us try to live in a meticulously cultivated present, one that forgets the bad jobs, bad relationships, bad experiences of our past. Many more wish to present a rosier portrait of our present than our credit report might suggest.

Sometimes, our status updates are trivial: "Go Blue!" These are moments of escape. Sometimes, our status updates are something we believe to be important: "STOP CONGRESS FROM DEFUNDING MEDICAID." We want to post them where people can see them, not below some massive photo.

One has to wonder why Facebook keeps morphing itself into something different? Are they afraid of becoming the globe's White Pages? Or, is something more sinister at work? Are they trying to develop more comprehensive profiles on each of their soon-to-be billion users? SERIOUSLY, is the "big picture" that haunts the new "Timeline" profile pages some kind of psychological TESTING DEVICE trying to divine our proclivity to riot—or, buy some new kicks? Or, perhaps the reason they want our social underwear to show simply a way to get the millions of casual users to sign back on and prune all of their old beer pong photos (which had been buried in some ex-frat buddy's spring break album since 2006) from a prominent place in their new "Timeline."

Of course, one thing we can say about Facebook: they won't listen to the 5 million people clamoring to "bring back the old Facebook." They will stick to their guns and won't make any changes to their change—until, a few years from now, they decide to change it to something even weirder. Of course, we ought recall, at one point in time, America Online WAS the Internet for millions of users; and Yahoo was the number one search engine; people actually "asked Jeeves," Friendster was the most important social network, and.... Facebook was just for Ivy Leaguers. Someone, somewhere, is working on a better, more functional, more utilitarian, social network. But, we doubt that it will be coming from Facebook.

Mitt Romney: a Portrait of Frugality and How the Rich Aren't Necessarily Job Creators

2011-12-11T13:41:00.001-05:00

NEW YORK — In what seems like a coup for Mitt Romney's publicity team, The New York Times argues that, despite his fortune, Mitt Romney is really a very frugal, old-school conservative. The Times surmises that Mitt's personal prudence was passed down by his father, George—a former presidential candidate, Michigan governor, and American Motors president—whose own father was bankrupted during the Great Depression.

It's a terrific piece, framing Romney's fortune-building at Bain Capital as a function of his drive to win, rather than a desire to accumulate massive wealth. Detailing myriad ways in which Romney's personal thrift conflicts with his wife's interest in collecting multimillion-dollar homes and thoroughbred horses, the piece provides a perfect counterpoint to the notoriously profligate spending habits of GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich.

WEALTHY DOES NOT ALWAYS EQUAL ‘JOB CREATORS’

Here at The Complainer, we see a deeper story, however, one which refutes the GOP's notions that the 1-percenters, particularly the .1-percenters are all "job creators." At nearly every turn in the Times' tome, the Romney's are shown as people who rather do the work themselves instead of spending the money to hire others; people whose very admirable devotion to instilling a solid work ethic in their own family, may have cost others, many others, jobs which might have supported countless working class families.

We can't begrudge the Romney's for trying to live within their means, but they certainly could have hired a moving company, rather than personally renting a U-haul to transport their effects from one multimillion-dollar vacation home to another. Nor can we chide Mr. Romney for commuting to his job at Bain Capital in a "Chevrolet Caprice station wagon with red vinyl seats and a banged-up front end," when he easily could have afforded a new car—and a driver. And, its tough to criticize Mitt's father, George, for refusing to buy him a car in high school, even though he was chairman of American Motors; but buying him one might have helped American Motors save at least some part of someone's employment. Finally, it would be wrong of us to berate Mitt for holding down a high school job as security guard at an automobile plant, or for doing countless household maintenance tasks ranging from raking leaves to shoveling snow; however, the Romney's certainly could have afforded a garden service and a family man might have liked those extra hours at the Chrysler plant.

No. Instilling a work ethic in one's family is perfectly good parenting, even for the supremely prosperous.

BUT, we can chide the GOP for arguing that the wealthy are all "job creators." From Mr. Romney's "creative destruction" of jobs during his tenure at Bain Capital to his job high school employment, to his current penchant for frugality, Mitt Romney has taken jobs away from the less fortunate and proved our case that the wealthiest American's don't necessarily create more jobs than they eliminate.

WAKE UP, TOM! Your head is flat and it's giving us a headache!

