Your Tax Dollars At Work: Drug Warriors

Imagine if this was your home these men came to:

That is how quickly lives are lost in the war on drugs. When police invade private homes in search of drugs, anything and everything can go wrong, and even the slightest misunderstanding becomes a matter of life and death. The victim in this case, Todd Blair, brandished a golf club in terror as armed men stormed his home in the night. We'll never know for sure if he realized they were police. But we do know that only a small amount of drugs were found in the raid that took his life.

That drugs and violence often go hand in hand isn't a mystery to many among us – the bloodshed gripping Mexico is old news by now – but this is a very different kind of drug war violence than the infamous turf wars of the cartels. This is a rare glimpse into the unbelievable level of force our own public servants unleash routinely in order to protect us from ourselves. This man was just a drug user. Whether he ever sold drugs is in dispute, but there's no question that he lived and died in poverty, and not from drugs, but from police who gunned him down in his own home.

Warning: you're about to watch a man get shot to death by his own government because he wanted to decide for himself what he could put into his own body:


Your tax dollars funded this man's death, and they pay the salaries of every politician in Washington who votes to continue their tragically unsuccessful War on Drugs against the American public.

(via)

My '10 Election Predictions

Continuing my biennial tradition of making a mockery of the democratic process by treating it as a sporting event to be wagered upon I've made my predictions for tomorrows midterm elections. The Republicans need to gain 39 seats in the House of Representatives to take control of that body and I have no doubt that they will get them. In fact, I'm predicting they'll take 50-60 with no more than 75. They also need to gain 10 seats in the Senate to take control of that body as well but I just don't see that happening. I'm predicting that they'll take 6-8 with a high of 9, leaving Democrats with a slim majority.

Despite delirious prognostications about Democrats getting "crushed" tomorrow I think that this will be a net positive for President Obama, whom regular readers know I like much more than his party as a whole, going into the 2012 elections. These past two years have been rough ones for Americans but I think Obama has done a fairly good job playing the hand he was dealt coming into office, despite pussified Democrats, obstructionist Republicans, Bush's tanking economy, Bush's two unfunded wars and the myriad of other albatrosses hanging from his neck. Now the Republicans will have two years to propose something, anything substantive that will help get America back on its feet and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has already stated the central plank of their bold new strategy:

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

That's their plan: politics over governance. No serious proposals to reinvigorate the economy or reduce the debt or deficits, just a party-wide retrenchment and digging in of heels with a constant refrain of tax cuts (which is hardly a serious proposal based on the massive deficits we're dealing with). You see, there are only two ways to reduce government deficits: increase revenues (raising taxes) or reduce spending, and since they wouldn't even consider the possibility of the former if Fort Knox was on fire that leaves the latter. But what have they proposed cutting?

As I've said, nothing substantial or specific, just vague platitudes about reducing spending and eliminating waste. 75% of our federal budget is used to pay for only three things: Social Security, Medicare and military spending; everything else, everything else, makes up the other 25%. Any serious proposal to reduce our deficits and steer us back towards fiscal solvency must address the fact that cuts have to be made in those three areas. And even though cuts to these areas will be hard to make and less than popular with voters, any proposals by either party that do not do this should not be taken seriously. And what has the latest proposed spending cut by the so-called party of fiscal conservatism been? The 1.5% of NPR's funding that they get from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting: about three million dollars. Our national debt is around thirteen and a half trillion dollars, about four million times that.

"So how does losing the House help Obama?", I hear you asking. Well, if the Republicans win the House and are actually serious about reducing deficits and making spending cuts then they will compromise and work with Obama's bipartisan deficit commission to shore up the economy: win for Obama and more importantly, win for Americans (and many of those Americans will be voting in 2012). If however they do what I expect and continue to try to derail everything he proposes whilst simultaneously proposing to repeal health care and financial reforms that are popular with Americans and even possibly shut down the government, I think it will become fairly clear to voters that Republicans are more interested in regaining power than in trying to help the country: win for Obama and more importantly, huge loss for Americans (and many of those Americans will be voting in 2012).

The president inherited a full plate when he came into office and he needed a strong party that controlled both houses of congress to have his back as he tried to institute his ambitious agenda for America. Unfortunately for him and that agenda, he's had to make due with the Democrats, who to their credit and despite all the shit I talk about them have done a lot of things right over the past two years. But they've also done a lot of things wrong and that, combined with a recessed economy, high unemployment and allowing the Republicans to consistently control the narrative in Washington, is why they're going to lose a substantial number of seats in tomorrows midterms.

