dagblog - politics, business, arts, sports, satire, etc.

Is the Occupy Movement Over?

Donal — Sun, 20 May 2012 21:59:38 -0400

by Donal

Based on an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (right), the Guardian announces, Occupy Wall Street's people power loses popularity:

... the public's backing of Occupy has taken a hit. Nationally, most pollsters have not even bothered to survey Americans on their views of Occupy since the end of the Zuccotti Park sit-in. The only pollster who has reasonably consistently asked about Occupy has seen a decline in its support. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that the percentage of Americans who consider themselves a "supporter" of the Occupy movement has dropped by half since November.

I read this last week, and wondered, who of course, could be more impartial about Occupy Wall Street than the WSJ's pollsters? And who, I wonder are they asking?

On a blog post pointed out today by Andrew Sullivan's Dish, Walter Russell Mead makes a lot of strange claims in OWS RIP:

Despite generally favorable coverage from the MSM (something the Tea Party has never had), OWS has essentially fallen apart.

Mead must have been reading very different articles than I saw - on both sides. The Baltimore Sun fell over themselves to channel Breitbart and other conservative memes about OB, and as I noted at the time, local TV was drawn to the most unusual-looking characters rather than those with the most cogent ideas. Since being dispersed by the city, Occupy Baltimore has not attempted to reestablish a campground, but they aren't inactive. Under the name Occupy Our Homes they continue to protest foreclosures, there have been Occupy Bank of America protests and there was a small Occupy the G8 Summit protest in Thurmont, near Camp David, this weekend. Occupy protestors were "arriving by the busload," for the NATO Summit in Chicago. And there are thousands marching under the name in Europe.

To some degree, it was killed by its “friends.” The tiny left wing groups that exist in the country jumped all over the movement; between them and the deranged and occasionally dangerous homeless people and other rootless wanderers drawn to the movement’s increasingly disorderly campsites, OWS looked and sounded less and less like anything the 99 percent want anything to do with.

From my limited perspective, Occupy Baltimore was an uneasy alliance between groups with little in common previously. Some of the homeless seemed to enjoy being noticed and being part of something, but others simply saw the campers as fodder, right there in the next tent. African American speakers harped on resolving racial disparities first. LGBT art students also wanted to be heard. College students and underemployed graduates were upset at their high debts and the piss poor job market, and brought a middle class look to the movement. LarouchePAC showed up as per usual, as did Libertarians. Old hippie leftists also seemed to enjoy being noticed but there seemed to be very serious, young anarchist apparatchiks actually making things happen.

At the same time, the movement largely failed to connect with the African American and Hispanic churchgoers who would have to be the base for any serious grass roots urban political mobilization. The trade unions picked up the movement briefly but dropped it like a hot brick as they found the brand less and less attractive.

In Baltimore, I can't speak to black church sentiment, but support from the trade unions, even the Fraternal Order of Police, kept OB in McKeldin Square a lot longer than predicted by onlookers.

One of Mead's commenters makes somewhat more sense to me:

If OWS had started as an indebted students movement, like Argentina, if they hadn’t camped out and become odd urban obstructions, and if a charismatic leader had surfaced, giving the media something to focus on, I suspect things would have turned out differently.

They may have been treated better, but I doubt they would have achieved such a high profile, or accomplished much more.

The MSM, with the exception of MSNBC’s gung-ho grad student excitement, was uneasy and ambivalent about OWS. NYT’s first articles, at least the ones I read, were dismissive, frequently focusing on Wall Street condescension and never attempted to grasp the situation. The Daily Show went for easy laughs – each segment highlighted OWS’s freak show contradictions.

But the true death of OWS, other than inertia: the violent images that came out of Oakland, teargas and surging crowds, bloody faces. I suspect that TV audiences recoiled, dreading the social the chaos of the 60′s.

Of course, behind the scenes funding, which the Tea Party received and OWS didn’t, is also a big part of the story. Dick Army and the Koch Bros knew how to effectively channel Tea Party energy.

Though it is unclear who was behind it, the Black Bloc image has been a problem, granting authorities cover to strategically charge Occupy protestors with terrorism in advance of significant actions.