2011-12-11T00:14:00.001-05:00

NEW YORK — Tom Friedman is REALLY starting to annoy us. Yes, "the world is flat." And, yes, unless you are in the top one or two-percent, your options are starting to look pretty slim in America. BUT, his perpetual drone that anything that can be done by 1) semi-slave labor in a developing country; 2) educated, but lower-cost labor in Asia or India; or, 3) by robots, computers, and/or other advanced technology, anywhere else in the world—will NOT be done by middle class people in America might be true. BUT, darn.
His "solution" to the WIF narrative is REALLY grating. And, frankly we're tired of hearing that folks either need to educate themselves into the top five-percent (and still risk replacement by nanobots); OR, become "artisans" (not sure how that really works when such work is the easiest to outsource to low-cost nations or immigrants—and not likely to come with health care or a pension); OR, rush into such growing occupations as home health care worker (not even a middle-fifty occupation and it's doubtful anyone but the top one-percent will be able to afford such care in the future). COME ON, TOM!
Well, writing as the "Angry American," we took him to task, commenting on his latest New York Times screed, thus:

PLEASE. Tom, Simpson-Bowles won't create the millions of jobs America needs any more than some third-party candidate (who will just hand the election to the Republicans). Frankly, a lot of us are getting really tired of hearing your nonsense about how "The world is flat. But, don't worry, we'll still need people who can put a smile on grandma's face while they change her diapers!" Balderdash.

MANUFACTURING IS NOT DEAD. We still have bridges to be built, roads to be paved, high-speed rail to lay. AND, there is no reason we can't reclaim global leadership in precision manufacturing (from Germany) and alternative energy (from China) and electronics and robotics (from Japan) and computers (from China).

To create jobs, we need to get the "job creators" out of the social safety net businesses of health care and pensions by building the same kinds of social infrastructures that modern, non-bankrupt nations such as Germany have. We need to ensure that public education includes the arts and athletics as well as world-class instruction in math, science, technology, the humanities, and social sciences by forcing the 1% to ante up—as, they have benefited most from an educated, creative workforce.

Finally, we need to elect leaders who believe in SCIENCE, including evolution (the foundation of biology, biochemistry, and medicine) and CLIMATE CHANGE (so that we can defend ourselves from the social, economic and military upheaval in store for our world in the very near future.

Take that, Tom. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Third party candidates won't save us—although, Blue State secession is looking more attractive by the moment.....

'WHAT WERE THEY SMOKING?' Chik-fil-A Wins Our Very First Bad Business Award

2011-12-05T19:29:00.001-05:00

NEW YORK – Trademark infringement is a serious issue. But, when a corporate behemoth tries to promote a fairly generic idea as central to their brand, they need to be VERY careful in how they protect their inner brilliance. In this case, the folks at Chick-fil-A® have somehow gotten it into their itty-bitty bird brains that Bo Muller-Moore, a Vermont folk artist, is a bigger threat to their brand than KFC, Boston Market®, Popeye's®, Church's, or El Pollo Loco all because of a hand-screened t-shirt emblazoned with the decidedly Vermont, "Eat More Kale," could somehow be confused with their trademark slogan, "EAT MOR CHIKIN."
Apparently, Chick-fil-A believes that they, and they alone, own the phrase "Eat more"––even though they spell it "EAT MOR"––and that any use of "Eat More" is a trademark infringement worthy of a "cease and desist" letter.
We at The Complainer can understand the notion of vigorously protecting the creative and semi-funny "cow-speak" version, "EAT MOR," but this contortion of America's copyright laws is definitely wacky enough to merit our very first "What were they smoking? Award."
Seriously. What are they smoking down in Atlanta? Could it be might be the carcinogens produced by cooking meat over an open flame? Maybe. No. We're thinking they're inhaling something other than the fumes spewing from grills, as this kind of cognitive impairment really defies basic business logic. We have to ask: 1) What do they really gain from taking legal action against a freakishly small t-shirt vendor whose wares have nothing to do with their core product, "CHIKIN?" 2) Did they take into account that, in the age of the Internet, such an action might attract a lot more negative attention than even their campaign against same-sex marriage? Or, 3) could this vigorous trademark enforcement obscure some of their more zealous business practices?
Don't get us wrong, they make a fine "chikin" sandwich. But, in tough times, winning converts is more important than bullying t-shirt vendors whose art bears no resemblance to either the clever brand or the good product your selling. Come on, guys. See the big picture.

Yes, Fareed... America's Great! But, Where's the JOBS???!!!

2011-11-24T20:20:00.001-05:00

NEW YORK — Once again, Fareed Zakaria launches into his "post-industrial society is super-duper awesome" meme. This time, writing in the Washington Post, Zakaria induces some real post-turkey indigestion:

This might seem a tough time to celebrate Thanksgiving. The national mood is pessimistic. The economy continues to limp along. The failure of the supercommittee has come to symbolize the breakdown of not just governance but democratic politics. [Is this a subtle jab at the Democrats? Or, the failure of "small-d democracy?" Fareed, America is not a pure "democracy." We are a "republic," one in which the political power of our heavily populated, highly advanced urban areas is extremely limited by the over-representation rural areas/states in the Senate, and to a certain extent, the House of Representatives. Conservatives/Republicans tend to represent rural areas where agriculture, retirement, and/or resource extraction and refinement rule the local economy, while the Democrats generally represent highly urbanized areas where manufacturing, technology, finance, and information drive the economy. Thus, the economic and social priorities of our respective representatives can diverge wildly. James Madison called it way back in 1787 when he declared his concerns about the competing "interests" noted above. Wake up, Fareed. We have some major structural flaws, which de-industrialization and income stratification are starting to expose more clearly.]...