But those losses come with a silver lining: in the minds of the voters Republicans will finally be forced to own part of the economy Bush left on his desk two years ago and if the only solution they have for the next two years is still merely "NO!" then they should enjoy tomorrows victory while it lasts because they're gonna have a hell of a time running a presidential candidate on that nihilistic platform. Voters will have two choices when they enter their voting booths: one party that irresponsibly spends your tax dollars like hell and another party that irresponsibly spends your tax dollars like hell whilst simultaneously and hypocritically swearing up and down that they do not. The main difference between them at this point is that the first party has an actual adult as their leader. Please make sure you vote tomorrow everyone.

Something Someone Else Said

"Personally I’m not interested in “limited government” as an end in itself, but as a means to greater individual liberty. I’m opposed to government programs that waste taxpayer dollars because higher taxes restrict my freedom. But I’m much more opposed to government programs that use taxpayer dollars to restrict freedom directly. I’m not interested in joining a “limited government” movement that considers the two equivalent. And I’m definitely not interested in being part of a movement that gives torture and preemptive war a free pass under the heading of “national defense” while it focuses instead on fighting the tyranny of SCHIP and unemployment insurance," -Timothy B. Lee, Bottom-Up.

I completely agree with this sentiment. It seems to me that there's a real disconnect between those on the political right who call themselves conservatives and even claim to endorse the philosophy of libertarianism and their simultaneous enthusiastic embrace of the military and security culture of our government. Yes, rising taxes and government waste are problems that I believe we need to address but I hardly find those issues as insidious as our government's relatively recent proclaimed power to tap your phone and read your email without warrants, kick in your front door and ransack your home, lock you away without charging you with a crime or reading you your rights and yes, torturing you to within and even beyond an inch of your life.

I too care about how my tax dollars are spent but I care even more about my personal bodily liberty and civil rights and it appears that those aforementioned "conservatives" are quite happy to cede what I consider to be more than a few personal rights and freedoms in exchange for their nanny state government claiming to protect them from every conceivable danger in the world, even from themselves. To me this world outlook smacks of fear, which would definitely explain the desperate bouts of bravado and jingoism these people so often go through to compenate for it. While on principle I agree with them on several issues of fiscal responsibility their hypocrisy as it pertains to personal liberties unfortunately prevents me from taking them seriously on most other issues.

(via)

Something Someone Else Said

"I think you're on to why the 'Tea Party' was created, i.e. to give conservatives a way to rally with the Republican brand name in ruins, nothing more. They're the Altria of politics," –A commenter at Talking Points Memo.

Well, yeah. Think about it: the Republican party long ago abandoned any pretense of fiscal responsibility, which has always been their cudgel when opposing the "tax and spend" Democrats but George W. Bush put an end to all that. So now you have a vocal "grassroots" movement of Republicans who have stopped calling themselves Republicans yet they agree with the Republican party on pretty much every issue except for fiscal responsibility (which the Republican party has also miraculously rediscovered now that they're out of power and no longer control any government purse strings).

But when asked to give specific examples of ways they would reduce out of control spending by the government both groups still give the same answers: vague anti-government platitudes about reducing waste and bureaucracy and of course tax cuts (which 95% of Americans actually did receive last year but don't tell them that because it clashes with the ever-present anti-Obama narrative which forms the third leg of their ideology). In this sense the Altria metaphor is an apt one because most of what they produce toward that end is pure poison using a process perfected by the Republican party they claim to now reject. This is why I can't take their movement seriously.

(via)

Colbert's WØRD - Ownership Society

Stephen Colbert laments the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy and explains why supply side economics is still important even though it doesn't work:

American Power And Nanny Statism

So it seems that my conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power has once again declared his ignorance opposition to cannabis via California's Proposition 19, a ballot initiative that would legalize individual amounts of cannabis here in the Golden State, in his newest post "Oakland Pot Factory Sham is Shame of a Nation":

After the budget and jobs, drug decriminalization's likely the most important issue on the ballot in November's elections, and Oakland's at the forefront of the fight for sanity. (Note here that I'm always amused at JBW's childish arguments about getting the "nanny state" out of our lives, even more hilarious as he's down with Obama's uber-nanny nationalized socialism in every other area of the economy — but more on that later.) It turns out LAT has a piece on the "Walmartization" of Oakland's "medical" marijuana industry, and get a load out of that picture at the screencap. Looks like a bunch brothas from de 'hood be cruisin' down for some phat sweet-stick smokas, yo!
It's a scam, obviously... Unbelievable, really. But that's what the nihilist left wants in today's America.