Deutsch later told reporters outside the courtroom that, though he was just getting into the case and didn't know all the evidence, he believed it was a setup. At least two informants "ingratiated themselves" with the three men, brought the materials and made the alleged plans, he insisted, calling it "an entrapment to the highest degree."

I think the name Occupy will continue to have some power, but protestors and the police alike will never again be able to count on the other to be non-violent - which of course serves the interests of those that don't want protest to have any real effect. I do wonder what shape and name the next protest movement will take.

When Corporations Renounce Citizenship...

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 19 May 2012 06:51:15 -0400

by PeraclesPlease

If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, who brings it a pillow?

Eduardo Saverin seems to have upset some in Congress, who have put down their bribes and chit sheets long enough to grasp patriotism by both lapels, screaming:

"someone's trying to avoid taxes!!!"

Of course even the President says his goal is to lower taxes, so you'd think this would be a shared national priority, kinda like watching "Dancing With the Stars".

I thought loopholes were written to be used - how else would accountants support themselves?

Though our good Congresspeople have decided they'll charge suspected tax exiles at twice the going rate. (Note that tax exiles would have to pay tax on US-earned income anyway, but we can put an arbitrary price on thinking they're having fun).

So how about all those corporations dodging taxes by leaving money overseas? GE for one is excellent at avoiding most taxes, but there are lots of aspirants. And every few years Congress obligingly hands out an amnesty to bring those tax dollars down at bargain basement rates - but don't try this as an individual. Corporations may be people too, but they're the people who drive Lamborghinis, not Ford Escorts.

And Apple keeps an office in Reno, not just to watch him die, but to avoid taxes in California by funneling as much business throw low-cost Nevada, even though I've never seen an Apple press release come out "Cupertino, Nevada".

Our good outraged Congresspeople note Saverin got good value out of his citizenship. Though he could have gone to Stanford as a foreigner, and he was already wealthy, so his investment in Facebook would have been just that - an overseas investment. (Saverin didn't really build the business - that was Zuck & the others - he just provided equipment)

Saverin wasn't even a citizen for his first 6-7 years in the US.

But there's a conceit we have - that everyone in the world is just dying to get to America, and couldn't possibly want to live somewhere else except to dodge their fair share.

Except I've known several people who tore up their green cards just because home was less boring than the US.

In any case, if Saverin had just incorporated himself and moved offshore as a tax dodge, no one would have noticed.

And with the rise of pain-in-the-ass reporting procedures like FBAR and FATCA, that will be a good move indeed. Because those laws would make it difficult for Saverin to invest in anything but a US bank while living in Singapore. Why? we've made reporting so draconian, other countries don't want to deal with us. Way to go guys.

Have more than $10k *COMBINED* in banks - which is kinda what you need to live anywhere abroad - you have to report. And your banks have to report. And if you invest, the investee has to report. It all gets grand.

But we talk about trimming back reporting requirements on business - it lowers productivity, you know.

Fuck it. We should all just incorporate ourselves and be done with it. Otherwise we won't have any rights.

Torture is not Missing from TV

Donal — Fri, 18 May 2012 14:54:20 -0400

by Donal

Finale Spoiler! My wife insisted that I had to watch the ABC primetime show Missing, in which former spy Becca Winstone (Ashley Judd), married to supposedly dead spy, Paul Winstone (Sean Bean), is always searching for their kidnapped son Michael (Nick Eversman). She was sometimes hindered and sometimes assisted by Dax Miller (Cliff Curtis) at the CIA and Giancarlo Rossi (Adriano Giannini) at Interpol. There were lots of evil-looking Eastern European types wielding black semiautos, friendly but cutthroat double agent Martin Newman (Keith Carradine) and cute but deadly double agent Violet Heath (Laura Donnelly). And of course Paul was not really dead, or the walrus.

As in most series with a lot of shooting, people hardly ever run out of bullets, and major characters usually manage to avoid getting shot. Like Emma Peel, or April Dancer, or Ziva David, Becca and Violet were the sorts of slender women that could, and did, regularly beat the crap out of much larger men, often two or three at a time. Maybe that's why my wife liked it. Hmmm. I'm sure Judd would have liked to beat the crap out of critics who called her face too puffy for a female lead.