Yet there are reasons to be cheerful about the United States this week.

The United States continues to have the most dynamic economy in the developed world. We are enamored of Germany for having maintained its manufacturing base through timely reforms. [AND, they did whatever it took to KEEP their manufacturing base in Germany, rather than exporting all of their growth overseas]. That’s good, and we could learn a lot from other countries. But let’s note that Germany’s great companies are products of the second industrial revolution — from the early 20th century — clustering around cars, chemicals and machine tools. Germany has one notable company in the information economy, SAP. The post-industrial, information economy is dominated by the United States. The industries of the future, from biotechnology to nanotechnology, are dominated by the United States. The best research centers, universities and companies remain American. [BUT, the middle class JOBS remain in manufacturing, be it chemicals, cars, robots, or circuit boards.]

We also have the most dynamic society in the developed world. While Japan has entered and Italy and Germany are approaching a demographic death spiral, the United States remains young, vibrant and active. [Uh, what about China, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan? Or, are only "Western" countries "Developed?" And, if Germany is in a "death spiral," why is it sooooooo rich?]

YES, Fareed. We have the creative, post-industrial economy. BUT, "heavy" industry also creates jobs for people who are NOT physicists, electrical engineers, biomedical engineers, nanotechnologists, and molecular biologists. To live up to our fullest potential, we need both economies—the industrial and the post-industrial.

Fareed, we love how you point out that Germany has only one major company involved in "the information economy." Yes, America has thousands. But, Twitter and Apple and Microsoft and Facebook don't employ nearly as many people as Siemans, Daimler-Benz, Volkswagen, BMW, and Bosch. Think about it, Fareed.

Frankly, we are tired of you and your new economy/free-trader friends trying to tell us how great outsourcing our industry to low-cost countries such as China and India is for America. It's only great for the top 1%. For everyone else, it's meant lower wages and benefits. AND, Fareed, you forget, when the plants close, the tax base shrinks, causing personal income and property taxes to rise, while funding for schools, public safety and infrastructure decreases. AND, even in biotech, profitable companies such as Pfizer and Zimmer recently cut thousands of jobs and plowed their extra profits into stock buy backs, rather than investing in new capacity or research.

Okay, now it's time for some good 'ol American hot apple pie....

Occupy Thanksgiving: Sending the Message by Giving Thanks

2011-11-24T06:23:00.001-05:00

WASHINGTON — Consensus might be a critical component to the Occupy movement, but The Washington Post reports the difficulty an interfaith group had in inviting Occupy DC to a culturally/philosophically attuned Thanksgiving dinner. It seems the McPherson Square Occupy group is so deeply devoted to the democratic process, getting a RSVP takes a lot more effort than a simple "temperature check."

Detailing the multi-day process of getting confirmation from the Occupiers that they will attend the vegan/vegetarian/Kosher/Halal/traditional feast might leave the "middle-fifty" wondering whether the movement is.... well... a bit "too..." This is where the Occupy movement(s) might need to be very careful in running too far a "fowl" of American cultural norms.

Thanksgiving may represent indulgence for some American families, but for many others, it is truly a time to "give thanks" for family, friends, health, and sustenance and a time to reflect, with tremendous gratitude, that they/we are able to provide for our families—and to pray or reflect on ways in which we can help those whose challenges may be more difficult.

Indeed, for half of our population, those struggling on the margins of financial stability, the act of celebrating Thanksgiving in the traditional way is more expensive and much more difficult than at any time in generations.

Here, Occupy DC has an opportunity to express their gratitude, while pointing out how many American soldiers are requiring food stamps and the donations of food, just to survive; how many American children are going to bed hungry; and, how much food prices have risen due to the subsidies and price supports paid to corporate farms and the 1% by ALL American taxpayers. Occupy needs to learn "never to miss a photo op," especially if it's a tearjerking reminder that most Americans cannot afford to live the Norman Rockwell portrait any more.

When Occupy is defined by primarily by "consensus fingers" and pepper spray, and not the important message that inequality is the malignancy at the core of our financial troubles, it will fail.

Humbug! BLACK THURSDAY: Targets Tanks Turkey Day to Get a Jump on Profits!

2011-11-23T09:48:00.001-05:00

NEW YORK — On a day when more and more Americans have less and less to be thankful for, Target has decided to get a jump on Christmas profits by starting Black Friday on THURSDAY! According to the Washington Post, workers are furious. Perhaps shoppers ought show some solidarity and BOYCOTT Target....