Ignoring the fact that Don seemingly lost his own fight for sanity years ago, I'm always similarly amused at his own personal reefer madness when it comes to the issue of adults deciding for themselves what they can and can not put into their own bodies. Recall that I wrote my post "American Power And Hypocrisy" over a year ago as a direct rebuttal to Don's empty declaration at the time that cannabis is somehow inherently evil and he has yet to even attempt to refute me. Instead he prefers to deploy devastating rhetoric like calling people who disagree with him "losers" for doing so. Ouch.

But let's quickly unpack this latest post, shall we? First, the slang: as always it's as embarrassing as it is hilarious. Is it possible that being unhip is a chronic condition? This guy makes Michael Steele look like Jay-Z. Next, the hyperbole: notice that supporting President Obama in certain policy areas automatically means that I'm "down with Obama's uber-nanny nationalized socialism in every other area of the economy", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. Apparently my desire for every American to have access to affordable health care is a much more oppressive policy position to take than is Don's own desire for every American adult who uses cannabis to be arrested, fined and imprisoned as a result.

That's just where we disagree about the role of government, I guess: I believe that the purpose of the government is to do for the people what they cannot individually do for themselves while Don believes that purpose is to protect people from themselves by punishing private personal behaviour that he finds distasteful. This is also why Don believes that adults should be arrested for frequenting prostitutes, that the government has the right to listen in to our phone conversations and monitor our email and even disappear American citizens terror suspects obvious terrorists who require no legal protections off of American streets and torture them to death overseas, all in the name of protecting the American people from those who would torture us overseas.

You see, neocons fear many dangers in the world today and they have no qualms about ceding a vast swathe of their personal liberties to a powerful government in order to feel all protected and safe in their beds at night. This is how Don can at times claim to be a libertarian out of one side of his mouth whilst simultaneously calling for the imprisonment of consenting adults participating in victimless crimes out of the other. Cannabis legalization in California obviously isn't going to destroy society and we could actually really use the additional tax revenue that it would generate (although from looking at the polls I doubt that Prop. 19 will pass this November but perhaps I'm wrong on that count) but Don can't afford to take that chance. His fear requires governmental nanny statism to protect him and the rest of us from anything and everything that scares him, our own liberties and freedoms be damned. That's the type of "free" society that cowards like Don would create with American power.

[Update: Don answers the above post by not answering at all:

Heh ...

Yo, JBW, 'nuff said:

Yeah, that's what I thought. Intellectual coward.]

How Would You Stabilize The National Debt?

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has put together a fairly realistic and comprehensive budget simulator with the goal of stabilizing the debt at 60 percent of GDP by 2018. My own budgetary decisions are reflected below:
I started with a budget path of reducing our troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible, letting the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts on upper-level earners expire and reducing lower-rate cuts by half while tying regular discretionary spending growth directly to inflation. From there I cut all unnecessary defense and foreign aid spending while maintaining veterans benefits and increasing spending on homeland security. The only domestic cuts I made were to reduce food stamp benefits to 2008 levels and I did pay to institute a new jobs bill.

For social security I raised the normal retirement age and required all new state and local workers to pay in while protecting all low and medium earner benefits. For health care I expanded coverage to 5 million additional people, reduced spending, enacted medical malpractice reform and replaced traditional Medicare with insurance vouchers. I cut all other spending except for NASA's Moon and Mars landing projects (I should probably have cut those too but they're relatively cheap and personally dear to me).

For taxes I enacted Cap and Trade, increased the gas tax by 10 cents a gallon, reformed the tax code and instituted a two percent surtax on earnings above the Social Security payroll tax cap. Then I converted the mortgage interest deduction to a 20% credit, limited itemized deductions for high earners and biofuel subsidies, made R&D tax credits for private businesses permanent, extended college tax credits and began the excise tax on high cost employer sponsored health insurance plans in 2013 instead of 2018 as it now stands.

I have to admit that this was a lot harder than I thought it would be. It's easy for people in both political parties to condemn Washington for profligate spending but making the tough choices to rein in our debt really makes you agonize over your priorities (I went back through my budget three times to be able to keep those NASA programs without unfairly overtaxing high earners or cutting benefits for children, the poor, the unemployed and education and even then I still had to reduce food stamp spending). I encourage everyone to try it out here: the simulator keeps track of your budget in real time as you check boxes in eight categories to increase or decrease spending. You might be surprised to learn how you would go about doing things if you were actually the President of the United States. This simulation made me glad that I'm not.