It wasn't a bad series, but ABC canceled it last week. And given the plot of the finale, I'm not that sorry. Becca kept flashing back to an assignment in the Chechen warzone, 1997, when she and Paul delivered a man to torturers. Within ten minutes she decided that torture was not what she signed up for, and convinced Paul to help her rescue the man. Which was a piece of cake.

But in real time, it comes down to only attractive but evil Violet (right) knowing where Michael is being held, and she ain't talking, so torture is back on the table. Becca explicitly explains the breaking of fingers, pulling of teeth and electrocution that is about to happen, but Violet assumes she is bluffing. Becca cracks a pinky with pliers, and before you can say melted butter, Violet gives her exactly the information she needs. Becca tells Paul, “I found our son.” And it all works out because it is TV.

Once again, torture is being sold on television as an unpleasant but necessary tactic in a world of criminals and terrorists that kidnap, kill, blow things up, but never lie to their torturer. Sometimes they hold out, but they always spill just in time.

The reality that torture is actually a means of making people confess to real or imagined crimes is what is actually Missing.

Top-10: Mitt Romney Vs. TV & Movie Rich People

William K. Wolfrum — Fri, 18 May 2012 09:33:56 -0400

by William K. Wolfrum

According to percentages, most Americans will not only not be rich, but will in fact go through their lives without even knowing anyone really rich. This explains why Mitt Romney can be a perplexing individual for average Americans to understand. You’d be thrilled if you found $250. He’s worth $250 million. There’s just no way to relate.

Luckily for Americans, we have all been exposed to literally hundreds of millionaires and billionaires via television and movies. While this may seem an odd way to learn about a candidate for President, the fact remains that most Americans are informed about this planet via fiction.

Thus, here are the Top-10 most intriguing and interesting TV and Movie Rich people, as well as the qualities they share with Willard Mitt Romney?

Bruce Wayne
Batman

A billionaire playboy, Wayne saw his parents get murdered when he was just a child. Inheriting his wealth, Wayne decided to become the world’s greatest crime fighter. Incredibly intelligent and handsome, Wayne has amazing courage. Despite never being able to adequately explain what the deal was with Robin, Wayne manages to have a strong public image and is well-regarded among all social classes. Also, he’s freaking Batman.

Romney Qualities: None. Not even a little bit.

Thurston Howell, III
Gilligan’s Island

Howell was only referenced as “The Millionaire” in the opening of the credits of the show, which was back in the days when “millionaire” was a pretty impressive thing. His elitism was unstoppable, to the point that he and his wife packed a ridiculous amount of clothing for what was supposed to be just a three-hour tour. Even on an island where money meant nothing, Howell lived life as he always had – as a superior being who was at the top of the social class. The rest of the castaways – apparently conditioned to treat the rich as their superiors – treat him as though his being rich in the real world matters. Howell once owned Denver. One of the bigger mysteries of the whole show was what he and his wife were doing on a crappy tour boat surrounded by plebes.

Romney Qualities: While far nicer and more likable than Romney, both share a complete lack of awareness to the world in general. Also, both graduated from Harvard.

Gordon Gekko
Wall Street

“Greed is good,” said Gekko in 1987 and the phrase immediately became the motto for the United States. For some reason, being a super-rich creep who screwed anyone to make more money became the model for true Americans. Because Gekko was super creepy. From dating models to owning ridiculous boats to just being a self-loving douchebag, Gekko was everything a human really wouldn’t want to be. Self-absorbed with a complete lack of empathy, Gekko was a waste of an incredible mind. Forget Ronald Reagan, Gordon Gekko is the father of modern conservatism.

Romney Qualities: Stir in some Mormonism and remove some intelligence and they’re roughly the same person.

Mr. Potter
It’s a Wonderful Life

Easily the most constipated man in the history of entertainment, Potter could only be more evil if he snacked on baby while destroying the dreams of average, hard-working types. Potter has two goals in life – Make all the money in the world and own the Bailey family’s crappy Building & Loan operation. He travels in a wheelchair only because hovercrafts had yet to be invented. He will gladly cheat to gain financial advantages. Just a really big asshole.