(via)

Tax Day Tea Party Rallies Unburdened By Facts

I stopped watching MSNBC a year or so ago because it was mostly telling me what I already knew rather than informing or challenging me (plus Keith Olbermann was becoming just a bit too melodramatic for me) but I found this piece about taxes by Rachel Maddow to be very informative in that it addresses tea bagger rhetoric with actual real world facts:

Maher's New Rules: Teabaggers Are A Cult

Bill Maher's Real Time returned to HBO this past weekend and he made quite a convincing case for the title of this post in his New Rules segment. The statistics pertaining to teabagger knowledge about taxation are particularly damning:

President Obama's State Of The Union Address

So I watched the State of the Union speech last night (you can watch/read it here) and yes, I do have a few thoughts. All in all I found it a pretty good, not great, but pretty good speech and while it was one of the longer States of the Union in a decade I thought that it encompassed pretty much everything it had to without plodding along (although the average non-political junkie might take exception to that statement). Most importantly though, it was a challenge to the American people as well as the recently ineffectual Democratic party to not back down in the face of economic and political adversity.

As always, Obama combined soaring oratory with conversational rhetoric and I thought that he appeared quite presidential as he used both to easily convey his ideas to the American people in a frank, almost informal, manner. He once again enumerated the myriad problems that his administration has inherited from the last one (this will most likely be labeled as petty or partisan by some talking heads but recent news cycles have shown that many folks are already beginning to forget these things) before quickly moving on to the main topic of the economy.

He started out by commiserating with Americans about their collective economic woes with a warning that while the worst is behind us there is still much to be done (tedious but necessary) before laying out proposals for business loans, tax credits and the elimination of capital gains taxes for small businesses while at the same time urging the Senate to pass a jobs bill similar to the House bill from last year. He also articulated the need for stronger financial reform of the banking system which was then followed by a call for more investment in clean energy jobs and increases in safe nuclear power, off shore drilling and so-called clean coal technology. I can't tell you how happy it made me to finally hear a Democratic president calling for more and better nuclear power plants; I was less enthusiastic about the off shore drilling and "clean" coal however.

He then noted the need for increased U.S. exporting of goods and making sure that our trading partners and competitors adhere to the rules of current trade agreements in order to make America competitive on the world market once again. Finally, he emphasized that we must increase funding for and accountability of public education, particularly in the areas of math and the sciences, through a national reform competition and tax credits for attending four year colleges. His pronouncement that he does "not accept second-place for the United States of America" on these fronts set an appropriately forceful tone as he then addressed the current health care reform debate in Congress.

He repeated his administrations goals of covering the uninsured, bringing down the deficit and insurance premiums, strengthening Medicare for seniors and reining in insurance company abuses (those of us who have been paying attention have heard these all a thousand times) before stating that he's still open to any serious suggestions about doing so while also asking Congress to "not walk away from reform" when they are so close to changing the status quo of a health care system that has been broken for decades. This is what I was wanting to hear more than anything else last night and while I think that he could have been a little more forceful (don't I always?) I think that his message was quite clear: I've spent the better part of my first year working on this so you wishy-washy bureaucratic pussies need to sack up and get this thing done! That's a little something called leadership and it was nice to see him finally doing it well.

Addressing the deficit Obama again explained that it was necessary to spend money that was added to our debt in order to right the country's financial ship rather than immediately trying to reduce spending, something he would have preferred to do right away. He introduced his plan for a bipartisan fiscal commission charged with reducing the deficit and then stated that since American families are tightening their belts that the federal government should do the same; though why, I have no idea. Yes, his proposed three year spending freeze looks good on a psychological and symbolic level and it's a good jumping off point for serious fiscal responsibility and reforms in the future but I'm still of the opinion that when it comes to the economy we should be listening to the suggestions of actual economists, not public opinion polls from nervous voters unable to balance their own checkbooks.

He then pivoted to the problem of Americans not trusting their government (who do so with ample reason, I might add) by addressing the need for bipartisanship in governing along with lobbying and earmark reform, all of which I won't believe until I see it irregardless of which party is in power. His foreign policy proposals were fairly standard and pretty much hold overs from his campaign: increased vigilance towards al-Qaida and terrorist networks, prohibitions against unlawful torture (although holding certain past administrations accountable for instituting such practices seems to be all but off the table as of late), strengthening our position in Afghanistan, pulling our troops out of Iraq, securing loose nukes from former Soviet republics and keeping up diplomatic pressure against Iran and North Korea. I certainly don't mean to belittle these efforts by calling them campaign hold overs because I do think that Obama is quite sincere on these issues; I'm just saying that we've already heard them all before, as we have his ever eloquent call to embrace the ideals and values that have made America great (but that part is always good to hear and never gets old).