Romney Qualities: They may as well be the same person.

Lisbeth Salander
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Worth more than $2.4 billion, Salander had an abusive childhood and bears the mental scars. Like Romney, she is hard to peg, but while Romney is a blank slate, she is a cornucopia of complexity. She is a pierced, tattoo’d, bisexual computer hacking genius that uses her power and resources for good. Don’t cross her. Like a modern-day, hyper-cool chick Batman, she will get her justice.

Romney Qualities: Mitt Romney has a tattoo of Milton Friedman on his ass.

Hannibal Lecter
Silence of the Lambs

Despite spending a good chunk of his adult life in prison, Lecter was obviously a shrewd investor and manipulator of markets. How rich was he? Who knows? But the guy lived large. A one-time psychiatrist, Lecter has a taste for the finer things in life, including human flesh. An incredibly intelligent man, Lecter manages to be charming despite the fact he’s one of the most heinous killers ever put to film. Remember this dirty little secret? In the book version, he and agent Clarice Starling become lovers and live together in Argentina.

Romney Qualities: Romney once ate a census taker’s liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti. I shit you not.

Tony Stark
Ironman

Like many on this list and Romney himself, Stark had to step out of his father’s shadow. Once a carefree billionaire making weapons to destroy America’s enemies real and perceived, Stark found the light, invented an awesome suit, and became one of the world’s great crime fighters. A true genius, Stark is equally adept at charming ladies as he is inventing things that have no business being invented.

Romney Qualities: If Romney had access to the Iron Man suit, this planet would be a charred ember right about now.

Scrooge McDuck
Disney

In keeping with their modern tradition of making everyone annoyingly lovable, Disney has tamed McDuck over the years, making him more of a good all-around person. But the fact is, at the height of his powers, McDuck had more money than anyone on the planet and was a miserly jerk. McDuck once used hired thgugs to destroy an African village in order to reap its rubber. He owned a private zoo that included the world’s last unicorn. He was a ruthless, money-making machine. Also, he was a duck.

Romney Qualities: Mitt Romney is not a duck.

Mom
Futurama

The owner of MomCorp, Mom is the richest person in the future, by far. Weilding un-Godly power, Mom makes it her business to get into everyone`s business in order to profit and to torment her former lover Professor Herbert Farnsworth. Commits almost constant acts of abuse on her adult children, and very possibly straps them to the roof of her car during long trips. Tries to maintain a solid public image despite only caring about herself. Her hair hasn’t moved in centuries.

Romney Qualities: These two share so much in common, it has been speculated that Romney has probably also had a stormy affair with Farnsworth.

Ty Webb
Caddyshack

The son of a wealthy man, Webb leads a free-spirited hedonistic life spent mostly at a country club his father co-founded. A genius golfer who doesn’t bother keeping score, Webb shows an ease around non-club members that belies his wealth. he takes young caddie Danny under his wing, helping the young golf phenom reach new heights. He even takes time to talk with greenskeeper Carl Spackler, even though Spackler is obviously insane and possibly even dangerous. Webb openly detests the rich people that frequent the country club, and is generally disinterested in his own wealth, leaving large uncashed checks laying around his apartment.

Romney Qualities: Ok, these two share nothing in common aside from the fact that reportedly in real life, both Chevy Chase and Mitt Romney are notable dicks.

–WKW

Crossposted at William K. Wolfrum Chronicles

Fair Weather Dems will be the Death of Us Yet

Ramona — Fri, 18 May 2012 08:57:30 -0400

by Ramona

When November 6 rolls around, American voters will have only three meaningful choices in the presidential election: We can vote for Barack Obama, we can vote for Mitt Romney, or we can opt out of voting for a president altogether. There will be other presidential candidates on the ballot but there's not a snowball's chance they'll win. If we choose to vote for anyone other than Obama or Romney, it'll have the same effect as not voting at all. That's the reality--that's the way it is.

We can say we're voting our conscience by voting against the two top contenders, but that's the kind of satisfaction that's filling but fleeting. It's here and then it's gone. One of those two is going to win, and we will have to live with the voters' choice for the next four years.

In a conversation the other day, someone--an admitted Democrat and progressive--said it had to be Romney, simply because Obama needed to learn a hard lesson. He has failed us so completely he doesn't deserve another term. (What wasn't said but could be seen hanging in the air were two words guaranteed to settle any argument of that measure: "So there.")

This person went on to ask, how much worse could it be with Romney as president, anyway? And mightn't it be better for us in 2016 if the Dems aren't rewarded this time for their transgressions? (Reminder: Democrat/progressive speaking.)

While the others involved in the conversation wouldn't necessarily go quite that far, they leaped on the bandwagon careening toward "Screw Obama and the Democrats." Boy, were they mad! They were so mad they completely forgot that screwing the Democrats meant essentially screwing themselves. Pointing that out to them only added to their anger. They were already screwed, and it was all Obama's fault. And it was all the Democrats' fault. And they will be made to pay.

I'll skip the rest of the conversation, except to add that there was some talk of giving up being a Democrat until 2016, when the opportunity to elect real progressives might present itself. (In other words, they'll be Democrats when and if being a Democrat is cool again, but don't expect them to do anything to make that happen.)

To this dedicated, lifetime Democrat (yes, I've talked about this before) that's like saying they'll give up being an American until America comes to its senses. Being a member of a major political party--one with power and clout and the potential ability to make real societal change--is not a part-time, fair weather pastime; it's a privilege and an obligation. It requires commitment and hard work. It requires a studious analysis of past and present performance in order to understand our role in strengthening our platform and choosing our stable of potential leaders.

It requires that we honor the heroes of our party and work to keep the fruits of their hard labor relevant, sustained and not in vain. It requires that we vet our candidates, draw out the very best, and support them to the hilt.

As Democrats we've signed on to stand firm against our enemies--the enemies of the people--and form a coalition that can't be broken. It's the only way we can fight against the privateers and build our country back again. So we work to maintain our party and when our leaders disappoint us or go against what our party stands for (not unheard of, sorry to say), we're required to set them straight. We never let up. We make them act like Democrats.

What we don't do is pick up our toys and go home. And we sure as hell don't work against our elected leaders and help the other guys win.

(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices)

The End of College as We Know It (Not)

Doctor Cleveland — Thu, 17 May 2012 23:53:55 -0400

by Doctor Cleveland

So, I started blogging about Thomas Friedman's rah-rah piece about how Online. Education. Is about! To Change!!! EVERYTHING!1!!! But I've been slowed down by designing an actual online class, and by various things that tend not to slow Tom Friedman down, such as complexity, plausibility, and actual knowledge of the topic. I don't think online education is a glorious revolution in the making, as Friedman does, and I don't think it's a hopeless case either. I can't tell you the simple, clear story that Friedman can, because I know too much to actually believe one.

But let me say this: when op-ed writers talk about college as we know it being totally transformed into something totally unlike universities as we've known them (and a surprising number of op-ed writers are fond of saying things like that), they don't actually mean what they're saying. They don't even want what they say they want. Traditional college education is not going away, and they don't want it to. What they mean is that they want college education to go away for some people.

Whatever changes in American education, the rich and famous universities are going to adapt, survive, and continue doing basically what they've been doing all along: educating hand-picked crops of promising students in a traditional residential setting, a few thousand at a time. People talk about American education being "broken" or about an "education bubble" about to burst, but the places like Harvard and Stanford and MIT are doing fine. By a lot of standards they're doing better than ever. If this is what "broken" looks like, don't wait up nights for it to get fixed.

And it should be noted that it tends to be these very places, like Stanford, Harvard, and MIT, who have recently made high-profile investments in free online education, such as the Massive Open On-Line Courses (MOOCs) that helped get Friedman so worked up about the Great Leap Forward. But you can be sure that Stanford, Harvard, and MIT don't see these big, tuition-free initiatives as any threat to their core enterprise of selective residential education in face-to-face classrooms. You can be sure of that because if they thought these new offerings would kill off their core business, they would not be offering them. (Confidential to Thomas Friedman: Duh.)