As I said, this was obviously a speech for both the American people and members of the Democratic party but they weren't the only ones Obama was speaking to last night. Just as he did with teachers' unions and black voters during the presidential election, Obama spelled out some hard truths to several groups assembled in the crowd. He admonished Republicans for their callous obstructionism on health care and economic reform who, despite his repeated calls for bipartisan tax relief and energy policies, proceeded to sit on their hands throughout the entire speech whilst glaring like petulant children being scolded by an angry father. He was met with similarly dissenting scowls from conservative Supreme Court justices and the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he decried the recent ruling allowing corporations unfettered access to politicians and media through increased campaign contributions and pledged to end the military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" towards homosexuals, respectively. And on a totally unrelated style note, I was also quite happy that he forwent the relatively recent practice of presidents sprinkling various ringers throughout the audience to refer to during their speeches; it just always seemed like such awkward and obvious political theatre to me and it wasn't missed at all.

This was a speech of intelligence, wit, honesty and serious truths that the American people, and especially our politicians, needed to hear from our president. Obama stood before the nation and reminded us of why we elected him to lead us through these tough times. I do fully expect his continued calls for bipartisanship to fall upon deaf Republican ears but that will of course come as no big surprise; what I really hope to see emerge as a result of this speech is a renewed spirit of perseverance and strength on behalf of the Democratic party. Obama needed to come up with a strong State of the Union address last night and he delivered, but I never really had any concerns on that account. As always, it's what he does best. We must now wait to see if he convinced Congress to similarly deliver on the various proposals he's laid out for the nation. I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't cynical about his chances but I also must admit that I now have a bit more optimism towards that end as well. Let's just hope that it's warranted.

Joe Legal vs Jose Illegal

Some of you might recognize this email with the same title as this post which attempts to address the problem of illegal immigration here in California. It was forwarded to me without comment yesterday by a friend and I subsequently wrote up a reply to its various declarations. First the email:

Joe Legal vs.. Jose Illegal


You have 2 families... "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have 2 parents, 2 children and live in California.

"Joe Legal" works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with payroll taxes deducted.

"Jose Illegal" also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

Joe Legal... $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week = $52,000 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax. Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal... $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week = $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays for Medical and Dental Insurance with limited coverage ... $1000.00 per month = $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $19,231.00.

Jose Illegal has full Medical and Dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money to be eligible for Food Stamps or Welfare so Joe Legal pays for food... $1,000.00 per month = $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for Food Stamps and Welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,000.00 per month = $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal is now in the hole -<$4,769.00>.

Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy, which entirely pays his rent of $500.00 per month = $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays and gets a part time job after work to make ends meet.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.

Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get free government sponsored lunches.

Joe Legal's children go home after school. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program which, again, is provided free of charge.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same Police and Fire Services, but Joe Legal paid for them and Jose Illegal did not pay.

And now my response:

It seems to me that the more substantial problem here is not so much illegal immigrants coming to this country so much as it is the companies who hire them in order to save money and boost their own profit margins. If there were no under the table jobs available I suspect that far fewer people would be coming here illegally looking for work. And while I won't dispute the actual numbers included in this comparison (rent, food costs, insurance, etc.) I would take some exceptions to the assumptions made about their application.

If the state and local clinics are comparable to Joe's own doctor and dentist then why doesn't Joe just use them instead? I'd posit that he doesn't do this because they are not nearly as competent and efficient as his own medical professionals, hence Jose gets the level of treatment he pays for but no one is stopping Joe from doing the same.

Jose is also most definitely not eligible for food stamps nor welfare because he is an illegal immigrant. If his children were born in this country (and were therefore citizens) he could apply for food stamps only for them, yet even so millions of illegals who qualify for such do not avail themselves of the program because they either don't know or understand that they qualify or they're too afraid of being caught and deported by the government. But since Jose's kids are taking ESL classes they obviously came here from another country so they would not be eligible either.

Of the 7.1 million people living in federally subsidized housing, an estimated 29,570, or 0.4%, are "ineligible noncitizens." Concurrently, that means that only 0.29% (barely one quarter of one percent) of the estimated 10 million illegals in this country do so.

Working on Saturdays and weekends sucks for Joe but if he had gone to college or some kind of technical school (and he still can, of course) he would most likely have been able to get a higher paying job than construction, and as a U.S. citizen he would be eligible for federally subsidized student loans and grants that Jose would not be. Also, do you know many illegal immigrants who only work during the day Mon.-Fri. and not also at night and on weekends? Because I sure don't.

Jose's children would indeed get subsidized school lunches whether they were illegal or not because that falls under the aegis of the human rights programs we enacted as a country as part of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. And while Joe's kids may not qualify for free lunches there are also many reduced price lunch programs (like I used when I was a kid) that he can apply for.

Are Joe's children barred from studying foreign languages at their school, or from participating in the many after-school programs available to them, or from even joining a sports team that has after-school practices? There are a myriad of free after-school activities that are provided by schools and local neighborhood programs that they could avail themselves of. If they choose to go straight home after school then that is exactly what it is: a choice. And isn't it a benefit to the country as a whole for everyone who lives here and does not speak English to learn the language? I would think that even those vehemently opposed to illegal immigration would agree with that line of thinking.

Since Joe pays rent he obviously does not pay property taxes (which subsidize police and fire departments) so technically he did not pay for those services but if his landlord is making a profit renting out his dwelling (if he isn't, then what's the point in doing so?) then his rent (as well as Jose's) does contribute to the taxes being paid on the property and thus both men indirectly help to subsidize the aforementioned public services they both receive.

Now I freely admit that illegal immigration is a problem that we must deal with as a nation. Millions of undocumented workers pour across our borders every year and despite the extremely expensive and at times draconian security measures that were put into effect following 9/11 the vast majority of the shipping containers entering our ports still go uninspected. And the blame for not taking action on these problems falls equally on both of our major political parties.

The Democrats won't crack down on illegal immigration because Hispanics are the fastest growing demographic in the country and make up a significant portion of their voting base, while the Republicans won't crack down on illegal hiring practices or insist on thorough inspections of cargo containers because it would hinder and disrupt the business interests of their lobbyists and donors (and each of these reasons also applies to the opposite party, to a certain extent).

The question of how to handle the problem of illegal immigration thoroughly yet realistically is highly complicated and calls for much more nuanced reasoning than this fictional comparison would have you believe. It's pretty easy to blame illegals for most of society's problems (and many do) but the reality of the situation is that we're a vast and populous nation with a highly complicated and interrelated network of commerce, industry, society and culture that makes the impact of one minority group of people rather insignificant as it relates to the comprehensive problems of the whole. I think that despite all of his hardships even Joe Legal would agree with me on that.

My friend is a pretty reasonable and level-headed guy so I doubt that he sent this to me with any kind of malice or prejudice, but rather more likely just to gauge my response (interestingly enough, this exercise very much reminded me of my inaugural post for this blog). And speaking of which: BD, I just saw the comment you left there at the time of this site's one year anniversary. FIRST! I vaguely remembered reading it some time back (alcohol was most likely involved in the level of vagary) but I couldn't find it again. Because of this I never thanked you for the compliments (which I always love) that you wrote at the time but I really do appreciate the words, amigo.

Colbert's WØRD - Hippie Replacement

I've been meaning to write about the right-wing's new "grassroots" strategy on health care reform of shouting down Democratic politicians at their town hall meetings all across the country but Stephen Colbert has already done it so well that I'll let him give you the word:

As I've said before, I don't doubt that these people are genuinely angry but let's be completely honest here: They're not just angry about taxes and health care reform; they're angry about losing. They've sustained this same level of outrage ever since their side lost the last election and the tea bagging parties and now these town hall meeting disruptions are just conveniently mass-coordinated protests and meetings at which they can vent their frustrations about their side being out of power with other like minded people.

And make no mistake, this latest strategy is not comparable to the left's practice of protesting outside of George W. Bush's carefully pre-screened town hall meetings. This is an active attempt to shut down debate on health care reform by shouting down their opposition from inside these venues. Disagreeing with the other side's views is fine but actively working to prevent them from freely expressing those views in a public forum is not.

Dick Armey's FreedomWorks organization has been the top-down force behind both of these movements and while a certain percentage of this effort is indeed "grassroots" a larger percentage (the one that wrote out the insurrection instructions being emailed out across the country) certainly is not, and admitting that would be a good start towards being taken more seriously as a truly concerned political movement.