Any big changes in American higher education will leave the big institutions pretty much alone. Nobody's going to make Harvard do anything that's not to its own benefit. When excitable pundits talk about abolishing college as we know it, they mean getting rid of the other colleges. You know, the not-so-elite ones. The ones that almost every college student in America actually goes to.

When people talk about radical changes to American education, they mean scrapping the public universities and some of the modestly-endowed private schools, "reforming" them by offering some less expensive alternative that's good enough for little people. You'll hear many of the same pundits saying that "college shouldn't be for everyone," and that they do mean. They don't want to abolish traditional colleges for themselves, or their children. They just want to abolish it for the rest of us.

Blacks, Gays and Obama: Changing Racial Politics In America

Orion — Thu, 17 May 2012 11:37:19 -0400

by Orion

Several years back, minorities became the majority of births in Texas. That trend has gone nationwide as America as a whole has reflected what occurred in Texas:

America hit a demographic milestone last year, with new census figures showing for the first time more than half the children born in the U.S. were minorities.

That percentage just barely eked over the halfway mark, with minorities making up 50.4 percent of U.S. births in the 12-month period ending July 2011. But it marks a steady trend -- minorities represented 37 percent of births in 1990.

As a whole, the nation's minority population continues to rise, following a higher-than-expected Hispanic count in the 2010 census. Minorities increased 1.9 percent to 114.1 million, or 36.6 percent of the total U.S. population, lifted by prior waves of immigration that brought in young families and boosted the number of Hispanic women in their prime childbearing years.

Believe it or not, this big demographic news reflects President Obama's decision to endorse same-sex marriage. Alex Knepper, a freelance writer who I have mentioned in previous articles here, took to his Facebook page and noted "urban callers" who took to the phones and said some horrible stuff about Obama and his affront on traditional marriage. Knepper noted that "urban callers" obviously meant "black" and that gay couples are often fearful of stepping foot in black neighborhoods, which are hostile to their lifestyle choice.

The really interesting thing about all of this is that Alex Knepper may not be just uniquely himself. He may not be that much of a contrarian in this regard. Racial and sectarian politics in the United States is going to better reflect our society - and, for the most part, there isn't really a conflict going on like that seen in Mississippi Burning.

What you have now looks a whole lot different - you have a society in which whites are now increasingly a minority. With that comes the minority politics that Genghis wrote so much about in his politics - it becomes increasingly easy and justifiable to talk about your identity (surely you've noticed alot more white people talking about being "white" since Obama was elected) when your identity seems under attack. You no longer have to justify a history of dominance when you are no longer the one doing the domination. Whites who are increasingly viewing themselves as under threat are sounding just like a declining minority group because they are one.

Knepper falls in to all of this because he is (and I really hope this is fair to him) representing white cosmopolitan culture. His natural contrarianism makes it really easy to point out homophobia in black culture (despite the fact that there are readily quite a few black gays and white homophobes) and probably overemphasize the political power and influence of religious black Americans.

Politically, it may be really difficult for conservatives to win an election as the "white party." It may have a surprising sustainability, however, against a Democratic party that has a black man named Barack Obama at its head. George W. Bush's tactic of increasing the minorities in his cabinet in order to win over enough black and Hispanic voters to win re-election simply isn't going to work again when the Democratic Party looks the way that it currently looks.

I READ THE NEWS TODAY, OH . . . S**T!

bslev — Thu, 17 May 2012 08:18:12 -0400

by bslev

One of the pleasant manifestations of my own encounter with the aging process is that I still look forward to delving into the paper paper that magically appears outside of our apartment door on weekdays. My three older children, all far more literate than their aging Dad, rarely if ever even think of reading a paper made of paper. I have reminded them now and then that there are real working people depending on that paper paper, to which the most cogent response I get has something to do with the color green and something about the environment.

But, as usual, this curmudgeon in wait digresses yet again--my wife claims I am the only one in the world who is 52 and going on 80. This blog is about what I've read this morning, and there is no need for caffeine to get me going today.