American Power And Hypocrisy

I stopped by my conservative counterpart Donald Douglas' blog American Power this morning to see if he could provide me with a laugh or two to start my day and instead I found (sandwiched of course between two posts about what a super-brave, Christian patriot beauty queen Carrie Prejean is for wanting to deny gay people the right to marry each other because she totally read that gay people are bad in some old book once) this libertarian-esque take on personal freedoms:

There's been a lot of debate on health care the last few days. Check out this morning's Wall Street Journal, for example, "Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care" (via Memeorandum).

A "soda tax" is a "vice tax", like cigarette taxes, that gouges people for making personal choices that may have negaative externalities for the economy. The upshot, of course, is that limiting human freedom is taken as beneficial to the "public good." And it's the Democrats who're always doing it.

The rest of the post is just a cut and paste job from another conservative blogger complaining about health care and socialized medicine so don't bother reading it but it was Don's thoughts on limiting human freedom as it pertains to ingesting certain "vice" substances for the benefit of the "public good" that caught my eye in general, and his opinion that "it's the Democrats who're always doing it" in particular, because I remembered reading something rather similar he wrote about cannabis legalization last month:

This is a response to Will Wilkinson's essay, "I smoke pot, and I like it."

Fine. Good for you.

But I don't smoke pot, and I don't like it. Not only that, I don't like what it does to people, including people I know, and especially people I used to know, before they they fatally OD'd; and I worry that my sons will come under the influence of bad people who smoke pot, snort coke, and God knows what else; and my boys will be too inexperienced in the ways of the drug culture to know that what they're being turned on to could kill them.

Now I don't drink soda (although I do like it) and I don't smoke cigarettes, and I don't like them. Not only that, I don't like what they both do to people. 33% of American adults are obese and obesity-related deaths have climbed to more than 300,000 a year, second only to tobacco-related deaths which number 440,000 a year. I don't have any sons (that I know of, *wink*wink*) but if I did I would worry that they would come under the influence of bad people who drink soda, smoke cigarettes, and Zeus knows what else.

Come to think of it, I would worry that my fictional sons would come under the influence of bad people who do anything, be it doing their laundry, visiting their local library or even praying to a god of their own choosing, because they're bad people. I guess the difference between Don and myself is that I have the ability to realize that doing those things, or even doing harmful things like drinking soda and smoking cigarettes, doesn't necessarily make someone a bad person. And I apply this same logic to those who recreationally and/or medicinally use cannabis.

But Don lacks that ability (in addition to apparently lacking the ability to talk to and educate his own sons about drug use) because he proceeds from a number of false assumptions that he holds either out of prejudice, ignorance or both. One is that cannabis and other recreational drugs are inherently bad in and of themselves, and that it therefore follows that anyone who uses these substances, regardless of their personal level of responsibility or lack of abuse, is a bad person. Another is that since all recreational drugs are bad and therefore rightly illegal, all recreational drugs are also categorized exactly the same and pose the same societal and health risks regardless of their strength or effects on the human body. In other words:


M'kay? Oh, and of course Don has never known anyone who has "fatally OD'd" smoking cannabis because that is physically impossible; it's never happened even once in all of recorded human history. That's right: 740,000 deaths in America every year from completely legal obesity and tobacco, not one death worldwide from illegal cannabis use ever. Later in the same post after relating a story about one of his former students who was arrested for drug possession with intent to distribute Don again applies the Mr. Mackey argument against drug legalization:

Do not tell me, Will Wilkinson, that "Marijuana is neither evil nor dangerous." Fancy-talking libertarians like you have the luxury of expounding on the "failed" war on drugs while kicking back in cozy offices at the Cato Intstitute, or some other free-market think tank. I mean, look at this blather: "the stigma of responsible drug use has got to end."

Hey, man, can I borrow your Visine?

You see cannabis is obviously evil and dangerous because someone Don knows was arrested trying to sell it and rather than promote responsible drug use by consenting adults he would prefer that it remain stigmatized instead, allowing hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding Americans to suffer incarceration or worse at the hands of America's "failed" war on drugs. And also rather than employing scientific data and rational points of thought to prove his case he instead deftly applies the standard Glenn Beck/Cheech and Chong argument at the end there because since drugs are bad there's no point in taking any other argument to the contrary seriously, right?

To return to my original point, this entire worldview smacks of rank hypocrisy. In the world Don lives in the government and everything it says or does is part of an elaborate ploy to take away your rights and freedoms by controlling and taxing everything you personally choose to put into your own body in the name of the "public good", and this is of course all the fault of and only done by oppressive and socialistic Democrats. But at the same time of course recreational drugs like cannabis are so incredibly dangerous and just plain evil that no intelligent adult should ever be allowed to use them and it's entirely necessary for the government to spend $50 billion a year to protect free Americans from their own actions by fining and/or imprisoning them in the name of the "public good". This is a phenomenon known as "cognitive dissonance" and it makes it very hard for many people to think and debate honestly and logically.

You want to drink soda and smoke cigarettes, Don? Fine, good for you; feel entirely free to get as fat and cancer-ridden as you'd like. I would never suggest that you or any other adult should be denied the right to do pretty much anything you want to your own body, as long as it does not directly harm anyone else's. But by the same token, do not presume to tell me or anyone else what to do to our's because you somehow think you know what's best for us. Conservatives like you constantly bitch and moan about the reviled "nanny state" within our government yet seem to have no apparent quarrels with it when it serves your own purposes and agenda. In a free America we call that hypocrisy, and we call people like you hypocrites of the first order.

Dick Cheney: How'd He Do?

It's hard to argue against history, isn't it Dick?:


(via, with a retroactive hat tip to Doug"E")

Supplying The Tea Baggers

From Oliver Willis:

In National Review, Jonah Goldberg writes that liberals were laughing at the teabagging protesters because their signs were crude and unprofessional and after all conservatives don’t have time for that sort of thing.

Well I should note two things about that.

1) We’re laughing at you because you guys hold up signs calling Obama a fascist and a non-citizen.

2) Conservative organizations like the Young America’s Foundation were, in fact, handing out professionally made signage:

A certain percentage of this effort was indeed "grassroots" but a certain percentage of it also was not, and admitting that would be a good start towards being taken more seriously as a political movement.

Picture Of The Day

Is anyone surprised by this one?:

Al Capone's jail cell, Eastern State Penitentiary, Philadelphia. High-level gangsters retained amazing power even inside maximum-security penitentiaries. Visiting Frank Costello in prison in the 1950s, lawyer Edward Bennett Williams mentioned that he'd been unable to get tickets to My Fair Lady that evening. "Mr. Williams," the Luciano boss upbraided him, "You should have told me. Maybe I could have helped." Williams thought no more about it and returned to his hotel, where shortly there was a knock at the door. A broad-shouldered man handed Williams four tickets to that evening's performance and silently walked away.

Whenever I watch the movie Goodfellas I always want to go to prison to live the high life...Then I watch the movie American Me and I totally reverse myself..

Truth For Tea Baggers

From The Swash Zone:

Our current national debt is currently $11 trillion dollars. Deficit spending by three, successive Republican administrations accounts for $9 trillion of the total … a whopping 82%. Yet, Republicans want to pin their transgressions on Democrats, and specifically the Obama administration, in an attempt to derail important legislation designed to fix our economy.

As I've said before, this tea party "movement" has no intellectually honest objectives or goals beyond giving pissed off conservatives a public forum made up of like-minded people for venting their anger and frustration over losing the last two elections. These people don't represent America but rather a howling minority that seems intent on vilifying the Obama administration's every word and deed for the next 4-8 years. I'd like to think that this group will eventually run out of steam at some point but hate mixed with ignorance can be a potent fuel.

Liberal Blogger Pwns Tea Baggers

Now this is how you tea bag, baby:


(via)

[Update: The Daily Show's John Oliver uncovers the awful truth that the Obama administration is apparently worse than the oppressive British government we rebelled against after our first tea party (the actual grassroots one) and he's not happy about it:
]

Tea Party Paranoia

Many tea baggers are extremely upset about our current economic situation but it remains unclear what exactly they're upset about. From Bob Cesca:

The one lady struggling in earnest to make sense of how spending ended the Great Depression is just too priceless. You can almost see the gears in her head grinding and sputtering as she attempted to grasp the historical reality.

I agree with the views of many of these people that we need more responsible governance by our leaders, I just question their motives and timing after the last eight years of Republican government largess. Am I wrong here?

Our Troubling Tax System

A short video on the complexities of our current tax system put out by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank:

I'm personally against both a fair tax and a flat tax system because I believe that they both unfairly shift the tax burden onto the poorer elements of society. A progressive system like the one we currently use can work, we just need to get rid of most of the redundant regulations and loopholes that have swelled the tax code of late.

Remember also that one of the reasons our current system is so complicated is because of corporate entities and their endless attempts to work around legislation intended to make them pay their fair share. How can the average American be expected to do his or her part while watching the nation's largest businesses callously incorporating through a Cayman Islands PO box to avoid doing their's? I'm all for reforming the tax codes but it needs to start with the largest earners first before we work our way down the income ladder.

(via)