First, I was inspired by two op-ed columns in the back of today's New York Times, which is where I tend to begin my perusal. Nicholas Kristof's column, which I generally find to be too preachy, absolutely blew me away. He quotes from essays he received from teenage girls from all around the country about what bullying has done to them, and it just breaks your heart and you feel their pain and I want to find the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil parents of these bullies and learn them a thing or two big-time.

And then to the left of Kristof's piece there is that brave and still-presiding state court judge in New York, the Honorable Gustin L. Reichbach, who describes his ongoing battles with the terminal cancer in his pancreas, and tells us that it is only with a few puffs of reefer that he is able to mitigate the nausea he lives with 24/7 so that he can eat a few mouthfuls of food or get a little sleep. He implores the New York State Legislature--which he lauds and which I tell you is an embarrassment to this great state across party lines--to overcome petty politics and legalize the drug for folks like him. And I feel his pain (hardly but I do get it) and I can only hope and pray that he moves others, those who really matter and can do something.

And then there are two more stories on the front page which prompts this blog. First, it is front-page news that last year, and I believe for the first time ever, less than half of the Americans born were non-Hispanic whites. The demographics of this country are changing and forever and it's all good says this child of an immigrant past. But you can hear the rumblings--indeed it is loud and clear--from the Pat Buchanans of the world (why was he on MSNBC?) and their followers in the sewer that is the ongoing racism of this nation I still manage to love and cherish with all my heart.

Finally, there is yet another piece of tangible proof of what it means to elect a Bush over a Gore or a Romney over an Obama. The Bush Supreme Court's Citizens United case brings us the Super PACs, and with those PACs comes the filth that makes ordinary filthy politics look absolutely pristine. The Times got a hold of a proposal made to some conservative billionaire named Joe Ricketts, who is apparently contemplating an election campaign based on the fact that President Obama went to Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church and got married there. Yes, that issue could come to the fore, because in the eyes of those proposing this strategy, McCain lost because he was too afraid to exploit this man of the cloth. Really? [Full disclosure--I wouldn't vote for Rev. Wright with your pencil but my son once took me to hear him speak at Northwestern University and I wrote a blog about it way back when. And some of you will recall how impressed I was.]

I hope my readers don't lose sight of the significance of the other pieces I write about this morning by focusing on my less than hidden pitch for one more Obama term. I do understand that this is, for the most part, a political website. But each piece stands on its own--each piece is critical. Read them and think and let's chat.

And all this and I'm not even dressed yet (and no I will not tell you what I'm wearing)!

Bruce S. Levine

New York, New York

Debt Ceiling II: Return of the Boehner

Genghis — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:59:26 -0400

by Genghis

Demonstrating the shrewd political acumen for which he has become known, House Speaker John Boehner has come up with a new strategy to galvanize American voters before the election. Seeking to top his electrifying "Pledge to America" campaign from 2010, Boehner promised yesterday a bold new plan that may be the popular Republican campaign in history: Debt Ceiling Standoff, Take Two.

The Speaker is aware that the debt ceiling is a complicated legislative mechanism well beyond the understanding of most real Americans, so he asked me to help make sense of it. I will now take several questions from an imaginary interlocutor in order to help the ignorant electorate understand this exciting campaign.

Q: Didn't Boehner already do this last year?

A: Yes, that's why it's Debt Ceiling Standoff, Take Two. Duh.

Q: But wasn't it wildly unpopular?

A: That's just what the arrogant liberal media wants you to think. But Speaker Boehner knows that Americans can't wait for another debt ceiling standoff. That's why he said, "We shouldn't dread the debt limit. We should welcome it. It's an action-forcing event in a town that has become infamous for inaction."

Q: But isn't a standoff kind of the definition of inaction?

A: See, you're not thinking this through. It will be a calculated act of inaction in order to produce a subsequent act of action.

Q: Just like the last time?

A: Well, last time was different because our obstinate elitist president didn't negotiate in good faith. That's why the Speaker wants to do it again.

Q: But didn't Boehner make a budget-cutting deal with Obama and then pull out?

A: What have you been reading? Talking Points Memo? If you'd listened to the Speaker's speech, you'd understand that it was all Obama's fault: "Last year, in our negotiations with the White House, the president and his team put a number of gimmicks on the table...Maybe in another time, with another Speaker, gimmicks like these would be acceptable."

Q: By another time, did he mean last year? Because I thought that Boehner actually accepted the compromise plan, but then the crazy wingers in the House wouldn't go for it.

A: You certainly are a naive one. The retreat was planned all along, just a little bit of political theater in order to create the conditions for action.

Q: What action?

A: Another debt standoff, of course, which as I already explained, is the key to more action!

Q: I'm so confused.

A: Don't worry, it's complicated. The point is that the Speaker's plan will restore confidence and fix the economy.

Q: But didn't the last debt ceiling standoff kill investor confidence and downgrade our credit?

A: [Sigh] The Speaker explained that bit in his speech too. Who was president when the downgrade happened?

Q: Obama?

A: Now you're getting it. If I may quote our great Speaker: "A president on whose watch the United States lost its gold-plated triple-A rating for the first time in our history."

Q: What about the financial community? Won't they be alarmed?

A: Speaker Boehner is aware that there will be some "wailing and gnashing of teeth" on Wall Street, but he won't abandon his principles just because a few bankers are upset as long as they keep donating to the Republican Party.

Q: Well, I still think it's irresponsible to default on America's debt.

A: It is irresponsible. The Speaker said so in his speech.

Q: Then why would he do it?

A: Because as he put it, "It would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process."

Q: You mean action?

A: You got it.

Q: So...uh...what happens if Romney wins?

A: Don't worry, the Speaker is doing everything in his power to make sure that doesn't happen. President Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.

Q: So I guess that we can look forward to four more years of action?

A: Bingo! I can hardly wait.

Michael Wolraich is the author of Blowing Smoke: Why the Right Keeps Serving Up Whack-Job Fantasies about the Plot to Euthanize Grandma, Outlaw Christmas, and Turn Junior into a Raging Homosexual

You Can Take It With You

destor23 — Wed, 16 May 2012 11:37:23 -0400

by destor23

Eduardo Saverin, something of a villain in the Facebook tale, is about the become a billionaire, assuming the social network's initial public offering, scheduled for this week, is successful. From the $15,000 he invested to help Harvard classmate Mark Zuckerberg pay for servers, Saverin will get an estimated $4 billion payday.

The young investor, born to a wealth Brazilian family but raised in Miami as a U.S. citizen, is taking his fortune to Singapore, where he now resides. Saverin publicly renounced his U.S. citizenship last week. Some suspect he's dodging taxes (he'll pay an exit tax but there are no capital gains taxes in Singapore) but his spokesman says he wants to be free of regulations governing what projects around the world U.S. individuals can invest in.

My column for The Daily today explores whether or not Saverin is "Going Galt," and to what extent our taxes and regulations might actually drive wealthy investors out of the country. It was one of those columns where the conclusion presents itself as you lay our your arguments. We treat rich people very, very well in the U.S.

It's amazing to me how often that fact gets lost in these discussions. Is there really a better place on Earth to be wealthy? Sure, your dollars might stretch farther in various developing countries, but doesn't the rule of law that we have here come in handy? Some of Venezuela's elite, for example, were taken quite by surprise by the ascendency of Huge Chavez. Anyone living in Singapore has to realize that they are, ultimately, not living in a rights-driven democracy. The police can stop anyone, at any time, for example, and administer a drug test. Paris Hilton would not fare well there full time.

Another thing that didn't occur to me until now, which is too bad, is how did the Brazilian investor get U.S. citizenship in the first place? His parents brought him here because they learned that he was a kidnapping target in Brazil. They came here seeking safety. But the U.S. does not let all people seeking safety take up permanent residence. For the average non-American, getting permanent residence and a path towards citizenship takes years and is no sure thing.

But, the U.S. lets rich people move in and their children can apparently get a citizenship to renounce. Which is sad because if you're like most people in Saverin's situation, and your parents have to come to the U.S. illegally but you go to high school and college here and are culturally American, you can still be deported.

It's very difficult to watch Saverin thumb his nose at something so coveted by the less fortunate masses.